Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aromasin | Hacker News Reader

Same in the UK. SUVs and large off-road vehicles are taking over. The Range Rover seems to be the car of choice for every wealthy middle-aged mother on her morning school run. Just recently, one of them managed to careen hers into kids outside their school, killing a number of them [1].

Low emission zone are becoming more ubiquitous, which combats the issue to some regards, but I question why anyone but a farmer needs to own anything that large anywhere. This isn't the US, where pavements/sidewalks are a pipedream for anyone outside of New York. Nobody should be solo operating tanks just 5m away from someone walking their dog or on their way to school.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wimbledon-ca...

View on HN

Range Rovers are a disease in the UK.

A brand which had it's origins in the military and farming, which has now been repurposed to drop kids off at a school.

It's also the most frequent car I see which is sped around and overtakes with zero concern for other road users. The people driving them seem to not understand the size of their car and either pass over-cautiously or tunnel through everybody else whenever the road is partially obstructed (parked cars in towns and villages).

The modern Range Rovers no longer even work for their original purpose. They're not sturdy enough to last on a farm, just fashion symbols.

When I question if humanity will tame itself and step down from destroying our world in the pursuit of comfort and consumerism at all costs, the first thing I think of is a white Range Rover Discovery.

Land Rovers are a disease anywhere they go just based on their quality ratings alone. They are consistently rated as the most unreliable vehicles on the market.

A status symbol. Like BMW. Breaks all the time, but you're showing off to other people that you can afford to fix it and keep it running

BMW is a much more reliable brand than Land Rover and you can get them in non-tank size. But yeah, still an overpriced status symbol in my opinion.

The interesting thing to me is that all the 'rational' arguments given by SUV buyers (more storage, easy of entry, larger interior space) are without exception much better in any family MPV instead of SUVs that invariably are also pretty shit off-road vehicles.

Literally just more weight and waste, zero function other than satisfying the buyers reptilian brain.

Agreed. I've been a passenger in plenty of them; many of them don't seem any bigger on the inside than a hatchback, with very similar boot space. It's all pointless, superficial bodywork that makes the demand for them seem even more egregious to me.

Because the space is under the car, between the wheels. I was surprised too.

Have you been on a BMW X6? I swear there’s less interior space in it than in a 3-series, the trunk is almost at armpit level and a mazda 3 can load bigger things. Same for the mercedes GLC. They’re the contemporary version of the hummer.

Coupe style SUVs like the X6 must be one of the stupidest car design fashions ever. And I say that as a recovered X5 owner....

I recently had my car written off (a small SUV) and due to lack of availability of replacements I replaced it with a similar sized hatchback. Now I find myself thinking why on earth I had an SUV - I'm unlikely to purchase another one as the hatchback is cheaper, roomier inside and handles much better.

There are small 'subcompact' crossover SUVs that get the best of both of those worlds. I've owned a Nissan Kicks and Honda HR-V. Both are marketed as SUVs but really function as roomy hatchbacks (lightweight, tight handling, front-wheel drive), along with others in the category. Very practical compromise between cost/efficiency and size/utility. Generally the only thing that cars in this class don't do is tow.

So apart from being a bit higher up - what is the benefit of the SUV?

Edit: It's a question I keep asking myself, my wife still has a SUV...

You can tow a small camper. ??

You can look down on the plebs? :/

It's not a bit higher up, it's quite a lot and makes a lot of difference in adverse weather (like getting water in your engine or not getting water in there and driving safely through a flash flood, for example). Also the visibility is quite different, especially at night, due to low beams covering much less space in front of a low car [1][2]. The higher stance allows for large tires and smoother ride. Getting in and out of the car, especially with children in seats is much easier.

This is without getting into the actual instances of hatchbacks and SUVs on the market. There is more choice and variety in SUVs.

1. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/prius-4-door-hat...

2. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/rav4-4-door-suv/...

Sounds like the low beams are mis-aimed if they are generating a much larger light pool and likely dazzling other drivers on the road at night.

I am pretty sure IIHS is setting up lights according to the DOT regulations when they test. As the report says: "The low beams never exceeded glare limits".

It's simple geometry - headlights at the same angle will intersect with the ground farther when they are higher off the ground.

But does that have any noticeable impact on the driving experience - can't say I've ever noticed any difference in headlight lighting between SUVs and "normal" cars?

It depends, makes a difference for me as I like to be aware of the surroundings. Seeing that some people drive while looking into their phones, I figure, it may not matter for everyone.

In the US nearly everyone drives their truck like it's a car. This is very dangerous. Hence the pedestrian death numbers soaring.

I have a 4x2 F-150 as my daily driver that is also my tow rig and work truck. I drive like a grandpa because I dont want people/pedestrians to be threatened by my vehicle. Nor do I want to hit anyone or anything.

You would not believe how popular it is to make the truck even bigger. People are obsessively doing 3" lift kits with aggressive stance rims and 40" tires. It costs yet another fortune to do this and causes otherwise fuel efficient trucks to suck gas like a 1977 Dodge 3/4 ton.

I'm in a truck and I have to dodge these fucks.

Edit: Part of this is due to the tax code. People can form an LLC and write off the truck and any "expenses" (cough... lift kits and superchargers) and still use the thing as their daily driver.

Instead of punishing the middle class by slapping ulez on them, it would be far more effective and fair for the london mayor to offer free school buses like they do in some parts of America.

I'm not sure the middle classes are likely to be hit by ULEZ anyway - it hits vehicles older than a certain age, primarily - not many of those Chelsea Tractors are likely to fall foul of it. While I agree with ULEZ, I will admit it's quite regressive - the people with old/polluting vehicles are, in many cases, those least able to afford anything better and/or the charge. Public transport should be much better, but that's way beyond the scope of something the mayor can quickly impact.

We need the need to follow Paris's lead and tax by weight - damage to roads follows a 4th power law, so very from a dumb immediate economic POV this makes sense.

Add to that the production of newer ones just negated the effeciency gain.

School children already have free bus travel in London.

Ummmm under sixteens have had free bus and tram travel in London for years. Or do you not want them to interact with members of the public and live in a sanitised bubble consisting solely of you and your nanny?

Children under 16 already get free travel on buses and trams in London, though they have to pay discounted fares on the tube and they'll need a photocard if they are 11 or over.

I'm aware of that having owned one and journeyed by bus to school every day. I also see vast amounts of traffic near schools during term times. So from personal observations and experience that's not nearly enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com