I don't think for transitioning to EV the form factor will be the problem. BMW will start delivering the first EV versions of my current car (X3) next year. For me, charging it where I live (city center) is the problem. Every time I see my neighbour roll his extension cord across the sidewalk I think 'no way I'm going to do that'.

My only suggestion is irrespective of the environmental aspect is, do check the performance of your next SUV with regards to "Pedestrian Safety" crash tests (Also standardized by Euro NCAP).

Specially when you mentioned city center, and The Netherlands. The difference between a regular sedan and an SUV could be the difference between a kid with fractured legs or the weight of forever taking someone's life.

For example, I am going to buy a new car in the next 2 years, so looking a bit, and two cars I might be choosing behind would be the:

Peugeot 3008/5008, seen as a SUV in the Netherlands: 67% Pedestrian Euro NCAP score: https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/peugeot/3008/5008/26581

Peugeot 208, smaller car, same brand, same year: 56% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/peugeot/208/38543

Or the original posters BMW X3: 70% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/x3-/-x4/33285

Otoh, the BMW 3 series: 87% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/3-series/38531

Full electric BMW i3: 57% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/i3/8863

So what I am trying to say is: yes, "SUV" in general are likely to be worse for pedestrians, but there is so much variability, that "picking a SUV" doesn't mean much about safety.

A few things to take into account:

- The 67℅ in the test in 2016 for the Peugeot 3008 is based on a Pedestrian Impact performance.

- The 56% of the test in 2019 for Peugeot 208 is based on a Pedestrian Impact Performance _and_ ADAS pedestrian detection +Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) performance

An important point with Euro NCAP is that typically the tests are always getting harder year on year to account for the expected technological development. Such that the same car would progressively score less if it were to repeat the Euro NCAP test year on year.

I hope this helps your concern.

In 'standard height' cars the first impact is usually on lower limbs or torso and secondary trauma to the head will happen on the bonnet or windshield.

In SUV's, pedestrian and cyclists are much likely to suffer head trauma on first impact.

My point is, in the horrific scenario that this should happens the survival rate will always be higher for non-SUV vehicles (ideally with longer bonnets and pedestrian friendly deformable structures).

"The GHSA reported that the number of pedestrian deaths involving SUVs increased by 50 percent from 2013 through 2017, while the number of pedestrian deaths caused by passenger cars increased by 30 percent over that same period. That reflects booming sales of SUVs and the fact that pedestrians are much less likely to survive the impact of an SUV."[1]

[0] https://brandonlegalgroup.com/iihs-study-suvs-present-a-high...

[1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestri...

I hope a Cochrane meta-analysis meets your evidence based statistical standards.[0][1]

It's physics, a higher front-end means primary blunt force trauma to the chest and head (specially for children and cyclists), were by primary we mean the first and highest force trauma, and by chest and head we mean trauma to vital organs.

I am not judging if this type of vehicle is your preference but demanding scientific rigor without accepting the physics involved just feels like a cognitive dissonance. I am not arguing that higher front-end vehicles cause accidents, I am arguing that pedestrian are less likely to survive upon impact compared to other vehicles.

The only reason these vehicles are not banned from city centres is purely because they are a marketing and economical success not because of lack of evidence on their dangers.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20146143/

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33147075/

All that said there is little doubt that lower car would be safer for peds. But all I asked is some evidence and you provided some garbage.

I don't think we ought to ban trigger-vehicle-of-the-year just because you feel like it. First I totally think we should discourage driving in cities, no matter the car. Pedestrian only streets, public transport, bike lanes is 100% my vibe. If you really want smaller cars in cities - make smaller parking spots. Make it inconvenient to use them (which is already case in European cities).

So answer me - what is your fetish with SUVs in particular and why you dance around fact that there are ton of other more dangerous vehicles on the road?

p.s. again your second links are irrelevant again - one is tiny sample size, other is about trucks.

There we have common ground.

The only reason I drive it is because it's so comfortable to sit higher up, and to have a better view of the road that way.

And thereby blocking the view of 'regular' cars.

And small children.

For some reason, all of the traffic lights installed in my city now don't have a set of lights at the far side of the junction visible, so there is a fairly large window where you can be stuck with no visibility of the traffic lights in 2 lanes of traffic if you might have a filter light.

There's also rear view mirrors (big vehicle takes up more of my window, so I can't see if there's a bike coming)

Not to speak of opposing(?) traffic on smaller roads. I almost died several times ;)

Very happy to no longer have a car.

Or even how tall the windscreen is can be a significant factor, in my car it is so short that the rearview mirror covers a significant part of the street.

If the person in front of you isn't driving like such an jerk that you need to be looking around them to predict their moves or to find a passing opportunity it's not really a big deal.

That said, it doesn't explain why MPVs all but disappeared (have been almost completely replaced by SUVs).

Cars around you on the road get bigger so you feel more uncomfortable in your small car (just like some feel uncomfortable driving close to big trucks) so your next car will be a bigger one. I think this kind of anxiety is the reason for most people.

One good reason to drive SUVs in cities are the bad roads, sometimes worsened by speed bumps by the way.

SUVs and crossovers have more tire sidewall and offer a much better ride around cities filled with pot holes and crumbing roads. The higher H-point (hip placement) means climbing up and in rather than having to lower yourself down, a much easier operation. The belt line is still high, but your seat is also higher, so greenhouse and visibility is better. Being father off the ground reduces the sensation of speed, so more timid drivers feel more confident.

Car markers also get much higher margins from SUV/crossovers, so they are pushing them hard. All the deals are for these big vehicles, so that's what people are buying.

Modern vehicles are so much more aerodynamic, so there isn't that much penalty for a crossover. They also share platforms with their sedan and traditional hatchback cousins, so there isn't even that much of a weight penalty. Tesla Model 3 and Y are the same vehicle underneath, and while Y pays a range penalty, it's pretty small at ~7% EPA.

The sad thing is it's the SUVs that make the roads crumble. It's extremely noticeable in the UK. The roads don't last anywhere near as long as they used to because of everyone driving these heavy things around.

Now imagine getting into a Honda Accord sedan. You have to bend down to get into the car, so your back is going to lean over and your knees are going to bend down...naturally causing your ankles to have to bend forward. Except ski boots and thumbtacks; Ow!! To get in you have to more or less turn your back to the car, splay your legs out and kinda fall back with your arms holding the sides of the frame of the car. Not a big deal but now imagine doing this times a day, every day, for the next 5 to 8 years. And I haven't even talked about trying to get out.

In an SUV at the right height, you turn your back, brace your butt atop the seat, lift your legs up and pivot into the car. No fuss. Barely any bending needed.

There's plenty of older people out there with chronic issues in their backs, spines, hips, knees, and/or ankles. Thing is, older people that are later in their careers tend to be the ones with the most purchasing power, and don't mind trading a slightly higher operating cost for more comfort.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/678464/distribution-of-n...

Also if you travel a lot outside of city, they make much more sense.

Then I bought a SUV. It's a 4WD with and ample trunk. Now I can use my property to my liking according to my job time constraints rather then weather conditions.

But I sense your sub-sonic tone. I think the vast majority of SUV owners lives in a city with perfect snow removal in winter (if there even is snow at all) which hardly justifies owning such an ineffective car.

One of the places we went more often is called Campo Felice, which is famous for its extreme weather conditions. Sudden snowfalls are pretty common and they can be very heavy.

But the main danger are temperature drops, sometimes temperature can go as low as -33 C, forming thick layers of ice on the roads.

We got stuck there a few times because either the car doors were completely frozen and would not open or it was too cold and the engine refused to start, not mentioning the suboptimal traction of our 2WD cars.

To solve the problem we put some money together and bought a used Fiat Panda 4x4 (https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b4/d6/dd/b4d6dd1544d24d3c8d73dadda...), it's an affordable 4WD with many features that rival with much more expensive cars (excluding of course the luxury stuff).

We never had a problem after.

The new model costs only ~16 thousand euros and it improves a lot over the old one which was admitedly quite spartan, but for me it was a feature not a bug.

> Then I bought a SUV. It's a 4WD <...>

SUV doesn't imply 4WD. Most 4WD are SUVs, but lets not pretend that most SUVs are 4WD, or anything close to it. Most people buying Qashqai's or RR Evoque's aren't buying the 4WD models.

"Why even enjoy anything? Why even drive? Why even go on vacations? Why even eat meat? Why even have kids? Why even socialize? Why even live outside of the matrix instead of having all your entertainment & nutrients delivered directly to your brain/veins? Why even live?"

inb4 "no arguments": parent post isn't very heavy on arguments either, it's basically just passive-aggressive moralizing.

So, generalizing your moral outrage with a passive aggressive personal attack? You win.

Just leaving this here. It needs no further explanation.

I didn't get it until recently, and this is exactly it.

If someone wants to drive an inefficient car, let them enjoy it, or push for legislations that tax those cars, you are being judgmental without affecting real change.

I don't believe I've stopped them. (If only it were that easy!)

No, it's a fair response to the the laiz a fair comment "in order to consume more than is morally acceptable (a second home, especially when others have none, but regardless), I need to drive an environmentally unfriendly car".

second or first or gazilionth home doesnt even matter.

Let's try scaling that to everyone on the planet, shall we?

https://imgur.com/f1yksSW

So that together with the higher ride height, which makes getting kids in and out easier and almost no extra cost makes the SUV more likely to win than a similarly specced estate.

(and please keep in mind a "SUV" in Europe is not really the same as "SUV" in the states).

SUVs are a comfortable ride. You see everything, you sit comfortable, they feel spacious (not always are...), it's the design between normal cars and pickup trucks or vans.

Still people buy more and more SUVs

I was also remembered of an HN thread years ago where people were commenting on the failure of Smart cars in the US. Many Americans were basically arguing that the car was too small to feel safe in traffic, which sounded a bit silly to me, but now that I know that every other car in the US is closer in size to a tank it makes a lot of sense.

Of course I speak from my point of view as someone who was raised in The Netherlands. In The Netherlands I never saw many SUVs on the road.

Elon Musk is actually contemplating [0] to produce smaller EVs for the European market and I think those could become very popular indeed. Smaller cars are generally just nicer to use in compact crowded cities.

---

[0] https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/elon-musk-tesla-hatchback-ele...

Oh I think you're wrong, there's definitely a significant market for people who prefer SUVs, electric or not. This is not new. After all most of these European urban SUV are really neither S or U, they're just SUV shaped.

I remember watching a French TV show about cars maybe 15 years ago where they were talking about the growing popularity of SUVs, and back then diesel was the norm.

They probably can make it cheap enough, especially if it's made in EU to skirt tariffs, but by then there will 100s of competitors.

Right now you can already buy 35k euro SUV when Model Y is something like 60k.

In my case, my decision was made by the thousands of poorly calibrated aftermarket LED headlights I regularly see in the US. They blind me all the time in a sedan, but in an SUV I'm just high enough up that I usually don't get totally blinded.

1) the US has experienced a massive boom in outdoor recreation over last five years. All west coast campgrounds booked out months in advance (if they accept reservations), ski destinations never been busier, etc. west coast culture has a large outdoor recreation aspect, even if most people only do one or two outdoorsy things a year, their self perception is they are “outdoorsy”. Multiple neighbors have suvs so they can occasionally go camping. Could easily do it in a car but then you’d have to have a self perception that’s a closer match to lazy city dweller 2) external image. Related to above, I have observed coworkers purchase new cars and the perception of the car was important. One particular example was a coworker who got a minivan for family. Wife was miserable for six months because she was worried about being perceived as a boring mom. Finally took a 5k hit and traded it in on a new Subaru. They drive 4K miles a year, never go camping, but wanted to fit that west coast image of active family. 3) they are just more comfortable and can fit more stuff. You can get by without a truck and still haul bags of soil etc. there are some small hatchbacks that can work for this (loved my old Honda Fit, amazing storage for tiny car), but a hatchback suv makes this much easier 4) actually use it as intended. I consider this the least common reason, but some people load up their AWD suv with four people and snow shoe or cross country ski gear and get out every weekend. You can do this in a car (I’ve done it in all sorts of vehicles) but you are more likely to run into issues with a car.

I’ve had tiny cars, compact suvs, full size suvs, a van, and now a truck, and it’s hard to imagine not having an suv because they are so versatile if you recreate. Throw a topper on your roof rack, get a set of snow tires, and you can go almost anywhere in any conditions.

With an EV, this equation of cost and range goes out the window. The difference between 300km and 400km range is huge.

Kids, stuff.

If you consider that, low sedans that make it harder to easily get in and out of the car for many people, are the abnormality, and the classical adult man high shape will keep increasing in popularity as cost and gas becomes less of an issue for more people.

This is why Teslas won so many safety awards at the start: they were pretty much unrollable in the tests as they existed at the time.

That being said, driving a small "urban" car in many european cities can be challenging (and parking even more so), I can't imagine that having a big SUV would be more pleasant overall if you live in a city.

The reasons pro SUV often boil down to:

  - I need to see more - indication that person isn't a good driver to have this need - my older bmw is super low and I see no problem there, sensible drive makes much more difference, but new/bad drivers want to buy extra safety feeling
  - people being sheepish, so they buy what is fashionate because others have it (although physics often disagrees its a good choice)
  - the "I drive rough terrain" - which often boils down to going to ski resort in the winter, you don't need SUV for that, not even 4x4 if roads are OK (which they 99% are in Europe at least)
  - people think only SUV can have 4x4, or only SUV are for rough terrain - marketing win for manufacturers

  - more consumption, often higher maintenance (bigger tires)
  - mentioned Audi allroad or similar gets exactly same job done as usual SUV
  - since they are tall, they are pretty small inside, smaller trunk
  - much worse driving properties due to higher centre of mass
  - rolling risk is much higher in SUV due again to higher centre of mass
  - subjective but within same brand, SUVs are plain fugly as hell, still waiting for a single one I could even remotely call a pretty car

- Smoother ride over worse roads, especially under-maintained roads

- An extension of that point: more travel options. Dirt road? Sure, and the SUV probably won't get as dirty. Gravel? I can probably take it without worrying. Need to clear a curb? Doable.

- Better visibility, and that's even after factoring in everyone buying an SUV

- Marginal efficiency hit (like 10-15%), which most people ignore with electric SUVs anyway, but even with gas or diesel it's just not enough to stop people from buying anymore compared to when SUVs truly guzzled gas. As an example, I had a BMW from a number of years ago that my SUV today outpaces in average gas mileage despite unchanged driving habits and better engine output as well as increased weight for the SUV. People are essentially offsetting engine efficiency gains by buying more car.

- More car to absorb impact in the event of a crash.

I can see why people buy them even before egos start to get involved around just how big the cars can be.

Always keep in mind that accidents may involve a person on the other side.

You are definitely safer hitting the fearless ton of meat that is moose with a SUV.

Any data on this? Bigger==safer doesn't always hold with these things. Lots of other car design features play a role there, e.g. a smaller car with a strong roof will likely beat a SUV with a weak roof structure.

(and while lots has happened with safety technology, the classic counter point is that if you have a chance to avoid the crash you're way more likely to roll an SUV while attempting to do so)

But like you said, you also run the risk of flipping the car. It would be interesting to see some actual data on this. It's the sort of thing that has been repeated so much that it's easy to make bad assumptions.

Anecdotally, I've almost hit a moose two times. Both times I just completely froze up and slammed the breaks. They jumped out of nowhere, the only reason I didn't hit any of them was just pure luck and timing, and had nothing to do with my ability to react or steer away.

The latter circumstance feels extremely unlikely considering SUVs are generally engineered to support the higher likelihood of more weight ending up on the roof of the car in the event of a roll-over. I'd be surprised if SUVs had weaker structural reinforcement than equivalent-classed sedans.

But I could be very, very wrong here and wouldn't be surprised if I am.

Taller cars are better in this regard.

"Area" may mean 50x50 km of mostly wooded and sparsely inhibited territory. It is unrealistic to expect the locals to drive 40 kph all the time there.

It's not unrealistic to expect locals to drive safely. Either drive safely or hand in your drivers license, what's even the point of having one then?

> Always keep in mind that accidents may involve a person on the other side.

This is self-negated with moves by the broader population towards SUVs. The end result is that SUV on SUV crashes will simply include more mass (structured to crumple more effectively as well) protecting occupants in all cars involved.

Your car buying decision should be strictly around your own safety. Your driving habits must factor in both your safety as well as the safety of others; if someone else drives inappropriately and causes a crash and their wellbeing is impaired or concluded as a result of both their driving habits as well as their use of a less safe car, the fault shouldn't be on you for having a car that's safer for you to drive. Perhaps that's what you meant to convey when you edited my quote.

I would also argue that centering your car buying decisions around your own safety is selfish and or egotistical; other people are just as valid as you and you should consider their safety just as much as your own, especially the traffic participants that are less able to defend themselves against bigger vehicles like pedestrians or cyclists.

> I would also argue that centering your car buying decisions around your own safety is selfish and or egotistical; other people are just as valid as you and you should consider their safety just as much as your own, especially the traffic participants that are less able to defend themselves against bigger vehicles like pedestrians or cyclists.

If you're willing to buy a car based on the safety of others over your own, that's your right. But if we're being honest, everything you just mentioned is exactly why your active participation in defensive driving techniques is essential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_driving

Since crashes always have fault, defensive driving and proper maintenance of your car are paramount safety requirements both for myself and to pay respect to other people. However, beyond that, I'm buying my car based on an assumption that other people will not pay me that respect (e.g. by texting and driving), which is also precisely the point of defensive driving in the first place.

It seems like you're here mostly to force a debate. I made my point; I hope you're at peace with it.

That is a horrible, selfish attitude.

A car driver is absolutely responsible for their choice of vehicle, their choice to drive any particular journey, their choice to exceed the speed limit, text, phone, chat, and everything else.

I would ban the sale of any car/SUV not in the current top 75% by pedestrian safety. Set that as a baseline, and increase the minimum standard every 5 years.

Just their choices not to drive defensively (the portion I italicized in your statement). The car you choose may be based on specific requirements for life. And the journey you take may be all the same. Would you fault someone for not being able to afford a newer car? I picked a car that exceeds the latest pedestrian safety regulations; would you still grief me just because it's an SUV?

100% of the fault comes from how a person chooses to drive and keep their car safe (lighting, brakes, capabilities that allow them to drive defensively). I wouldn't rob someone of their choice of car because I don't know what circumstance necessitated it; it would be selfish of me to tell someone they can't drive a pickup when all of their work revolves around it.

That's called stack ranking and everyone knows it's a crap system with perverse incentives.

SUV has much higher rolling danger in case of crash so better stretch your necks before driving...

It's weird that I'm here defending SUVs when my favorite car to drive is a low-riding, low-mass dart of a sports car that's far more likely to kill me than the party on the other side, but here I am.

You've constrained the conditions of a crash to:

- One specific make and model of car

- One specific make and model of SUV

- One specific type of crash (head-on, which are exceptionally rare. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...)

This feels like a strawman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

Let’s talk about some difficulties. It’s a temperamental beast at times. I live in the South, so I don’t have the “cold start” problem, but I don’t have an engine block heater either. So whenever I travel north, I have to take care. Haven’t had any real issues yet - the truck’s remote starter seems to fend for itself - but I’m wary of it. Repairs can be expensive, since all components are commercial-grade and are priced accordingly. Maintenance is more expensive, but it’s a much more rare event than in a gasser. Parking in an urban environment can be a pain. Parallel parking requires skill, and there are some multistory parking structures in which I will not fit. A little bit of upfront planning seems to alleviate these problems. The truck is loud, but you only really hear it when driving slowly between two large buildings. My neighbors don’t complain, especially since they benefit from it so much.

Oh, and I can smoke most other vehicles when doing a little Saturday night racing off a stop light.