I think the general point is that it's a bit daft to replace the ICE SUV's that fill the roads, with EV SUV's that fill the roads, much better to go for smaller cars in general and to get away from the idea that bigger is necessarily better...
Electric vehicles
- Thread starter Woodchips2
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
This is actually a big concern. In China where some of these services have already been introduced you can tell the service provider the vehicle needs to be cleaned and it will go back to a depot and a clean vehicle sent to pick up.
A lot of people really are disgusting.
I had an interesting discussion with one company over a specific issue and that was hailing a car for sex as it is cheaper than a by the hour hotel room. The cars do have lots of internal cameras but that didn’t seem to be an issue…
You really need to start reading wider sources.
Rhossydd
Established Member
You've missed the point that often people need bigger cars. Try putting a baby buggy on a Twizzy, you can't. Try strapping a recalcitrant toddler into a baby seat in the back of a two door car sometime.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
And yet people seemed to manage before SUVs were a thing.
Maybe there were a lot more children injured in road traffic accidents back then? I really don't know.
On the commute? The vast majority of miles driven in the U.K. are in vehicles with a single occupant. The point is that a fleet of small single/two seat shared ownership vehicles is likely to have a massive impact on urban driving and road congestion. When you need to take five people and the dog while towing a caravan 500 miles you rent the appropriate vehicle for the two weeks you need it.
Rhossydd
Established Member
Before there were SUVs we had estate cars and people carriers. They've effectively been replaced by SUVs.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I asked ChatGPT, just for fun. The answer was inconclusive at best..
Chat history
Open sidebar
ChatGPT
You said:
How has the widespread use of SUVs affected child safety statistics?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The widespread use of SUVs has had a significant impact on child safety statistics, both positively and negatively.
Positive Impacts:
Improved Crash Protection:
Size and Weight Advantage: SUVs tend to be larger and heavier than sedans, offering better protection in the event of a crash. This can result in fewer severe injuries or fatalities for child passengers.
Advanced Safety Features: Modern SUVs are often equipped with advanced safety technologies, such as electronic stability control, automatic emergency braking, and more airbags, which enhance overall child safety.
Higher Seating Position:
Better Visibility: The higher seating position in SUVs allows drivers to have a better view of the road, potentially reducing the risk of accidents. Additionally, children seated higher up may be less likely to sustain injuries in side-impact crashes.
Negative Impacts:
Increased Risk to Pedestrians:
Blind Spots: SUVs have larger blind spots, particularly in the rear, which increases the risk of backing-over incidents. Children, being shorter, are more likely to be in these blind spots, leading to higher rates of injuries or fatalities.
Pedestrian Accidents: The increased front-end height of SUVs means that in pedestrian collisions, children are more likely to be struck in the torso or head, rather than the legs, which can result in more severe injuries.
Rollover Risk:
Higher Center of Gravity: SUVs have a higher center of gravity, making them more prone to rollovers compared to lower vehicles like sedans. While modern designs and technologies have reduced this risk, rollovers still pose a significant threat, especially to unrestrained or improperly restrained children.
Statistical Trends:
Child Passenger Fatalities: There has been a general decline in child passenger fatalities over recent years, partly due to the adoption of stricter car seat laws and better vehicle safety standards, including those in SUVs. However, specific statistics regarding SUVs vs. other vehicles indicate that the overall safety of children in SUVs has improved as the technology in these vehicles has advanced.
Non-Crash Incidents: Unfortunately, non-crash incidents, such as back-over accidents, have increased with the proliferation of SUVs. Children are particularly vulnerable in driveways and parking lots, where these accidents are more likely to occur.
Conclusion:
While SUVs offer certain safety advantages for child passengers, especially in crashes, they also introduce unique risks, particularly in non-crash scenarios like pedestrian accidents. The net effect on child safety statistics is complex, with improvements in some areas and increased risks in others. Public awareness and continued advancements in vehicle safety features are critical in mitigating these risks.
Message ChatGPT
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
ChatGPT
Chat history
Open sidebar
ChatGPT
You said:
How has the widespread use of SUVs affected child safety statistics?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The widespread use of SUVs has had a significant impact on child safety statistics, both positively and negatively.
Positive Impacts:
Improved Crash Protection:
Size and Weight Advantage: SUVs tend to be larger and heavier than sedans, offering better protection in the event of a crash. This can result in fewer severe injuries or fatalities for child passengers.
Advanced Safety Features: Modern SUVs are often equipped with advanced safety technologies, such as electronic stability control, automatic emergency braking, and more airbags, which enhance overall child safety.
Higher Seating Position:
Better Visibility: The higher seating position in SUVs allows drivers to have a better view of the road, potentially reducing the risk of accidents. Additionally, children seated higher up may be less likely to sustain injuries in side-impact crashes.
Negative Impacts:
Increased Risk to Pedestrians:
Blind Spots: SUVs have larger blind spots, particularly in the rear, which increases the risk of backing-over incidents. Children, being shorter, are more likely to be in these blind spots, leading to higher rates of injuries or fatalities.
Pedestrian Accidents: The increased front-end height of SUVs means that in pedestrian collisions, children are more likely to be struck in the torso or head, rather than the legs, which can result in more severe injuries.
Rollover Risk:
Higher Center of Gravity: SUVs have a higher center of gravity, making them more prone to rollovers compared to lower vehicles like sedans. While modern designs and technologies have reduced this risk, rollovers still pose a significant threat, especially to unrestrained or improperly restrained children.
Statistical Trends:
Child Passenger Fatalities: There has been a general decline in child passenger fatalities over recent years, partly due to the adoption of stricter car seat laws and better vehicle safety standards, including those in SUVs. However, specific statistics regarding SUVs vs. other vehicles indicate that the overall safety of children in SUVs has improved as the technology in these vehicles has advanced.
Non-Crash Incidents: Unfortunately, non-crash incidents, such as back-over accidents, have increased with the proliferation of SUVs. Children are particularly vulnerable in driveways and parking lots, where these accidents are more likely to occur.
Conclusion:
While SUVs offer certain safety advantages for child passengers, especially in crashes, they also introduce unique risks, particularly in non-crash scenarios like pedestrian accidents. The net effect on child safety statistics is complex, with improvements in some areas and increased risks in others. Public awareness and continued advancements in vehicle safety features are critical in mitigating these risks.
Message ChatGPT
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
ChatGPT
Rhossydd
Established Member
That doesn't add up; you'll still have the same number of people wanting to travel, probably at similar times, it just changes what vehicle they're travelling in and might free up some car parking spaces.
The only way congestion is reduced is by getting people to travel together, a radically different times or not at all (remote working etc).
Agent_zed
Established Member
For example (and believe me I'm not suggesting we bring these back) a 1970's austin allegro estate kerb weight was ~870kg
A current Ford Kuga kerb weight is 1594kg
That's ~724kg extra!!
Sure the Kuga will have significantly more safety equipment but not pretty much an entire extra cars worth?!
If I towed a 700kg trailer everywhere I went, you'd think I was insane. Yet that is what we are doing with modern cars.
Agent_zed
Established Member
The physical length of the vehicle will drastically reduce the length of queues. They will be more responsive at traffic lights. More free space on the road will allow cars to pass much easier.
I would also guess there will be less accidents as more room to avoid collisions and smaller cars can generally stop or change direction quicker.
@TRITON being into your ebikes, who is the asian company people seem to buy the frame / motor / battery from and then once imported they get the rest of the parts to complete the bike. I have spoken to two lots of cyclist and both said they imported the core ebike bits from asia and one of them wrote down the company name for me but I have lost the paper.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
In Norway over 80% of cars are EV - there is no absolute limit.
Over the last year the UK has produced 60% of electricity from green sources - wind, solar, nuclear, hydro. There is potential with investment to comfortably deliver total electricity demand even after demand increases from EVs.
How is a wind turbine going to weaken our national security vs reliance on imported oil and gas.
Your only remotely useful comment!
EVs fuelled by electricity generated from green sources will (a) improve the environment (b) reduce reliance on imported oil and gas. and (c) secure the future against inevitable cost increases that will follow continued used of a limited resource.
Perhaps you have other reasons for rejecting the change.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Most car travel does not involve children. Most journeys are urban and average ~8 miles.
With driverless vehicles summoned via an app I would expect a range of vehicles would be available at different costs. Most journeys - commuting, school run, shopping, local social would be in cheap "pods" with a max speed of 40/50 mph.
Need a child seat - order a large pod - or one with child seat already fitted.
Rubbish to the tip - order a flat bed truck. Possibly pay a premium for the recycling centre to empty the truck on arrival so you don't even have to travel.
Taking the family on a 200 miles motorway trip - order a vehicle with 4/5 seats + luggage capacity.
Rhossydd
Established Member
But the Kuga uses half the fuel, has nothing like the exhaust emissions of the Allegro because of much better engine management.
Then add anti-lock brakes, traction control, safer handling, air bags, crumple zones and better safety for pedestrians by design.
Inside you get air con, sat nav, fabric seats, seat belts front and rear, iso fix child seat provision, entertainment system......
Shall we mention how well they're made and reliable they are ?
Modern cars are staggeringly better than the rusty boxes of the 70s & 80s.
Rhossydd
Established Member
It's still just science fiction, along with flying cars.
We've had sat navs for nearly two decades now, but they're still not completely reliable. Mobile phone reception still isn't over all the UK.
Terrytpot
Established Member
only one generation? I’m guessing your a baby boomer (1946-1964) whilst I’m Gen X (1965-1979) which leaves Xennials (1975-1985) , Millennials (1980-1984) and Gen Z (1995-2012) all old enough to drive with Gen Alpha (2013-2025) simply aspiring to own a vehicle. As for how folks managed, you’re old enough to know that , just may have forgotten it. They walked to their local shops because they actually had them, ours have all been turned into student flats or coffee shops/charity shops. Our shops have all migrated out of town to super markets and we’re having to go further to find jobs as industry is making similar moves to find the transport infrastructure it needs to successfully compete and as for public transport, don’t even go there unless you’re fortunate enough to live in the middle of London its totally unfit for purpose.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Worth noting that the average car currently spends 22-23 hours a day parked.
A fleet of driverless cars would need sufficient capacity to meet peak demand. It may reduce the number of vehicles required to 15-30% - say 5-10m vs the 30m+ vehicles currently registered.
Driverless vehicles could automatically route to remote car parks for recharging as needed. The car parks used would be smaller than those used for current cars as there would be no need for pedestrian access, with narrower spaces, more limited manoeuvring space etc.
Pricing could encourage reorganisation of individual schedules to reduce the peak - but accept this is not a complete solution as not all have flexibility.
Were driverless to become the norm, drop off/pick up points would replace complete car parks. On street parking would become unnecessary allowing greater road space for both cycling and smaller driverless pods.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
The Automated Vehicles Bill was laid before Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, and on May 2024 the Automated Vehicles (AV) Act received royal assent.
There are trials around the world already providing services - often on road systems less demanding than UK.
In the UK there are current trials in Milton Keynes, and a number of "driverless" on line grocery delivery systems - much of the tech is common with cars, albeit without the human risk.
Some estimates introduction of driverless in the UK by 2026. Many new cars already have the capacity to operate independently - most obviously on motorways where systems provide lane discipline, cruise control, distance control, emergency braking etc.
What is very clear - it is not science fiction. It will happen - the only possible debate is when.
Agent_zed
Established Member
You missed the point.
I wasn't suggesting we should drive allegro's or go back to carbs. The point was that the allegro estate carried pretty much the same amount of people and cargo and weighed 700kg less.
Even with all the things you mentioned there is no reason all that should weigh so much. The only reason it does is because people want a big car that is a living room on wheels. Even worse are the 4x4's that are not needed and cart around even more weight for no reason whatsoever, the chances of 99% of them seeing slightly muddy field is pretty slim and even then they fail in slippery conditions as most have summer tyres anyway.
Similar threads
