Have SUV’s done so or is it just your opinion? Show us some real data proving it. I have a much bigger problem with fast little cars darting in and out than with not being able to read a sign on a road I’ve driven 100 times before when tailgating an SUV. And no, big rigs are not neccesary - cargo can be transported in smaller vehicles. It’s just more conviennent to use 18 wheelers.
I have a high vehicle, but not the highest on the road. When I can’t see around a bigger vehicle, I change lanes or check my speedometer and slow down to what I should be doing. Not being able to see around another vehicle is the absolute lowest on my list of driving grievances - because it’s all your own fault!! Even deer on the road at 3am piss me off more because I can’t help when they choose to dart out. I can help mediating my own emotional reaction to something I don’t like such as “incorrectly” sized vehicles.
Like I said: 1 = change lanes, 2 = slow down, 3 (cut-inners) = have a little patience for idiots and TAKE the extra 10 minutes to get home; you are an adult right?
Really? Show me one state that requires some proof of need before you can buy and drive (after certification) anything you like, from a Vespa to a bus.
I spelled out every type of law that would seem to remedy the so-called problem specified in the OP. Banning all tall vehicles, commerical and private, was only one of them.
The OP asks why such vehicles should be legal. I am asking what set of laws would be workable to solve the problem.
If you and the OP can’t begin to answer that question then that that gives you most of the answer. If you just wanted to bitch without any real ideas, then there are other places for that.
Again, what set of laws can you see effectively solving this problem in a workable manner?
Well, how about something like, “The top of the roof of non-commercial vehicles shall not be more than X feet from the road,” for starters? And while we’re at it, how about “Headlights shall not be higher than X inches from the road”? I hate driving at night and having some humongous vehicle’s blinding headlights glaring into my rear-view. There should be some standard range for bumper location also.
BTW, if an SUV is regulated like a truck in having lower emissions or other standards, they should be taxed and registered like a truck, too.
Another possibility: Vehicles’ registration fees based on weight AND height. Sure, this gives a bit of a pass to the wealthy, but I’m talking a HUGE increase for huge vehicles. Maybe people wouldn’t be quite so quick to say they need the monster if it cost them a fortune to register it.
Perhaps rising fuel costs will help solve the problem anyway; I hear SUV sales are down since gas prices went through the roof.
You will be sad to hear something that I read just this week. I wish I could remember where it was. It was an in-depth analysis of the near-term future of the auto industry. Maybe someone else read it too.
The analysis is that SUV’s will be fastest RISING segment of vehicles sold over the next 5 years. While hybrid-vehicles are a hot news item, they will only grow to 5% of vehicles sold over the next 5 years while SUV’s will comprise about 30%. Auto makers are hoping to make SUV’s more fuel efficient to help drive this growth.
And why should non-commercial vehicles be thus restricted when commercial ones are not? Tall vehicles will be on the road anyway. What about items carried on a rooftop carrier? How about the fact that full-size vans have been around for decades without any noticeable griping about them, when they’re taller than most SUV’s? The devil is in the details, and until you get those worked out I would say there no realistic expectation whatsoever of getting such legislation enacted.
Such laws are already on the books. They have a range of allowable height, with both minimum and maximum specifications. Unless you think you can get exactly one headlight height specified (hint: don’t hold your breath) there will always be some vehicles with headlight heights higher than others.
There is. Maybe you should find out what the current laws are before pontificating “we should do this” or “we should do that.”
Gary T:
I wasn’t aware that I was “pontificating.” I thought I was making suggestions, since someone implied that it was not feasible to make rules concerning vehicle height. Since, as you’ve pointed out, there are already laws concerning bumper and headlight location, what’s the big deal about adding overall vehicle height?
Presuming you’re right, I wonder when those laws about headlight location were enacted? 'Cause I seem to get a lot of high headlights wherever I drive. Maybe it’s just my bad luck.
Commercial vehicles are regulated differently, AFAIK, than private ones. Large commercial vehicles, for example, have to stop at weigh stations here in NJ to ascertain that they aren’t unsafe or improperly loaded or some such thing. How about anything over the normal height of a normal car (whatever that is) has to stop at the truck inspection stations?
On the road isn’t so much of a problem but parking lots are. You get a van or SUV on either side of you and you’ve got to back out blind and hope for the best.
Well, strictly speaking that would be the inverse mileage. Mileage is distance of travel per volume of fuel, which is an inverse area. The conversion factor is 1 mpg = 42/cm[sup]2[/sup] (or, if you prefer, 1.7 billion per acre). OK, I’ll stop now.
You probably weren’t – I think I was a bit too strident in my response. I apologize.
I might turn that around and ask, what’s the big deal about adding overall vehicle height?, as in why do we need to? What’s the compelling reason that trumps the obvious advantage and sometimes necessity of taller vehicles (better ground clearance, more space for tall cargo and passengers, better driver’s view of the road, etc.)?
They’ve been on the books for decades, and I seriously doubt they’ve changed recently. Improper headlight adjustment no doubt acerbates the problem in some cases.
Again, why? Because some people don’t like their height? Big trucks can potentially damage roads if they’re overloaded. That’s not a concern with SUV’s.
Basically, what I see is a lot of people like SUV’s and light trucks. Some people need them. There are always going to be various vehicles that are hard to see around, and generally there are driving techniques to deal with that. I just don’t see a compelling reason to deny, restrict, or regulate private ownership of that size vehicle based on the difficult of seeing around them.
Not really a GQ answer to that, but I know that on my semi-urban commute, traffic is often bottlenecked and/or slow-moving. Not being able to see far enough ahead of my car to anticipate changes is traffic flow is extremely stressful. With smaller vehicles, you can see the taillights flash * through * the windshield of the car(s) in front of you. Most SUVs are too tall to allow this (or, most annoyingly, have tinted rear windows – something that I think * should * be illegal.) And no, there’s no way to hang back far enough from an SUV vehicle to allow you to see around it. Traffic density doesn’t allow it.
So, based on solely anecdotal evidence, driving * is * more stressful when the car is front of you is blocking the view because (a) it cuts down on the time you have to react to road conditions and (b) it prevents you from seeing the cause of traffic slowdowns, causing you to transfer your hostility to the car directly in front of you.
Now I’m not aware of any way of directly measuring stress and/or aggression, but I’m willing to bet that if you ran a series of tests that hooked blood pressure monitors and other instruments to drivers and then had them drive under normal suburban/urban conditions, that you would find readings that indicated increased stress when the cars in front of them blocked their vision. Would such a finding represent a compelling public concern? I’m willing to believe so.
BTW, the “get yourself a taller vehicle if it bothers you” school of thought that has been expressed in this thread is, to put it kindly, not well thought out. As the OP pointed out, that just leads to continually escalating car heights as everyone tries to get a decent view. (If nothing else, the fact that car heights are increasing is an indication that a clear view ahead is desirable to a lot of motorists and should be a prerequisite of modern car design.)
Small consumer products aren’t the only things transported in rigs. Have you ever tried to fit, say, a 15,000-pound ball valve into the back of a pickup truck? How about a bundle of 40-foot long steel tubing?
Not convenient, more cost effective. Take a little look into any kind of heavy warehousing or freight handling of any scale and you will quickly see tractor trailers are pretty small and fill up quite quickly. 1 53’ trailer holds about 24 pallets neatly stacked 4-5 ft high on each pallet. Only takes 3-4 of those a day to feed your average walmart. Using smaller vehicles would require more insurance, more fuel, more drivers, and generally cost alot more money to move the same product the same distance. Many areas you will see tractors pulling 2 or even three trailers for the same reason, cost effectiveness.
Hmmm interesting thread.
I’ll bet the op isn’t over 30.
Back in the old days all cars were tall.
The smaller cars came about in the late 70s with the first hint of $1.00 gasoline.
I’m 6’+ and had to streach to wash the windows of the first 4 or 5 cars I owned.
They were wider too.
Someone above mentioned the real problem is the small car drivers darting in and out of traffic.
Sir you have answered the op’s question.
To the op.
Learn to drive a big truck and watch the idiots in too big of a hurry trying to kill themselves.
Commercial vehicles get a pass on many of the federal safety requirements because they are essential to the economy and daily operations of the country. Gus’s ability to load a full sized dining room table into his back seat isn’t.
Yes, in far fewer numbers. Items on top of a car do not impede ones ability to see through the windshield of the car in front of you (the real issue). If full-size vans suddenly captured the hearts and minds of American’s the way SUVs have, you certainly would hear an uproar (I believe they are the scourge of British streets, not SUVs.
As should you. Most, if not all, SUVs skirt the federal safety requirements for passenger vehicles because they are classified as trucks. They are not required to have bumpers within the federally mandated 16"-20" range, and since head lights are mounted above the bumper, well I think you can follow the logic. The mismatch in bumper heights leads to real safety issues when it comes to passenger vehicle vs. SUV collisions, as SUVs tend to ride up onto the passenger vehicle.
I do not have an issue with SUVs on the whole. I simply think that since the overwhelming majority are now used as passenger vehicles, they should be regulated as such in terms of bumper/headlight height, fuel efficiency etc.
I think what the OP is complaining about is not legitimate use of SUVs and similar, for transporting stuff that would otherwise need an even bigger van, but seemingly unnecessary usage. Laws over here are different, but it seems like SUVs are getting through a loophole that’s designed for commercial and other usages over there.
I don’t think that “proving a need” is the way forward - but perhaps they should be treated as commercial vehicles for tax and insurance purposes, to discourage other users from getting them.
I think the OP’s problem is “so many” of these vehicles - ie unnecessary ones. I agree, for what it’s worth - they DO get in the way of your view, both in front of and behind you. I get a bit miffed when behind a bus, or a lorry, or whatever, but I understand the need. When the person in front of me prevents me from seeing clearly not because they need to, but because they just want a better view, it annoys me. I wonder, if I stood up in front of them at the cinema, to get a better view, would they complain?
OK, I’ll stop now.