|
The problem is as much with the modern safety kit on cars as it is with the width of the cars themselves. When a car door is approaching a foot thick, to allow for crumple zones, safety bars, airbags, that additional width has to be cleared by a long way to allow someone to squeeze between the pillar and the door.
|
The problem is as much with the modern safety kit on cars as it is with the width of the cars themselves. When a car door is approaching a foot thick, to allow for crumple zones, safety bars, airbags, that additional width has to be cleared by a long way to allow someone to squeeze between the pillar and the door.
This may well be a factor, but to be honest, I think it much more to do with styling trends. Making a car wider gives it a sportier stance, which, these days anyway, seems to be the be all and end all!.
I'm all for the Japanese system where (i think this is only the case in bigger cities like Tokyo) if you own anything other than a 'kei' car, you must have your own parking space. Public parking will only accommodate kei cars. I think a version of that idea would be good for our cities. Have park and ride schemes on the outskirts, and unless you have a small car, up to a given size, you can't drive into the city centre (unless you have your own parking space at work or home).
I've said it before, and no doubt will again, but small cars are great!. And if people were honest with themselves, they would admit in the vast majority of cases, nobody needs anything bigger than a golf (maybe even a polo, or in my case, a jazz). Although, as has been mentioned, most cars these days, when replaced with a new model, are bigger!. I was just reading about the new civic, which is 30cm(!) longer than the golf it was being compared to.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never really understood why cars and trucks have to get bigger each generation as in general the bigger the vehicle, the less overall utility it tends to have, particularly in most of the day to day activities we all do, such as supermarket shopping and parking in towns. I loaned a 5 series for a weekend a couple of years ago and whilst it was a terrific car on the motorway, it was a nightmare in Sainsburys car park and outside my house. Just far too big 90% of the time.
I suspect the current trend for larger will reverse as soon as oil prices spike. It would only take a Mr Trump tantrum to do that. It will be interesting to see how the US car industry responds to his latest trick, will we see the return of the 1970s gas-guzzlers in the US-- I doubt it!
|
When we had a Doblo a few years ago, it went in for a service and we had a Panda as a courtesy car. A few hours with the Panda convinced us that we didn't need a big car, so our next car was a Yaris.
The Yaris was all the car we needed, 3 suitcases went in the boot, and even all our camping gear. When I did a little research I found the Yaris was a similar size to the Golf my Dad had when I was in my teens.
My current Dacia Logan is more than big enough yet seems dwarfed next to 4x4's (even supposed mid-sized ones like a Quashqai) especially the width. And my MX5 is positively toy-like next to anything!
We compared the Logan to my brother in law's Mondeo estate a few weeks ago and whilst quite a lot bigger on the outside (especially width), it didn't seem bigger on the inside, and probably more claustrophobic as it had shallower windows.
|
|
I think the time has come to tax cars on two parameters- on weight, and on area- lengthxwidth, on a logarithmic scale, so a Fiesta or Yaris is say the basic car and is taxed at current rates, lets say £100/year but if your car is 10% heavier or 10% bigger then you pay 10x the rate ie £1000/yr, if 20% heavier or larger then you pay 20x the rate eg £2,000/yr.
We do not need to drive around in 1.5 tonne vehicles or heavier.
|
Where you guys are going wrong is basing it on 'need'.
Fortunately communism lost the argument and we can
have what we 'want' (provided it's affordable). I drive
my older auto discovery up and down the motorway most of
the time. Other times it's going round town on errands.
Do i 'need' a disco for that purpose? No,
probably not but it's a lot more comfortable than some
4 pot hatchback and I can see where i'm going over
other traffic, hedge rows etc. Easier to park too with such flat sides
and all corners being visible to the driver.
The government would have us all on buses and
bicycles if the do gooder hippies in government
had their way.
The fact is car park spaces are too small. I tend to
either park further away or go to the pickup point,
haven't had a ticket as yet. It's the spaces that need
to change not the cars.
|
|
|
|
.
Edited by oldroverboy. on 02/06/2017 at 15:27
|
|
|
Pay by horsepower in Switzerland. anyone want a 500hp jaguar or similar.
over 201 kw 43swissfrancs per 5 kw plus 50% surcharge if co2 over 200g/km
ouch!
Taxé d'après la puissance en KW (1KW=1,36 CV-DIN)
Prix en CHF
jusqu'à 31 KW 179.00
jusqu'à 36 KW 184.40
jusqu'à 41 KW 189.80
jusqu'à 46 KW 195.20
jusqu'à 51 KW 200.60
jusqu'à 56 KW 206.00
jusqu'à 61 KW 211.40
jusqu'à 66 KW 216.80
jusqu'à 71 KW 222.20
jusqu'à 76 KW 227.60
jusqu'à 81 KW 249.10
jusqu'à 86 KW 270.60
jusqu'à 91 KW 292.10
jusqu'à 96 KW 313.60
jusqu'à 101 KW 335.10
jusqu'à 106 KW 356.60
jusqu'à 111 KW 388.60
jusqu'à 116 KW 420.60
jusqu'à 121 KW 452.60
jusqu'à 126 KW 484.60
jusqu'à 131 KW 516.60
jusqu'à 136 KW 548.60
jusqu'à 141 KW 580.60
jusqu'à 146 KW 623.60
jusqu'à 151 KW 666.60
jusqu'à 156 KW 709.60
jusqu'à 161 KW 752.60
jusqu'à 166 KW 795.60
jusqu'à 171 KW 838.60
jusqu'à 176 KW 881.60
jusqu'à 181 KW 924.60
jusqu'à 186 KW 967.60
jusqu'à 191 KW 1'010.60
jusqu'à 196 KW 1'053.60
jusqu'à 201 KW 1'096.60
en sus, par 5KW 43.-
Pour les voitures dont la 1ère mise en circulation > 01.01.2010
##50 % bonus si CO2 <= 120 g/km
##50 % malus si CO2 > 200 g/km
sur les prix indiqués ci-dessus.
.
Edited by oldroverboy. on 02/06/2017 at 15:32
|
|
Only a few people have a real need for a larger vehicle - towing a boat, caravan, horse, large family - 4+ kids, live up a mile long track etc.
For all others it is a somewhat antisocial self indulgence.
There is no real justification for anything larger than an Astra or Focus sized car. It will carry 4/5 + luggage reasonably comfortably. It will perform more than adequately at all legal speeds with lots to spare. It can be driven 4-500 + miles in a day - driver boredom rather than a lack of comfort is likely to be the limiting factor.
Parking spaces are currently too small for larger vehicles - as an earlier poster says tax them (heavily) by size and weight. Discouraging unneccesary use of large vehicles will make parking easier and consume less energy to make and run a car - a win-win.
|
|
I agree with the japenese appraoch of taxing car length and width (but not height).
To many lazy designed cars in europe, such as the Vauxhall insignia or the ford focus with cramped interiors despite being over 4m long.
|
|
I have the answer to this tricky problem..........
PAINT.
Yes paint, Simply repaint the bay markings to enlarge the bay. QED. A very affordable solution to this problem n'est pas!
Cheers Concrete
|
I dislike the notion that people be taxed or forced out of their choice of car but simple rules of commerce mean if you use more of a thing then you should pay more. A bigger car costs more to buy and more to fuel so why shouldn't it cost more to park too if it is indeed using more space than average?
Nothing worse (especially with a baby in tow) than finding a Range Rover squashed into the space beside you when you return to your motor and you end up having to squeeze into your car then draw it forward to get everyone else in.
Perhaps they should be given larger spaces and charged accordingly? Only larger cars can use them and only normal hatches and the like could use the normal spaces. Maybe a bit overcomplex though... I do like the Kei cars though. Ingenious engineering, clever use of space and very useful in cities.
Edited by SLO76 on 02/06/2017 at 18:54
|
|
PCharlton may I respectfully say that having what we want (can afford) rather than what we need is a significant cause of many personal and world problems, particularly environmental
I remember reading in a motoring mag of a young mother who 'needed' a huge 4x4 for her busy life taking her son too and from nursery. It cost £44,000 : my anger that that much money is spent unnecessarily when there is so much poverty is beyond polite description.
I suspect many drivers do not have sufficient skill and judgement to drive larger vehicles. Vehicles should be designed for function and value.
|
PCharlton may I respectfully say that having what we want (can afford) rather than what we need is a significant cause of many personal and world problems, particularly environmental
I remember reading in a motoring mag of a young mother who 'needed' a huge 4x4 for her busy life taking her son too and from nursery. It cost £44,000 : my anger that that much money is spent unnecessarily when there is so much poverty is beyond polite description.
I suspect many drivers do not have sufficient skill and judgement to drive larger vehicles. Vehicles should be designed for function and value.
I bought an even more expensive large SUV because a) I wanted one and b) I could afford it. How I spend my money, accumulated legally from taxable earnings, is up to me.
I have a huge issue with the definition of "poverty" - it's defined as a set % of average income so as society gradually gets wealthier, the poverty level goes up - we're now at a point in time when the UK poverty line is at a level in excess of the average in the immediate post-wars years - poverty should be defined as an absolute standard of living, not a % of average.
|
|
Pay by horsepower in Switzerland........ jusqu'à 196 KW 1'053.60 jusqu'à 201 KW 1'096.60 en sus, par 5KW 43.
Ouch! Glad I don't live in S'land. Already grateful my 331KW Audi is pre March 2006. Surely the fairest way is to abolish it and tax the fuel more.
Just back from driving across USA where mall spaces are wide, often with spaces between the spaces to open the doors! Fuel is 60p per litre and mass transit is an unknown concept. Ten lane motorways near LA in rush hour are worse than the M25. Bonkers.
Edited by John F on 03/06/2017 at 10:29
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the answer is to have a couple of sizes of parking bays. Small ones should be cheaper and closer to the shops. Smart barriers should be able to direct vehicles to the right area. Large 4x4 vehicles can park in a field.
That's a brilliant idea. I would always pay extra for a larger space. Many supermarkets have large spaces for people with kids but as I don't have kids I'm not supposed to use them :(
|
|
|
|
