UK SUV Petition

[BoldonLad]

We could start with any car wider than 2m (including mirrors) or heavier than 2 tonnes be classed as a HGV. You then need to pass your hgv test to drive one, and all such vehicles are fitted with a tachograph and limited to 56 mph.

Would that not have to be "vehicle", otherwise, many would escape the net.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

We could start with any car wider than 2m (including mirrors) or heavier than 2 tonnes be classed as a HGV. You then need to pass your hgv test to drive one, and all such vehicles are fitted with a tachograph and limited to 56 mph.

I like your style!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Would that not have to be "vehicle", otherwise, many would escape the net.

Yeah motorised vehicle would do.

 

[Alex321]

We could start with any car wider than 2m (including mirrors) or heavier than 2 tonnes be classed as a HGV. You then need to pass your hgv test to drive one, and all such vehicles are fitted with a tachograph and limited to 56 mph.

Not a cat in hell's chance of getting that passed.

It would immediately destroy the market for camper vans/motorhomes and for private (including school) minibuses.

You already have motorhome manufacturers working hard to keep the MGW under 3.5 tonnes so that people can drive them on a recent car licence (those of us with older licences - pre 1997 - can drive a 7.5 tonne truck on them as it is).

 

[Gillstay]

I think you left out the key characteristic:

Provokes envy in some of those who don’t drive one

I don’t by the way (drive one)

Why would you choose envy. I have no envy for a person driving a vehicle that does very poor mpg, poor handling, poor braking, needs more servicing as it has transfer boxes etc, is harder to park, more problematic to others on the narrow lanes, and does not fit with the climate problems.

 

[BoldonLad]

Why would you choose envy. I have no envy for a person driving a vehicle that does very poor mpg, poor handling, poor braking, needs more servicing as it has transfer boxes etc, is harder to park, more problematic to others on the narrow lanes, and does not fit with the climate problems.

Good to hear.

 

[matticus]

Not a cat in hell's chance of getting that passed.

It would immediately destroy the market for camper vans/motorhomes and for private (including school) minibuses.

You already have motorhome manufacturers working hard to keep the MGW under 3.5 tonnes so that people can drive them on a recent car licence (those of us with older licences - pre 1997 - can drive a 7.5 tonne truck on them as it is).

It would be easy to push through exemptions for things like that.
(Just about every existing vehicle/road regulation either has exemptions, or is routinely ignored in certain situations )

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Good to hear.

Perhaps SUV owners are envious of the lack of covetousness shown by non-owners?

 

[BoldonLad]

Perhaps SUV owners are envious of the lack of covetousness shown by non-owners?

I wouldn't know, not being a SUV owner ,at least, not as far as I know, since it does not appear very clear what is and what is not an SUV

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I wouldn't know, not being a SUV owner ,at least, not as far as I know, since it does not appear very clear what is and what is not an SUV

It's a good job I never said you are an SUV owner! I do hope you're not envious of them?

Thoughts and prayers on resolving your confusion.

 

[Hacienda71]

They should definitely include pickups that are not fit for purpose and the dibble should do something about ones with wheels outside the wheel arches. Here is a pic of one such monstrosity that was taking up half the road the other day. There is no need other than vanity of which there is a lot here.

 

[Alex321]

They should definitely include pickups that are not fit for purpose and the dibble should do something about ones with wheels outside the wheel arches. Here is a pic of one such monstrosity that was taking up half the road the other day. There is no need other than vanity of which there is a lot here.

View attachment 716121

And what law would you suggest allows the police to "do something about ones with wheels outside the wheel arches"?

You may not like them (neither do I), and there may be no good reason for them in the UK, but they aren't illegal.

 

[Hacienda71]

And what law would you suggest allows the police to "do something about ones with wheels outside the wheel arches"?

You may not like them (neither do I), and there may be no good reason for them in the UK, but they aren't illegal.

My understanding is that at the extent of protrusion shown in my picture it would be an offence prosecutable under The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Caveat I am not an expert but I have seen police videos indicating it is a prosecutable offence .

 

[Alex321]

My understanding is that at the extent of protrusion shown in my picture it would be an offence prosecutable under The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Caveat I am not an expert but I have seen police videos indicating it is a prosecutable offence .

I can't find anything along those lines in those regulations.

 

[Hacienda71]

I can't find anything along those lines in those regulations.

Regulation 63 along with section 40A of the RT Act 1988