Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?

[The utility cyclist]

My now SORN'd passat of 2001 vintage is pretty close to the ground with respect to the seat height and groynd clearance isnI all that but I don't believe it has any greater or lesser clearance than an (83-91)mkII Astra.

[basingstoke123]

Are we sure it's not the ground getting higher?

That's something I've been pondering about for years.

Each time they resurface the roads, the hills get higher.

Indeed. Now if that wasn't the case, then archeologists wouldn't have to dig, would they? Simples

Or is it that car occupants are getting larger?

[millimole]

Are we sure it's not the ground getting higher?

It's certainly a fact* that when i was a teenager cycling round London in the 70s, it was flat - now when i hire a Boris Bike there are a lot of corrugations. I suspect that the Crossrail digging has distorted the topography of London.
(* Fact as in 'everything was wonderful when you were young)

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[Bonefishblues]

Dunno about that, but it were all fields here.

[Steady rider]

https://www.automobiledimension.com/car-comparison.php
Wider vehicles slow traffic in general, costing all road users extra and leave less room in car parks.
Extra VED could be based on their width.
Extra VED width tax
up to 1400mm zero
1401-1449 - £10
1450-1500 - £20
1501-1549 - £30
1550-1600 - £40
1601-1649 - £50
1650-1700 - £60
1701-1749 - £70
1750-1800 - £80
1801-1849 - £90
over 1850 -£100
Any extra income should be used to repair and improve roads.
This suggestion would cost me about £40 per year extra.

[Cyril Haearn]

Are we sure it's not the ground getting higher?

It's certainly a fact* that when i was a teenager cycling round London in the 70s, it was flat - now when i hire a Boris Bike... .

Boris Bike? What has the foreign secretary to do with London?
Sadiq Sycles, they are called now

[The utility cyclist]

https://www.automobiledimension.com/car-comparison.php
Wider vehicles slow traffic in general, costing all road users extra and leave less room in car parks.
Extra VED could be based on their width.
Extra VED width tax
up to 1400mm zero
1401-1449 - £10
1450-1500 - £20
1501-1549 - £30
1550-1600 - £40
1601-1649 - £50
1650-1700 - £60
1701-1749 - £70
1750-1800 - £80
1801-1849 - £90
over 1850 -£100
Any extra income should be used to repair and improve roads.
This suggestion would cost me about £40 per year extra.

Don't agree, stupid, selfish, impatient morons who don't plan ahead and use their vehicles for journeys that should be done other than in a petsonal motorised conveyance slow traffic in general.
Squeezing in another lane instead of a single wide lane in each direction slows traffic.
Allowing parked motorised vehicles on through roads slows traffic.
Narrowing roads to put more useless street furniture slows traffic.
Allowing motorised vehicles at all slows traffic.

The width is really not the issue at hand IMHO, it never has been and is down to many other factors. I don't see any reasoning in this thread to back it up because the width differentials are not enough to make avast difference otherwise why do supposedly small cars and indeed motorbikes still manage to cause people on bikes consternation when overtaking.
We take action elsewhere that will have massively more effect on safety and traffic snarling up and car width is not a talking point at all.

[Steady rider]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class#Japan
Japan has a system that relates to both the size of vehicle and engine size.

a kei car is a vehicle less than 3.4 m (11.2 ft) long, 1.48 m (4.9 ft) wide, 2 m (6.6 ft) high and with an engine displacement under 660 cc (40 cu in).

Small size Passenger vehicles, commonly called "5 number" vehicles in reference to their license-plate prefix. This class is defined as limited to vehicles less than 4.7 m (15.4 ft) long, 1.7 m (5.6 ft) wide, 2 m (6.6 ft) high and with engine displacement at or under 2,000 cc (120 cu in).

A large car in the UK may be 1.9m+ wide and a small one 1.5m+ wide.
India has classification based on length, A1 to A6.
Having a VED system that takes account of the size and emissions could further encourage the use of small cars. There is also a safety element to having small vehicles., with mirrors nearer to the drivers, giving them potentially a better view.
The question asked 'Why Isn't More Made of the Ever Increasing Width of Motor Vehicles?' is valid and some research should look into the issues involved.

[squeaker]

There is also a safety element to having small vehicles., with mirrors nearer to the drivers, giving them potentially a better view.

Yes, but: from a vehicle occupants PoV, the more mass on your side, the safer (on average)...

[reohn2]

There is also a safety element to having small vehicles., with mirrors nearer to the drivers, giving them potentially a better view.

Yes, but: from a vehicle occupants PoV, the more mass on your side, the safer (on average)...

And that subliminally if not overtly,is the selling point of larger and larger vehicles,to the point where people begin to think,if you can't beat them join them,which of course just makes matters worse.

[reohn2]

There is also a safety element to having small vehicles., with mirrors nearer to the drivers, giving them potentially a better view.

Yes, but: from a vehicle occupants PoV, the more mass on your side, the safer (on average)...

And that subliminally if not overtly,is the selling point of larger and larger vehicles,to the point where people begin to think,if you can't beat them join them,which of course just makes matters worse.

[Steady rider]

Equality in safety, perhaps an issue. Yes driving a large vehicle could offer more protection but may put others at risk.

Per billion vehicle miles, 1,011 pedal cyclists are killed or seriously injured, in comparison to 26 car drivers 6

.
ref 6
DfT (2017) ‘RAS30070: Relative risk of different forms of transport, Great Britain, 2016’
URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... -accidents
Date Accessed: 13/10/2017.

https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/adv ... tsheet.pdf

Assuming a cyclist rides 100 miles per week for 50 yrs, total 260000 miles, 1 billion equals, 1000,000,000 so on average a cyclist would on average be killed or seriously injured once in 3846 lifetimes. If someone smokes they may die or get seriously ill once in 10 lifetimes perhaps.

So the data proves cycling in not unduly dangerous but good measures may be needed to improve safety for cyclists. The figures that may be helpful could be the rate for car drivers of different types of car and the rate for counterparts in road accidents. Research may be the answer, see
viewtopic.php?f=45&p=1199450#p1199450

ps

A conceptual framework for road safety and mobility applied to cycling safety

Paul Schepersa,b,∗, perhaps a good starting point
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf