Why has the humble VW Golf become heavier? My son, who is learning to drive, mentioned that the schools VW has Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), which detects vehicles and vulnerable road users, slowing the car automatically. Am not sure this is a good way to learn, but as the technology is adopted by the majority of car manufacturers, our roads will become safer, (maybe).
Mk2 Golf (1983–1992)
• Strong body and safety shell, but basic by today’s standards
• No airbags
• No seatbelt pretensioners
• Basic hydraulic brake assist (HBA)
• Automatic hazard light activation under emergency braking
• Isofix child seat fixings in the rear (later Mk2 models)
Latest Models (e.g. Mk8, 2020–present)
• Strong safety shell and advanced crumple zones
• Multiple airbags (up to nine, incl. driver’s knee and side-impact)
• Three-point seatbelts for all rear seats
• Isofix child seat fixings standard
• Seatbelt reminders and automatic door locking
• Recognised for safety in Euro NCAP and by the IIHS (2022)
• Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) – maintains safe distance and speed
• Lane Keeping Assistance – corrects drifting
• Driver Fatigue Detection – alerts for drowsiness
• Driver-set Speed Limiter – caps maximum speed
• Sophisticated lighting systems (e.g. adaptive LED headlights)
In 1995 I owned a four year old Renault 5. It was a light a nibble car, but I noticed that when I jacked it up to change a wheel I couldn't close the drivers door. The structural frame of the car would flex so much the doors would no longer shut when the car was jack up. I replaced it with a VW Golf Mk2. I loved it, much more reliable, solid and comfortable. Sadly, I had a serious collision with a massive farm tractor pulling 10 tonnes of rock on a muddy road covered in autum leaves. The accident would have been much worse had I been driving the Renault.
Recently there have been reports of car accidents where the drivers seat have sheared off of its mounts, injuring or killing the driver. I am not going to name the manufacturer, but it isn't VW (or Renault), but reminds us that cars need to keep pedestrians and vulnerable road users safe (AEB) in built up environments and occupants safe when traveling at speed, whether a country lane or motorway (strong safety shell, crumple zone, multiple airbags, three-point seatbelts in all seats, Isofix, AEB, etc.
Will taxing the size or the weight of a car solve the problem?
I think you make another good point that almost all the safety features seek to protect the inhabitants - that's the easiest sell for car manufacturers to be able to demand higher costs, without any consideration for externalised increases in risk. You also forgot to mention infotainment systems, air conditioning, automatic boot openers, dashboards that look like iPads, etc. And if the primary concern is cost, the Large Vehicle Levy is substantially less than the average extra trim options that are purchased when new cars are bought.
There are lots of lightweight cars that meet the latest safety requirements. A quick ChatGPT search reveals the following:
Interesting article which explores some of the challenges vehicle owners find. It appears that you hired a CUPRA Formentor which weigh in 1.43 kg and 1.64 kg. A driver of one of these Hybrids in Paris (and maybe in London if certain action groups have their way), will be paying more to park; and its not a very big car but still an SUV.
Indeed - the car was huge! We requested a compact car but it wasn't available so we ended up with this beast instead, and I can quite understand and support reducing the use of cars such as this in Paris and London. Even driving around the campsite at 10km/h it felt unsafe mixing such a big car with small kids running and riding around.
On the driveway a Welsh holiday home sits two Volvo XC90s (ours and some friends) and this holiday alone they’ve carried six people (seven seats), a two-man kayak, a MTB, an Ikea haul, furniture for the British Heart Foundation, plus a load to the recycling centre (items the council won’t touch). Try managing all that in a compact hatchback. SUVs aren’t always lifestyle statements — sometimes they’re lifelines.
I understand the concerns about SUVs in dense cities, and yes, in Paris a compact EV might make more sense than a hulking hybrid. But context matters. In rural Wales, with potholes big enough to swallow a front wheel, seven seats filled, and a boot stacked high, a small runabout just wouldn’t cut it. The Volvo doesn’t just take kids to school, it carries half of Ikea and still has suspension left for the journey home.
That’s the point really: freedom of choice. An SUV in Lambeth may look like indulgence; in the hills it’s necessity. The real solution isn’t to ban a type of car, but to build better infrastructure for all modes of transport — safer cycle lanes, reliable charging, and roads that don’t rattle your fillings out. Cities can encourage compacts and EVs; the countryside still needs workhorses. And very few of us can afford an EV for the city and SUV for the occasional trip, our cars are often purchased for the family holiday or the big outing!
SUVs might not be perfect, but sometimes they’re the only thing standing between you and an axle-snapping crater on a Welsh B-road. Wish I could post an image of the local road - it has more potholes than road!
You make excellent points about practical needs, and I completely understand the challenges of rural life - those Welsh potholes sound genuinely terrifying! You're absolutely right that context matters enormously.
I think we're actually in agreement on the core issue: it's about appropriate vehicles for appropriate places. Your Volvo XC90 makes perfect sense for rural Wales with seven people, kayaks, and crater-sized potholes. The challenge is when that same vehicle ends up in central London or Paris, where over 60% of households in my area don't even own a car.
The concern isn't really about banning SUVs outright, but recognising their impact in dense urban areas. When I'm cycling in London, it's the size and height of these vehicles that creates genuine fear - not just for me, but particularly for children and less confident cyclists. As the blog mentioned, safety concerns are now the biggest barrier to cycling, and vehicle size plays a big role in that perception.
Your point about infrastructure is spot-on though. Rather than fighting over vehicle types, we need:
- Proper cycle infrastructure that feels safe regardless of what's on the road
- Reliable charging networks (our French experience was frustrating!)
- Better road maintenance everywhere
- Recognition that one size doesn't fit all locations
The irony is that better cycling infrastructure in cities would actually help drivers like you too - fewer cars competing for road space when you do need to bring the Volvo to town for that Ikea run!
Thanks for the thoughtful response - it's exactly these nuanced discussions that help us find better solutions.
I really appreciate your thoughtful reply — and you’re right, we actually agree on far more than we disagree. Context is everything, and I fully accept that large vehicles in dense cities create real issues for cyclists and pedestrians. Better, safer infrastructure would go a long way towards fixing that, as you say.
Where I start to struggle is with how Lambeth (and some campaign groups) are framing the “solution.” In my opinion, Lambeth often seem more interested in revenue than in genuine problem-solving. Parking permits, for example, are already around £250 for a small EV but close to £900 for a diesel. They’ve even floated the idea of an SUV tax. The problem is: what actually counts as an SUV? Is it weight (over 1600kg)? Height off the ground? Seven seats? AWD? Ban one category and something else takes its place. And the super-rich will continue to drive what they like regardless — they’ll just pay the extra tax. Who does that really benefit? Cyclists, not really. The council’s deficit, most likely.
There’s also the issue of unintended consequences. We looked at replacing one of our Volvos with a company car — a fully electric Audi Q8. Great on paper: no emissions, no diesel, just clean(er) transport. But it weighs 2.5 tonnes. Under the current rhetoric, that’s exactly the sort of “SUV” that could be penalised. Lock yourself into a four-year EV contract today and you may find yourself stuck with a vehicle the council is trying to tax tomorrow. That doesn’t feel like progress.
Add to that Lambeth closing the one car park it owned in Brixton (unlike Berlin, which has actually made it easier for drivers to park quickly and get off the road), or road schemes like the one on Streatham Hill/Brixton Hill which — I’m afraid to say — may well make things more dangerous, not safer. TfL and Lambeth haven’t engaged on constructive alternatives, and the proposed cycle lanes are so poorly thought out I’d expect accident rates to rise, not fall.
So yes, let’s have the conversation about safety and vehicle choice. But let’s do it properly. London doesn’t need piecemeal bans or punitive taxes that catch out ordinary people and do little to improve cycling safety. London needs a proper transport plan: safe cycle infrastructure, reliable public transport, smart parking provision, and clarity about what we’re actually trying to achieve. Otherwise, we risk making things worse for everyone — drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.
My 17-year-old had his first driving lesson yesterday in the driving school's VW Golf. It's a petrol Euro6AP, standard 4-door hatchback. It has a revenue weight of 1800kg. How does this work with the Paris/Lambeth parking tax of anything over 1600kg with an ICE or Hybrid engine?
You make a good point that even cars we traditionally think of as being "small family cars" like the VW Golf have grown massively, now tipping the scales at nearly 2 tonnes.
Fortunately there are still plenty of small lightweight cars available, which have grown in popularity since the tax and parking changes in France.
Why has the humble VW Golf become heavier? My son, who is learning to drive, mentioned that the schools VW has Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), which detects vehicles and vulnerable road users, slowing the car automatically. Am not sure this is a good way to learn, but as the technology is adopted by the majority of car manufacturers, our roads will become safer, (maybe).
Mk2 Golf (1983–1992)
• Strong body and safety shell, but basic by today’s standards
• No airbags
• No seatbelt pretensioners
• Basic hydraulic brake assist (HBA)
• Automatic hazard light activation under emergency braking
• Isofix child seat fixings in the rear (later Mk2 models)
Latest Models (e.g. Mk8, 2020–present)
• Strong safety shell and advanced crumple zones
• Multiple airbags (up to nine, incl. driver’s knee and side-impact)
• Three-point seatbelts for all rear seats
• Isofix child seat fixings standard
• Seatbelt reminders and automatic door locking
• Recognised for safety in Euro NCAP and by the IIHS (2022)
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS):
• Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) – detects vehicles and vulnerable road users
• Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) – maintains safe distance and speed
• Lane Keeping Assistance – corrects drifting
• Driver Fatigue Detection – alerts for drowsiness
• Driver-set Speed Limiter – caps maximum speed
• Sophisticated lighting systems (e.g. adaptive LED headlights)
In 1995 I owned a four year old Renault 5. It was a light a nibble car, but I noticed that when I jacked it up to change a wheel I couldn't close the drivers door. The structural frame of the car would flex so much the doors would no longer shut when the car was jack up. I replaced it with a VW Golf Mk2. I loved it, much more reliable, solid and comfortable. Sadly, I had a serious collision with a massive farm tractor pulling 10 tonnes of rock on a muddy road covered in autum leaves. The accident would have been much worse had I been driving the Renault.
Recently there have been reports of car accidents where the drivers seat have sheared off of its mounts, injuring or killing the driver. I am not going to name the manufacturer, but it isn't VW (or Renault), but reminds us that cars need to keep pedestrians and vulnerable road users safe (AEB) in built up environments and occupants safe when traveling at speed, whether a country lane or motorway (strong safety shell, crumple zone, multiple airbags, three-point seatbelts in all seats, Isofix, AEB, etc.
Will taxing the size or the weight of a car solve the problem?
I think you make another good point that almost all the safety features seek to protect the inhabitants - that's the easiest sell for car manufacturers to be able to demand higher costs, without any consideration for externalised increases in risk. You also forgot to mention infotainment systems, air conditioning, automatic boot openers, dashboards that look like iPads, etc. And if the primary concern is cost, the Large Vehicle Levy is substantially less than the average extra trim options that are purchased when new cars are bought.
There are lots of lightweight cars that meet the latest safety requirements. A quick ChatGPT search reveals the following:
City Cars & Superminis (800-1000kg)
Peugeot 108: 840kg
Toyota Aygo: 840-865kg
Citroën C1: 855kg
Mitsubishi Mirage: 845kg
Volkswagen Up!: 851-995kg (GTI), 1185kg (electric)
Renault Twingo: 865-1000kg
Smart Forfour: 900kg
Hyundai i10: 921kg
Toyota Aygo X: 940kg
Suzuki Swift: 940-1005kg (varies by trim)
Peugeot 208: 980kg (petrol)
Dacia Sandero: 1100kg
Lightweight Cars (1000-1500kg)
Mazda MX-5: 975-1100kg
Fiat 500: 900-1000kg (varies by model)
MINI Cooper: 1200kg
Hyundai Kona (petrol): 1352kg
Ford Focus Active: approx. 1400kg
Vauxhall Astra Sports Tourer: approx. 1400kg
Seat Ateca 1.5 TSI: approx. 1450kg
Skoda Kamiq: approx. 1300kg
Volkswagen Polo: approx. 1100kg
Ford Fiesta: approx. 1100kg (now discontinued but may still be available)
SEAT Ibiza: approx. 1100kg
Honda Jazz: approx. 1100kg
Nissan Versa/Note: approx. 1100kg
Renault Clio: approx. 1200kg
Citroën C3: approx. 1100kg
Vauxhall Corsa: approx. 1200kg
Peugeot e-208: 1455kg (electric)
Interesting article which explores some of the challenges vehicle owners find. It appears that you hired a CUPRA Formentor which weigh in 1.43 kg and 1.64 kg. A driver of one of these Hybrids in Paris (and maybe in London if certain action groups have their way), will be paying more to park; and its not a very big car but still an SUV.
Indeed - the car was huge! We requested a compact car but it wasn't available so we ended up with this beast instead, and I can quite understand and support reducing the use of cars such as this in Paris and London. Even driving around the campsite at 10km/h it felt unsafe mixing such a big car with small kids running and riding around.
On the driveway a Welsh holiday home sits two Volvo XC90s (ours and some friends) and this holiday alone they’ve carried six people (seven seats), a two-man kayak, a MTB, an Ikea haul, furniture for the British Heart Foundation, plus a load to the recycling centre (items the council won’t touch). Try managing all that in a compact hatchback. SUVs aren’t always lifestyle statements — sometimes they’re lifelines.
I understand the concerns about SUVs in dense cities, and yes, in Paris a compact EV might make more sense than a hulking hybrid. But context matters. In rural Wales, with potholes big enough to swallow a front wheel, seven seats filled, and a boot stacked high, a small runabout just wouldn’t cut it. The Volvo doesn’t just take kids to school, it carries half of Ikea and still has suspension left for the journey home.
That’s the point really: freedom of choice. An SUV in Lambeth may look like indulgence; in the hills it’s necessity. The real solution isn’t to ban a type of car, but to build better infrastructure for all modes of transport — safer cycle lanes, reliable charging, and roads that don’t rattle your fillings out. Cities can encourage compacts and EVs; the countryside still needs workhorses. And very few of us can afford an EV for the city and SUV for the occasional trip, our cars are often purchased for the family holiday or the big outing!
SUVs might not be perfect, but sometimes they’re the only thing standing between you and an axle-snapping crater on a Welsh B-road. Wish I could post an image of the local road - it has more potholes than road!
You make excellent points about practical needs, and I completely understand the challenges of rural life - those Welsh potholes sound genuinely terrifying! You're absolutely right that context matters enormously.
I think we're actually in agreement on the core issue: it's about appropriate vehicles for appropriate places. Your Volvo XC90 makes perfect sense for rural Wales with seven people, kayaks, and crater-sized potholes. The challenge is when that same vehicle ends up in central London or Paris, where over 60% of households in my area don't even own a car.
The concern isn't really about banning SUVs outright, but recognising their impact in dense urban areas. When I'm cycling in London, it's the size and height of these vehicles that creates genuine fear - not just for me, but particularly for children and less confident cyclists. As the blog mentioned, safety concerns are now the biggest barrier to cycling, and vehicle size plays a big role in that perception.
Your point about infrastructure is spot-on though. Rather than fighting over vehicle types, we need:
- Proper cycle infrastructure that feels safe regardless of what's on the road
- Reliable charging networks (our French experience was frustrating!)
- Better road maintenance everywhere
- Recognition that one size doesn't fit all locations
The irony is that better cycling infrastructure in cities would actually help drivers like you too - fewer cars competing for road space when you do need to bring the Volvo to town for that Ikea run!
Thanks for the thoughtful response - it's exactly these nuanced discussions that help us find better solutions.
I really appreciate your thoughtful reply — and you’re right, we actually agree on far more than we disagree. Context is everything, and I fully accept that large vehicles in dense cities create real issues for cyclists and pedestrians. Better, safer infrastructure would go a long way towards fixing that, as you say.
Where I start to struggle is with how Lambeth (and some campaign groups) are framing the “solution.” In my opinion, Lambeth often seem more interested in revenue than in genuine problem-solving. Parking permits, for example, are already around £250 for a small EV but close to £900 for a diesel. They’ve even floated the idea of an SUV tax. The problem is: what actually counts as an SUV? Is it weight (over 1600kg)? Height off the ground? Seven seats? AWD? Ban one category and something else takes its place. And the super-rich will continue to drive what they like regardless — they’ll just pay the extra tax. Who does that really benefit? Cyclists, not really. The council’s deficit, most likely.
There’s also the issue of unintended consequences. We looked at replacing one of our Volvos with a company car — a fully electric Audi Q8. Great on paper: no emissions, no diesel, just clean(er) transport. But it weighs 2.5 tonnes. Under the current rhetoric, that’s exactly the sort of “SUV” that could be penalised. Lock yourself into a four-year EV contract today and you may find yourself stuck with a vehicle the council is trying to tax tomorrow. That doesn’t feel like progress.
Add to that Lambeth closing the one car park it owned in Brixton (unlike Berlin, which has actually made it easier for drivers to park quickly and get off the road), or road schemes like the one on Streatham Hill/Brixton Hill which — I’m afraid to say — may well make things more dangerous, not safer. TfL and Lambeth haven’t engaged on constructive alternatives, and the proposed cycle lanes are so poorly thought out I’d expect accident rates to rise, not fall.
So yes, let’s have the conversation about safety and vehicle choice. But let’s do it properly. London doesn’t need piecemeal bans or punitive taxes that catch out ordinary people and do little to improve cycling safety. London needs a proper transport plan: safe cycle infrastructure, reliable public transport, smart parking provision, and clarity about what we’re actually trying to achieve. Otherwise, we risk making things worse for everyone — drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.
My 17-year-old had his first driving lesson yesterday in the driving school's VW Golf. It's a petrol Euro6AP, standard 4-door hatchback. It has a revenue weight of 1800kg. How does this work with the Paris/Lambeth parking tax of anything over 1600kg with an ICE or Hybrid engine?
You make a good point that even cars we traditionally think of as being "small family cars" like the VW Golf have grown massively, now tipping the scales at nearly 2 tonnes.
Fortunately there are still plenty of small lightweight cars available, which have grown in popularity since the tax and parking changes in France.