- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
SUV (public domain via Flickr)SUVs 'eight times more dangerous' to kids walking or cycling than smaller cars are
A recent study from the US has found that children are eight times more likely to be killed in a collision involving an SUV or pick-up truck than they are in a crash in which a standard passenger car is involved.
Published in the Journal of Safety Research, the study comes at a time when such vehicles are getting increasingly large, and as SUVs make up an increasingly large proportion of new cars sold especially in affluent urban areas.
Many are bough by parents, with SUVs being seen – and widely promoted – as the perfect vehicle for families with children, but researchers from the University of Illinois in Springfield have established that they are posing an increasing danger to kids, or at least those on the outside of the vehicle.
Co-authors Micky Edwards and Daniel Leonard analysed collision and hospitals admission data in Illinois from 2016-19 for the study, which was funded by the funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Illinois Department of Public Health.
They cross-analysed the types of vehicles involved in crashes in which the victim was a pedestrian or cyclist against the outcome for the patient, with one of their chief discoveries being that SUVs were the type of car that led to the most serious injuries, as well as deaths, and in particular when a child was involved.
For example, in 62 per cent of collisions with a child on foot or on a bike, a passenger car was involved, and 19 per cent of fatalities happened following such a crash; SUVs by contrast were involved in much fewer collisions – 16.9 per cent – but were the vehicle involved in fully 40 per cent of the fatal ones.
The co-authors said that the study underlined “the high cost of large motor vehicles on pedestrian and pedal cyclist injury severity, fatalities, and hospital charges,” adding that “once more, the most vulnerable among us seem to bear the greatest burden.”
Factors behind the greater risk that SUVs present to children in particular include their size – it is not uncommon to see pictures on social media of children or even adults dwarfed by an SUV they are standing next to, and such photos also serve to underline another issue, namely the highly restricted visibility such vehicles typically afford compared to smaller cars.
Their sheer size and weight is of course another factor affecting the severity of crashes involving SUVs and vulnerable road users.
> Tyre Extinguishers target SUVs on home turf of the ‘Chelsea Tractor’
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 1 sec ago
'What they are trying to do is make a Holland of us. It’s one of those woke agenda schemes.”. LOL 😂
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 6 min 42 sec ago
They still have all those brexit benefits they can brag about.
- timmyotool 57 min 12 sec ago
The only gilet I'd buy would be the ultra packable type, and I've not seen anything lighter (sub 40g) than the sportful ultralight. That's now...
- marmotte27 2 hours 32 min ago
Don't forget, each of these places is a life hazard.
- VeloUSA 5 hours 8 min ago
It seems what you're searching for is a USB Micro to USB Type-C.
- Owd Big 'Ead 7 hours 11 min ago
Shetland Islanders must be a right bunch of Jessie's these days. The total population of the islands is less than 23,000 and Lerwick where the...
- ajuk.uk@gmail.com 7 hours 26 min ago
The same author seems to show something that looks like a shared space in his peice about the 85th percentile speed. However rather than an fully...
- imajez 9 hours 30 min ago
It should be noted that socialism doesn't prevent folk from starting or running their own succesful busineses. It's about making sure no-one get...
- ktache 10 hours 22 min ago
London does seem to exist, making it REAL, and also seems to be part of the WORLD, it is not a figment of someone's imagination, so by being there,...
Add new comment
34 comments
There is also regulation driving this.
If you need a 6 seater car (eg kids plus granny lives with you), it's SUV or nothing at present afaics.
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/guides/best-7-seater-cars/
From the article you quote:
"You can buy 7 seater cars in all shapes and sizes, from commodious crossover estates to luxurious SUVs."
There are MPVs still, and small crossover vans.
BMW X5s - Increasingly rare these days but I absolutely loathe them following my probably nearest death experience on 2 wheels. Combined closing speed of somewhere north of 100mph as Mr X5 driver decided to overtake a line of traffic forcing me into the tree debris strewn gutter of a fast downhill.
But for consistent twattery in a motor vehicle, 4 rings on the grill badge, a Q in the model number and grey in colour.
Grey has seemingly overtaken white as the choice for the more "impatient" driver.
As we all know, should be hi viz, of course...
In the 1970s, I had a British Leyland poster of a highly modified Mini on my wall (I'm not even sure if the Metro itself was a thing then but the front end does seem to have been influenced by the project) - found it on eBay (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/293942587154).
Here is a link to some other ideas: https://www.aronline.co.uk/concepts-and-prototypes/bl-safety-research-ve...
It was a diagram of how the Min icould be modified to improve pedestrian safety in an impact. It had a number of ideas such as raised bonnet so the victim didn't hit their head on the engine block, a reshaped front end to scoop the victim onto the bonnet rather than chopping them in half by lowering the point of impact, and a frame built around the bonnet that would pop up to keep the victim on the bonnet rather than allowing them to fall back in front of the car (see SRV5 in the above link - originally on a Morris 1100!).
So nearly 50 years ago, car makers were coming up with ideas. I reckon I see a few examples - I think A Class Mercs have a raised bonnet line above what is required for the gubbins under the bonnet, and of course they banned bullbars (though you do still occasionally see new vehicles fitted with them as accessories).
However, it seems many new super-4x4 offroad vehicles have very pedestrian unfriendly designs, definitely designed for resisting damage in off-roading excursions (which they never see) rather than considering pedestrian safety. If only there were an international governmental organisation that could enforce standards in the motor industry that we had influence over.
Except that fifty years ago, mainstream media opinion wasn't painting pedestrians and cyclists as losers and road lice, just as folks getting about. Things aren't the same today...
It's probable that a high proportion of the large SUVs that they're referring to in the US study simply aren't common in the UK - think Cadillac Escalade, GM Suburban etc. The biggest selling motor vehicle in the USA is still the Ford F150 light truck, followed by the Chevrolet Silverado and the RAM 1500, and the SUV derivatives of those light trucks are also very common. The SUV used to illustrate this story is about half the size of a vehicle like the Escalade.
They don't need to be that big to pose a massively increased risk to children. If it's big enough that the kid's head or shoulders are at the height of the grill then it's like being run over by a brick wall. None of the impact absorbtion tricks that well designed cars bring to the equation will apply. Look at a modern Range Rover and imagine what a schoolkid will look like bouncing off the front of it.
Those massive american SUVs will do the same thing to a full grown adult basketball player, but that wasn't the point.
This is probably due to several factors, amongst which will be risk compensation; drive a massive, safe for the occupants vehicle and you're going to take that little bit less care. Maybe if all SUVs had seat belts and air bags removed and the legendary 14" rusty bayonet in the middle of the steering wheel, things might change. It really is time we looked at road safety from the perspective of everyone, not just those in the car.
Reminds me of the woman who was involved in a crash driving an SUV where the occupants of the ordinary car died; here response was to buy a bigger SUV.
'; here response . . .'?
Damn, where's a proof-reader when you need on?
Look, my proof reading rates really are very low.
"Many are bough by parents....."
Not sure what a tree branch has to do with the story.
Look, my proof-reading rates really are very low.
There is a massive SUV that is driven to the gates of our local primary school every morning and afternoon, to drop off Little Miss Precious Who Can't Possibly Walk Half A Mile. The bonnet is so high that pretty much any of the pupils under the age of about 9 could be stood right in front of the car, and be totally invisible to the driver. It's a fatality waiting to happen.
I recall a survey (in the US but holds good for here I'm sure) a couple of years back in which parents were asked if they would be prepared to trade off a 50% improvement in safety for their children in their vehicle if it meant the vehicle was 50% more dangerous for other children either on the street or in other vehicles, IIRC over 80% said yes. People are generally pretty selfish and doubly so when their offspring are concerned, that's why civilisation requires laws and regulations, something sadly missing from vehicle regulation at present.
And enforcement. If I were wtjs then the usual photo would be attached. We have reams of Construction & Use regs, some of which is more use than the rest, but if there's no enforcement, it's useless.
SUVs are about individualisation, isolation, fear of others and supposed protection from them... all the sh*t that capitalism seeks to instil into us to then better sell us stuff like these cars as a remedy.
Like all the rest of the capitalist sh*t they're just the last pinnacle of an immense mountain of absurdities.
I wonder why SUVs are involved in fewer collisions?
Is this a trick question?
There are fewer of them ? The distribution of them is skewed to less dense population areas?
I'd guess that the figures were adjusted for the relative numbers, as otherwise the comparison doesn't make much sense. It'd make the death figures even worse if their not adjusted as well.
All I can see is the abstract which includes
"SUVs struck 14.7% of the pedestrians and pedalcyclists investigated here, but were involved in 25.4% of the fatalities. "
which suggests no weighting.
(a number of your comments require careful reading to get the subtle point which is why I asked if it were a trick question !)
Yeah, it's not immediately clear from the summary and I didn't look further.
(I like to keep people guessing and then when I post something dumb, it looks like a joke)
May I suggest that you go for a ride in the Cobham/Oxshot/Bookham/Esher area - so many Chelsea tractors, it's unreal
Why, has that area been transported to Illinois ?
I think probably because there are fewer of them on the roads; although they now account for nearly half of all new vehicle sales in the USA they haven't been around that long, from memory they only account for about 20% of the total vehicles on the road there. I would guess as well (though pure supposition) that SUVs tend to be bought by rather safer demographics, i.e. middle-aged people with families?
Let's be honest it's a pretty pants summary by roadcc of a pretty pants summary.
In fact taking it at face value it could be argued that SUV's are safer overall because they are involved in less accidents!
They might be safer overall because most road crashes involve cars because they're the dominant life form there (flipping themselves over, driving into immobile things or hitting each other). Without a shred of evidence I'll swallow the manufacturer's hints that they're safer than other cars (bigger is better, right?). So therefore as long as SUV drivers are not disproportionately driving into inanimate objects and on average SUVs don't have far fewer occupants than other cars, SUVs for safety!
I have seen some studies saying that they're not so good for vulnerable road users when they hit them. That doesn't happen much compared to single car / vehicle-on-vehicle crashes so again unless SUV drivers are hunting down vulnerable road users more than the average car driver those can be ignored too.
Hoorah for the SUV! Never mind the externalities, where do I get one? Just wait until the ads pop up on road.cc I guess?
Don't know what the current statistics say, but about 20(?) years ago I saw some figures suggesting passengers in SUV-style vehicles were slightly *more* likely to be seriously injured if the vehicle was in a collision with another vehicle or a static object. The suggested reasons were that SUV drivers, believing themselves safe, drove faster & less carefully, plus the extra weight of SUVs & the lack of large crumple zones in their design, meant passengers experienced greater forces in an impact.
Much easier to roll too, higher centre of gravity, and because they are bigger and heavier the pillars have to be more substantial, causing less all round vision.
Saw a Land Rover towing a trailer when I went out for an evening ride, narrowish country lane, coming the other way. They are not that wide, the older ones.
Pages