- 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
Modern SUV with a large front-end (Photo by Tanner Boriack on Unsplash)SUVs more dangerous to cyclists than other cars, study suggests
A recent study from the US has found that SUVs are causing more cyclist injuries, with crashes with SUVs resulting in 55 per cent more trauma and 63 per cent more head injuries than crashes with cars, owing to taller front-end designs.
Research from Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an independent and non-profit American organisation has revealed that SUVs pose a far greater danger to cyclists on road than other cars, and their front ends are largely to blame.
The study looked at not only the rate and severity of injuries to cyclists caused by cars and SUVs, but also the way that the damage was inflicted upon the victims.
Samuel Monfort and Becky Mueller, IIHS statisticians and lead authors of the study, looked at 71 bicycle crashes in Michigan, compiled by the International Center for Automotive Medicine’s Pedestrian Consortium. All involved cyclists over the age of 15, and a single car or SUV. And according to his analysis, there was a clear and obvious pattern with the crashes.
The tall front end of SUVs can strike bicyclists higher on their bodies above the centre of gravity. This results in cyclists getting knocked down, where they can be run over, rather than being thrown onto the hood of the vehicle, he said.
> SUVs 'eight times more dangerous' to kids walking or cycling than smaller cars are
For the study, Monfort used the Abbreviated Injury Scale — which assesses injuries by body region — and the Injury Severity Score, which combines injuries from different regions into an overall assessment.
It revealed that ground-impact injuries were twice as common on SUV crashes. Further, trauma to the body was 55 per cent higher for SUVs than for cars, as well as scores for head injuries inflicted by SUVs were 63 per cent higher.
Some 10 per cent of the SUV incidents examined also resulted in the bicyclist being run over, while none of the car crashes had a similar effect. Even if cyclists weren't run over by SUVs, the rate of ground-contact injuries following impacts with SUVs were more than twice as common compared with cars.
The data also suggested that SUVs tend to cause the most injuries with their wheels or undercarriage, after knocking cyclists to the ground. In the eight accidents with information about what part of the vehicle actually hurt the cyclist, the wheels or undercarriage of SUVs were responsible for 82 per cent of head injuries.
🆕 | Higher point of impact makes SUV crashes more dangerous for cyclists
Read more: https://t.co/BsvR2oaXdN pic.twitter.com/QDwIIOcaVJ
— IIHS (@IIHS_autosafety) April 13, 2023
According to a US Government agency, fatal bicycle accidents have increased by 33 per cent since 2010. In 2021, 966 cyclists were reported killed in crashes. This is up from 621 bicyclist fatalities in 2010, IIHS said.
> Tyre Extinguishers target SUVs on home turf of the ‘Chelsea Tractor’
Last year, we reported that another US study showed that SUVs are eight times more dangerous to kids walking or cycling than smaller cars are. It also found that although SUVs are involved in much fewer crashes than standard cars, they are twice as fatal.
Previous research from IIHS has also shown that SUVs are markedly fatal to pedestrians as well, with fatal collisions holding a probability of 30 per cent, as opposed to 23 per cent for cars, when travelling at speeds of 20-39mph. However, at speeds greater than 40mph, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian, compared with 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars.
The IIHS argued that the growing popularity of SUVS is to blame for the rising number of injuries and fatalities, and said that there needs to be additional research into more protective front ends.
“We found that SUVs injured bicyclists they struck more severely than cars did, even after controlling for pre-impact speed, time of day, location of the crash, and bicyclist age and sex,” the report concludes. “The pattern of results suggests that the size and shape of SUV front ends are responsible for the differences in bicyclist injury outcomes, which is consistent with our past findings on pedestrian crash outcomes.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 0 sec ago
But it does alert you to incompetent and dgaf drivers giving you 2-3 seconds to escape being a KSI.
- lonpfrb 17 min 20 sec ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 43 min 19 sec ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 1 hour 29 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 57 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 38 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 3 hours 17 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 4 hours 14 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 30 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
56 comments
They definitely need to be flightless
It's not so much the size of the vehicle that's the danger; it's the size of the ego behind the wheel.
If only there were an effective deterrent to combat the purchase of these unnecessary wankpanzers...
EXTINGUISHERS.
ARE YOU READY?!!
HF Verwoed would be proud of you.
Well there's a suprise, not.
Remember when these used to be called four wheel drives or 4WD? But then they became just for appearances sake, for the size and the look and the alleged safety, and had to be called something else because most of them didn't even have four wheel drive any more? And then we adopted the 'merican "SUV".
Be glad we haven't started using "Ute" for those dreadful halfcab things.
Socially Unnaceptable Vehicle
Pope may be a Catholic, study suggests
What is behind the massive increase in the number of pick up trucks in the UK? They look very American to me. I always think of roofers and builders using vans but it looks like these giant pick ups are becoming favoured.
One of the big reasons is a daft tax loophole whereby anyone who owns a business that could conceivably use a pickup such as a Ford Ranger (most trades, basically) can claim it's for work and get tax relief on it. That's why there are so many models available now with all the luxuries of a top-of-the-range SUV in the cab; as long as it's got an open flatbed it passes (AFAIK, not a tax lawyer, obviously). It's common to see builders and labourers unloading all their gear from a tatty old Transit (which is much more practical for the task) and then the boss of the firm to turn up in an absolutely gleaming Ranger or Mitsubishi Warrior that has clearly never had more of a load in the back than his golf clubs. In London it's quite instructive to count how many of these giant pickups one sees before one sees one with a proper working load on the back; generally it's about one in every eight.
Yes - not sure about the UK but It was certainly the case in the US. These things are basically a massive dodge - or even scam - on everybody by the automotive industry. They're not even well-suited for their ostensible purposes - neither especially useful for whatever "sports" is nor as much "utility" for eg. tradespeople as existing vehicles.
It would be "just another daft fad" *except* these things are more dangerous to everyone (including occupants), less efficient (more polluting) and take up even more precious street space.
For the full rant see eg. Notjustbikes video.
This is how bonkers they are
" These are the vehicles my coworkers use to commute to our job at a bank… "
Well carrying all that cash around, you need a semi-truck with an open section at back so you can just toss it in and so it doesn't get too hot and melt. And you need a big tall cab for protection from really short bandits.
That is absolutely ridiculous, who on earth would turn up to work for a bank in a little blue car rather than than one of those obviously highly practical oversized vehicles? makes no sense! 🤔
Jus' askin' for trouble! How does he expect to be seen ?
( I did read the other day about an mx5 driver who had been hit by a cab pick up reverser who basically used this as a defence !)
A friend had her small sports car totalled by a reversing SUV driver who couldn't see it.
an example of this on Dashcam UK this week... https://youtu.be/4avIG6kFqls?t=580
The one after is hilarious.
They must have sent it in too...
My area has parking permits. Seems unfair these things pay the same rate when they take up so much more room.
That's interesting there's a tax incentive reason behind it. I saw the not just bikes video also mentions the exemption they have from minimum mpg laws in the USA (hopefully not applicable in the UK). Would it make sense for something like the VED to also include higher rates for more dangerous and heavier vehicles?
The tax benefits are threefold when purchased as a company vehicle:
1) Much lower benefit in kind rates for employees and employers than cars, which aren't linked to CO2 emissions.
2) Ability to recover VAT paid, unlike cars. In theory VAT recovery for a doublecab pick-up should be apportioned for private use, although how often that happens in practice I don't know.
3) 100% relief against corporation tax in the year of purchase, rather than 18% or 8% per year for a car.
There are some horrible ones on a route I go on ( no alternatives) - close passed Easter Sunday by a RAM, 3.5 T, 5.6 L (NFA by Essex police).
There is no reason for these on UK roads.
encountered a few on single track roads that are barely wide enough to fit them, and the driver always gives you the, your the problem look, not hey sorry I appreciate this tank of a car is completely unsuited to driving around these roads at crazy speeds, its how dare you intrude on my right to drive my tank about where I please.
would love to see some of them meet a tractor coming towards them.
But it is a good excuse for using primary on those roads, because unless you climb over the hedge out of their way, there is no way they can safely pass you
But it was their choice to buy the stupid vehicle...
That only works if they're not coming towards you...!
A road on my commute recently got changed to a 20 zone, with raised tables and speed bumps galore. It's slightly downhill, so I happily cruise along at 20. SUV drivers are the only ones who will smash their cars over the raised tables, in order to pointlessly overtake me, before then dropping down to 20 again and gaining nothing.
they actually keep to the speed limit
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-...
Very interesting article. Particularly hilighting the danger of larger, heavier vehicles to pedestrians.
NCAP ratings for third parties are of very little interest to the people who buy these road monsters. Much more interest in style and status with the excuse / justification of having to deal with the state of UK roads and "protection from all the other idiot drivers out there".
I think we are at least a little more protected in the UK and EU in terms of vehicles having to pass a slightly higher standard than the US with regard to pedestrian impact? I think this particularly applies to the light truck sector with pretty much carte blanche exemption from pedestrian protection requirements in the North American Market. Or at least I seem to recall that the (apparently designed to kill) Tesla cyber truck as an example would not have been allowed on UK or EU roads.
The main solution, however, is not to issue all pedestrians with plastic hats, hi viz and airbag body protection but to improve driver training and design urban environments in favour of active travel users thus reducing the number and severity of collisions in the first place.
Pages