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.”





















56 thoughts on “SUVs more dangerous to cyclists than other cars, study suggests”
Long-running mystery of bear
Long-running mystery of bear toilet habits solved.
But what about the Pope?
But what about the Pope?
Apparently as it turns out,
Apparently as it turns out, he’s not a Protestant.
Tonight we ask, the Devil: is
Tonight we ask, the Devil: is he all bad?
https://youtu.be/EWa3LyvFOdc
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Still kissing airports.
So I was in America recently
So I was in America recently and an American pointed to a SUV identical to her own, except slightly smaller and lower to the ground, and said she used to have that but “had to trade it for something less wimpy.”
I also looked at the US sites for various car manufacturers and found that anything remotely compact was missing, no Ford Focus and definitely no Fiesta or Ka
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Utterly beneath notice.
When I was there 12 years ago, the smallest car I could hire was 2.4l.
she should see the size of
she should see the size of the pick-up trucks we have here in the UK:
https://goo.gl/maps/ogALkieeAzMddV2b8
Beyond June this year you won
Beyond June this year you won’t be able to get a Fiesta in Europe either. According to the BBC, Ford are deleting them from their range, in order to focus (no pun intended!) on developing EVs.
Here in sunny Oz the 3-tonne truck has taken over from the home-grown “Falcodore” V8s, so amazingly the V8 has been replaced by something even more ludicrous and dangerous to everyone else. Same reason as in the UK; crazy tax laws!
tis true, Ford are focussing
tis true, Ford are focussing on only making EVs in the future, and the Fiesta is too small a car frame to convert, with the added weight of the batteries and concerns on range being a factor.
plus they dont sell many of them anymore apparently.
Awavey wrote:
Just like rim brake to disk brake wheels, only a full redesign is credible. Fiesta was designed for the legacy ICE and drive train. A real EV must be designed for electric drive close by or within the wheels and a floor plan for the battery. Anything else is just inefficient.
Following #wankpanzers on
Following #wankpanzers on twitter is a constant revelation.
https://twitter.com
https://twitter.com/Wankpanzer/status/1646936634611335168
“Every so often I question if I should be driving a #wankpanzer, so I ask someone to show me a sign“
Let’s not forget the effect
Let’s not forget the effect of SUV drivers…
ktache wrote:
What came first, the wankpanzer or the wankdriver? I’m inclined to think the latter, but the advent of the wankpanzer has certainly given them a far bigger canvas on which to express themselves.
Our only defence is anti-wank
Our only defence is anti-wank panzer bazookas.
Where do they fit in the hierarchy of road users?
As SUVs are obviously Gods
As SUVs are obviously Gods gift to humanity, the only way out is making helmets compulsory…
Oh, no hi Viz then ?
Oh, no hi Viz then ?
marmotte27 wrote:
Damn, beat me to it.
And helmets are guaranteed proof against HGVs: sorry SUVs.
What sport?
What sport?
What utility?
Looks like an entitled consumption of public space and unsustainable resources to me.
Are the users of these vehicles really unable to fit into the space designed for normal human beings?
Motor vehicle manufacturers must be held to account for unsustainable products like tobacco companies. Including labels to show the road danger (top speed X weight) kinetic energy since emissions haven’t had any effect (vehicle excise duty).
All these articles about
All these articles about keeping cyclists safe by using hi-viz, helmets, segregated cycle lanes are by and large missing the point. Cyclists are vulnerable and drivers are invulnerable: there is no balance of risk, so we need to change it so that drivers have an equal chance of being killed if they drive into a cyclist. Therefore, all cyclists should be legally allowed to carry a firearm: nothing excessive, not automatic weapons, just something like a decent size revolver or pistol.
Every time a driver cuts you up, you take a shot at them: ten points for a direct hit on them, eight points for a tyre, five for a rear light, and three for the bodywork. And if anyone asks, it was their fault for not wearing hi-viz or a helmet. Might require a training course as shooting from a bike could be tricky.
Hierarchy of road users, don’t you know. The new HC isn’t working, and the comprehensive review of road laws seems to be stuck in traffic somewhere, so time we took the law into our own hands: literally.
eburtthebike wrote:
The Ingram-10 is designed for close quarters battle so able to discharge it full magazine on automatic within a couple of seconds. The high rate of fire overcomes the normal effect of recoil on a hand held weapon..
Taking a responsible approach to transport of dangerous goods my bike should be labelled for explosive materials. Methane emissions are unpredictable but a public danger none the less. All road users beware!
Time for this one again then?
Time for this one again then? Or its judicial fall-out?
Of course the difference is that drivers didn’t mean to kill. Or at least it’s very hard to convince a jury the opposite, unless there’s a personal connection or it’s clearly “criminal enterprise” or “terrorism”.
We know wrong ‘uns when we see ’em.
But maybe you’re one of the few who might feel uneasy – isn’t it a personal choice someone made to drive? (Maybe something like Ashley Neal’s “the driver innocently killed…” gives you pause). Perhaps you’re pondering what if any responsibilities might go hand-in-hand with “rights”? But then there is the normalisation of driving. We can excuse people not treating the repetitive and mundane with great care. (“A thousand trips, and no incident…”) And then there’s the requirement to drive. The latter is a pressure commonly understood to be somewhere on the continuum from aspiration to social obligation. Or even the urgency of dealing with bleeding / starving to death when it has come to be that the nearest hospital / takeway is a good ten miles distant.
Anyway, on the advert – what I want to know is – if you see no tramp, does that make you the tramp?
If I were standing for
If I were standing for election I wouldn’t go around suggesting that people deserve to be shot for minor traffic infractions.
You’ve put enough information on here about where you live, which party you are standing for, etc to be easily traceable.
It would be a shame for a local cycling revolution to be curtailed before it even began.
I’ll just pick up on
I’ll just pick up on something here: risking cyclists lives with poor driving is not a minor traffic infraction – isn’t that the fundamental problem that many drivers don’t accept the risks they take on a daily basis with other people’s health and wellbeing?
(Not disagreeing with you choosing to pull eBurt on a post that you see as inappropriate even if in jest).
IanMSpencer wrote:
Just for the record I don’t see eburt’s post as tremendously inappropriate, but with local elections upcoming and with the displayed views of some on here (Martin, Nigel, etc) I just think it would be a shame for someone with whom I mostly agree (albeit with the exception of one subject that I will not bring up right now) to be hamstrung by some cretin with an axe to grind.
And yes, I certainly do think that inadvertently cutting up another road user (regardless of their vehicle or lack thereof) is a minor traffic infraction. Doing it purposefully, or actually causing a collision is another matter.
Quote:
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/
Very interesting article.
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.
A road on my commute recently
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
they actually keep to the speed limit
What is behind the massive
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.
bikes wrote:
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
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
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
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
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
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
A friend had her small sports car totalled by a reversing SUV driver who couldn’t see it.
eburtthebike wrote:
an example of this on Dashcam UK this week… https://youtu.be/4avIG6kFqls?t=580
The one after is hilarious.
The one after is hilarious.
They must have sent it in too…
My area has parking permits.
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
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
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
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.
Awavey wrote:
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
That only works if they’re not coming towards you…!
Pope may be a Catholic, study
Pope may be a Catholic, study suggests
Remember when these used to
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
Be glad we haven’t started using “Ute” for those dreadful halfcab things.
Socially Unnaceptable Vehicle
Socially Unnaceptable Vehicle
Well there’s a suprise, not.
Well there’s a suprise, not.
If only there were an
If only there were an effective deterrent to combat the purchase of these unnecessary wankpanzers…
EXTINGUISHERS.
ARE YOU READY?!!
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
HF Verwoed would be proud of you.
It’s not so much the size of
It’s not so much the size of the vehicle that’s the danger; it’s the size of the ego behind the wheel.
They definitely need to be
They definitely need to be flightless