New large-scale analysis of more than 300,000 road collisions between 2017 and 2021 has detailed the extent to which heavier, larger vehicles are putting cyclists and pedestrians at an increased risk of suffering serious or fatal injuries in the case of a collision.
The research comes thanks to the Vias institute, formerly known as the Belgian Road Safety Institute, and saw the characteristics of vehicles involved in collisions analysed. Factors such as mass, height and age were noted alongside the severity of injuries sustained by the vehicle’s occupants, and those suffered by occupants of any other vehicle involved, or pedestrians and cyclists.
The height of a car’s bonnet was seen as one factor that can increase the risk of fatal injuries to vulnerable road users. A pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car whose bonnet is 90cm high was found to have a 30 per cent greater risk of fatal injuries than if they are hit by a vehicle whose bonnet is 10cm lower.
When the researchers looked at vehicle type there were also implications for cyclists, the risk of serious injury increasing by 90 per cent and the risk of fatal injuries increasing by almost 200 per cent when a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a pick-up vehicle.
“Two-speed road safety”
Vias concluded that the increase in heavy, tall and powerful cars on the roads meant “two-speed road safety”, whereby the risks to the larger vehicle’s occupants and other road users is drastically different.

“On the one hand, passengers in these more robust vehicles are increasingly safer; on the other, vulnerable users and occupants of smaller cars (lower mass and power) are increasingly at risk of serious or fatal injuries,” the study concludes, saying it is “essential” to slow down the increasing production of heavier cars.
“Of course, the increase in the mass of cars is partly explained by the massive presence of driving aids, but also by increased comfort, greater sound insulation and increasingly thick body pillars. This study clearly shows that it is essential to slow down this increase, to move towards a more homogeneous fleet and to better protect vulnerable users in the event of collision with cars,” Vias says.
Disparity in weight leading to disparity in risk was also seen when looking at collisions involving two cars. In the case of a crash between a 1,600kg car and a 1,300kg car, the risk of fatal injuries decreases by 50 per cent for the occupants of the heaviest car, while it increases by almost 80 per cent for the occupants of the lighter car.
The research around taller bonnets posing more danger to cyclists backs up another study published in April of this year. Research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in the United States, found that SUVs’ large front ends are more dangerous to cyclists than other cars.

The study found that crashes with SUVs resulted in 55 per cent more trauma and 63 per cent more head injuries than crashes with other cars, owing to taller front-end designs, the lead author suggesting that vehicles with taller front ends run down vulnerable road users, while other cars tend to vault collision victims over.






















81 thoughts on ““Increasingly at risk of fatal injuries”: Danger to cyclists posed by larger, heavier cars laid bare by new research”
In the same way that
In the same way that sometimes not wearing a helmet is used in court to attribute responsibility for their injuries to cyclists, and thus reduce compensation, I wonder if there is a case for saying that chosing to drive a SUV or pickup over a ‘normal’ car would be seen as increasing liability for those drivers?
This seems to have it right.
This seems to have it right.
AFAIK while “I had to drive” seems to be accepted, only Jeremy Clarkson and the salesmen (good band BTW) are saying that you have to drive some upscaled motor vehicle. Or one with “off-road” or “load carrying” features which are unnecessary for the vast majority of people*.
To improve road safety** we have to look at both personal responsibility / policing AND “human nature” / engineering. Yes – police driving. But don’t just give a pass to sell vehicles (or design roads) which increase danger compared to the standard.
* It’s not just “what people want” – it really is a scam. BTW the “off-road” and “load carrying” features of many of these vehicles are objectively poor designs if you actually need something for those purposes.
** Or probably more pertinantly having nicer places and more suitable, sustainable means of getting around them.
If you at the sentencing
If you at the sentencing guidelines for Causing serious injury by dangerous driving, the jail time you’d get for that would depend in part on the injuries caused to the victim. So driving a larger car does potentially leave you open to greater legal consequences.
Its not the size of the car,
Its not the size of the car, it’s the driver who is at fault. They just have a bigger weapon at their disposal. The truth of it is, more needs to be done to improve driving standards with harder punishments for anyone who breaks the law or causes death or serious injury to other road users.
Wholly the wrong conclusion
Wholly the wrong conclusion to draw.
Its explicitly saying the type of vehicle makes a difference. to put it more bluntly guns without safety catches will kill more people than guns with safety catches.
Its a manufacturer fail, not a driver fail.
Or if you want a car example. Its exactly the same reason why Bull bars are banned.
A good driver in a big
A good driver in a big vehicle is still a good driver. A bad driver in a small vehicle is still a bad driver. This is where the issue is. Remove bad drivers from the roads and the size of the vehicle becomes irrelevant
Off the back wrote:
Not really, because there are still all of the incidents where the non-driver is at fault: the child that runs out across the road when they see a friend without looking, the cyclist who misjudged the amount of time they had to turn, the pedestrian looking at their phone instead of the traffic…they are all more likely to be killed or seriously injured by the larger vehicle in the same circumstances, regardless of fault or driver ability, the size of the vehicle is still very much relevant.
Rendel Harris wrote:
That sounds like victim blaming to me, until we develop teleportation there will be a need for motorised vehicles on the road, if children have not been trained to use the road correctly they should be supervised by a responsible adult, if a cyclist misjudges the sharpness of a corner they don’t get a pass from the laws of physics and if you’re staring at your phone instead of where you’re going then eventually something is going to happen to you with or without motorists. The size of vehicle I drive is relevant to the maximum load I regularly carry with it, I can’t afford a second smaller vehicle for when I travel with smaller/lighter loads and I’m not sure the environment could stand it if such things were economically possible.
Backladder wrote:
I am sure you are responsible in your choice of vehicle and nobody, or hardly anybody, denies that some people need large vehicles. However, the size of some current vehicles has very little to do with their load carrying capacity and everything to do with ostentation. The Ford Ranger double cab, for example, has a load capacity of 1233 litres whereas the Renault Kangoo, which is much closer to an ordinary saloon in size and, crucially, front bumper height can take 2600 litres. Similarly people are driving around in enormous SUVs with one kid in the front and one in the back that could be fitted in a saloon just as comfortably. It’s not large vehicles per se that people object to but unnecessarily large vehicles driven as status symbols.
Off the back wrote:
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. And we’re never going to be rid of all bad drivers so long as humans are behind the wheel.
A good driver still makes
A good driver still makes mistakes.
Even the like of IAM obly claim to reduce collisions by 2/3 .
I’ve said for sometime that a
I’ve said for some time that a simple solution would be that, as a result of any prosecution for a driving offence, the courts should be able to put a limit on the size of car a driver can use. This would simply take the high risk drivers out of the high risk vehicles whilst not effecting their “right” to be able to drive.
I’m up for imposing some
I’m up for imposing some cruel and unusal punishments… (EDIT OK an actual C5 is kind of hanging, drawing and quartering – maybe you get a Reliant Robin for first offenses).
As you say in your other comment – driving is seen as a “good” for multiple reasons by pretty much everyone in politics (and indeed in general). Something we fundamentally “need more of” although we acknowledge it has some “side effects”. “Fuelling the economy” / “lifeblood of the city” etc…
I’d say the motor industry is as tightly coupled to the state as e.g. communications or healthcare industries. I think we could (just) hope for an adjustment of the balance here though.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Well, I’d like to give up the (e-)car altogether and would do if the ladywife wasn’t a bit wary. A C5, though? No. But ….
How about making all cars illegal except for items more like this:
https://aptera.us/
Myself, I’d reduce the size and environmental impact of personal transport even more. Electric bikes and trikes for the great majority with only those genuinely needing even an Aptera allowed one (but with the performance turned right down).
Even the e-bikes would only be for those unable to produce their own 250 watts.
Of course, I must be a-one o’ them Deep State nannies, making the infantile subjects behave themselves better for their own good. No freedumbs for you, you bad bairns, maiming, choking and killing your neighbours or even your friends returning with you after the Friday night grog-binge! 🙂
If it’s just for you and a +1
If it’s just for you and a +1 then perhaps a Fantom. Although possibly given your back-to the future aptera this is far too “classic” (old)?
More practically (and availably) an Armadillo might work. Not as classy, nor as social when used as a twosome but more practical for solo trips or carrying stuff.
What would you say more a
What would you say was a bigger risk? An experienced good law abiding driver in a BMW X5 or an inexperienced kid in their teens/early 20s in a souped up Golf GTi driving around like a lunitic?
The manufacturers will argue the bigger cars have a more elevated driving position making them safer since you can see more of the road over sitting a few inches above the tarmac. And these bigger more modern cars come with much more sophisticated anti-collision sensors. If driven by a competent driver they should be very safe. Stick a knobhead behind the wheel then they become dangerous. But so would any car.
Off the back wrote:
EDIT – well “young” is certainly a massive risk factor as the insurers agree. However choice of vehicle may not be as neutral as you suggest. For one – look at the people expensively finding out that their driving skills were not as ace as they thought once they’d reduced the margin for error with a performance vehicle.
Leaving aside there isn’t a knobhead test when buying a car* I believe there are actually some numbers on this. For the “SUV” / light truck class turns out it is actually harder to see in some directions out of the bigger higher vehicles. And they’re actually an elevated risk to their occupants also, not just those outside. And apparently they may be marketed towards worse drivers.
* Other than an assumption that more money means more success in life and that correlates with sensible OR that expensive things will get better treatment.
“They’re actually an elevated
EDIT
“They’re actually an elevated risk to their occupants also, not just those outside”
And you have solid evidence for this?
But if you want some research and not just baseless opinion here is something to read
https://advancedmotoring.co.uk/new-research-reveals-the-cars-involved-in-the-most-crashes-in-the-uk/
The Ranger Rover aside there seems to be a trend to smaller cars in crashes, and larger cars appear in fewer.
Off the back wrote:
Apologies – don’t have numbers for the last couple of years.
The main problem when they crash appears to be rollover – and to be fair that has been improved (because it was clearly bad) and some of the reports haven’t caught up with that. An example of that from this article (2019):
Now – that was reporting on an article which itself was citing 2003 US traffic collision data. Again: SUVs have been getting better (for their occupants) e.g. see paper here, 2008 and data here (light truck class).
As for those outside:
It was also discovered that they caused problems when in collision with normal cars – but again this is improving (I don’t know if that is perhaps in part because on average other vehicles have got higher?)
Worse for pedestrians studies e.g. here, 2022.
Worse for cyclists (2023 – summary here, it’s a small numbers study though).
Off the back wrote:
They don’t go into the detail of their methodology, just say where the data is from (STATS19 I think) – so I’m not 100% on who was injured. But we’ll go with that.
However – you are quite correct in you skepticism and saying they’re more dangerous to their occupants *now* is incorrect. Because of the poor record of SUV / light truck vehicles in the early days by the mid 2010s the numbers seem to show that they were safer for their occupants overall. I don’t think that was necessarily because they crashed less. But it seems that some of the safety issues for the occupants were fixed (possibly partly by making the roof pillars more chunky – not good for vision…)
The consensus (as the road.cc article study shows) is that they’re still bad news for those on the outside though. Aside from just taking up more space, being less fuel-efficient etc.
Off the back wrote:
Firstly, even taking the “research” at face value, I’m not convinced by your argument. There’s not just the Range Rover – the Defender is also in the list, alongside several other large MPV type vehicles. If you scroll down to the US list, you’ll see it is topped two whopping great vehicles – the Chevrolet Silverado and Ford F150.
More importantly, as “research” goes it’s pretty crap.
In the UK, the results are ordered by reported collisions per 100,000 registered vehicles of that make. However, this means that the extremes of the list are dominated by relatively uncommon vehicles, as small variations in the number of crashes leads to extremely large or low rates per 100,000. The Range Rover is the most common model that makes it into the top/bottom 20, with 118,484 licenced vehicles. That is actually a relatively rare car – using the same data (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vehicle-licensing-statistics-data-files), that wouldn’t even make it into the top 50 car models. The most common car in 2020 was the Ford Fiesta, with over 1,500,000 registered vehicles. I can’t find the source for the collision data (make/model doesn’t seem to be reported on any of the tables I have found here https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics) but it is almost certain that the vast majority of collisions will involve the far more common cars. Any kind of sensible analysis would consider this the “meat” of the data, rather than focusing solely on the extremes.
Another issue is that the number of licenced vehicles is used as a proxy for exposure, taking no account of different use patterns or mileage. A quick calculation on MOT data suggests this could explain the Prius’ position at the top of the list – the average Prius is driven approximately 17,000 miles per year, among the highest of any model (presumably as a result of the Prius’ popularity as a PHV). By contrast, the “safest” Grand Scenic is driven less than half than that per year on average (8,300 miles/year). The average 911 even less (<4,000miles/year). Using the number of licensed vehicles as a proxy for exposure doesn’t work when some of those vehicles spend a lot more of their time sat on driveways than others.
The US data is “analysed” in a completely different way (not taking into account model-specific exposure at all, and also only considering fatalities) – but there is zero discussion on how this could be expected to influence the results and the intepretation, so that is of course a massive red flag for anyone considering whether this “research” was carried out with any sort of rigour.
Drivers see less as they can
Drivers see less as they can’t see what is immediately in front of them.
With an increased frontage and greater height, the unfortunate ped is subjected to more injuries and of a more serious type due to the part of their body which hits the vehicle.
“It may not be the weight, but the really bad thing is the line of impact which is at the height of the hip or higher (and of the head with a child). With a normal car, the impact line is at the height of the knee or below, which means that the victim lands on the bonnet and gets lifted up over the windshield. Damage is there, for sure, but heals much better than when the victim is flattened at abdomen and chest, as with an UAV… “
But the consequences of said
But the consequences of said knobhead acting out his nobheadedness behind the wheel of a wankpanzer can only be worse than with say a Honda Jazz.
Is there also a chicken/egg issue: knobhead man/ knobhead car – which came first? I sometimes wonder.
Off the back wrote:
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I would would actually adminster the limitations based on engine size (or even bhp) NOT overall car size so we really don’t disagree. EVs do cause some problems with this as the acceleration on even a basic model is much more than anybody can justify on our roads.
Completely agree. Drivers
Completely agree. Drivers need to be treated like children when they show that they can’t be trusted as adults. If you are banned you should have to take an extended retest, have 6 points instead of 12 for a few years and be limited to vehicles under a certain power and size until you show that you aren’t still a selfish **** who doesn’t care about anyone but themselves.
That reduced threhold for 5
That reduced threhold for 5 years before a further ban is interesting.
All of us who drive are at
All of us who drive are at times bad drivers, perhaps those that deny it to themselves the worst!
Robert Hardy wrote:
My motorcycle instructor used to say that the best riders were the ones who didn’t think they were best, the ones who approach a bend and say to themselves you know what, I’m not the best at cornering in the world so I’d better wind it off a bit here…
The influx of pick-up trucks,
The influx of pick-up trucks, fuelled by tax incentives by them being classified as vans, is particularly worrying. Trucks such as the Ford Ranger have very high bonnets, which not only increase lethality in a collision, but also significantly reduce forward visibility for the driver.
There should be a way of
There should be a way of deescalating the size of vehicles. Too many people now think they need a large car to protect them from all the other large cars. Imagine being a cyclist …oh wait we don’t have to.
As I said below forcing bad drivers in to smaller cars would be a start. eg if you claim exceptional hardship in court because you need to get the kids to school you surely cannot claim that you need a Range Rover to do that.
The fundamental problem is that even laissez-faire government seem happy to go in to bat for the car industry, offering incentives and subsidies. In this day and age how many industries still have this type of relationship with government. This means that the car industry has far too much lobbying power and as a result a clear lack of impartiality of ministers.
I think forcing certain
I think forcing certain people out of large vehicles would be tricky. But you could either ban the vehicles from sale (or from certain areas) or introduce regulations limiting size/weight/bonnet height. Alternatively, you could tax the shit out of them.
In a plea for habitat
In a plea for habitat protection, Vets have confirmed that cases of colic and constipation among bears are “incredibly rare” if there is good access to large tracts of woodland where they can establish a territory.
Maybe the UK could embrace
Maybe the UK could embrace the French “voiture sans permis” idea and encourage more use of microcars. They probably do 99% of what 99% of drivers use their cars for. Nice and cheap, ULEZ compliant.
I’ve also heard them called “naughty boy” cars as it seems the French are much keener to hand down driving bans, which would also be no bad thing. No more arguments that you have to drive / exceptional hardship.
(plus I think the Citroen Ami is very cute)
whizzo wrote:
Warning! There’s a large small vehicle rabbithole looming!
You’re right, but “it’s more complicated”. Yes – cars are frequently single occupancy in use and overwhelmingly low occupancy.
However I think people cling to the “possible for uncommon uses”. So having the ability to occasionally cram 4+ people in. And – say half-a-dozen times per year – driving for more than an hour. And – perhaps once or twice – somehow stuffing in something bulky (a couple of bikes, a load of furniture).
That’s ignoring “displaying status” as well – which I suspect extends much further than the common stereotypes.
It’s just habit change – in many places you can rent cars or vans fairly easily. But habit change is often really difficult or expensive. Especially overcoming the idea of “yeah – I have to pay tons of money and mostly it’s parked, BUT once I’ve done that it’s there if I ever need to take 6 of us to the out-of-town hospital, carry several paintings in a rainstorm or move a sofa.”
As someone who doesn’t own a
As someone who doesn’t own a car and rents for occasional use at the weekend, the opening hours of car rental places are a serious limitation. Services like Zipcar can work well for shorter journeys, but for renting beyond a few hours they are prohibitively expensive.
I agree – UK car rental is by
I agree – UK car rental is by no means equivalent to owning. However if something is “normal” we accept the level of convenience and price – even if we grumble about it. That’s just “how it is” or “what you do” (like owning a car).
I’m lucky in that when I’ve needed to rent it’s been for a suitable length of time (days) and I’ve been reasonably near rental places with longer hours (city – with airport in cycleable distance).
Alternatively you could say I’ve chosen a life where I don’t drive much and thus have only thought about renting a car when circumstances made it relatively easy / not crazy expensive.
I suppose we just wait until the feedback loop with the market redirects our collective behaviour.
It is interesting how renting
It is interesting how renting a car inverts thinking on car use.
If I owned a car I would spend far more money overall, but driving would be at marginal cost. The incentive to not drive is therefore low. I could drive to a National Trust property (showing my age!) and it might cost me £10 in fuel.
However, when renting the cost is wholly incurred each time I drive, so the incentive to do so is much lower. Sure, I could still drive to a National Trust property but I don’t want to spend £100 to do so.
The last time I was at my
The last time I was at my local Ikea, there were a couple of rental vans in the car park. These could be rented and unlocked using an app. No idea about cost but thought it was a good idea.
A Homebase here in Edinburgh
A Homebase here in Edinburgh for a while had a cargo box trike you could use – did so once partly for the novelty. Worked for me because there was an adjacent cycle path which took me near my flat.
After a few months this disappeared. Probably wasn’t used often. IIRC I asked and someone said it had been damaged. Perhaps because no-one understood how to maintain it, and/or it was vandalised on a trip? Cargo bikes seem to attract attention – I’ve heard of a few places who started using these then gave up due to theft / damage.
And as someone who does own a
And as someone who does own a (quite old) car which gets very little use and which I feel I should be able to do without, the economics of renting don’t stack up. I’d love e.g. to hire an estate car for those few weeks a year when we take a load of stuff on holiday, and car club for the shorter trips – but when I did some rough calculations, it was more costly than keeping what I have.
quiff wrote:
I’m surprised by that, while I was awaiting repair of my car, I had to hire a car for the weekend to recover my daughter and her stuff from Uni at the other end of the country, I think it cost £60.
against annual insurance £500, servicing, £400, Car Tax £100, Mot £50, that’s quite a few hire weekends before considering any unexpected repairs that come up.
Was it one of these ?
Was it one of these ?
Last year my running costs
Last year my running costs were c. £1,120 (insurance £250, VED £170, and we had a heavy year of maintenance at ~£700).
When I looked (admittedly not exhaustively, and I’m sure better deals could be found) hiring an estate for our 2 week holiday was c.£1,000, and using a car club once a week for swimming lessons (the only other regular use our car gets) would have been c.£25 a week – so this occasional driver was already down before adding those occasional days out, tip trips etc.
No MOT then.
No MOT then.
Do you have to pay for fuel on top of the £25 ?
I included MOT in the £700.
I included MOT in the £700. No, fuel is included in the car club to be fair, but the fuel I would use on those trips is minimal – my last full tank lasted me 2 months!
Smaller cars will become more
Smaller cars will become more commonplace in a few years due to them being all some people can afford when sales of new ICE cars are banned, unless prices reduce significantly. The average small electric car is about the same as a large ICE family saloon.
Electric cars : the next
Electric cars : the next (final?) gasp for the failed policy of mass car ownership – but still retaining all the wretched features of ICE cars, except the tailpipe emissions and possibly noise.
The oil industry will fight the UK ICE ban with all that it has, and on the track record of the past 100 years will probably prevail.
Had the misfortune t osee one
Had the misfortune to see one of these* the other day in a rural area.
Absolutely no place whatsoever in UK roads for these wankpanzers.
* and no I don’t mean one of the tanks !
I got held up in traffic the
I got held up in traffic the other day. When I got to the front there was one of these things half sticking into the road. There was a guy sat in the passenger seat who caught my eye. I gave him a, in what I thought was in a banterous and light hearted tone of voice, “that’s f**king awful parking” as I cycled past. All I heard from behind was abuse.
Another way of limiting these beasts is by better parking control. ie if you can’t fit in the space then you can’t park there.
More and more don’t fit in
More and more don’t fit in parking bays
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/which-cars-are-too-large-for-parking-spaces-ageet8D07Xij
see also #wankpanzers on twitter
I know someone that took his
I know someone that took his large works van to an out of town retail park and got a ticket. I suspect that it was controlled by a private company who directly benefit from the fines. As we know if local authorities did it, it would just be another tax on the hard working motorist.
IanMK wrote:
Not sure if anyone has ever been fined, but Richmond council have a weight restriction of 1525kg in all of their public car parks…
https://www.richmond.gov.uk/services/parking/car_parks
Thats a bit stupid
Thats a bit stupid considering even a Tesla Model 3 weighs more than 1600kg.
Off the back wrote:
It probably wasn’t a stupid idea in the days when cars weren’t quite so big and heavy. It probably means a lot of modern cars are excluded from legal use of their car parks.
If the Daily Mail got wind of this, I’m sure we’ll see an anti-EV article noting all the car parks you can’t use if you buy an EV.
I regularly see one of these
I regularly see one of these on my commute – I suspect the owner lives in my village…
Ah, the Ford Thunder
Ah, the Ford Thunder Mutilator in special edition metallic murder yellow. A thing of true beauty.
At least it’s not in grey…
At least it’s not in grey…
Was passed by a BMW yesterday, had it’s rear lights on, maybe a feature of some DRLs, because without them it would have completely merged into the tarmac, so exact was the shade of grey…
Nice Pick up truck,
Nice Pick up truck,
just think how many bikes I could transport up to the Yorkshire Dales. And annoy the locals trying to live their daily lives.
Another one thread troll.
Another one thread troll.
If you bothered to pay any attention, you’d know what little space those things have.
Fortunately the US is an
Fortunately the US is an ocean away. The most sold car there is the Ford F-150 and it is just huge.
Nevertheless even in Europe electrification adds a few extra hundreds kg to cars, that have already got seriously fat during the early 2000 when EuroNCAP standards became important (for good) and today SUV trends may make them even heavier.
So what is the solution? It is simple for me, just add serious annual vehicle weight tax , with reasonable exempts for parents. Weight (and it’s correlated volume) kills more easily other road users, takes more space on the road and parking. need more energy thus having greater carbon footprint and degrades local air quality if not electric. Today A-segment cars can have fantastic ride quality, 5 stars at crash tests and big guys like me can fit in them. If you add a good rooftop cargo carrier you can have some great luggage space too.
I see no practical reason for tiny ladies driving huge SUVs, whereas they could be do their errands in VW E-Up.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to see if Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings agree. This does not of course account for trends in driving ‘style’ linked to particular vehicle types.
cyclisto wrote:
I see no practical reason for parents driving huge SUVs, whereas their offspring could easily fit in a VW E-Up.
FTFY
if you are carrying a delicate cargo, drive more carefully!
Huge SUVs maybe not, but they
Huge SUVs maybe not, but they definitely need some space extra. I know two kid families who go on 2weeks camping vacations with a B-Segment car and a rooftop cargo but I believe that this is the lower limit and only for disciplined families.
SUVs are mostly a trend, past gravel roads are getting more and more and paved, yet people increasingly buy them.
cyclisto wrote:
My experience with roads in the UK, is that roads which are paved, are becoming more like gravel.
My feeling is that VED should
My feeling is that VED should be linked to GVW. And when ICE cars finally disappear and are replaced by EVs, road user charging will be introduced. The GVW should be a multiplier so that a user of say a 2tonne vehicle will pay 4x the charge of a user in a 1tonne vehicle.
Allow people to use large vehicles of they wish. But charge them appropriately for the road wear they cause.
In the mean time, I still don’t understand why some people feel the need to drive vehilces like these . Do they have such feelings of inadequacy they want to look down on everyone else? A neighbour is a builder and has one. It’s much worse than the old 2wd Toyota Hilux pick up I used to drive, which was basically estate car-sized. These new beasts are higher and harder to load and they handle like sh*t as well.
OldRidgeback wrote:
People drive those cars because our capitalist consumerist society scares, individualises, divides, privatises risks, while at the same time promoting senseless status symbols such as huge cars.
The prevalence of these huge
The prevalence of these huge SUV and pickups does mean that I don’t feel the slightest guilt at taking primary position through various chicanes I use. It’s not like those things are able to fit through and pass me – not even a close pass, the only way they’d fit through the chicane if I was there would be if they drove over the top of me.
And very few motorists are likely to actualy do that…
Depends. I witnessed a father
Depends. I witnessed a father with a toddler aboard cycling round the outer edge of a small city roundabout with his young (8yrs approx) daughter following behind. A motorist in an SUV cut him up but he managed to proceed, he was continuing around to the next exit, the motorist was coming off. It was close enough that the father paused and remonstrated with the driver, which drew the driver’s attention.
So, whilst gesticulating at the father the driver proceeds to exit the roundabout, driving completely unawares over the bicycle of the young girl who was gamely following her dad.
By some miracle the girl escaped with only scratches – her leg had been trapped under the bike but the SUV’s front wheel surmounted the bike’s pedal sparing her ankle beneath.
It occurred to me that from the driver’s seat he could not even see the girl on her bike as he exited the roundabout, she would have been obscured behind the high flank of the SUV. He had not spotted her earlier as he was too preoccupied with ranting at the father.
…
…
This is really valuable work,
This is really valuable work, being
a – European, SUVs here being different to U Light Trucks in that they follow normal safety regs.
b – The first work I have seen on this done since about 2005.
It seems MPV type cars (5
It seems MPV type cars (5 seats plus 2 folding seats, estate car style) are no longer made by any manufacturer except in an SUV style with a higher blunter front end. So if you need / want this type of car new, the only option is SUV (and in due course will dominate used market), except some van style (Berlingo) models. I checked the Citroen models out of interest and these are definatly rated worse for outside occupants in collisons than the older models. Why are we going backwards? There seems no control on what is being allowed to be sold…
I was sadened to hear a few
I was sadened to hear a few weeks ago that Volvo will not be selling saloons or estates in the UK. So it’s vanity behemoth or nothing from them.
SaneRebel wrote:
It may seem unclear why road safety for those not inside the gasguzzlers and urban tanks is not part of the design remit for these monstrous maiming and murdering machines. The suppliers and pushers of these apparently addictive machines will shrug it off as “the evolution of market forces” – a handy “natural” phenomenon they like to refer to when avoiding any responsibility for the many deleterious effects of their dangerous stuff.
But, as with all manufactured and retailed items in the neolib market place, the design and the adverts employ large dollops of human psychology to discover then profit from those things that the less salubrious aspects of human nature can be made to crave. Size, power, speed, height and a general feeling of being invulnerable in a tank-like thing, in the case of SUVs.
We hoi-polloi are very sheep-like. We herd in the fashion pens quite readily. If a manufacturer and its retailers can herd us into spending loadsa money for literally more stuff (much bigger and more expensive cars) they’ll do so. Its apparently their job to “grow” their business and profits …. and, nowadays, to exclude all other concerns.
*********
When the NHS is fully privatised, very soon now, it won’t be a surprise if car manufacturer financiers are also eager to buy into “accident” victim repair facilities. Or funeral parlours. Market opportunities multiplied by maiming and murder machines! Buy your shares in them all now!!
We are all at danger from two
We are all at danger from two wheelers who think that normal rules of the road don’t apply to the them , red lights means cars stop cyclists carry on , signals no need drivers can read minds , lights no need drivers can see in the dark , and the whole lane is for bikes so ride in the middle and stop anyone passing , and there’s def no need to look when pulling out at a junction just pull out right in front of the truck he can stop in 1mtre can’t he , and of course if it’s easier ride down the right side of the road just to keep things interesting
Have you been following me on
Have you been following me on my daily commute?
Wheelywheelygood wrote:
BINGO!
But seriously, you do understand that the article is a discussion about the dangers to *everyone else* of oversized SUV? It wasn’t intended for you to shoehorn in your personal list of “this one time I saw…” grievances, m’kay?
We are all at danger from two
We are all at danger from two wheelers who think that normal rules of the road don’t apply to the them , red lights means cars stop cyclists carry on
Another apparently new thickhead- is this one a retread as they so often are?
https://upride.cc/incident/ye10aju_mini_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/ds6972_porsche_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/fd67nej_bmw420_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/pk68zfl_32tonnetipper_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
https://upride.cc/incident/pn68kpg_hiluxtrailer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/dl66xgz_lcctraffic_redlightpass/
etc. etc. All drivers forgiven by Lancashire Constabulary because ‘everybody does it’- the mode of forgiveness is, of course, by ignoring the report
Yawn
Yawn
Have a watch of this for the standard of driving.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eLLRHzIdEXQ&si=HwenT33NgPCGSosM
Still, you’ll be back at school soon.
Wheelywheelygood wrote:
I enjoyed your caper and waving of your pig-bladder. Not because you are a good jester but because you are so inept at the craft! Your jesticulations are hackneyed and stale. Perhaps you should be sent to the kitchens to scrub the floors?
Anyway, must try harder.
Perhaps a small and outrageous monkey-companion would help? There are several hereabouts, although they’re all very tatty, no longer able to jump convincingly, with thin and feeble screech.
“We are all at danger from
“We are all at danger from two wheelers who think that normal rules of the road don’t apply to the them , red lights means cars stop cyclists carry on , signals no need drivers can read minds , lights no need drivers can see in the dark , and the whole lane is for bikes so ride in the middle and stop anyone passing..”
So true Willywillygut. Just the other day I may have seen out the corner of my eye while driving my Wankpanzer GT 5 litre turbo and ranting on WhatsApp at the same time, a Lycra Lout plough into a bus, as it overtook him on one of those ridiculous 20mph zones.
His bicycle tore a gash along the length of the bus and passengers were screaming in fear, IMO. Then this utter road thug just rode off, without paying road tax and through five red lights.
Later, I saw two cyclists riding in my lane without any regard for my superior Rights to the road that I pay tax for. WTF! I mean, who the hell do they think they are, human?
Bloody cyclists are such a danger to us all. It’s time they were banned from my roads, because I’m a Careful Understanding Nice Tweeter.
(No subject)