11 ms·
SUVs more dangerous to cyclists than other cars, study suggests
- mongol 3y agoSuggests? I could have suggested that too. It does not take much thinking to do. Is there a ladder of words used, where proves is highest? If so, where does suggest go?
- crooked-v 3y agoSee also the video essay "These Stupid Trucks Are Literally Killing Us": https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
- nayuki 3y agoAnother from About Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYyutqP48ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYyutqP48ok "The Problem with SUVs"
- 32gbsd 3y agoWell there's a suprise, but what if its electric? Being electric it would have better avoidance tech.
- HEmanZ 3y agoIs your comment serious or satire? Hard to tell these days
- 32gbsd 3y agoIts both. These articles all seem to be a waste of time to read. But then you wonder if its some kinda misinformation and i just missed the facts.
- sandworm101 3y agoExcept that electric trucks are much heavier than normal trucks. Computer controlled or not, the tires arent going to stop them any faster.
- ecshafer 3y agoSUVs are larger which make them more deadly. If it were electric, it would be heavier, and thus more deadly.
- mrbungie 3y agoHeavier and quieter. Recipe for disaster.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoDon't EVs have to have an ambient running sound to help alert vision impaired pedestrians?
- mrbungie 3y agoAs far as I've experienced, they're still quieter than a ICE car. Not sure about what's the real decibel difference or if it depends on legislation (my experience is mostly in Japan).
- paulryanrogers 3y agoWhy is vehicle weight such a big factor? How does it compare to increased risk with vehicle height (knocking people over) and blindspots? And gas vehicle exhaust isn't exactly safer than EV
- giantg2 3y agoThe weight is an issue for performance specs like braking distance and agility. Probably not a huge difference, but a difference none the less.
- Xylakant 3y agoThe weight difference between an ICE SUV and an electric SUV doesn’t make any meaningful difference. It doesn’t matter whether you get run over by two tons of steel or three tons. The primary factor for the increased injury rate is the high front that impacts the body and pulls the cyclist under the car, inflicting body trauma instead of breaking legs as other cars would. Statistics for accidents with pedestrians look equally bleak. And given the reported issues that automated driving and collision avoidance systems have with cyclists, I’m not particularly hopeful.
- bsder 3y agoThe big problem is the high, flat front rather than weight, visibility, etc. (which are problems too, just not as critical when striking a pedestrian or bicyclist). Electric SUVs don't fix that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nikanj 3y agoThe sane solution: ban massive cars, give exemptions to people with true professional needs The ’murica solution: get an even bigger truck yourself, so the other party sustains most of the damage
- unpopular42 3y agoGive exemptions to people with true professional needs, as determined by the party
- version_five 3y agoThis is the only intelligent comment I've seen in the discussion (which was destined to be a silly pile-on anyway). The only thing worse than people being allowed to choose big dangerous cars is a state regime where bureaucrats get to decide which car you can drive based on your needs. Incidentally, there's going to be a massive jump in people driving bigger commercial vehicles anyway as gas vehicles get phased out for consumer use. A lot of big SUVs are the result of the regulatory regime already. Stupid regulations almost always make things worse.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hackerlight 3y ago> Stupid regulations almost always make things worse. This is such an ideological comment. The reality is that stupid regulations make things worse, but non-stupid regulations make things better. We want non-stupid regulations. A world without regulations is a non-starter due to the tragedy of the commons incentive problem. Imagine a world where dumping was legal because there were no regulations. Or where explosives could be purchased from your local corner store because they weren't regulated. It's a non-starter. You would be dead from a resulting illness or terrorist attack. Nobody wants it, including you. So if you can propose a regulation-free solution to the various incentive problems like tragedy of the commons, then I'm all ears, but the burden of proof is on you to do that, and it's a burden you haven't met.
- suzzer99 3y agoIt's not just cyclists. A year ago I saw a middle-aged couple both go up onto the hood of a Prius that was rounding a right turn without looking. I think they were both fine. If it was an SUV they'd have been knocked forward so hard they'd have been seriously injured or killed.
- michaelrpeskin 3y agoI was dropping my kids off at school and a 1st grader was riding her bike through the crosswalk and another driver didn’t see her. He bumped her at less-than walking speed so no one was seriously injured. I was amazed at how she bounced up and away from the car. If I would have hit her with my (old) truck, even at that super low speed, I’m sure she would have gotten caught on the bumper and pulled under the wheels. The new pedestrian safety designs are cool even though they do make all cars look the same and bulbous now.
- version_five 3y ago[flagged]
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoJust do yourself a favour and watch this video[0], you might learn why SUVs and in general cars with a taller bumper height are more dangerous. .0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
- _dain_ 3y agoHow would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?
- version_five 3y agoHungry?
- vkou 3y agoThe parent poster is saying that the lower nose of a Prius results in safer pedestrian collisions than an SUV would experience.
- sandworm101 3y agoThe old reason for driving a smaller car/truck was reduced operating costs, mostly in fuel. That reason largely disappears for electric vehicles. In fact, electric vehicles are larger/heavier than ic equivalents. This problem of huge vehicles is only going to get worse. We will all have to learn to live with more massive vehicles.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoDo EVs really have to be so tall though? If they need capacity can't they be made wider or longer?
- giantg2 3y agoI'm looking forward to the battery tech that is currently in testing. It's supposed to be 4x better than today, at around 1kWh/1kg. As long as it pans out, that could mean 2x the distance with 1/2x the battery weight.
- xp84 3y agoSure, but people like being in the tall car. Kind of an arms race situation for 25 years. More and more people have tall cars, so “I don’t wanna be the loser in the short car who can’t see over all these a*holes!” says every SUV buyer.
- GordonS 3y agoI actually hate being in a tall car - the level of roll is just horrible! I much prefer being close to the road.
- xp84 3y agoSame actually!
- TylerE 3y agoA big factor is older folks. A midsize crossover where they can basically just slide right into the seat is way easier to get in and out of vs a low tide height car where they have to raise/lower a good portion of their body weight. Lotta bad hips and knees in the 50+ demographic.
- nayuki 3y ago> While cars tend to vault cyclists over, SUVs with large front ends run them down, resulting in more head injuries This is the perfect excuse for pro-car people to shout "But was he wearing a helmet?" in response to any incident where a car crashes into a cyclist.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fooker 3y agoIf it’s a reasonable option, most people end up choosing a large vehicle. (Note than large vehicles are not a reasonable option in cities with poor auto infrastructure.) It’s a classic tragedy of the commons situation, would you rather buy a car safer for you and your family or buy a small car hoping the world changes overnight? If you disagree, the car companies must also be very wrong about what the customers want, because they keep making bigger and bigger cars and people keep buying them.
- atleastoptimal 3y agoSUVs are more dangerous to their drivers too, on average. https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2002/suvs-really-safer-cars/ https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2002/suvs-really-safer-c...
- fooker 3y agoThis is normalized per million sold, which is the wrong metric penalizing cars which are sold more. It should ideally be per kilometers driven.
- TT-392 3y agoI don't really see the point of buying a bigger car for your own safety. What is the point of you not being injured if you just killed someone else. You might be physically okay, but you'll be mentally scarred for life.
- sokoloff 3y agoThat’s possibly true, but even so, that’s still better for my kids and family than if I’m dead. (For the record, both of our daily drivers are well under the average size/weight for US cars, but I understand the appeal of a car/SUV perceived as “safer for me; screw thee”.)
- dontlaugh 3y agoIt’s not even clear that bigger cars are safer for their occupants anymore. The last time it held close to true was in the early 90s.
- ummonk 3y agoI assume they aren't counting crossovers as SUVs here? Because crossover front ends more closely resemble the front ends of cars than they do those of trucks.
- crooked-v 3y agoCrossovers are just lifted hatchbacks.
- galleywest200 3y agoLooking at Wikipedia, Crossovers are a separately defined vehicle: > [Crossover Utility Vehicle] is a type of automobile with an increased ride height that is built on unibody chassis construction shared with passenger cars, as opposed to traditional sport utility vehicles (SUV) which are built on a body-on-frame chassis construction similar to pickup trucks.
- ummonk 3y agoThey're often conflated as "crossover SUVs" both by car manufacturers and by the media. E.g. if you search for something like "best SUVs of 2023", half the vehicles listed in the resulting articles will be crossovers. It also gets confusing because the biggest crossovers are built to the same bulky shape as the traditional SUVs that are killing everyone - just without a body-on-frame construction.
- readme 3y ago[flagged]
- olivermarks 3y agoIHSS insurance institute for highway safety are a credible organization but I agree it is a surprisingly small sample size and analysis. Urban, suburban and rural cycling also have very different risk factors. Regarding vehicle size, driver visibility of surroundings is more critical. I'm not a fan of huge SUVS but I don't have 4 kids and 2 dogs. Being hit by a commercial vehicle on a 2 wheeled vehicle is going to be bad, but I'd argue generally commercial drivers pay more attention to their surroundings than the typical soccer mom, far better training and regulations. I also feel distractions play a large part in many collisions - the replacement of analog tactile knobs and dials in cars with giant flat screens is a major safety setback - and of course smartphones are a disaster for distracted driving. (replying to a now deleted comment)
- explorer83 3y agoIf you read the actual study it actually shows smaller vehicles hit bicyclist more often than SUVs by a large margin. But that SUVs cause more harm when they are hit. So SUVs actually hit less bicyclists.
- akira2501 3y agoYou have to ask how does anyone arrive at a "55% more trauma" figure? I can see from the study they just tallied up ICD codes. This is not a particularly rigorous examination of the facts. Also from the page containing the study: > Fatal bicycle crash rates have risen dramatically over the past decade. In 2020, 932 bicyclists were killed on U.S. roads, up from a low of 621 in 2010. One reason may be the dominance of pickups and SUVs in the U.S. vehicle fleet. Another reason is that there are more bicycles on the road over the last 10 years. Not an unimaginable phenomenon. Giving per capita data here would be far more useful in the analysis. New York's estimates[1] seem to suggest that more than twice the number of people are bicycling over this 10 year period. Yet, there's less than a doubling in the fatality rate. I don't find much of this conclusive. [1]: https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/cyclinginthecity.shtml https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/cyclinginthecit...
- explorer83 3y agoIt's not conclusive whatsoever but look how many people are jumping on the anti-SUV bandwagon over this poor study.
- xyzelement 3y agoObviously vehicle safety is an important consideration, but I find that any "large car" thread brings out almost pathological vitriol. I wonder if the vitriol is a reaction to something that these cars represent: large families, folks with land/property/"manly" business, etc.
- _dain_ 3y agomost of those vehicles have a single occupant and never haul anything heavier than a coke can. the usable area to store things on the back is often the same as much smaller models from years ago!
- xyzelement 3y agoI live outside of NYC, most of the folks in my town are young families with 2 or 3 kids. Every family has an SUV. Maybe at a given time mom might drive to work alone, but there's plenty of road trips, carpools, etc. I used to be a "small car" guy, now I am an "SUV dad". We have a Toyota Highlander and it's "fully utilized" pretty often. Changes your perspective.
- _dain_ 3y agoare you actually going off-road? road-trips (on tarmac) and carpooling don't require an SUV. they require a car with a spacious interior, that isn't the same thing as an SUV.
- xyzelement 3y agoDo you consider something like a Subaru Outback a car while a Highlander is an SUV? Otherwise, what you are saying has not been my experience.
- _dain_ 3y ago>Do you consider something like a Subaru Outback a car while a Highlander is an SUV? I don't really care about labels, but the Outback is way smaller and lower to the ground: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/subaru-outback-2014-suv-vs-toyota-highlander-2019-suv/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/subaru-outback-2014... I know which one I'd rather cycle next to. By the way, check out the cargo volume stats listed underneath. Also the site lists the Outback as an SUV but here it's sold as an estate car.
- dathinab 3y agoIdk. about the US but where I live in the EU a _lot_ of people think that driving a SUV without needing the off-road capabilities is at least egoistic if not outright asocial. And given that this area (and many others) have "good enough(1)" streets so that the huge majority of people don't need the off-road capabilities of a SUV it's pretty easy to be for people to assume that you are egoistic or worse when they see you driving a SUV. This bias is probably reinforced by the coincidence(?) that the group of people driving SUVs here has a big overlap with some groups often associated with entitled egoistic behaviour. Somehow it often feels that the people insisting on driving a SUV without a need for it are using it like an armor they ware because they are afraid of the outside world. (1): The requirements for a road to not need a SUV are pretty low IMHO. Sure you might need a "good enough" ground clearance, motor and brakes in mountain areas, but you can get that without an SUV, many (most?) new non-sport cars fall into this category.
- kelnos 3y ago> in the EU a _lot_ of people think that driving a SUV without needing the off-road capabilities is at least egoistic if not outright asocial. In general I used to believe this (in the US) as well, but now everyone and their grandmother has one, so it's kinda hard to paint everyone with that broad a brush. (Attempting to do so is itself egoistic and asocial.) > people insisting on driving a SUV without a need for it are using it like an armor they ware because they are afraid of the outside world. It's an arms race. If everyone is driving an SUV except you, and you get into a crash, you're more likely to get more hurt than if you'd been driving an SUV as well. So more people drive SUVs, which encourages more people with a lean toward that mindset to drive them, and so on. Another driver (heh) of the SUV surge was children. In the 80s and 90s, many US families turned to minivans when they'd have a couple kids. Easier to load and unload the children, more space to carry things. But minivans were uncool and became associated with the boring suburban soccer mom/dad (especially men hated this, of course; driving around in a minivan was emasculating). SUVs brought most of the same benefits: extra cargo space, sometimes an extra row of seats, and easier to load and unload the children. And they were cool! I mean, "SUV" has "sport" right there in the name! Sports are cool! SUVs also handle a bit better than minivans, which are often just lumbering box-vehicles. Sure, an SUV usually doesn't handle as well as a sedan or coupe, but it's a decent middle ground for people who believe a sedan doesn't suit their needs. Another reason -- possibly the primary initial reason -- is profit-driven marketing. I don't know if it's still the case, but there was a loophole in US vehicle emissions laws that would allow for less-stringent emissions standards past a certain vehicle size. So SUVs allowed manufacturers to spend less money on increasing fuel efficiency and reducing emissions, and, to boot, also sell the vehicles at a higher price. So they manufactured demand with marketing that glorified the high "command seating position" that you get with vehicles like SUVs, and of course everyone ate that up. This highlights why I'd love for all advertising to be illegal: it's just emotional manipulation to get people to buy things they don't need. I don't personally like the proliferation of SUVs myself (and drive a 4-seater, AWD coupe, myself, and drive it in heavy snow just fine), but I perfectly understand why it's a thing, and have stopped bothering to begrudge people for their choices in this regard.
- markus_zhang 3y agoNot surprising. SUVs are larger and heavier vehicles so they carry more KE at the same speed. My city has dedicated cycling lanes but they don't cover every place. I sincerely hope they do.
- tzs 3y agoDoes KE matter? I suspect that as long as the momentum is large enough that that that hitting the bicycle or pedestrian doesn't cause more than an insignificant change in the car's speed all that matters is speed and the shape of the front of the car. Consider for example being hit be a large freight train moving at 1 km/hr. The mass, KE, and momentum of the train will be larger than a large car moving at 100 km/hr but being hit by the train probably wouldn't seriously injure you, unless you happened to fall under the train and get run over or fell to the side and happened to hit your head.
- rascul 3y agoMaybe we need cowcatchers on automobiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowcatcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowcatcher
- gregjor 3y ago[flagged]