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 (link is external) 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.
SUV on a road

"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.

https://road.cc/content/news/new-research-shows-danger-cyclists-posed-large-cars-303555

> 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.

> https://road.cc/content/news/new-research-shows-danger-cyclists-posed-large-cars-303555

If it is in fact true that this study does find that the lower the front of
a vehicle, the lesser are the injuries to pedestrians, then perhaps we
should all be driving Formula 1 racing cars.

--
Spike

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.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

“The crowning quality of Socialism is the equal spreading of misery”.

> As I said below forcing bad drivers in to smaller cars would be a start.

Bad cyclists forced to be pedestrians might be a start, too.

> 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.

All of them?

> This means that the car industry has far too much lobbying power and as a
> result a clear lack of impartiality of ministers.

What makes you think politicians of any flavour are impartial? Getting
elected and re-elected is the name of the game.

--
Spike

QUOTE: 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? ENDS

Get Mr Arsehole on the case.

On 31/08/2023 01:14 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

Why would such children not be entitled to the best level of
vehicle-based protection that can be afforded by their family?

Or would you sentence them to have to bear unnecessary risks out of spite?

[Don't bother answering; we all know that you would say "Yes" to the
second question. "Spite" is your middle name.]

> 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.

No government should be "impartial" as between allowing citizens liberty
and wishing to control them.

Only control freak chavs on bikes think otherwise.

brooksby | 12062 posts | 1 hour ago
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 actually do that...