Walking on a busy London street recently, I heard a shout. “Don’t hit me,” a cyclist screamed, as a Land Rover driver reversed into his path. Next, it was my turn to jump out of the way. The driver lurched forward, veering unexpectedly in my direction just as I was crossing a sidestreet.

A moment later, another panicked voice behind me; a little girl scooting in front of her mother overshot the pavement ever so slightly, and came just inches from the driver’s path. Behind the steering wheel the driver appeared impassive, apparently unaware of the consternation in her wake.

Perhaps you could dismiss this incident as an example of simple bad driving, but SUVs represent a unique danger on our cities’ roads. Their popularity has boomed in recent years. Drivers are drawn to the higher road position that offers a feeling of security. But research from the US has found that while SUV drivers are involved in fewer collisions overall, when they crash into children, the collisions are eight times more likely to be fatal.

More than 120 modern cars available to purchase on the UK market now overhang standard parking spaces, claiming ever more of our public space. These hulking vehicles were originally designed for off-road driving. And advertising campaigns featuring rugged terrains would have you believe this is how many are still being used. But in the UK, the overwhelming majority of drivers do not buy them to drive off-road: three-quarters of these vehicles end up polluting city streets, with a high proportion concentrated in the affluent west London borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Alongside their growing popularity, there is also a determined momentum to crack down on their usage in European cities. In Paris, officials will introduce new parking charges next year for larger and heavier vehicles. Noting there are no dirt paths or mountain roads in the city, David Belliard, its deputy mayor for public space and mobility policy, said SUVs are “dangerous, cumbersome and use too many resources to manufacture”.

In the UK, after the tragic collision at a Wimbledon school involving the driver of an SUV, after which two children died, the European Transport Safety Council called for a ban on SUVs in populated areas. “Do people need two-and-a-half-tonne vehicles to take their children to school?”, said a spokesperson. “London has done a great job on restricting the movement of freight vehicles. There is no reason why you could not look at restrictions on these types of vehicles too.”

And yet banning SUVs is unlikely to be simple. For manufacturers, they have far superior sales margins compared with normal cars. Since 2018, manufacturers have been spending more on marketing for these vehicles than standard cars, sometimes more than all their other cars combined.

And the ads work. In the 10 years to 2018, SUVs went from a 7% share of the EU car market to 36%. They now make up half of all car sales in Australia, and 46% of global car sales, according to data from 2022, at a time when other car sales were dropping.

Fritz Gahagan, a former marketing consultant for tobacco, could have been talking about ads for SUVs when he said: “The problem is how do you sell death … you do it with the great open spaces … the mountains, the open places, the lakes coming up to the shore. How could a whiff of a cigarette be of any harm in a situation like that?”

The global tobacco epidemic was fuelled by savvy marketers to devastating effect. According to a small study in Australia, SUV fuel consumption may in fact be between 16% and 65% higher than advertised, and yet ads still present them as desirable vehicles, associated with beautiful landscapes and adventure. We must start challenging this faux reality.
What those ads leave out, among other things, is the fact SUVs use on average a quarter more energy than medium-size vehicles. They generate almost 1bn tonnes of CO2 emissions annually – the amount by which we overshot our Paris agreement targets. Their increasing adoption is directly contributing to the climate crisis, according to the International Energy Agency.

Campaigns such as Badvertising and Comms Declare are calling for increased regulation of the way SUVs are marketed because of their substantial negative impact on our efforts to meet carbon-cutting targets. But there is more to be done to diminish their presence. Let’s start with charging drivers who insist on owning large vehicles proportionately to their damage to our roads, our safety and environment. This could be through vehicle excise duty (car tax) and road-user pricing – a per-mile road user levy..

Levers such as low emission zones may be causing tensions politically, but the evidence shows they work to clean up city air. We could follow the example of our French neighbours; the city of Bath, which is consulting on emission-based charges; and London councils such as Islington and Tower Hamlets, which have introduced higher charges for parking the most polluting vehicles. If these measures end up costing people more, why not pass the cost back to the companies responsible?

The horse may have bolted on SUV ownership, but we do have tools at our disposal to discourage people from driving these dangerous vehicles. Now is the time to put our foot down.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/27/france-crack-down-suv-drivers-britain

On 05/02/2024 01:08 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

....but in his usual way, failed to credit the author...

> Walking on a busy London street recently, I heard a shout. “Don’t hit me,” a cyclist screamed, as a Land Rover driver reversed into his path. Next, it was my turn to jump out of the way. The driver lurched forward, veering unexpectedly in my direction just as I was crossing a sidestreet.
>
> A moment later, another panicked voice behind me; a little girl scooting in front of her mother overshot the pavement ever so slightly, and came just inches from the driver’s path. Behind the steering wheel the driver appeared impassive, apparently unaware of the consternation in her wake.

TRANSLATION:

A small child on a scooter came off the FOOTway onto the CARRIAGEWAY and
onto the path of a moving vehicle.

Her mother could have prevented that in a number of ways.

It was NOT the driver's fault.

Only an idiot (they have a lot of those at the Whingers' Gazette and at
road.cc) could "think" otherwise.
>
> Perhaps you could dismiss this incident as an example of simple bad driving,

Not really, since it wasn't.

Bad parenting, perhaps.

> but SUVs represent a unique danger on our cities’ roads. Their popularity has boomed in recent years. Drivers are drawn to the higher road position that offers a feeling of security. But research from the US has found that while SUV drivers are involved in fewer collisions overall, when they crash into children, the collisions are eight times more likely to be fatal.
> More than 120 modern cars available to purchase on the UK market now overhang standard parking spaces, claiming ever more of our public space. These hulking vehicles were originally designed for off-road driving. And advertising campaigns featuring rugged terrains would have you believe this is how many are still being used. But in the UK, the overwhelming majority of drivers do not buy them to drive off-road: three-quarters of these vehicles end up polluting city streets, with a high proportion concentrated in the affluent west London borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
> Alongside their growing popularity, there is also a determined momentum to crack down on their usage in European cities. In Paris, officials will introduce new parking charges next year for larger and heavier vehicles. Noting there are no dirt paths or mountain roads in the city, David Belliard, its deputy mayor for public space and mobility policy, said SUVs are “dangerous, cumbersome and use too many resources to manufacture”.
> In the UK, after the tragic collision at a Wimbledon school involving the driver of an SUV, after which two children died, the European Transport Safety Council called for a ban on SUVs in populated areas. “Do people need two-and-a-half-tonne vehicles to take their children to school?”, said a spokesperson. “London has done a great job on restricting the movement of freight vehicles. There is no reason why you could not look at restrictions on these types of vehicles too.”
> And yet banning SUVs is unlikely to be simple. For manufacturers, they have far superior sales margins compared with normal cars. Since 2018, manufacturers have been spending more on marketing for these vehicles than standard cars, sometimes more than all their other cars combined.
> And the ads work. In the 10 years to 2018, SUVs went from a 7% share of the EU car market to 36%. They now make up half of all car sales in Australia, and 46% of global car sales, according to data from 2022, at a time when other car sales were dropping.
> Fritz Gahagan, a former marketing consultant for tobacco, could have been talking about ads for SUVs when he said: “The problem is how do you sell death … you do it with the great open spaces … the mountains, the open places, the lakes coming up to the shore. How could a whiff of a cigarette be of any harm in a situation like that?”
> The global tobacco epidemic was fuelled by savvy marketers to devastating effect. According to a small study in Australia, SUV fuel consumption may in fact be between 16% and 65% higher than advertised, and yet ads still present them as desirable vehicles, associated with beautiful landscapes and adventure. We must start challenging this faux reality.
> What those ads leave out, among other things, is the fact SUVs use on average a quarter more energy than medium-size vehicles. They generate almost 1bn tonnes of CO2 emissions annually – the amount by which we overshot our Paris agreement targets. Their increasing adoption is directly contributing to the climate crisis, according to the International Energy Agency.
> Campaigns such as Badvertising and Comms Declare are calling for increased regulation of the way SUVs are marketed because of their substantial negative impact on our efforts to meet carbon-cutting targets. But there is more to be done to diminish their presence. Let’s start with charging drivers who insist on owning large vehicles proportionately to their damage to our roads, our safety and environment. This could be through vehicle excise duty (car tax) and road-user pricing – a per-mile road user levy.
> Levers such as low emission zones may be causing tensions politically, but the evidence shows they work to clean up city air. We could follow the example of our French neighbours; the city of Bath, which is consulting on emission-based charges; and London councils such as Islington and Tower Hamlets, which have introduced higher charges for parking the most polluting vehicles. If these measures end up costing people more, why not pass the cost back to the companies responsible?
> The horse may have bolted on SUV ownership, but we do have tools at our disposal to discourage people from driving these dangerous vehicles. Now is the time to put our foot down.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/27/france-crack-down-suv-drivers-britain

The Whingers' Gazette (incorporating the Manchester "Guardian"), eh?

Most of their columnists *are* loonies. We already knew that.

Thanks for the illustration of that fact.

BTW: "...restricting the movement of freight vehicles..."...

Why not just ban all good vehicles in London?

See how Londoners get on with that.

After a month they'd be screaming at Sadist Khan to bring the lorries back.

Heck, it'd probably only be a week.

JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2024 01:08 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> ...but in his usual way, failed to credit the author...
>
>> Walking on a busy London street recently, I heard a shout. “Don’t hit
>> me,” a cyclist screamed, as a Land Rover driver reversed into his path.
>> Next, it was my turn to jump out of the way. The driver lurched forward,
>> veering unexpectedly in my direction just as I was crossing a sidestreet.
>>
>> A moment later, another panicked voice behind me; a little girl scooting
>> in front of her mother overshot the pavement ever so slightly, and came
>> just inches from the driver’s path. Behind the steering wheel the driver
>> appeared impassive, apparently unaware of the consternation in her wake.
>
> TRANSLATION:
>
> A small child on a scooter came off the FOOTway onto the CARRIAGEWAY and
> onto the path of a moving vehicle.
>
> Her mother could have prevented that in a number of ways.
>
> It was NOT the driver's fault.
>
> Only an idiot (they have a lot of those at the Whingers' Gazette and at
> road.cc) could "think" otherwise.
>>
>> Perhaps you could dismiss this incident as an example of simple bad driving,
>
> Not really, since it wasn't.
>
> Bad parenting, perhaps.
>
>> but SUVs represent a unique danger on our cities’ roads. Their
>> popularity has boomed in recent years. Drivers are drawn to the higher
>> road position that offers a feeling of security. But research from the
>> US has found that while SUV drivers are involved in fewer collisions
>> overall, when they crash into children, the collisions are eight times
>> more likely to be fatal.
>> More than 120 modern cars available to purchase on the UK market now
>> overhang standard parking spaces, claiming ever more of our public
>> space. These hulking vehicles were originally designed for off-road
>> driving. And advertising campaigns featuring rugged terrains would have
>> you believe this is how many are still being used. But in the UK, the
>> overwhelming majority of drivers do not buy them to drive off-road:
>> three-quarters of these vehicles end up polluting city streets, with a
>> high proportion concentrated in the affluent west London borough of
>> Kensington and Chelsea.
>> Alongside their growing popularity, there is
>> also a determined momentum to crack down on their usage in European
>> cities. In Paris, officials will introduce new parking charges next year
>> for larger and heavier vehicles. Noting there are no dirt paths or
>> mountain roads in the city, David Belliard, its deputy mayor for public
>> space and mobility policy, said SUVs are “dangerous, cumbersome and use
>> too many resources to manufacture”.
>> In the UK, after the tragic collision at a Wimbledon school involving
>> the driver of an SUV, after which two children died, the European
>> Transport Safety Council called for a ban on SUVs in populated areas.
>> “Do people need two-and-a-half-tonne vehicles to take their children to
>> school?”, said a spokesperson. “London has done a great job on
>> restricting the movement of freight vehicles. There is no reason why you
>> could not look at restrictions on these types of vehicles too.”
>> And yet banning SUVs is unlikely to be simple. For manufacturers, they
>> have far superior sales margins compared with normal cars. Since 2018,
>> manufacturers have been spending more on marketing for these vehicles
>> than standard cars, sometimes more than all their other cars combined.
>> And the ads work. In the 10 years to 2018, SUVs went from a 7% share of
>> the EU car market to 36%. They now make up half of all car sales in
>> Australia, and 46% of global car sales, according to data from 2022, at
>> a time when other car sales were dropping.
>> Fritz Gahagan, a former marketing consultant for tobacco, could have
>> been talking about ads for SUVs when he said: “The problem is how do you
>> sell death … you do it with the great open spaces … the mountains, the
>> open places, the lakes coming up to the shore. How could a whiff of a
>> cigarette be of any harm in a situation like that?”
>> The global tobacco epidemic was fuelled by savvy marketers to
>> devastating effect. According to a small study in Australia, SUV fuel
>> consumption may in fact be between 16% and 65% higher than advertised,
>> and yet ads still present them as desirable vehicles, associated with
>> beautiful landscapes and adventure. We must start challenging this faux reality.
>> What those ads leave out, among other things, is the fact SUVs use on
>> average a quarter more energy than medium-size vehicles. They generate
>> almost 1bn tonnes of CO2 emissions annually – the amount by which we
>> overshot our Paris agreement targets. Their increasing adoption is
>> directly contributing to the climate crisis, according to the International Energy Agency.
>> Campaigns such as Badvertising and Comms Declare are calling for
>> increased regulation of the way SUVs are marketed because of their
>> substantial negative impact on our efforts to meet carbon-cutting
>> targets. But there is more to be done to diminish their presence. Let’s
>> start with charging drivers who insist on owning large vehicles
>> proportionately to their damage to our roads, our safety and
>> environment. This could be through vehicle excise duty (car tax) and
>> road-user pricing – a per-mile road user levy.
>> Levers such as low emission zones may be causing tensions politically,
>> but the evidence shows they work to clean up city air. We could follow
>> the example of our French neighbours; the city of Bath, which is
>> consulting on emission-based charges; and London councils such as
>> Islington and Tower Hamlets, which have introduced higher charges for
>> parking the most polluting vehicles. If these measures end up costing
>> people more, why not pass the cost back to the companies responsible?
>> The horse may have bolted on SUV ownership, but we do have tools at our
>> disposal to discourage people from driving these dangerous vehicles. Now
>> is the time to put our foot down.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/27/france-crack-down-suv-drivers-britain
>
> The Whingers' Gazette (incorporating the Manchester "Guardian"), eh?
>
> Most of their columnists *are* loonies. We already knew that.
>
> Thanks for the illustration of that fact.
>
> BTW: "...restricting the movement of freight vehicles..."...

> Why not just ban all good vehicles in London?

> See how Londoners get on with that.

> After a month they'd be screaming at Sadist Khan to bring the lorries back.

> Heck, it'd probably only be a week.

They do say one is only nine meals from anarchy…

--
Spike

“SUV insanity” shouted the front page of German business newspaper Handelsblatt earlier this month, showcasing a weekend special questioning the aggressive marketing by carmakers of highly profitable 4x4 vehicles.

That evening, at a busy Berlin intersection, the driver of a Porsche Macan SUV lost control of his vehicle and mounted the pavement, killing four people: a three-year-old boy and his 64-year-old grandmother, and two men in their 20s.

The city erupted. “It was no longer a theoretical danger; people were being killed,” says Benjamin Stephan, a transport and climate change campaigner at Greenpeace. “There was a public outcry. It didn’t come from nowhere, people are upset about these cars.”

The following day hundreds of Berliners gathered at a vigil for those killed, calling for a ban on SUVs. Stephan von Dassel, the district mayor of Berlin-Mitte, said “armour-like SUVs” don’t belong in cities. Oliver Krischer, a deputy leader of the Green party in the German parliament, called for size restrictions on 4x4s allowed into urban centres. “The best solution would be a nationwide rule that allowed local authorities to set size limits,” he told Der Tagesspiegel.

SUVs are a paradox: while many people buy them to feel safer, they are statistically less safe than regular cars, both for those inside and those outside the vehicle. A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving. Originally modelled from trucks, they are often exempt from the kinds of safety standards applied to passenger vehicles, including bonnet height. In Europe legislation is being brought in to end such “outdated and unjustified” exemptions.

In Germany the Berlin crash was only the start of protests. After the fatal collision, Greenpeace blocked a shipment of SUVs in Bremerhaven for several hours.

In Frankfurt the following weekend between 15,000 and 25,000 people gathered in a protest months in the planning, at the launch of the biannual Frankfurt Motor Show, where German auto manufacturers promoted their SUVs alongside smaller and cleaner electric vehicles. As Chancellor Angela Merkel toured the stands activists climbed atop SUVs holding banners that read “Klimakiller” (climate killers).

“In Germany in 2018 they spent more on marketing SUVs than on any other segment; they actually spent as much as they spent on other segments together” says Von Dassel. “This is not some accident that people suddenly are really into these cars, they are heavily pushed into the market.”

In Europe, sales of SUVs leaped from 7% of the market in 2009 to 36% in 2018. They are forecast to reach nearly 40% by 2021. While pedestrian deaths are falling across Europe, they are not falling as fast as deaths of those using other modes of transport.

If you’re hit by a large engine car you’re almost twice as likely to be killed

Although EU-wide figures don’t break down the type of car involved in collisions, in the US the link is clearer. “Pedestrian crashes have become both deadlier and more frequent,” says the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). “The increase has been mostly in urban or suburban areas, away from intersections, on busy main roads and in the dark. Crashes are increasingly likely to involve SUVs and high-horsepower vehicles.”

Last year was the deadliest for US pedestrians since 1990, with 6,000 deaths nationwide. The growth in SUV sales, which account for 63% of passenger vehicle sales, is partly to blame. Pedestrian crashes involving SUVs increased 81% between 2009 and 2016, according to the IIHS. A report by the Governors Highway Safety Association found that while pedestrian deaths in collisions with cars increased 30% from 2013 to 2017, those involving SUVs increased by 50%.

In New York City, two children were killed by SUV drivers mounting the sidewalk in the first two weeks of September. “Are we safe anywhere?” asked sustainable transport news site Streetsblog.

While the UK government doesn’t record passenger vehicle type in collision injuries and deaths, British academics who analysed police collision data have identified pedestrians as 70% more likely to be killed if they were hit by someone driving a 2.4-litre engine vehicle than a 1.6-litre model.

“You’re saying if you’re hit by a large engine car you’re almost twice as likely to be killed,” says Adam Reynolds, one of the researchers.

Reynolds and Robin Lovelace, who jointly performed the analysis, are still looking into the figures. “Rather than making a declaration that SUVs are dangerous what we can say is large engine cars are dangerous,” he adds. The lack of collision data is “masking a deadly problem created by the car industry marketing and producing taller, heavier vehicles”, he told Forbes.

Transport, primarily road transport, is responsible for 27% of Europe’s carbon emissions. A decade ago the EU passed a law with a target to reduce carbon emissions to 95g/km by 2021 but a recent report by campaign organisation Transport and Environment highlights what is calls it “pitiful progress”. “Sixteen months from before the target comes into force carmakers are less than halfway towards their goals,” the report adds . The car industry faces hefty fines in Europe of €34bn in a few months for failing to meet emissions targets.

The industry blames the market turning away from diesel, which is lower carbon than petrol, although more toxic. The Transport and Environment report places the blame firmly on the rise of SUVs, “driven by carmakers’ aggressive marketing”.

Their larger engines and bulk mean on average SUVs have CO2 emissions 14% (16g/km) higher than an equivalent hatchback model. Every 1% market shift toward SUVs increases CO2 emissions by 0.15g CO2/km on average. A 2018 Committee on Climate Change report noted that “the popularity of SUVs is cancelling out emissions savings from improvements in technology”.

Julia Poliscanova, director of clean vehicles and e-mobility at Transport and Environment, says regulators must step in to force car manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission and suitably sized vehicles, for example small and light cars in urban areas.

“Smart urban policies are also key to drive consumers towards clean and safe modes,” she adds. “Mayors should reduce space and parking spots for private cars and reallocate it to people and shared clean mobility services.”

On 05/02/2024 04:20 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> “SUV insanity” shouted the front page of German business newspaper Handelsblatt earlier this month, showcasing a weekend special questioning the aggressive marketing by carmakers of highly profitable 4x4 vehicles.
>
> That evening, at a busy Berlin intersection, the driver of a Porsche Macan SUV lost control of his vehicle and mounted the pavement, killing four people: a three-year-old boy and his 64-year-old grandmother, and two men in their 20s.
>
> The city erupted. “It was no longer a theoretical danger; people were being killed,” says Benjamin Stephan, a transport and climate change campaigner at Greenpeace. “There was a public outcry. It didn’t come from nowhere, people are upset about these cars.”
>
> The following day hundreds of Berliners gathered at a vigil for those killed, calling for a ban on SUVs. Stephan von Dassel, the district mayor of Berlin-Mitte, said “armour-like SUVs” don’t belong in cities. Oliver Krischer, a deputy leader of the Green party in the German parliament, called for size restrictions on 4x4s allowed into urban centres. “The best solution would be a nationwide rule that allowed local authorities to set size limits,” he told Der Tagesspiegel.
>
> SUVs are a paradox: while many people buy them to feel safer, they are statistically less safe than regular cars, both for those inside and those outside the vehicle. A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving. Originally modelled from trucks, they are often exempt from the kinds of safety standards applied to passenger vehicles, including bonnet height. In Europe legislation is being brought in to end such “outdated and unjustified” exemptions.
>
> In Germany the Berlin crash was only the start of protests. After the fatal collision, Greenpeace blocked a shipment of SUVs in Bremerhaven for several hours.
>
> In Frankfurt the following weekend between 15,000 and 25,000 people gathered in a protest months in the planning, at the launch of the biannual Frankfurt Motor Show, where German auto manufacturers promoted their SUVs alongside smaller and cleaner electric vehicles. As Chancellor Angela Merkel toured the stands activists climbed atop SUVs holding banners that read “Klimakiller” (climate killers).
>
> “In Germany in 2018 they spent more on marketing SUVs than on any other segment; they actually spent as much as they spent on other segments together” says Von Dassel. “This is not some accident that people suddenly are really into these cars, they are heavily pushed into the market.”
>
> In Europe, sales of SUVs leaped from 7% of the market in 2009 to 36% in 2018. They are forecast to reach nearly 40% by 2021. While pedestrian deaths are falling across Europe, they are not falling as fast as deaths of those using other modes of transport.
>
> If you’re hit by a large engine car you’re almost twice as likely to be killed
>
> Although EU-wide figures don’t break down the type of car involved in collisions, in the US the link is clearer. “Pedestrian crashes have become both deadlier and more frequent,” says the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). “The increase has been mostly in urban or suburban areas, away from intersections, on busy main roads and in the dark. Crashes are increasingly likely to involve SUVs and high-horsepower vehicles.”
>
> Last year was the deadliest for US pedestrians since 1990, with 6,000 deaths nationwide. The growth in SUV sales, which account for 63% of passenger vehicle sales, is partly to blame. Pedestrian crashes involving SUVs increased 81% between 2009 and 2016, according to the IIHS. A report by the Governors Highway Safety Association found that while pedestrian deaths in collisions with cars increased 30% from 2013 to 2017, those involving SUVs increased by 50%.
>
> In New York City, two children were killed by SUV drivers mounting the sidewalk in the first two weeks of September. “Are we safe anywhere?” asked sustainable transport news site Streetsblog.
>
> While the UK government doesn’t record passenger vehicle type in collision injuries and deaths, British academics who analysed police collision data have identified pedestrians as 70% more likely to be killed if they were hit by someone driving a 2.4-litre engine vehicle than a 1.6-litre model.
>
> “You’re saying if you’re hit by a large engine car you’re almost twice as likely to be killed,” says Adam Reynolds, one of the researchers.
>
> Reynolds and Robin Lovelace, who jointly performed the analysis, are still looking into the figures. “Rather than making a declaration that SUVs are dangerous what we can say is large engine cars are dangerous,” he adds. The lack of collision data is “masking a deadly problem created by the car industry marketing and producing taller, heavier vehicles”, he told Forbes.
>
> Transport, primarily road transport, is responsible for 27% of Europe’s carbon emissions. A decade ago the EU passed a law with a target to reduce carbon emissions to 95g/km by 2021 but a recent report by campaign organisation Transport and Environment highlights what is calls it “pitiful progress”. “Sixteen months from before the target comes into force carmakers are less than halfway towards their goals,” the report adds . The car industry faces hefty fines in Europe of €34bn in a few months for failing to meet emissions targets.
>
> The industry blames the market turning away from diesel, which is lower carbon than petrol, although more toxic. The Transport and Environment report places the blame firmly on the rise of SUVs, “driven by carmakers’ aggressive marketing”.
>
> Their larger engines and bulk mean on average SUVs have CO2 emissions 14% (16g/km) higher than an equivalent hatchback model. Every 1% market shift toward SUVs increases CO2 emissions by 0.15g CO2/km on average. A 2018 Committee on Climate Change report noted that “the popularity of SUVs is cancelling out emissions savings from improvements in technology”.
>
> Julia Poliscanova, director of clean vehicles and e-mobility at Transport and Environment, says regulators must step in to force car manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission and suitably sized vehicles, for example small and light cars in urban areas.
>
> “Smart urban policies are also key to drive consumers towards clean and safe modes,” she adds. “Mayors should reduce space and parking spots for private cars and reallocate it to people and shared clean mobility services.”

So now, May Sun reckons that the British Crown still rules in the United
States of America.

That's in addition to his belief that the Crown also owns Ireland (eg,
Dublin) and France.
>

Residents of Paris yesterday voted for a huge increase in parking charges for the heaviest, bulkiest and most polluting SUVs in the capital.

From September 1st, parking fees for SUVs in the centre of Paris will jump from €6 to €18 per hour and further out from €4 to €12 per hour.

Despite the referendum attracting attention from around Europe, it didn’t seem to spark as much interest in the city itself. 42,415 votes were cast to in favour of the increased charges (54.55% of the total) but this represents only 3% of those eligible to vote.

The proposition put to the population was: ‘For or against the creation of a specific rate for the parking of heavy, bulky, polluting private cars?’

The City of Paris had described why the vote was taking place: ‘The consultation aimed to address several issues of safety, sharing of public space and pollution. If, for the past ten years, the place of the car has continued to decrease in Paris, at the same time, the average size of cars has increased in the capital.

‘For three decades, the average size and weight of cars in France have increased, taking up more and more space on the road, sidewalks and public space in general: in less than thirty years, cars have become heavier by nearly 250 kilos. The average weight of a vehicle was 975 kilos in 1990, today it is 1,233 kilos.

‘Finally, due to their size, SUVs are also more dangerous for pedestrians: in the event of a collision with a child, an adult or an elderly person, these accidents involving an SUV are twice as deadly for pedestrians as with a standard car.’

Jens Mueller, Deputy Director of Clean Cities, says: ‘Today’s vote is an important message from Parisians that monster SUVs are simply incompatible with urban life. Paris has already leapfrogged towards a city where people can easily walk, cycle and enjoy liveable neighbourhoods. Today’s vote takes Paris even closer to the vision of a truly people-centred city. Cities across Europe will hopefully be inspired to follow the example of the French capital.’

Tony Renucci, director of French clean air group Respire, a local partner of the Clean Cities coalition, says: ‘The result of the vote is a victory for Parisians’ quality of life. By making SUVs pay for the cost and nuisance they cause, Paris is sending a signal that these monsters on wheels are not welcome on our streets. It’s also excellent news for air quality, road safety and rebalancing public space in cities’..

https://airqualitynews.com/cars-freight-transport/parisians-vote-to-triple-parking-charges-for-suvs/

On 05/02/2024 08:06 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> Residents of Paris yesterday voted for a huge increase in parking charges for the heaviest, bulkiest and most polluting SUVs in the capital.
>
> From September 1st, parking fees for SUVs in the centre of Paris will jump from €6 to €18 per hour and further out from €4 to €12 per hour.
>
> Despite the referendum attracting attention from around Europe, it didn’t seem to spark as much interest in the city itself. 42,415 votes were cast to in favour of the increased charges (54.55% of the total) but this represents only 3% of those eligible to vote.
>
> The proposition put to the population was: ‘For or against the creation of a specific rate for the parking of heavy, bulky, polluting private cars?’
>
> The City of Paris had described why the vote was taking place: ‘The consultation aimed to address several issues of safety, sharing of public space and pollution. If, for the past ten years, the place of the car has continued to decrease in Paris, at the same time, the average size of cars has increased in the capital.
>
> ‘For three decades, the average size and weight of cars in France have increased, taking up more and more space on the road, sidewalks and public space in general: in less than thirty years, cars have become heavier by nearly 250 kilos. The average weight of a vehicle was 975 kilos in 1990, today it is 1,233 kilos.
>
> ‘Finally, due to their size, SUVs are also more dangerous for pedestrians: in the event of a collision with a child, an adult or an elderly person, these accidents involving an SUV are twice as deadly for pedestrians as with a standard car.’
>
> Jens Mueller, Deputy Director of Clean Cities, says: ‘Today’s vote is an important message from Parisians that monster SUVs are simply incompatible with urban life. Paris has already leapfrogged towards a city where people can easily walk, cycle and enjoy liveable neighbourhoods. Today’s vote takes Paris even closer to the vision of a truly people-centred city. Cities across Europe will hopefully be inspired to follow the example of the French capital.’
>
> Tony Renucci, director of French clean air group Respire, a local partner of the Clean Cities coalition, says: ‘The result of the vote is a victory for Parisians’ quality of life. By making SUVs pay for the cost and nuisance they cause, Paris is sending a signal that these monsters on wheels are not welcome on our streets. It’s also excellent news for air quality, road safety and rebalancing public space in cities’.
>
> https://airqualitynews.com/cars-freight-transport/parisians-vote-to-triple-parking-charges-for-suvs/

How much are they going to charge chavs like you on your chav-bikes?

QUOTE: By making SUVs pay for the cost and nuisance they cause, Paris is sending a signal that these monsters on wheels are not welcome on our streets. It’s also excellent news for air quality, road safety and rebalancing public space in cities’. ENDS

These twats are not welcome *anywhere*, your honours.

JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2024 04:20 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

>> Julia Poliscanova, director of clean vehicles and e-mobility at
>> Transport and Environment, says regulators must step in to force car
>> manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission and suitably sized
>> vehicles, for example small and light cars in urban areas.

>> “Smart urban policies are also key to drive consumers towards clean and
>> safe modes,” she adds. “Mayors should reduce space and parking spots for
>> private cars and reallocate it to people and shared clean mobility services.”

Spoken in the manner of a true EU ‘apparatchik’.

When Ms Poliscanova mentions the nirvana to come of “…shared clean mobility
services…”, keep in mind that she doesn’t mean that the said mobility
services will be hygienic to use. But it’s only the plebeians that will be
affected, so who cares?

How will the plebeians of the democratic EU vote her out? Answer on your
ballot papers…should you ever see one…

> So now, May Sun reckons that the British Crown still rules in the United States of America.

> That's in addition to his belief that the Crown also owns Ireland (eg, Dublin) and France.

--
Spike

Vehicles have gotten a lot bigger over the last few decades, particularly when it comes to trucks and SUVs. In particular, hood heights have gotten much taller as trends have shifted towards taller, more aggressive designs. The trend has raised safety concerns around visibility and pedestrian impacts, particularly when it comes to small children. A new research paper has found significant correlations between larger vehicles and pedestrian fatalities.

The study is the work of Justin Tyndall, an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Hawaii. Tyndall’s research focuses on cities, transport, and housing. His latest paper, The effect of front-end vehicle height on pedestrian death risk, is published in the upcoming March 2024 edition of Economics of Transportation, and also available on his personal website.

Tyndall’s hypothesis was that vehicles with taller front-end designs could be more dangerous for pedestrians in a crash. In these incidents, the higher front-end is more likely to make contact with a person’s head or torso, inflicting greater injuries. In contrast, a vehicle with a lower hoodline might instead hit a pedestrian’s legs, where injuries are less likely to be fatal. Motivating this research are the sobering statistics on pedestrian deaths from traffic collisions, which hit approximately 7,400 fatalities in 2021, up 77% compared to 2010.

Earlier studies have been done in this area, but many haven’t been able to drill down into specifics like hood height due to the limitations of available data. Tyndall’s point of difference was to source vehicle measurements using the VINs of vehicles that show up in U.S. & Canadian crash data. The paper features a basic analysis of pedestrian deaths per vehicle category, which shows that pickups and SUVs are most likely to cause a pedestrian fatality in the event of a collision. But it’s the statistics on front-end height that prove the most telling.

Armed with this data, Tyndall was able to more precisely analyze the relationship between vehicle size and pedestrian deaths. His analysis determined that front-end height is the best predictor of pedestrian fatalities versus any other vehicle dimension, like weight or wheelbase. For a 3.93-inch (10 cm) increase in front-end height, Tyndall found there was a 22% increase in the probability of a pedestrian death. This analysis controlled for other factors like crash characteristics, to ensure a fair comparison.

The study also determined that women, children, and the elderly were more strongly affected in this regard. Tyndall suspects that this could be in part related to the lower average body height for women, similarly for children and older people.

Split across these categories, the data gets interesting. A 3.93-inch (10 cm) increase in hood height raises the risk of fatality by 19% for male pedestrians. For female pedestrians, it goes up by 31%.

Taking the same 3.93-inch increase in height, for those aged 18-65, the risk increases by 21%. For those over 65, the increase is a higher 31%. The results are the most sobering when it comes to children, however. For those under 18, the probability of death goes up by a whopping 81%. That’s four times higher than in adults, and suggests that shorter individuals may be at much greater risk from vehicles with super-tall bonnet lines.

Tyndall suggests there is scope to improve pedestrian safety by limiting hood heights. If front-end heights were limited to 49.2 inches (125 cm), he estimates there would be 500 fewer pedestrian fatalities every year. He bases this number off the approximate hood height of a Honda CR-V. The SUV is taller than most traditional car body styles, but measurably lower than larger SUVs and trucks on the market.

Of course, Tyndall isn’t the only one looking at this problem. The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety published similar conclusions last year. The agency determined that vehicles with tall front ends were more dangerous to pedestrians. Furthermore, it found that medium-height vehicles with blunter, more vertical front-end designs were also more dangerous. Ultimately, it found that pickups, SUVs and vans with hoods over 40 inches were far more dangerous for pedestrians in the event of a collision. They were 45% more likely to cause a fatality compared to other vehicles with more sloping designs and hood heights of 30 inches and below.

Similarly, a study from the European Transport Safety Council concluded that SUVs and pickups made roads more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants alike. It similarly found hood height to be predictive of greater harm. “A pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car with a bonnet 90 cm [35.4 inches] high runs a 30% greater risk of fatal injury than if hit by a vehicle with a bonnet 10 cm [3.93 inches] lower,” read the study release, a notably similar figure to Tyndall’s own findings.

Anyone can look at a big SUV or pickup truck and guess that it might be more of a threat in the event of a collision with pedestrians. Beyond that, it’s clear that multiple studies have found numbers to back that up. Whether it leads to any change in vehicle design standards remains to be seen, but regulators would certainly have plenty of data on their side if they were to move in that direction.

https://www.theautopian.com/full-size-suvs-are-twice-as-likely-to-kill-pedestrians-as-cars-study/

On 06/02/2024 05:49 am, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> Vehicles have gotten a lot bigger over the last few decades, particularly when it comes to trucks and SUVs. In particular, hood heights have gotten much taller as trends have shifted towards taller, more aggressive designs. The trend has raised safety concerns around visibility and pedestrian impacts, particularly when it comes to small children. A new research paper has found significant correlations between larger vehicles and pedestrian fatalities.
> The study is the work of Justin Tyndall, an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Hawaii. Tyndall’s research focuses on cities, transport, and housing. His latest paper, The effect of front-end vehicle height on pedestrian death risk, is published in the upcoming March 2024 edition of Economics of Transportation, and also available on his personal website.
> Tyndall’s hypothesis was that vehicles with taller front-end designs could be more dangerous for pedestrians in a crash. In these incidents, the higher front-end is more likely to make contact with a person’s head or torso, inflicting greater injuries. In contrast, a vehicle with a lower hoodline might instead hit a pedestrian’s legs, where injuries are less likely to be fatal. Motivating this research are the sobering statistics on pedestrian deaths from traffic collisions, which hit approximately 7,400 fatalities in 2021, up 77% compared to 2010.
> Earlier studies have been done in this area, but many haven’t been able to drill down into specifics like hood height due to the limitations of available data. Tyndall’s point of difference was to source vehicle measurements using the VINs of vehicles that show up in U.S. & Canadian crash data. The paper features a basic analysis of pedestrian deaths per vehicle category, which shows that pickups and SUVs are most likely to cause a pedestrian fatality in the event of a collision. But it’s the statistics on front-end height that prove the most telling.
> Armed with this data, Tyndall was able to more precisely analyze the relationship between vehicle size and pedestrian deaths. His analysis determined that front-end height is the best predictor of pedestrian fatalities versus any other vehicle dimension, like weight or wheelbase. For a 3.93-inch (10 cm) increase in front-end height, Tyndall found there was a 22% increase in the probability of a pedestrian death. This analysis controlled for other factors like crash characteristics, to ensure a fair comparison.
> The study also determined that women, children, and the elderly were more strongly affected in this regard. Tyndall suspects that this could be in part related to the lower average body height for women, similarly for children and older people.
> Split across these categories, the data gets interesting. A 3.93-inch (10 cm) increase in hood height raises the risk of fatality by 19% for male pedestrians. For female pedestrians, it goes up by 31%.
> Taking the same 3.93-inch increase in height, for those aged 18-65, the risk increases by 21%. For those over 65, the increase is a higher 31%. The results are the most sobering when it comes to children, however. For those under 18, the probability of death goes up by a whopping 81%. That’s four times higher than in adults, and suggests that shorter individuals may be at much greater risk from vehicles with super-tall bonnet lines.
> Tyndall suggests there is scope to improve pedestrian safety by limiting hood heights. If front-end heights were limited to 49.2 inches (125 cm), he estimates there would be 500 fewer pedestrian fatalities every year. He bases this number off the approximate hood height of a Honda CR-V. The SUV is taller than most traditional car body styles, but measurably lower than larger SUVs and trucks on the market.
> Of course, Tyndall isn’t the only one looking at this problem. The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety published similar conclusions last year. The agency determined that vehicles with tall front ends were more dangerous to pedestrians. Furthermore, it found that medium-height vehicles with blunter, more vertical front-end designs were also more dangerous. Ultimately, it found that pickups, SUVs and vans with hoods over 40 inches were far more dangerous for pedestrians in the event of a collision. They were 45% more likely to cause a fatality compared to other vehicles with more sloping designs and hood heights of 30 inches and below.
> Similarly, a study from the European Transport Safety Council concluded that SUVs and pickups made roads more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants alike. It similarly found hood height to be predictive of greater harm. “A pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car with a bonnet 90 cm [35.4 inches] high runs a 30% greater risk of fatal injury than if hit by a vehicle with a bonnet 10 cm [3.93 inches] lower,” read the study release, a notably similar figure to Tyndall’s own findings.
> Anyone can look at a big SUV or pickup truck and guess that it might be more of a threat in the event of a collision with pedestrians. Beyond that, it’s clear that multiple studies have found numbers to back that up. Whether it leads to any change in vehicle design standards remains to be seen, but regulators would certainly have plenty of data on their side if they were to move in that direction.

> https://www.theautopian.com/full-size-suvs-are-twice-as-likely-to-kill-pedestrians-as-cars-study/

He NOW "thinks" that Hawaii is in the UK!

Mind you...

It’s midnight on the edge of Clapham Common in early September. The streets are eerily quiet as a shadowy figure in black shirt, shorts and baseball cap emerges from the common. He is wearing a red face mask, his features, except for some blond locks, hidden from view.

A university-educated professional, “Will”, as I’ll call him, is making one of his monthly late night rounds of various well-heeled London neighbourhoods. He is looking for cars, specifically big, high-end sports utility vehicles (SUVs) – not to steal or vandalise but to bring down in the world just a little.

While there is no strict definition of what constitutes an SUV, there is a general understanding about what sorts of cars are included in the description. They are bigger than standard cars, with a chunky, pumped-up look, as though a slightly smaller car had been placed on steroids. The larger ones can look like armoured vehicles (in the US, some SUVs are longer than the M4 Sherman tank which played a key role in the second world war).

Their defining characteristic, though, is that they all make a nod towards off-road capability, even if most don’t have it. Only a minority are four-wheel drive. But most have big wheels, a broader wheel track and a higher driving position, and some come with a running board or jutting fender, roof rack, ’roo bars or some other ersatz signifier of rugged outdoor living.

That is the cardinal conceit of SUVs: although the overwhelming majority of them are city-based and only a tiny fraction will ever encounter an obstacle more onerous than a speed bump, they trade on a familiarity with safaris and game shooting.

Tonight, instead of being the hunter, they are being hunted. Along the handsome avenues that lead away from the common, Will diligently stalks his prey. After a few metres, he drops to his knees near a huge black Land Rover Defender with a roof rack and a wheel case on its rear door. He unscrews the cap of one of the tyre valves, compresses it with a lentil, and screws the cap back on, trapping the lentil and leaving the tyre to slowly deflate.

Then he takes out a leaflet and affixes it to the windscreen. “Attention – your gas guzzler kills” is the headline. It goes on to state that “SUVs are the second-largest cause of the global rise in carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade – more than the entire aviation industry” and that studies show that SUV drivers “are more likely to take risks on the road”. It is signed “The Tyre Extinguishers”.

The whole process takes less than a minute.

A leaderless group of activists, the Tyre Extinguishers first emerged in March 2022. They claim to have a presence in a number of countries but it’s in the UK where they have gained most attention, following a protest event in August this year when activists operating under the group’s banner used power tools to puncture the tyres of 60 SUV vehicles at a car dealership in Exeter.

The attack was said to be in response to an incident in south-west London in which a Land Rover had crashed through a school fence and killed two eight-year-old girls. Will says that one of the reasons he became involved in the group was that a good friend of his was very badly injured after being hit by a large car.

As he walks along the silent streets, passing several large cars without stopping, I ask him how he selects his targets.

“My rules of thumb are the most polluting and most dangerous, because obviously the danger of SUVs is not just pollution, it’s multifaceted. It’s about their use of road space.”

Aside from a couple of Land Rover Defenders, which weigh about 2.5 tonnes each, and another two Land Rover Discoverys (about the same weight), he also deflates a BMW X5, a Volvo XC90, and about 15 other similarly sized cars. The most he’s ever done in a night is around 60. Some of the cars he deflates are parked on the gravelled drives of expensive homes, where security systems trigger floodlights as soon as anyone intrudes on to the grounds.

Will is unflustered, and continues as if he were still in the dark. “They’re all tucked up in bed,” he says, adding that he’s never once been caught red (lentil)-handed.

The road traffic act of 1988 states that a person is guilty of an offence “if he intentionally and without lawful authority... interferes with a motor vehicle”, but only in circumstances that a reasonable person would deem obviously “dangerous”. There’s also a theoretical possibility that letting down a tyre could be seen as a “public nuisance” under common law, and also a more serious prospect of a charge of “criminal damage”, which can be temporary in form.

Will took up this form of direct action 18 months ago, frustrated at the “glacial” pace of decarbonisation. After a period of falling, the CO2 emissions of new cars sold in both the UK and the EU have been rising since 2016. Experts attribute the reversal to an increase in SUV sales. In 2006 SUVs accounted for 7% of new cars in Europe. By the early part of this year more than half of all new car sales in Europe were SUVs or SUV-styled cars. Between 2001 and 2022, in an outbreak of ongoing auto-obesity, the average kerb weight of cars sold in Europe increased by 21%. The International Energy Agency has said that annual CO2 emissions from the world’s 330m SUVs reached almost 1bn tonnes last year. According to the government, the transport sector is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the UK (accounting for 34% of the total), with the “large majority” coming from road transport.

Will says he was inspired by How to Blow Up a Pipeline, by Andreas Malm, the Swedish author and associate ecology professor. The book argues for sabotage and damaging property as means of combating the climate crisis. Letting down a tyre is hardly blowing up a pipeline but it is a major irritant to the car’s driver. Will justifies this inconvenience as a mild response to what he calls the “socio-cultural contagion” of SUVs, which he says has been normalised by sheer weight of numbers. His aim is to make people step back from this new normality and see the damage and congestion their cars wreak.

SUV owners have proved stubbornly resistant to environmental arguments. It’s a paradox that has confounded environmental activists. In an effort to explain it, in 2021 the zero-carbon advocacy group Possible commissioned a study from the American psychologist Tim Kasser on the relationship between the dissemination of the environmental case and the use of SUVs.

Possible’s director of innovation, Leo Murray, says Kasser found that “there were no detectable effects of exposure to pro-environmental messaging on people’s purchasing choices”. However, says Murray, Kasser did establish that there “was a detectable increase in propensity to buy an SUV after exposure to advertising for SUVs”.

It wasn’t a lack of awareness about carbon emissions, says Murray, any more than smokers were ignorant of the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes. But in both cases the power of image proved greater than the fact of danger.

It’s a long time since I’ve driven a big car. For a couple of years, more than a decade ago, I was the car reviewer for the Guardian. I test drove very few SUVs, but on the rare occasions that I did, I experienced two distinct feelings. The first was a debilitating concern about navigating such a large vehicle through the capital’s congested streets.. And the second, as that anxiety began to ease, was a sensation of being above the fray, apart from the crowd, somehow superior to my surroundings. As the celebrated German critical theorist Theodor Adorno wrote in Minima Moralia: “Which auto-driver has not felt the temptation, in the power of the motor, to run over the vermin of the street – passers-by, children, bicyclists?”

Both feelings return with interest when I test drive a monster of a 4x4 SUV that is almost 5m long and weighs in at almost three tonnes. I won’t mention the make or model, but it costs more than £70,000, has a fuel consumption rate of about 20pmg and CO2 emissions north of 300g/km (for context about three times the amount of my hatchback). The salesman who accompanies me says that it is the ideal vehicle with which to drag a hot air balloon from a muddy field in Belgium. The idea is that this is the kind of activity a buyer of this vehicle might get up to (apparently one of his clients had done exactly this) or, perhaps more accurately, the kind of activity a certain sort of customer, usually male, might fantasise about doing..

I am more preoccupied with how I am going to back the thing out of the tight parking space on the salesroom site. As I tentatively reverse, I have a sense of foreboding, unsure I’ll be able to control this overgrown mechanical beast. I am posing to the salesman as someone who is seeking maximum protection on the city roads, yet I suspect that I look very much like a man who usually drives a tiny hatchback.

As I ease along the slip road, I see a line of stalled traffic up ahead and immediately begin to worry about how I am ever going to crowbar this tank into the queue. As the traffic starts moving the gaps between the cars are way too small to access. Am I destined to sit for ever, impotent in this embarrassingly large car, never knowing the glories of reaching the third of its eight gears?

Sensing the salesman’s incredulity beside me, I realise that I don’t need a large gap to drive into. I can just pull out into the traffic and one will appear, because who in their right mind would want to risk a collision with the three-tonne vehicle?

That’s precisely what happens, and the lofty superiority of the SUV driver is back. After a slightly banal tour of west London’s A roads, I ask the salesman what the car is like at negotiating speed humps.

On 06/02/2024 06:39 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> It’s midnight on the edge of Clapham Common in early September. The streets are eerily quiet as a shadowy figure in black shirt, shorts and baseball cap emerges from the common. He is wearing a red gimp mask, his features ... hidden from view.

"My name's May Sun", he says, hesitantly, "...and I've never done this
before, honest, but I've heard that Clapham Common is the best place for
it".

On 06/02/2024 06:39 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> It’s midnight on the edge of Clapham Common in early September. The streets are eerily quiet as a shadowy figure in black shirt, shorts and baseball cap emerges from the common. He is wearing a red gimp mask, his features ... hidden from view.

"My name's May Sun", he says, hesitantly, "...and I've never done this
before... honest... but I've heard that Clapham Common is the best place
for it".

Vehicles with especially tall front ends are most dangerous to pedestrians, but a blunt profile makes medium-height vehicles deadly too, new research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

Whatever their nose shape, pickups, SUVs and vans with a hood height greater than 40 inches are about 45 percent more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than cars and other vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less and a sloping profile, an IIHS study of nearly 18,000 pedestrian crashes found. However, among vehicles with hood heights between 30 and 40 inches, a blunt, or more vertical, front end increases the risk to pedestrians.

“Some of today’s vehicles are pretty intimidating when you’re passing in front of them in a crosswalk,” IIHS President David Harkey said. “These results tell us our instincts are correct: More aggressive-looking vehicles can indeed do more harm.”

Pedestrian crash deaths have risen 80 percent since hitting their low in 2009. Nearly 7,400 walkers — more than 20 people a day — lost their lives in 2021 after being struck by a vehicle. While speeding and poorly designed infrastructure have helped fuel the increase, many safety advocates have also drawn a connection to the growing portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet made up of pickups and SUVs.

Over the past 30 years, the average U.S. passenger vehicle has gotten about 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller and 1,000 pounds heavier.. Many vehicles are more than 40 inches tall at the leading edge of the hood. On some large pickups, the hoods are almost at eye level for many adults..

To examine the connection between fatality risk and vehicle size and shape, IIHS researchers analyzed 17,897 crashes involving a single passenger vehicle and a single pedestrian. Using Vehicle Identification Numbers to identify the crash-involved vehicles, they calculated key front-end measurements corresponding to 2,958 unique car, minivan, large van, SUV and pickup models from photographs. They excluded vehicles with pedestrian automatic emergency braking systems and controlled for other factors that could affect the likelihood of a fatality, such as the speed limit and age and sex of the struck pedestrian.

Vehicles with hoods more than 40 inches off the ground at the leading edge and a grille sloped at an angle of 65 degrees or less were 45 percent more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities than those with a similar slope and hood heights of 30 inches or less. Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front ends angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44 percent more likely to cause fatalities.

“Manufacturers can make vehicles less dangerous to pedestrians by lowering the front end of the hood and angling the grille and hood to create a sloped profile,” said IIHS Senior Research Transportation Engineer Wen Hu, the lead author of the study. “There’s no functional benefit to these massive, blocky fronts.”

While sloping front ends did not reduce the risk posed by vehicles with the tallest hoods, they did make a difference for vehicles with hood heights of 30-40 inches. Compared with low and sloped vehicles, medium-height vehicles with blunt fronts were 26 percent more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities. In contrast, the risk of a fatality was about the same for medium-height vehicles with sloped fronts as for low vehicles with either blunt or sloped fronts.

The researchers looked at several other vehicle characteristics, including the angle of the windshield, length of the hood and angle of the hood. Among these, the slope of the hood had the biggest effect. There was a 25 percent increase in the risk of a fatality for vehicles with flat hoods — those with angles of 15 degrees or less — compared with vehicles with more sloping hoods. That was true regardless of height and front-end shape.

To better understand how vehicles of different geometries injure pedestrians, IIHS examined detailed records from 121 crashes collected by the International Center for Automotive Medicine Pedestrian Consortium. In each crash, the front end of a car, pickup or SUV struck a teenager or adult. The data included detailed crash reconstructions, including information about the motion of the pedestrian’s body during the crash and the nature and severity of their injuries. The reports also included the year, make and model of the striking vehicle and the height of the pedestrian.

The researchers used the same measurements as those used in the larger study to define vehicles with blunt and sloped front ends and tall and short ones. For this study, however, they divided the involved vehicles into only two height groups because of the smaller sample size. Taller vehicles were defined as those with a hood leading edge more than 35 inches off the ground.. Shorter ones were those with a hood leading edge 35 inches or less from the ground.

In general, vehicles taller than 35 inches were more dangerous to pedestrians than the shorter ones, mainly because they tended to cause more severe head injuries. Among vehicles taller than 35 inches, those with vertical front ends were more dangerous than those with sloped front ends. Torso and hip injuries from these vehicles were more frequent and severe.

Unlike all other vehicle types, tall and blunt vehicles primarily inflicted torso injuries with their front ends rather than with the tops of their hoods. They were more likely to injure pedestrians by throwing them forward, while tall and sloped vehicles usually rolled them onto the hood of the vehicle first.

Pedestrians who were shorter relative to the height of the striking vehicle also suffered more severe injuries.

“It’s clear that the increasing size of the vehicles in the U.S. fleet is costing pedestrians their lives,” Harkey said. “We encourage automakers to consider these findings and take a hard look at the height and shape of their SUVs and pickups.”

On 07/02/2024 08:58 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
> Vehicles with especially tall front ends are most dangerous to pedestrians, but a blunt profile makes medium-height vehicles deadly too, new research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.
>
> Whatever their nose shape, pickups, SUVs and vans with a hood height greater than 40 inches are about 45 percent more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than cars and other vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less and a sloping profile, an IIHS study of nearly 18,000 pedestrian crashes found. However, among vehicles with hood heights between 30 and 40 inches, a blunt, or more vertical, front end increases the risk to pedestrians.
>
> “Some of today’s vehicles are pretty intimidating when you’re passing in front of them in a crosswalk,” IIHS President David Harkey said. “These results tell us our instincts are correct: More aggressive-looking vehicles can indeed do more harm.”
>
> Pedestrian crash deaths have risen 80 percent since hitting their low in 2009. Nearly 7,400 walkers — more than 20 people a day — lost their lives in 2021 after being struck by a vehicle. While speeding and poorly designed infrastructure have helped fuel the increase, many safety advocates have also drawn a connection to the growing portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet made up of pickups and SUVs.
>
> Over the past 30 years, the average U.S. passenger vehicle has gotten about 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller and 1,000 pounds heavier. Many vehicles are more than 40 inches tall at the leading edge of the hood. On some large pickups, the hoods are almost at eye level for many adults.
>
> To examine the connection between fatality risk and vehicle size and shape, IIHS researchers analyzed 17,897 crashes involving a single passenger vehicle and a single pedestrian. Using Vehicle Identification Numbers to identify the crash-involved vehicles, they calculated key front-end measurements corresponding to 2,958 unique car, minivan, large van, SUV and pickup models from photographs. They excluded vehicles with pedestrian automatic emergency braking systems and controlled for other factors that could affect the likelihood of a fatality, such as the speed limit and age and sex of the struck pedestrian.
>
> Vehicles with hoods more than 40 inches off the ground at the leading edge and a grille sloped at an angle of 65 degrees or less were 45 percent more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities than those with a similar slope and hood heights of 30 inches or less. Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front ends angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44 percent more likely to cause fatalities.
>
> “Manufacturers can make vehicles less dangerous to pedestrians by lowering the front end of the hood and angling the grille and hood to create a sloped profile,” said IIHS Senior Research Transportation Engineer Wen Hu, the lead author of the study. “There’s no functional benefit to these massive, blocky fronts.”
>
> While sloping front ends did not reduce the risk posed by vehicles with the tallest hoods, they did make a difference for vehicles with hood heights of 30-40 inches. Compared with low and sloped vehicles, medium-height vehicles with blunt fronts were 26 percent more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities. In contrast, the risk of a fatality was about the same for medium-height vehicles with sloped fronts as for low vehicles with either blunt or sloped fronts.
>
> The researchers looked at several other vehicle characteristics, including the angle of the windshield, length of the hood and angle of the hood. Among these, the slope of the hood had the biggest effect. There was a 25 percent increase in the risk of a fatality for vehicles with flat hoods — those with angles of 15 degrees or less — compared with vehicles with more sloping hoods. That was true regardless of height and front-end shape.
>
> To better understand how vehicles of different geometries injure pedestrians, IIHS examined detailed records from 121 crashes collected by the International Center for Automotive Medicine Pedestrian Consortium. In each crash, the front end of a car, pickup or SUV struck a teenager or adult. The data included detailed crash reconstructions, including information about the motion of the pedestrian’s body during the crash and the nature and severity of their injuries. The reports also included the year, make and model of the striking vehicle and the height of the pedestrian.
>
> The researchers used the same measurements as those used in the larger study to define vehicles with blunt and sloped front ends and tall and short ones. For this study, however, they divided the involved vehicles into only two height groups because of the smaller sample size. Taller vehicles were defined as those with a hood leading edge more than 35 inches off the ground. Shorter ones were those with a hood leading edge 35 inches or less from the ground.
>
> In general, vehicles taller than 35 inches were more dangerous to pedestrians than the shorter ones, mainly because they tended to cause more severe head injuries. Among vehicles taller than 35 inches, those with vertical front ends were more dangerous than those with sloped front ends. Torso and hip injuries from these vehicles were more frequent and severe.
>
> Unlike all other vehicle types, tall and blunt vehicles primarily inflicted torso injuries with their front ends rather than with the tops of their hoods. They were more likely to injure pedestrians by throwing them forward, while tall and sloped vehicles usually rolled them onto the hood of the vehicle first.
>
> Pedestrians who were shorter relative to the height of the striking vehicle also suffered more severe injuries.
>
> “It’s clear that the increasing size of the vehicles in the U.S. fleet is costing pedestrians their lives,” Harkey said. “We encourage automakers to consider these findings and take a hard look at the height and shape of their SUVs and pickups.”

[No chav-cycle content]

And off-topic for the United Kingdom.

The New York Times recently highlighted the “exceptionally American” problem of rising road deaths. Roadways are becoming safer in virtually every developed country across the world, except for the United States. Even during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, when there were far fewer cars on the road, traffic deaths continued to increase.

American roadways are particularly dangerous for pedestrians. A March 2022 study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that pedestrian deaths have increased by 59% since 2009, and 20% of all motor vehicle deaths were pedestrians in 2020. Several factors contribute to these grim statistics, but a big one (pun intended) is the size of vehicles on the road.

Large SUVs and pickup trucks are, unsurprisingly, more likely than smaller cars to injure or kill pedestrians due to their greater weight and taller front ends. And, as you’ve undoubtedly noticed if you live in the US, Americans love big vehicles. Some reports show that now over 80% of new car sales in the US are SUVs or pickups. That’s bad news for pedestrians. And soon we’ll have preposterously heavy EVs to worry about, too.

But can we really take those pedestrian safety statistics at face value? I decided to analyze the data for myself to see if large vehicles are actually causing a significant increase in pedestrian injuries and deaths (spoiler alert: they are).