Research Determines SUVs Kill More Pedestrians

CNNinternational ^ | October 7, 2005 | Reuters

[texianyankee]

Blame the Irish for this study.....

[rockrr]

I think mine has killed two or three this week alone. I've had to chain it up at night...

[texianyankee]

If that be the case, then you might ought to have your SUV documented.

[gc4nra]

I have an F-150 and my wife has an Expedition, I thought ZI heard them planning something last night.

[headsonpikes]

I think mine has killed two or three this week alone. I've had to chain it up at night...

I had to put my Canyonero down...just like a dog once they get the taste of chicken feathers!

[rhombus]

More stuck on stupid research.

[Izzy Dunne]

The excerpt down't cover the "reason", but the article explains this:

The main problem was the height and shape of the front of vehicle. The hood, or bonnet, is higher than on cars and has a more severe impact when it strikes the center of the body and upper legs and pelvis.

Sounds to me like pedestrians need to grow taller...

And the business about elderly folks has no place in this story. The "fact" that elderly pedestrians are more vulnerable to the dangers of SUVs because they are weaker, less agile and may have poorer reactions may be true, but it's just as true for other cars, motorcycles and anything else.

[Termite_Commander]

LOL

Of course they would kill more people! They're bigger and heavier vehicles! Are they going to do a study to see if large boulders kill more people than small boulders?

[45Auto]

This is nonsense. Elementary Newtonian physics says that if a person is struck by a moving object the damage to said person will be according to the second law:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

The only two variables that count are the weight of the vehicle and its velocity/acceleration not if its a Mercedes sedan or a Lincoln Navigator. Morons. A 1500 pound Honda Civic circa 1983 will severely maim anyone it hits at even 15 mph.

[texianyankee]

Are they going to do a study to see if large boulders kill more people than small boulders?

Hey, wasnt that already determined by Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon scientists?

[Termite_Commander]

= )

[Redcloak]

If you don't like the way I drive, then stay off the sidewalk!

[RexBeach]

If they outlaw SUVs, only criminals will have SUVs.

[George Smiley]

A 1500 pound Honda Civic circa 1983 will severely maim anyone it hits at even 15 mph.

I'll bet that a half-ounce Matchbox car traveling at 600 feet per second could be pretty lethal at the right distance above the ground.

: ^ )

[Termite_Commander]

lol

[RebelBanker]

The article confuses two issues:
1) Likelihood of striking a pedestrian with the vehicle and
2) Average severity of injuries to the pedestrian if struck.

#1 is up to the driver. Anyone could drive in a reckless manner regardless of vehicle type.

#2 - I would expect a taller, heavier vehicle to cause more damage hitting someone so that part actually makes sense to me.

[mc6809e]

More stuck on stupid research.

Not necessarily. Such information might be useful in determining appropriate lower legal limits on insurance coverage.

If those driving SUVs are more likely to do greater damage, then perhaps the legally required minimum in insurance coverage should be raised for those driving SUVs.

[verity]

Obedience training works quite well too.

[mc6809e]

The article confuses two issues: 1) Likelihood of striking a pedestrian with the vehicle and 2) Average severity of injuries to the pedestrian if struck. #1 is up to the driver. Anyone could drive in a reckless manner regardless of vehicle type. But visibility of areas close to the vehicle is much reduced. There's just more vehicle in the way. This might explain why children are at greater risk. Being so short, they're much likely to be invisible to the driver of and SUV if they're standing nearby.

[mc6809e]

The article confuses two issues: 1) Likelihood of striking a pedestrian with the vehicle and 2) Average severity of injuries to the pedestrian if struck. #1 is up to the driver. Anyone could drive in a reckless manner regardless of vehicle type.

But visibility of areas close to the vehicle is much reduced. There's just more vehicle in the way. This might explain why children are at greater risk. Being so short, they're much likely to be invisible to the driver of and SUV if they're standing nearby.