[PR] 'Axles-of-Evil'! SUVs Are Killer Vehicles

Victor

.

‘Axles-of-Evil’! SUVs Are Killer Vehicles

Marked Increased Presence of SUV/4x4 Vehicles on Irish Roads Has Potential to Present an Unacceptably High Risk of Death and Injury to Cyclists and Pedestrians


Background:

The Velo-city conference meets soon in Dublin to bring together traffic engineers, architects, planners, traffic safety practitioners and cycling activists in order to plan for a better and safer cycling environment in European and other cities and to encourage more commuters to turn to the bike as a solution to the daily transport problem. The overall theme of Velo-City Dublin 2005 is “Delivering the Vision.” This reflects the fact that Dublin has taken a vision-led integrated approach to cycling in the past 10 years, embedding cycling into other projects as well as developing specific initiatives for the cycle mode.

However there is at least one blot on this visionary streetscape. In Ireland, there has been a marked increase, over the past decade, in the use of sports utility vehicles (SUVs & 4x4s) on our roads and streets, particularly in Dublin City. The licensing authorities do not have figures for the total numbers, as they don’t classify SUVs as a separate category of vehicle. At this stage there are thousands in daily use on the streets of Dublin City.

This increased presence of SUV vehicles on roads has the potential to present an unacceptably high risk of death and injury to cyclists and pedestrians in a City traffic context.


Why do drivers want to drive SUVs?

In surveys many SUV drivers say that they bought one because they felt that it gave them and their families an enhanced degree of protection in the event of collision with another vehicle. But this ignores the effects of the heavier SUV on the occupants of any smaller vehicle or more seriously on pedestrians and cyclists that may be in a collision with it. In truth, many are perhaps bought more for lifestyle reasons as a ‘fashion accessory’. It can’t surely be because of large family sizes? The average Irish family size (total fertility rate for 2002: ~1.9 compared to ~3.8 in 1973) has fallen over the same period so quite why families now need larger carrying capacity cars is less obvious. The advertisements for these vehicles sell the concept of being able to go into rough terrain. Considering the access problems to the Irish upland areas posed by landowner attitudes, the reality is that most are rarely used off-road.

Ø The downside for other street users is that they invariably come off worst in collision with these leviathans.

Ø The City is striving to reduce the number of HGVs using the streets by building the Dublin Port Tunnel linked to the M50 but is replacing one hazard with another.

Ø So it seems all right to get rid of HGVs so long as we replace them with SUVs!

Why do SUVs represent an increased risk of death or injury to other road users?

These vehicles are heavier and bigger in the three linear dimensions than medium size family cars. A typical SUV is represented by the likes of an Isuzu Trooper, a Mitsubishi Pajero, a BMW X5 or Volvo XC 90, etc. These vehicles weigh something like 2200 kg or 2.2 tonne (unladen). That means their momentum (product of mass times velocity) is high relative to standard saloon cars (e.g. Toyota Corolla CE: 1147.6 kg). The ‘thump’ delivered in a collision is greater than that produced by a saloon car.

Ø In any SUV collision with a pedestrian or cyclist the energy transmitted to the victim’s body is massive in comparison to impact from a family car. This reduces the likelihood of the victim surviving the impact.

Ø Any injuries will be concentrated in the upper body due to the increased height of the bonnet above ground (typically 1.1 m). The relatively bluff leading edge of the bonnet impacts with the abdomen, thorax and head and so vital body organs will bear the brunt of the trauma and the victim will be killed or maimed.

Ø USA data from RTAs reveals that a pedestrian has a two to three times greater likelihood of dying when struck by a SUV/4x4 vehicle. [see Lefler & Gabler (2004) paper cited below]

Ø Another reason why SUVs present a real threat to pedestrians and cyclists is that their bulk - height (approx. 1.8 m) and length (approx. 4.5 m ) - reduces or impairs the sight–lines for these road users who can’t see through them to make decisions safely to interact with them or other traffic in streets.

Ø This sight-line interference is exacerbated by the fact that many have blanked out side panels instead of windows to avoid paying a higher VRT and some even sport opaque one-way windows. In this situation, the vital body-language interaction that goes on between drivers and pedestrians or cyclists, where decisions to be made about next safe moves for these are compromised if the driver can’t be seen. The Revenue needs to abandon its insistence that rear windows be blanked out.

What should be done by the authorities in the face of this increased risk to vulnerable street users?

Ø The government (Ministers for Transport, Finance and for Local Government and Environment) should take steps to discourage any further increase in the sales of these vehicles by adopting penal fiscal measures and a permit system if they are to be used in urban areas.

Ø A maximum vehicle special speed limit of 30 kph in urban areas should be set for them (flagged with a decal posted on the tailgate to indicate this special speed limit to other road users) in order to reduce the severity of injury to others in the event of collision. There would have to be effective Garda enforcement of this vehicle-specific limit

Ø No more sales of SUVs fitted with blanked rear side panels, opaque or tinted windows should be allowed. Revenue needs to change its VRT policy.

Ø There is no point in chasing HGVs off the streets in order to leave SUVs with free and unfettered access. HGVs and SUVs are both too heavy to be running through city streets. The owners and drivers of these large vehicles have to learn that their anti-social life-style choice comes with a cost to the rest of the community and the environment.

Note to Editors:

1. The RTA research literature is beginning to show that SUVs are causing more deaths and serious injuries among pedestrians, cyclists as well as drivers and occupants of smaller vehicles. See for instance DE Lefler & HG Gabler (2004) in Accident Analysis and Prevention: 36, 295-304, ‘The fatality and injury risk of light truck impacts with pedestrians in the United States’.

2. Dr. Des O’Neill (consultant in Geriatric Medicine, St. James’ Hospital Dublin) presented data at the IMO conference April 2005 to show that injuries to pedestrians were increasing in severity when impact with SUVs was concerned. See http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=7242

3. The Mairie de Paris is considering a proposal from Deputy Mayor, M. Denis Baupin, to restrict SUV usage on the streets of central Paris.

The Velo-City Dublin 2005 web-site is at this URL: http://www.dto.ie/velo/velocity_registration.pdf

Calina

3. The Mairie de Paris is considering a proposal from Deputy Mayor, M. Denis Baupin, to restrict SUV usage on the streets of central Paris.

If I am not mistaken, I believe le Mairie de Paris is also considering banning non-local traffic altogether from central Paris:

PARIS (AFP) - Les quatre premiers arrondissements de Paris devraient être interdits aux voitures de non-résidents d'ici 2012, avec la voie Georges-Pompidou réservée aux piétons et à la circulation douce, selon les informations obtenues par le Journal du dimanche (JDD).

i.e. Non residents will not be permitted to drive in the first four arrondissements by 2012 according to information acquired by the Journal du dimanche newspaper. Voie Georges-Pompidou will be completely pedestrianised.

cyclopath2001

This reflects the fact that Dublin has taken a vision-led integrated approach to cycling in the past 10 years, embedding cycling into other projects as well as developing specific initiatives for the cycle mode.

Utter tosh.

Borzoi

Report wrote:

.That means their momentum (product of mass times velocity) is high relative to standard saloon cars (e.g. Toyota Corolla CE: 1147.6 kg). The ‘thump’ delivered in a collision is greater than that produced by a saloon car.

From a pedestrian's or cyclist point of view the distinction is meaningless, the body mass effect on any vehicle impact is negligible.

Victor you found a rare piece of pseudo science and pure agenda there - and I hate SUVs, but using this garbage just undermines the velo city position.

Garibaldi

Getting cyclists (I know, some do. But I'd find it very hard to accept that these are in the majority) to adhere to the rules of the road sounds like a radical new way to reduce the probability of them coming into abrupt contact with these "Killer Vehicles". As a MOTORcyclist I don't see the point in this differentiating between SUVs and any other vehicle. To paraphrase Borzoi, and as experience has taught me, from a motorcyclist's point of view, the body mass effect on any vehicle impact is negligible.

cyclopath2001

Borzoi wrote:

Victor you found a rare piece of pseudo science and pure agenda there - and I hate SUVs, but using this garbage just undermines the velo city position.

I think what's at play here is that VeloCity, knowing that it cannot expect support from cyclists based on Dublin's dismal record of provision for cyclists, is trying to tap into populist sentiment against 'townie tanks'.

The promoters of Velocity have done more to undermine cycling in Dublin than a legion of SUVs.