A girl I work with lives in Blanchardstown, she drives daily to Summerhill in her car. Why t f?
What’s wrong with a modest hatch back?
She’s unmarried and no kids. What the f does she need it for?
This might come as a surprise to you, but those who put their life's work into producing, peer reviewing and publishing papers like this are well aware of the ever so slightly superficial issues that you raise to dismiss findings that you don't personally like. If you want to look at the actual paper, you'll see the steps they took to avoid bias. https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2025/04/11/ip-2024-045613 In meta studies like this, they tend to look at very large amounts of data, in this case, 1936 other studies covering a combined sample size of 682 509 crash victims. With large numbers like these, the variables that you mention average out, so on both sides of the comparision, there will be a large range of speeds, road type and other variables. This allows them to focus on one particular variable, the vehicle type in this case, and see if there is a statistically significant difference, which there clearly is. But please, do tell us how you more than the paper authors and peer reviewers about how to produce public health research?
I'd respectfully suggest that the ghoulish behaviour in this thread is those who are working really hard to try to hide the obvious, the increased danger of SUVs to pedestrians and cyclists, and particularly to children, because that doesn't suit their personal preferences.
From this piece in The Atlantic from 2021.
Americans have traded sedans for crossovers and SUVs for full-size pickups with total abandon over the past decade. To the extent that we think at all critically about the sheer bulk of the vehicles we drive, we’re usually motivated by environmental concerns. One common notion—though auto-safety experts will say it’s not that simple—is that it’s safer to get around in what’s basically a tank. But those benefits, exaggerated as they may be, are only for people inside the vehicle. People outside—pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users—are in more peril.
Essentially people who've already ascended to their death tanks aren't interested in facts about their vehicles danger to others as they believe their own safety is more important than everyone's safety.
Only the self obsessed narcissistic in Ireland can willfully ignore all the evidence that these commercial trucks should not be personal vehicles.
Those statistics would need to factor in the assumption that every aspect of the collision would be identical, and only the dimensions/weight of the vehicle were different.
It is nonsense. If standard cars were replaced with joggers running at the same speed, there would be a descrease of 4239048%. We can all make up hypothetical situations.
Every accident, every fatality and every injury are made up from different scenarios. It's dishonest.
It's not my "critical analysis", it's my reading that bullshit is sometimes bullshit.
Very much if my auntie had testicles she'd be my aunt. (sorry if that offended anyone)
They're not making a comparison between what happens to a child vs what happens to an adult. They're comparing what happens to a person hit by a traditional car vs what happens when it's an SUV.
Whether it's 82%, 44%, 100% or any other % is unimportant. People losing their lives is what is important here. Bit of common sense suggests you are more likely to die in a collision with a lorry than a van, with a van than an SUV, with an SUV than a hatchback, than a car with a bike, etc etc etc
It doesn't mean we should ban the above mentioned vehicles from our roads. Improving safety standards in those vehicles should be the priority
So in your critical analysis of all the reports are you stating categorically that the analysis of 24 studies is incorrect or is this just your unfathomable bias coming into play that causes you to see alternative facts?
If all SUVs were replaced by standard cars, the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed in car crashes would decrease by an estimated 8% in Europe and 17% in the US, they said.
i suspect when it comes to cars hitting pedestrians, that vehicle weight ceases to matter, except possibly in the case of the likelihood of the collision occurring in the first place.
there's so much of a disconnect between the weight of a vehicle (and the kinetic energy it's carrying) and the weight of a human - especially a child - that to the human body, the vehicle may as well weigh ten tons - the weight of the human body will not impact the deceleration of the vehicle in any meaningful sense.
one obvious comparison to make would be to compare the volvo XC90 with the volvo S90 of a comparable age - different body styles, but presumably similar technology to avoid collisions. the S90's most recent rating is from 2017 and the XC90's is from 2015. the S90 scores 76% for VRUs while the XC90 scores 72%.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/volvo/s90/26099
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/volvo/xc90/20976
A child is more unlikely to survive a collision with a car than an adult would because the impact would likely result in trauma to the most important parts of their body (e.g head) and/or may propel them further due to the lack of body mass.
If the car is larger and heavier, and happens to be going at the exact same speed as a smaller car would be, and the driver has the EXACT same reaction time, it could be worse for a child.
Wow.
Nobel prize for these absolute pioneers.
The post I was replying to referred to Ranelagh in a metaphoric sense, rather than in a literal sense. The issue wasn't about number of deaths or injuries in a strict geographical area. It really doesn't matter whether child deaths are happening in Ranelagh or in rural Ireland. What matters is that child deaths are happening in collisions with vehicles
Also ... laws of physics.
Larger, heavier objects will exert more force and energy than smaller, lighter objects travelling at the same speed.
I'd like to see someone prove that the average SUV is statistically safer for pedestrians than the traditional sized car.
No one should be driving a Ford Ranger as a personal vehicle.
I would accept the analysis of 24 studies, including 16 from the US, with others from countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands over your unqualified opinion any day.. And using terms like Clickbait to try and degrade the contents of the article is just a deflection from the facts in these studies..
It would to most normal people.
It's very sad that when the facts are presented to people like what you have on this thread and they still tell you that Black is white..
This means an adult is hit in the pelvis rather than the knees, while a child is struck on the head instead of lower on their body.A blunter front ends also means a person is more likely to be thrown forward, which could result in the vehicle hitting them a second time or rolling over their body, the report added.
This means an adult is hit in the pelvis rather than the knees, while a child is struck on the head instead of lower on their body.
A blunter front ends also means a person is more likely to be thrown forward, which could result in the vehicle hitting them a second time or rolling over their body, the report added.
That reads like common sense to me.
Sadly no. There is no possible way that they can conclude their percentage increase of fatalities is valid unless they expect all collisions to have happened at the exact same circumstances, the exact same speed and the exact same person driving the vehicle with the exact same response.
It is a nonsense, but unfortunately, and somewhat fortunately, I do not accept it as gospel.
I do agree that a vehicle with a larger weight, going at the same speed, and with the same reaction time from the driver would inevitably result in a poorer outcome. That's just common sense.
The "need" for the vehicle on the road is not important.
But the click bait headline that SUV drivers are 82% more likely to kill a child is purely just clickbait. You would want to be, or believe the readers are, morons to accept it as fact.
Common sense isn't as common as it should be.
Can you then propose a counter study which you have undertaken to prove the findings of this study are inconclusive and therefore invalid?
What a ridiculous study. That would assume all aspects of the collision were consistent. There is no way they can conclusively say that.
Ghoulish is a good way to describe it. Its quite sick, in my opinion.
Thank you.
Hot off the presses
Disgusting response to be honest. The difference in "need" does not make anything less tragic. Accidents happen. I'm sure I could google and find an example of someone killing someone with a bike. But I am not a ghoul.
Desperately sorry to hear that. Sorry for your loss.
But he didn't say "SUVs aren't ramming children", now did he? He actually sad much more than that. You've chopped off part of the sentence. You're deliberately misquoting him to justify using a dead child as a stick with which to beat others.
I reject your assertion that people were claiming children weren't being killed by SUVs, that's not what was said. You're twisting that other poster's words and using a tragedy to score points on the internet. Disgusting is right.
The poster you quoted was nowhere near as specific as that. The poster never claimed that SUVs are never involved in collisions with children, only that in their view, it was not common.
This is very likely to be correct. For reference, here is the post you quoted originally, it contained words like "safer" and "I haven't seen too many."
Of course, to address what this poster actually said, and not some pathetic strawman, you would have to deal in facts instead of pimping dead children to score cheap points. 🤨
Safer for the occupant which in turn forces/encourages other road users to upgrade to an equal or bigger size SUV and the cycle keeps going on and on...
Regardless of what you believe you should be able to choose for a vehicle and all that stuff. You cannot deny my above point. When does it end?
Well that's disingenuous; what they mentioned was children getting rammed by SUV's in Ranelagh. You scoured the internet for a suitable story and found duplicitously posted it as if it suits. The story you found was in relation to a 4x4 being used for agri purposes in a rural area.
Its not perception, it's facts,.
Understood. Yes, I strongly believe some people do buy SUVS as they perceive them to be safer.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
