Why do people drive unnecessarily large cars?

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.

Thank you.

What a ridiculous study. That would assume all aspects of the collision were consistent. There is no way they can conclusively say that.

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.

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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I appreciate your respectful advice, but I reject it.

Well that is conclusive enough for me.

It's the reptiles. Always the reptiles.

People need commercial Lorries and Van's to transport goods and equipment around the country, people don't need 4x4 cars which weigh 500kg more and are wider and higher than an average family car..

That's the Chicken Tax which allows light trucks to be in the same grouping as Cars, I can't see that happening here. Once people move away from ICE cars into heavier EV's the government may introduce a tax based on weight rather than emissions, so that will mean 2 tonne cars will be heavily taxed and costly to purchase and run..