SUVs more dangerous to cyclists than other cars, study suggests(road.cc)
road.cc
SUVs more dangerous to cyclists than other cars, study suggests
https://road.cc/content/news/suvs-more-dangerous-cyclists-than-other-cars-300605
17 comments
Wow that is like three steps ahead of where we are at. I would be content with people not driving giant lifted trucks with modified exhausts and cars with huge subwoofers. People who just drive SUVs seem like angels in comparison.
> in the EU a _lot_ of people think that driving a SUV without needing the off-road capabilities is at least egoistic if not outright asocial.
In general I used to believe this (in the US) as well, but now everyone and their grandmother has one, so it's kinda hard to paint everyone with that broad a brush. (Attempting to do so is itself egoistic and asocial.)
> people insisting on driving a SUV without a need for it are using it like an armor they ware because they are afraid of the outside world.
It's an arms race. If everyone is driving an SUV except you, and you get into a crash, you're more likely to get more hurt than if you'd been driving an SUV as well. So more people drive SUVs, which encourages more people with a lean toward that mindset to drive them, and so on.
Another driver (heh) of the SUV surge was children. In the 80s and 90s, many US families turned to minivans when they'd have a couple kids. Easier to load and unload the children, more space to carry things. But minivans were uncool and became associated with the boring suburban soccer mom/dad (especially men hated this, of course; driving around in a minivan was emasculating). SUVs brought most of the same benefits: extra cargo space, sometimes an extra row of seats, and easier to load and unload the children. And they were cool! I mean, "SUV" has "sport" right there in the name! Sports are cool!
SUVs also handle a bit better than minivans, which are often just lumbering box-vehicles. Sure, an SUV usually doesn't handle as well as a sedan or coupe, but it's a decent middle ground for people who believe a sedan doesn't suit their needs.
Another reason -- possibly the primary initial reason -- is profit-driven marketing. I don't know if it's still the case, but there was a loophole in US vehicle emissions laws that would allow for less-stringent emissions standards past a certain vehicle size. So SUVs allowed manufacturers to spend less money on increasing fuel efficiency and reducing emissions, and, to boot, also sell the vehicles at a higher price. So they manufactured demand with marketing that glorified the high "command seating position" that you get with vehicles like SUVs, and of course everyone ate that up. This highlights why I'd love for all advertising to be illegal: it's just emotional manipulation to get people to buy things they don't need.
I don't personally like the proliferation of SUVs myself (and drive a 4-seater, AWD coupe, myself, and drive it in heavy snow just fine), but I perfectly understand why it's a thing, and have stopped bothering to begrudge people for their choices in this regard.
In general I used to believe this (in the US) as well, but now everyone and their grandmother has one, so it's kinda hard to paint everyone with that broad a brush. (Attempting to do so is itself egoistic and asocial.)
> people insisting on driving a SUV without a need for it are using it like an armor they ware because they are afraid of the outside world.
It's an arms race. If everyone is driving an SUV except you, and you get into a crash, you're more likely to get more hurt than if you'd been driving an SUV as well. So more people drive SUVs, which encourages more people with a lean toward that mindset to drive them, and so on.
Another driver (heh) of the SUV surge was children. In the 80s and 90s, many US families turned to minivans when they'd have a couple kids. Easier to load and unload the children, more space to carry things. But minivans were uncool and became associated with the boring suburban soccer mom/dad (especially men hated this, of course; driving around in a minivan was emasculating). SUVs brought most of the same benefits: extra cargo space, sometimes an extra row of seats, and easier to load and unload the children. And they were cool! I mean, "SUV" has "sport" right there in the name! Sports are cool!
SUVs also handle a bit better than minivans, which are often just lumbering box-vehicles. Sure, an SUV usually doesn't handle as well as a sedan or coupe, but it's a decent middle ground for people who believe a sedan doesn't suit their needs.
Another reason -- possibly the primary initial reason -- is profit-driven marketing. I don't know if it's still the case, but there was a loophole in US vehicle emissions laws that would allow for less-stringent emissions standards past a certain vehicle size. So SUVs allowed manufacturers to spend less money on increasing fuel efficiency and reducing emissions, and, to boot, also sell the vehicles at a higher price. So they manufactured demand with marketing that glorified the high "command seating position" that you get with vehicles like SUVs, and of course everyone ate that up. This highlights why I'd love for all advertising to be illegal: it's just emotional manipulation to get people to buy things they don't need.
I don't personally like the proliferation of SUVs myself (and drive a 4-seater, AWD coupe, myself, and drive it in heavy snow just fine), but I perfectly understand why it's a thing, and have stopped bothering to begrudge people for their choices in this regard.
I blame car manufacturers partly for not even trying to make the minivans cool though. Look at the current generation Sienna (especially the XSE trim) for how to make a minivan look cool - it has some awesome swagger
Minivan manufacturers who want to attract swaggering egotistical fragile man-children like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos should look at the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile and Dr. Evil's rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wienermobile
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/bezos-blue-origin-resem...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju1UwmgkKgI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wienermobile
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/bezos-blue-origin-resem...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju1UwmgkKgI
> driving around in a minivan was emasculating
This supports his point that SUVs are a symptom of male fragility and childish egotistical behavior.
This supports his point that SUVs are a symptom of male fragility and childish egotistical behavior.
Absolutely. I do think that the rise of SUVs in the US was dominated by other factors, but men not wanting to drive minivans played a part.
It's not just cyclists. A year ago I saw a middle-aged couple both go up onto the hood of a Prius that was rounding a right turn without looking. I think they were both fine. If it was an SUV they'd have been knocked forward so hard they'd have been seriously injured or killed.
I was dropping my kids off at school and a 1st grader was riding her bike through the crosswalk and another driver didn’t see her. He bumped her at less-than walking speed so no one was seriously injured. I was amazed at how she bounced up and away from the car. If I would have hit her with my (old) truck, even at that super low speed, I’m sure she would have gotten caught on the bumper and pulled under the wheels. The new pedestrian safety designs are cool even though they do make all cars look the same and bulbous now.
Not just knocked forward; good chance they could also be pulled underneath and crushed under the tires.
version_five(3)
See also the video essay "These Stupid Trucks Are Literally Killing Us": https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
Another from About Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYyutqP48ok "The Problem with SUVs"
The old reason for driving a smaller car/truck was reduced operating costs, mostly in fuel. That reason largely disappears for electric vehicles. In fact, electric vehicles are larger/heavier than ic equivalents. This problem of huge vehicles is only going to get worse. We will all have to learn to live with more massive vehicles.
Heavier, yes, but having the form factor of a very tall front end is not a requirement for EV design.
Nor is it for IC vehicles. The tall car/truck thing is totally market driven. American drivers want a "high command seating position". Electric or not, people enjoy looking down on traffic. In fact a bunch of small SUVs (rav 4) are just Japanese car models made taller for the US market.
I'll try to find the source, but previously read that the reason SUVs are so popular is that there was some law that let 'utility vehicles' be taxed or something differently, so the manufacturers could make much more profit off them. Thus, they created this demand for a "high seating position", and pushed it on the market...and now because other cars are so large, it's an escalating war. You don't want to be a small car among giants. Nasty feedback loop.
This. It was a regulation that was passed to encourage fleet level average MPG standards for auto companies, by the way. And just like everything else that is causing massive problems in our society, gigantic trucks are an outcome of a loophole in a system that was entirely predictable.
Here's an article from 2011 predicting our current automotive market: https://me.engin.umich.edu/news-events/news/cafe-standards-c...
And here's the relevant section that called it from the get-go - emphasis mine:
At issue was this: Some companies offer full model lines, from cars to large SUVs and pickups, but some don’t. How could there be a overreaching fuel-economy standard that penalized companies like Ford and GM, while carmakers that sold only smaller cars effortlessly abided by the rules? So the concept of vehicle footprint was added. Models that ran large, crossing specific length-by-width thresholds‚ would have less ambitious fuel-economy targets. While the Obama administration has pushed for more aggressive CAFE numbers, the amended regulations retain the footprint-based leniency towards bigger cars and light trucks.
The result is a loophole, allowing the entire auto industry to sidestep some of the more painful efficiency requirements by inflating vehicle footprints. And historically, drivers almost always lean toward larger vehicles. “In general, if everything else about the vehicle is the same, consumers prefer the bigger one, with the roomier interior,” says Kate Whitefoot, a senior program officer at the National Academy of Engineering and the lead author of the paper (she was a doctoral student at the time of the study). Combine a regulatory loophole with a built-in, well-known customer choice, and the industry lurches towards the inevitable: larger models and more light trucks.
Here's an article from 2011 predicting our current automotive market: https://me.engin.umich.edu/news-events/news/cafe-standards-c...
And here's the relevant section that called it from the get-go - emphasis mine:
At issue was this: Some companies offer full model lines, from cars to large SUVs and pickups, but some don’t. How could there be a overreaching fuel-economy standard that penalized companies like Ford and GM, while carmakers that sold only smaller cars effortlessly abided by the rules? So the concept of vehicle footprint was added. Models that ran large, crossing specific length-by-width thresholds‚ would have less ambitious fuel-economy targets. While the Obama administration has pushed for more aggressive CAFE numbers, the amended regulations retain the footprint-based leniency towards bigger cars and light trucks.
The result is a loophole, allowing the entire auto industry to sidestep some of the more painful efficiency requirements by inflating vehicle footprints. And historically, drivers almost always lean toward larger vehicles. “In general, if everything else about the vehicle is the same, consumers prefer the bigger one, with the roomier interior,” says Kate Whitefoot, a senior program officer at the National Academy of Engineering and the lead author of the paper (she was a doctoral student at the time of the study). Combine a regulatory loophole with a built-in, well-known customer choice, and the industry lurches towards the inevitable: larger models and more light trucks.
I wonder if a state can use those same length-by-width thresholds to impose additional taxes on those vehicles. Make owning one of these excessively sized vehicles so egregiously expensive that you'd have to be literally brain damaged to get one when you don't actually need one.
It's based on vehicle weight, not height, and it qualifies the vehicle to be written off for tax purposes as a business truck, for business expenses prima facia.
It basically allows you to depreciate it over 2-5 years. That's it. Pay back the value difference in taxes when sold.
There was a brief Bush era credit on top of this, long expired, but that still haunts the interwebs with rumors of still being prescient. It's not.
Iirc, the weight cutoff is currently something like 7000 lbs, and many suvs have nominal weights of 7001 lbs, with submodels that are 6999 lbs, for locals where getting taxed as a business vehicle is a bad thing.
(Unless by taxed you meant CAFE accounting, which is different.)
It basically allows you to depreciate it over 2-5 years. That's it. Pay back the value difference in taxes when sold.
There was a brief Bush era credit on top of this, long expired, but that still haunts the interwebs with rumors of still being prescient. It's not.
Iirc, the weight cutoff is currently something like 7000 lbs, and many suvs have nominal weights of 7001 lbs, with submodels that are 6999 lbs, for locals where getting taxed as a business vehicle is a bad thing.
(Unless by taxed you meant CAFE accounting, which is different.)
No- it's primarily CAFE driven.
(I'll address a small area of CAFE besides what a commenter said about CAFE below, which appears to be entirely correct and on-the-nose to me re footprint.)
People for the most part didn't want larger trucks. They want the old smaller full size trucks. They are no longer an option.
CAFE targets (among other reasons) have forced the market to switch to Aluminum from Steel, because you can achieve near equal performance, with lower mass and higher mpg.
The cost is that aluminum is not as strong as steel, so you need more volume for equivalent strength. Plus the literal cost $.
But the cheat code is that moment-arm is proportional to force, but also length-squared. M=P*L^2 and similar.
So you can make some design elements lighter by switching steel to aluminum and making it bigger. Boxier.
Bonus is the then new-ish popular idea of crush zone is practically baked in with the larger, lighter, less dense designs.
Add in some addl (Steel to Al) complexity due to serviceability, flexure, and fatigue, (which require addl bumps in mass and/or length/ volume to meet design requirements), and extrapolate over the whole vehicle, and you get the size changes from roughly 2008 (cough, cough) to now.
(I'll address a small area of CAFE besides what a commenter said about CAFE below, which appears to be entirely correct and on-the-nose to me re footprint.)
People for the most part didn't want larger trucks. They want the old smaller full size trucks. They are no longer an option.
CAFE targets (among other reasons) have forced the market to switch to Aluminum from Steel, because you can achieve near equal performance, with lower mass and higher mpg.
The cost is that aluminum is not as strong as steel, so you need more volume for equivalent strength. Plus the literal cost $.
But the cheat code is that moment-arm is proportional to force, but also length-squared. M=P*L^2 and similar.
So you can make some design elements lighter by switching steel to aluminum and making it bigger. Boxier.
Bonus is the then new-ish popular idea of crush zone is practically baked in with the larger, lighter, less dense designs.
Add in some addl (Steel to Al) complexity due to serviceability, flexure, and fatigue, (which require addl bumps in mass and/or length/ volume to meet design requirements), and extrapolate over the whole vehicle, and you get the size changes from roughly 2008 (cough, cough) to now.
I read your earlier comment as implying the EV transition was going to cause more huge vehicles. We can agree the huge vehicle phenomenon is not caused by EVs.
In fact, it's probably a lot worse. EVs need better aero to extract as much range as possible out of the batteries due to the lower energy density.
Electric vehicles are often heavier than comparable ICE vehicles, but not necessarily larger or even large. Chevy Bolt, VW ID.4, Smart Fortwo EQ etc are all perfectly small electric vehicles.
Yeah exactly.
Batteries tend to take up the bottom couple inches of the car, as the "skateboard" design wins. 2170 cells are 70mm tall, 2.75 inches. That's not a huge factor. Also, it doesn't affect the incredibly crucial hood height, which could be greatly lowered since there's no engine/engine bay needed! Also the underside of gas cars need at least exhaust, sometimes drive axles, and usually other crap that can be deleted from ev's that helps lower EVs too. I don't think EVs are practically any taller.
They also, recently, have all the weight at the bottom, which is extremely from a handling/stability perspective. Even if you slam on the breaks, sideways at speed, you ain't gonna flip (some SUV's excepted). This is useful for emergency braking.
As for weight, the main potential problem is braking. Thankfully anti-lock brakes & big calipers are quite amazing. Ioniq vehicles have a 60-0 stopping distance of 118ft, which is on the low end of most vehicles in general, such as the also well performing Honda Accord Sport 2.0T. In car on car situations the additional weight has extra inertia but cars are generally quite resillient. As for pedestrians bicyclists & others light targets, cars already weighed so vastly much more that it's hard to imagine the extra weight changing 99.999% of accident outcomes significantly.
Batteries tend to take up the bottom couple inches of the car, as the "skateboard" design wins. 2170 cells are 70mm tall, 2.75 inches. That's not a huge factor. Also, it doesn't affect the incredibly crucial hood height, which could be greatly lowered since there's no engine/engine bay needed! Also the underside of gas cars need at least exhaust, sometimes drive axles, and usually other crap that can be deleted from ev's that helps lower EVs too. I don't think EVs are practically any taller.
They also, recently, have all the weight at the bottom, which is extremely from a handling/stability perspective. Even if you slam on the breaks, sideways at speed, you ain't gonna flip (some SUV's excepted). This is useful for emergency braking.
As for weight, the main potential problem is braking. Thankfully anti-lock brakes & big calipers are quite amazing. Ioniq vehicles have a 60-0 stopping distance of 118ft, which is on the low end of most vehicles in general, such as the also well performing Honda Accord Sport 2.0T. In car on car situations the additional weight has extra inertia but cars are generally quite resillient. As for pedestrians bicyclists & others light targets, cars already weighed so vastly much more that it's hard to imagine the extra weight changing 99.999% of accident outcomes significantly.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I believe even the NHTSA has made statements about the dangers the added weight and acceleration pose both to pedestrians and other vehicle occupants (and previously, their neat silent operation).
> That reason largely disappears for electric vehicles.
An electric truck will still use more electrical energy to accelerate than an electric car. The cost to drive a mile in an electric vehicle is lower than a gas vehicle (maybe like one third?), but it's still a cost. Also, there's the larger initial capital cost of a larger vehicle.
> We will all have to learn to live with more massive vehicles.
Or we can start legislating against them and stop de kindermoord.
An electric truck will still use more electrical energy to accelerate than an electric car. The cost to drive a mile in an electric vehicle is lower than a gas vehicle (maybe like one third?), but it's still a cost. Also, there's the larger initial capital cost of a larger vehicle.
> We will all have to learn to live with more massive vehicles.
Or we can start legislating against them and stop de kindermoord.
"but it's still a cost."
But not a significant one from a consumer perspective. When trading from an ICE to an EV you'd see about a 50% reduction in fuel costs. So to a consumer it wouldn't matter if you use a little more for a bigger vehicle because you're already saving more than with your ICE.
"Or we can start legislating against them and stop the kindermoord."
Yeah, I guess the disagreement could have been with his opinion and not the rest of the comment. Although, did the kindermoord movement actually ban larger consumer vehicles? I thought it was more about street/city design.
But not a significant one from a consumer perspective. When trading from an ICE to an EV you'd see about a 50% reduction in fuel costs. So to a consumer it wouldn't matter if you use a little more for a bigger vehicle because you're already saving more than with your ICE.
"Or we can start legislating against them and stop the kindermoord."
Yeah, I guess the disagreement could have been with his opinion and not the rest of the comment. Although, did the kindermoord movement actually ban larger consumer vehicles? I thought it was more about street/city design.
> Although, did the kindermoord movement actually ban larger consumer vehicles? I thought it was more about street/city design.
Big SUVs weren't around in those days so they didn't have to. This is what the Dutch were up against in the 70s: https://www.amsterdamclassictours.com/uploads/3/0/2/2/302228...
Big SUVs weren't around in those days so they didn't have to. This is what the Dutch were up against in the 70s: https://www.amsterdamclassictours.com/uploads/3/0/2/2/302228...
> Or we can start legislating against them
Who is this "we"? It seems most people in the US are at least fine with larger vehicles, or even actively want them. Good luck legislating something when most of the country is against it, and corporate interests would be up in arms as well.
Who is this "we"? It seems most people in the US are at least fine with larger vehicles, or even actively want them. Good luck legislating something when most of the country is against it, and corporate interests would be up in arms as well.
If you look at EVs with high capacity batteries 100kwh the weight difference between the saloon and SUV versions tend to be much smaller since the battery is the single heaviest component in them.
The curb weight of the EQS SUV for example is only about 600lbs higher than the saloon EQS.
And the model 3 is only about 400lbs lighter than the Volvo XC90 which is far larger and is about the same weight as the XC60 (ICE).
The curb weight of the EQS SUV for example is only about 600lbs higher than the saloon EQS.
And the model 3 is only about 400lbs lighter than the Volvo XC90 which is far larger and is about the same weight as the XC60 (ICE).
It's possible to make EVs lighter by giving up range (e.g. 500 km -> 200 km), speed (e.g. max speed 150 km/h -> 100 km/h), and capacity (e.g. 2 seats). But people aren't willing to make these sacrifices because they're too used to the status quo.
It is also possible to not use a car at all. Neither of these are feasible solutions…
People take trips longer than 200km and charging isn’t possible at all times also sometimes you do need to be able to make an emergency trip when infrastructure might be under stress or non functional such as in the case of bad weather or natural disaster.
People in general have mobility issues, small children and large families too. Having a 2 seat feather weight short distance car is likely more wasteful than having a proper one since if you can make that work for you you probably don’t need a car in the first place.
People take trips longer than 200km and charging isn’t possible at all times also sometimes you do need to be able to make an emergency trip when infrastructure might be under stress or non functional such as in the case of bad weather or natural disaster.
People in general have mobility issues, small children and large families too. Having a 2 seat feather weight short distance car is likely more wasteful than having a proper one since if you can make that work for you you probably don’t need a car in the first place.
Because electric vehicles are above reproach, mostly by people who panic if asked to drive a stick. Basic car knowledge is looked down upon by many tech people.
>That reason largely disappears for electric vehicles
It already mostly disappeared, or entered the realm of “completely reasonable trade-off”, with the rise of unibody low-displacement SUVs. The original SUVs were body-on-frame V8s that got 13 mpg. Gas price and uncomfortable ride were a huge factor. Now you can get a RAV4 hybrid that drives like a car and gets 40 mpg. And you get a tailgate. Why would anyone bother with a sedan and the limitations the trunk gives you? For 5-7 more mpg it’s not worth it.
It already mostly disappeared, or entered the realm of “completely reasonable trade-off”, with the rise of unibody low-displacement SUVs. The original SUVs were body-on-frame V8s that got 13 mpg. Gas price and uncomfortable ride were a huge factor. Now you can get a RAV4 hybrid that drives like a car and gets 40 mpg. And you get a tailgate. Why would anyone bother with a sedan and the limitations the trunk gives you? For 5-7 more mpg it’s not worth it.
> RAV4 hybrid that drives like a car and gets 40 mpg.
I had a 2018 rav4 hybrid that never got close to 40MPG. Maybe 30-32 in the city, but once you hit the interstate where the speed limit is 65-70 the MPG significantly drops to 25-7 due to the underpowered 4 cylinder engine and the massive 3,900 lbs curb weight. The rav4 only had 5k miles on it when we got rid of it.
I guess it’s good if you live in a big city or never drive the actual speed limit on the interstates.
I had a 2018 rav4 hybrid that never got close to 40MPG. Maybe 30-32 in the city, but once you hit the interstate where the speed limit is 65-70 the MPG significantly drops to 25-7 due to the underpowered 4 cylinder engine and the massive 3,900 lbs curb weight. The rav4 only had 5k miles on it when we got rid of it.
I guess it’s good if you live in a big city or never drive the actual speed limit on the interstates.
The difference in fuel consumed from 40 down to 30 mpg was a little over 40 gallons over your ownership (so under $200).
That hardly seems worth changing cars over once you’ve bought it.
That hardly seems worth changing cars over once you’ve bought it.
We really need to start using gallons per distance instead of distance per gallon.
The former doesn’t distort the proportion.
Going from 10mpg to 20 is massive, literally double the efficiency.
20 to 30 is still a pretty big deal.
30 to 40 is noticeable, but not really a huge deal.
40 to 50 is barely above the noise floor
The former doesn’t distort the proportion.
Going from 10mpg to 20 is massive, literally double the efficiency.
20 to 30 is still a pretty big deal.
30 to 40 is noticeable, but not really a huge deal.
40 to 50 is barely above the noise floor
There are all kinds of interesting "reciprocal" units that lead to confusion. Another one is price-to-earnings ratio, which goes through an anomaly at zero, even though earnings-to-price ratio is a nice smooth function.
Okay extrapolate that over 100k miles. If the battery even lasts that long.
It wasn’t good for our use case and we incurred zero loss if anything we made money selling it back. They were in very high demand.
It wasn’t good for our use case and we incurred zero loss if anything we made money selling it back. They were in very high demand.
Do EVs really have to be so tall though? If they need capacity can't they be made wider or longer?
> Do EVs really have to be so tall though? If they need capacity can't they be made wider or longer?
Based on "A nice morning drive" by Richard S. Foster (https://www.scribd.com/doc/33762958/A-Nice-Morning-Drive#)
Suddenly ahead of me
Across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air-car
Shoots towards me two lanes wide
Oh, I spin around with shrieking tires
To run the deadly race
Go screaming through the valley
As another joins the chase
Ride like the wind
Straining the limits
Of machine and man
Laughing out loud with fear and hope
I've got a desperate plan
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded
At the riverside
Race back to the farm
To dream with my uncle
At the fireside
Based on "A nice morning drive" by Richard S. Foster (https://www.scribd.com/doc/33762958/A-Nice-Morning-Drive#)
[deleted]
Sure, but people like being in the tall car. Kind of an arms race situation for 25 years. More and more people have tall cars, so “I don’t wanna be the loser in the short car who can’t see over all these a*holes!” says every SUV buyer.
A big factor is older folks.
A midsize crossover where they can basically just slide right into the seat is way easier to get in and out of vs a low tide height car where they have to raise/lower a good portion of their body weight. Lotta bad hips and knees in the 50+ demographic.
A midsize crossover where they can basically just slide right into the seat is way easier to get in and out of vs a low tide height car where they have to raise/lower a good portion of their body weight. Lotta bad hips and knees in the 50+ demographic.
That only explains some of the height. And the front end could still be made lower so folks don't get as easily pulled underneath
[deleted]
Wider and/or longer make a vehicle more difficult to park and to turn in tight urban areas.
I'm looking forward to the battery tech that is currently in testing. It's supposed to be 4x better than today, at around 1kWh/1kg. As long as it pans out, that could mean 2x the distance with 1/2x the battery weight.
> The old reason for driving a smaller car/truck
depending where you live the main reason was and still is fitting in the streets and finding parking spots.
I mean sure large parts of the US are designed not only car centric but also with not only focus on large cars but even wants to make driving them extra easy. But that's not at all the case in the EU. Like there are many places with streets where driving a large US cars is troublesome or outright impossible and parking spots are all the time at least slightly too small for many US cars. Similar there are many place with no or very limited dedicated parking ares, mainly at the side of the street and the larger your car the more spots you will not fit in or fit in but it's hard to enter them without touching surrounding cars or similar.
> largely disappears for electric vehicles
which many people still don't want, because if you don't have your own parking spot (very common in the EU) then charging gets much more complicated
> In fact, electric vehicles are larger/heavier than ic equivalents.
Heavier yes, but there are small and compact EVs, through often with quite limited reach and mainly advertised to/sold in countries with a lot of small streets.
depending where you live the main reason was and still is fitting in the streets and finding parking spots.
I mean sure large parts of the US are designed not only car centric but also with not only focus on large cars but even wants to make driving them extra easy. But that's not at all the case in the EU. Like there are many places with streets where driving a large US cars is troublesome or outright impossible and parking spots are all the time at least slightly too small for many US cars. Similar there are many place with no or very limited dedicated parking ares, mainly at the side of the street and the larger your car the more spots you will not fit in or fit in but it's hard to enter them without touching surrounding cars or similar.
> largely disappears for electric vehicles
which many people still don't want, because if you don't have your own parking spot (very common in the EU) then charging gets much more complicated
> In fact, electric vehicles are larger/heavier than ic equivalents.
Heavier yes, but there are small and compact EVs, through often with quite limited reach and mainly advertised to/sold in countries with a lot of small streets.
The weight of the car only affects the fuel cost for accelerating to a given speed. Maintaining a speed is almost entirely the surface area * coefficient of drag * speed^2 some of which is used for cooling. Electric cars generally have better drag characteristics, the 3rd variable is largely the driver + speed limits, but yes bigger = worse.
Cars having high and large hoods has nothing to do with technology.
That's assuming EVs will become popular which is pretty ridiculous for most of the world. Most people want to stick with their smaller ICE cars, and that's really what we're going to continue to live with.
Source?
The whole world will change to EVs. It might take a bit longer in some places but it will happen.
The whole world will change to EVs. It might take a bit longer in some places but it will happen.
> While cars tend to vault cyclists over, SUVs with large front ends run them down, resulting in more head injuries
This is the perfect excuse for pro-car people to shout "But was he wearing a helmet?" in response to any incident where a car crashes into a cyclist.
This is the perfect excuse for pro-car people to shout "But was he wearing a helmet?" in response to any incident where a car crashes into a cyclist.
If it’s a reasonable option, most people end up choosing a large vehicle.
(Note than large vehicles are not a reasonable option in cities with poor auto infrastructure.)
It’s a classic tragedy of the commons situation, would you rather buy a car safer for you and your family or buy a small car hoping the world changes overnight?
If you disagree, the car companies must also be very wrong about what the customers want, because they keep making bigger and bigger cars and people keep buying them.
(Note than large vehicles are not a reasonable option in cities with poor auto infrastructure.)
It’s a classic tragedy of the commons situation, would you rather buy a car safer for you and your family or buy a small car hoping the world changes overnight?
If you disagree, the car companies must also be very wrong about what the customers want, because they keep making bigger and bigger cars and people keep buying them.
> If you disagree, the car companies must also be very wrong about what the customers want, because they keep making bigger and bigger cars and people keep buying them.
I know it’s controversial, but there’s a group of us who truly believe that yes, the car companies are wrong about what customers want, as those of us who want and desire subcompact vehicles keep being told we are wrong. Where I live, subcompacts are the most desired kind of vehicle and extremely hard to find because the car companies aren’t selling as many of them in the US as before. That is to say, they are refusing to sell them in the US market while still making and selling them overseas.
When I ask the dealer about this, they say they made the decision because consumers don’t want them. When I point out that I want to buy one and so do other people, and when used vehicles of that type come in, they sell right away, they just shrug. So here’s a case where it’s the consumers repeatedly being told they are wrong for wanting smaller vehicles. It’s pretty much a fact that the larger vehicles have been intentionally pushed on US consumers, so when you say people keep buying them, they are doing so because they have no choice.
With that said, there is and has been a bias against small cars in the US since the 1980s. There are two reasons for this. I think some of it can be traced to the original safety problems that small vehicles used to have, which have mostly been solved at this modern juncture. Second, I believe this bias against small cars might have started out as political and economic propaganda against foreign imports at a time when US car companies were still making large, oversize sedans.
I think that much of this bias is rooted in popular propaganda that has seeped its way into conventional wisdom. I have personally rarely experienced as much random visceral anger and hatred against small cars from strangers as I have regarding anything else. It’s like a form of sexism and racism that is unique to the US. If you dare to drive a small car in the US, you are treated like a second-class citizen. It’s bizarre, it’s weird, and it’s uniquely an American phenomenon.
I know it’s controversial, but there’s a group of us who truly believe that yes, the car companies are wrong about what customers want, as those of us who want and desire subcompact vehicles keep being told we are wrong. Where I live, subcompacts are the most desired kind of vehicle and extremely hard to find because the car companies aren’t selling as many of them in the US as before. That is to say, they are refusing to sell them in the US market while still making and selling them overseas.
When I ask the dealer about this, they say they made the decision because consumers don’t want them. When I point out that I want to buy one and so do other people, and when used vehicles of that type come in, they sell right away, they just shrug. So here’s a case where it’s the consumers repeatedly being told they are wrong for wanting smaller vehicles. It’s pretty much a fact that the larger vehicles have been intentionally pushed on US consumers, so when you say people keep buying them, they are doing so because they have no choice.
With that said, there is and has been a bias against small cars in the US since the 1980s. There are two reasons for this. I think some of it can be traced to the original safety problems that small vehicles used to have, which have mostly been solved at this modern juncture. Second, I believe this bias against small cars might have started out as political and economic propaganda against foreign imports at a time when US car companies were still making large, oversize sedans.
I think that much of this bias is rooted in popular propaganda that has seeped its way into conventional wisdom. I have personally rarely experienced as much random visceral anger and hatred against small cars from strangers as I have regarding anything else. It’s like a form of sexism and racism that is unique to the US. If you dare to drive a small car in the US, you are treated like a second-class citizen. It’s bizarre, it’s weird, and it’s uniquely an American phenomenon.
> If you dare to drive a small car in the US, you are treated like a second-class citizen. It’s bizarre, it’s weird, and it’s uniquely an American phenomenon.
Try using a bike as your primary mode of transit and get back to me on feeling like a second-class citizen. I can argue about poor bike infrastructure all day, but I'm just talking about the behavior of motor vehicle drivers here. So many can't just be content to pass me regardless of whether I'm in the bike gutter or taking a lane (I avoid this where possible, but if a bike lane is unavailable/not safe, or I need to make a turn I will assert my right to be in the mix with auto traffic), and insist on rolling down their windows just to hurl insults at me - even with my 10 year old daughter on the passenger seat behind me. Then the other half of the time they'll give me anywhere between 6-18" of clearance while passing me.
I don't really like generalizing people, but my experience and that of my wife seems to point to a rather common law: the larger the gap between curb weight of vehicles on the road, the more likely the operator of the heavier vehicle will be an aggressive dick towards the lighter one. Pedestrians? Unless you're in something with a ride height lower than 20" chances are you don't even notice them until they're under your tires.
Try using a bike as your primary mode of transit and get back to me on feeling like a second-class citizen. I can argue about poor bike infrastructure all day, but I'm just talking about the behavior of motor vehicle drivers here. So many can't just be content to pass me regardless of whether I'm in the bike gutter or taking a lane (I avoid this where possible, but if a bike lane is unavailable/not safe, or I need to make a turn I will assert my right to be in the mix with auto traffic), and insist on rolling down their windows just to hurl insults at me - even with my 10 year old daughter on the passenger seat behind me. Then the other half of the time they'll give me anywhere between 6-18" of clearance while passing me.
I don't really like generalizing people, but my experience and that of my wife seems to point to a rather common law: the larger the gap between curb weight of vehicles on the road, the more likely the operator of the heavier vehicle will be an aggressive dick towards the lighter one. Pedestrians? Unless you're in something with a ride height lower than 20" chances are you don't even notice them until they're under your tires.
I don’t think you can generalize the US like that. I’ve owned several small cars (and mini trucks), including small imports; I’ve never gotten a negative comment on them (in the southern US no less), people just aren’t very interested in that category.
I think it’s simple economics. They sit on dealer lots and move slow, plus margins are tiny so no one wants to sell them. You see this in the rental car space especially clearly where subcompacts are easy and cheap to rent because they sit on the lots. I think the issue is simply quality —- they’re uncomfortable, cheaply made, and a few more dollars gets you way more vehicle and safety margin. Market segmentation for the dealers is bad as well, they don’t want to eat high margin big cars with loss-leader tiny cars.
I think it’s simple economics. They sit on dealer lots and move slow, plus margins are tiny so no one wants to sell them. You see this in the rental car space especially clearly where subcompacts are easy and cheap to rent because they sit on the lots. I think the issue is simply quality —- they’re uncomfortable, cheaply made, and a few more dollars gets you way more vehicle and safety margin. Market segmentation for the dealers is bad as well, they don’t want to eat high margin big cars with loss-leader tiny cars.
> I know it’s controversial, but there’s a group of us who truly believe that yes, the car companies are wrong about what customers want, as those of us who want and desire subcompact vehicles keep being told we are wrong.
If you are right, and there is demand, that'a a 10-100 billion $ business opportunity right there.
Import small European and Asian cars, sell them for a decent margin.
Unfortunately, everyone who has ever tried this has failed.
If you are right, and there is demand, that'a a 10-100 billion $ business opportunity right there.
Import small European and Asian cars, sell them for a decent margin.
Unfortunately, everyone who has ever tried this has failed.
SUVs are more dangerous to their drivers too, on average.
https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2002/suvs-really-safer-c...
https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2002/suvs-really-safer-c...
This is normalized per million sold, which is the wrong metric penalizing cars which are sold more.
It should ideally be per kilometers driven.
It should ideally be per kilometers driven.
I don't really see the point of buying a bigger car for your own safety. What is the point of you not being injured if you just killed someone else. You might be physically okay, but you'll be mentally scarred for life.
I don't like SUVs, and would probably never buy one myself, but I would much rather live with having killed someone else in a car crash, than not living with it, because I'm dead.
You're also ignoring the case where the other driver causes a crash, and dies, but you live. Sure, you're probably still not going to feel great about the situation, and may suffer some emotional issues, but I don't think too many people would say they'd prefer they were in a smaller car and died instead.
You're also ignoring the case where the other driver causes a crash, and dies, but you live. Sure, you're probably still not going to feel great about the situation, and may suffer some emotional issues, but I don't think too many people would say they'd prefer they were in a smaller car and died instead.
That’s possibly true, but even so, that’s still better for my kids and family than if I’m dead. (For the record, both of our daily drivers are well under the average size/weight for US cars, but I understand the appeal of a car/SUV perceived as “safer for me; screw thee”.)
That's obviously not the only accident that can happen. Someone can rear end you while you are parked, and I'm pretty sure everyone would rather be in a larger vehicle in that case.
It’s not even clear that bigger cars are safer for their occupants anymore. The last time it held close to true was in the early 90s.
> If it’s a reasonable option, most people end up choosing a large vehicle.
If opiates were as widely marketed as large vehicles are, most people would end up being opiate addicts. People make stupid choices informed by misleading marketing all the time.
If opiates were as widely marketed as large vehicles are, most people would end up being opiate addicts. People make stupid choices informed by misleading marketing all the time.
In the nature of things it's less what customers want, but the relationship between what is on offer, materially available, affordable and so on... If Ford offers a mustang and an F150 you don't get to pick a small sedan, right? And if you want cyan, and all that's out there is black and white, you're getting black or white... And thus it becomes a question of choosing the least-worst, which is not an indicator of desire as it is one of preference.
I think we used to have a wider gamut of vehicle plans and sizes, but it has since contracted severely due to regulations (at least from my understanding). Like AMC and early Subaru were wild. VW busses are iconic but nobody is fabricating anything like it, except maybe Canoo, which has some atrocious leasing option.
Anyways all the safety talk is kind of a red herring. SUVs are very dangerous and prone to rolling, as are their kindred truck brethren. Rollovers are also the deadliest form of accident. I haven't checked the statistics beyond that, but I think there are definitely misconceptions about how protective a bigger vehicle is in actuality versus how they're perceived. But I have and will continue to opt for the more agile and better centered vehicle and adopting a driving habit suited to the abilities of my vehicles, including a long leading distance at all times.
I think we used to have a wider gamut of vehicle plans and sizes, but it has since contracted severely due to regulations (at least from my understanding). Like AMC and early Subaru were wild. VW busses are iconic but nobody is fabricating anything like it, except maybe Canoo, which has some atrocious leasing option.
Anyways all the safety talk is kind of a red herring. SUVs are very dangerous and prone to rolling, as are their kindred truck brethren. Rollovers are also the deadliest form of accident. I haven't checked the statistics beyond that, but I think there are definitely misconceptions about how protective a bigger vehicle is in actuality versus how they're perceived. But I have and will continue to opt for the more agile and better centered vehicle and adopting a driving habit suited to the abilities of my vehicles, including a long leading distance at all times.
And, same as gun marketing, it matters way more that the customer feels safe than is safe. I suspect that theres another common factor in some fraction of the population that gets an increased perception of safety from putting other people in danger
In my opinion, larger vehicles are just a product of car culture, and even those who buy small cars are contributing to a society that requires people to have cars, which inevitably leads to larger cars in the long run.
Companies told customers what they want, because they get to dodge regulations, thus more profit. Manufactured demand.
The sane solution: ban massive cars, give exemptions to people with true professional needs
The ’murica solution: get an even bigger truck yourself, so the other party sustains most of the damage
The ’murica solution: get an even bigger truck yourself, so the other party sustains most of the damage
Don't need an outright ban - just negative incentives. It should cost an astronomical amount to drive a huge vehicle in a dense urban environment and dramatically less in a rural environment. Today, in USA, that cost difference is generally not that much in practice.
Secondly, infrastructure is another much better solution than policy. Even if large personal vehicles were outright banned there will always be large vehicles in urban environments - transit buses, garbage trucks, etc.
Thus, to prevent crashes, it is most effective to just separate the large vehicles from the small with separated/protected bike lanes.
Secondly, infrastructure is another much better solution than policy. Even if large personal vehicles were outright banned there will always be large vehicles in urban environments - transit buses, garbage trucks, etc.
Thus, to prevent crashes, it is most effective to just separate the large vehicles from the small with separated/protected bike lanes.
Right now, the incentive is opposite: bigger cars get a break on fuel economy standards. We could start by removing that.
US fuel economy standards are, as I understand it on a sort of cap and trade model with respect to a car maker's average fuel economy. Much of Tesla's profit comes from selling fuel economy credits. The result of removing the break larger cars get wouldn't be that they all disappear, but their prices would trend upward.
US fuel economy standards are, as I understand it on a sort of cap and trade model with respect to a car maker's average fuel economy. Much of Tesla's profit comes from selling fuel economy credits. The result of removing the break larger cars get wouldn't be that they all disappear, but their prices would trend upward.
Alot of countries have something to that extent since vehicle weight causes exponentially more road wear.
Perhaps a CDL or similar license requirent for large SUVs/Pickups? Add some friction, cost, and minimum driving competency.
Frankly, the driving test in the US is a joke. Better testing/education standards for all would provide one of the most biggest improvements to safety given that it would apply to all situations and not just pedestrians/bicycles/[other singlular topic of the moment]. Proper safety training in school would be beneficial to other road users as well. After all, it's hard to be safe when you're ignorant. Even more so if both parties are.
Just getting rid of the "light truck" loophole in standards would immediately do a lot.
This kind of measures usually have a really negative effect.
Every car designed afterwards will try to be as close to the allowed limit as possible, eventually successfully lobbying for the limit to be increased.
Public policy is not a common sense topic, no matter how easy it seems to have an opinion.
Every car designed afterwards will try to be as close to the allowed limit as possible, eventually successfully lobbying for the limit to be increased.
Public policy is not a common sense topic, no matter how easy it seems to have an opinion.
Don't need to ban, just make them more expensive in proportion to their danger to society. Activity that is economical at higher cost will continue to use the big trucks.
In addition to removing the light-truck loophole, vehicle registration should incur much higher fees for high weight vehicles. Perhaps a sliding scale. This would allow states to recoup some money lost to gas taxes by EVs.
The sane solution: increase density lowering need for cars. But rich NIMBYies (who are often the cyclists) won't let that happen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/16/american-c...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/16/american-c...
yeah ive been riding bicycles 30 years. what we want is separate bike roads, bike crosses, bike parking, like the Netherlands, we do not want some giant police movement to regulate truck sizes.
this is like the definition of why liberals cannot win elections. the first instinct is never to solve problems, it is to find some 'wrongdoer' and punish them.
this is like the definition of why liberals cannot win elections. the first instinct is never to solve problems, it is to find some 'wrongdoer' and punish them.
Except that pedestrians face the same or greater risks than bicyclists from vehicles from higher front ends.
The biggest challenge is that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers tend to live, work, and shop in the same locations. Even with separate facilities (sidewalks, cycle tracks), there will be conflicts (intersections and driveways). Lack of visibility and a disparity of mass and velocity are always going to be hazardous at these conflict points.
The biggest challenge is that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers tend to live, work, and shop in the same locations. Even with separate facilities (sidewalks, cycle tracks), there will be conflicts (intersections and driveways). Lack of visibility and a disparity of mass and velocity are always going to be hazardous at these conflict points.
I’ve been an avid cyclist most of my adult life. I’m all for separated bike infrastructure, and it would certainly save lives. But it doesn’t address the actual problem: the enlarging of vehicles and reduction of line of sight for drivers is a danger to everyone.
I’m also an even more avid pedestrian. I routinely encounter drivers who struggle to see me over their hood, or even the increasingly high floor for windows in auto designs almost across the board. I’m above average height for US men, but I’ve even had to navigate around trucks with hoods so tall it would be nearly if not totally impossible for a driver to see me at all, much less see my pup.
I’m not exaggerating, I walked across an intersection just the other day where I had to stand on my toes to see if a driver was even at the wheel in a huge truck stopped at a stop sign, while simultaneously forcibly shuffling my pup ahead of me so the potential driver wouldn’t see me clear the intersection and assume that’s all there is to it. All the while, I was imagining what would happen if there was a driver at the wheel and we couldn’t make all of the necessary communications for a safe crossing. This truck wasn’t anything out of the ordinary, the intersection wasn’t either. The experience is even more common for navigating around vehicles in reverse.
I’m not going to make any policy suggestions, and I don’t care about how this affects elections or relative success of any political perspective. I will just say that balancing public safety without requiring automobile accommodations for it is inherently untenable.
I’m also an even more avid pedestrian. I routinely encounter drivers who struggle to see me over their hood, or even the increasingly high floor for windows in auto designs almost across the board. I’m above average height for US men, but I’ve even had to navigate around trucks with hoods so tall it would be nearly if not totally impossible for a driver to see me at all, much less see my pup.
I’m not exaggerating, I walked across an intersection just the other day where I had to stand on my toes to see if a driver was even at the wheel in a huge truck stopped at a stop sign, while simultaneously forcibly shuffling my pup ahead of me so the potential driver wouldn’t see me clear the intersection and assume that’s all there is to it. All the while, I was imagining what would happen if there was a driver at the wheel and we couldn’t make all of the necessary communications for a safe crossing. This truck wasn’t anything out of the ordinary, the intersection wasn’t either. The experience is even more common for navigating around vehicles in reverse.
I’m not going to make any policy suggestions, and I don’t care about how this affects elections or relative success of any political perspective. I will just say that balancing public safety without requiring automobile accommodations for it is inherently untenable.
I'm torn on this, really. I think separate bike infra is great, when you have the space and funding for it, and we should push for this whenever we can. But it's not always feasible.
And beyond that, larger vehicles pollute more. Even larger EVs require larger batteries and more materials to construct. Sure, you can say that people who want them already pay a higher price in fuel (even if that fuel is electricity), but that doesn't seem to have been enough to disincentivize the proliferation of SUVs.
And beyond that, larger vehicles pollute more. Even larger EVs require larger batteries and more materials to construct. Sure, you can say that people who want them already pay a higher price in fuel (even if that fuel is electricity), but that doesn't seem to have been enough to disincentivize the proliferation of SUVs.
To be clear, “we” the cyclists want cars to be prohibitively expensive in cities. Presumably we the cyclists aren’t so homogenous.
there really does have to be something done about truck sizes though, they're objectively a hazard to pedestrians because the driver can see less. they're a nuisance in cities because they exceed the standard size of parking spaces, they cause more wear on the roads, and increase congestion.
Thank you for this comment. I (as a large SUV driver) would be happy to have my tax dollars diverted to separate bike routes, with sane traffic signals, that let drivers and cyclists safely move around. There's way to much ideology involved, and not enough pragmatism.
Give exemptions to people with true professional needs, as determined by the party
This is the only intelligent comment I've seen in the discussion (which was destined to be a silly pile-on anyway). The only thing worse than people being allowed to choose big dangerous cars is a state regime where bureaucrats get to decide which car you can drive based on your needs.
Incidentally, there's going to be a massive jump in people driving bigger commercial vehicles anyway as gas vehicles get phased out for consumer use. A lot of big SUVs are the result of the regulatory regime already. Stupid regulations almost always make things worse.
Incidentally, there's going to be a massive jump in people driving bigger commercial vehicles anyway as gas vehicles get phased out for consumer use. A lot of big SUVs are the result of the regulatory regime already. Stupid regulations almost always make things worse.
> Stupid regulations almost always make things worse.
This is such an ideological comment. The reality is that stupid regulations make things worse, but non-stupid regulations make things better. We want non-stupid regulations. A world without regulations is a non-starter due to the tragedy of the commons incentive problem. Imagine a world where dumping was legal because there were no regulations. Or where explosives could be purchased from your local corner store because they weren't regulated. It's a non-starter. You would be dead from a resulting illness or terrorist attack. Nobody wants it, including you. So if you can propose a regulation-free solution to the various incentive problems like tragedy of the commons, then I'm all ears, but the burden of proof is on you to do that, and it's a burden you haven't met.
This is such an ideological comment. The reality is that stupid regulations make things worse, but non-stupid regulations make things better. We want non-stupid regulations. A world without regulations is a non-starter due to the tragedy of the commons incentive problem. Imagine a world where dumping was legal because there were no regulations. Or where explosives could be purchased from your local corner store because they weren't regulated. It's a non-starter. You would be dead from a resulting illness or terrorist attack. Nobody wants it, including you. So if you can propose a regulation-free solution to the various incentive problems like tragedy of the commons, then I'm all ears, but the burden of proof is on you to do that, and it's a burden you haven't met.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
IHSS insurance institute for highway safety are a credible organization but I agree it is a surprisingly small sample size and analysis. Urban, suburban and rural cycling also have very different risk factors.
Regarding vehicle size, driver visibility of surroundings is more critical. I'm not a fan of huge SUVS but I don't have 4 kids and 2 dogs. Being hit by a commercial vehicle on a 2 wheeled vehicle is going to be bad, but I'd argue generally commercial drivers pay more attention to their surroundings than the typical soccer mom, far better training and regulations.
I also feel distractions play a large part in many collisions - the replacement of analog tactile knobs and dials in cars with giant flat screens is a major safety setback - and of course smartphones are a disaster for distracted driving.
(replying to a now deleted comment)
Regarding vehicle size, driver visibility of surroundings is more critical. I'm not a fan of huge SUVS but I don't have 4 kids and 2 dogs. Being hit by a commercial vehicle on a 2 wheeled vehicle is going to be bad, but I'd argue generally commercial drivers pay more attention to their surroundings than the typical soccer mom, far better training and regulations.
I also feel distractions play a large part in many collisions - the replacement of analog tactile knobs and dials in cars with giant flat screens is a major safety setback - and of course smartphones are a disaster for distracted driving.
(replying to a now deleted comment)
Not surprising. SUVs are larger and heavier vehicles so they carry more KE at the same speed. My city has dedicated cycling lanes but they don't cover every place. I sincerely hope they do.
Does KE matter? I suspect that as long as the momentum is large enough that that that hitting the bicycle or pedestrian doesn't cause more than an insignificant change in the car's speed all that matters is speed and the shape of the front of the car.
Consider for example being hit be a large freight train moving at 1 km/hr. The mass, KE, and momentum of the train will be larger than a large car moving at 100 km/hr but being hit by the train probably wouldn't seriously injure you, unless you happened to fall under the train and get run over or fell to the side and happened to hit your head.
Consider for example being hit be a large freight train moving at 1 km/hr. The mass, KE, and momentum of the train will be larger than a large car moving at 100 km/hr but being hit by the train probably wouldn't seriously injure you, unless you happened to fall under the train and get run over or fell to the side and happened to hit your head.
Maybe we need cowcatchers on automobiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowcatcher
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowcatcher
I assume they aren't counting crossovers as SUVs here? Because crossover front ends more closely resemble the front ends of cars than they do those of trucks.
Looking at Wikipedia, Crossovers are a separately defined vehicle:
> [Crossover Utility Vehicle] is a type of automobile with an increased ride height that is built on unibody chassis construction shared with passenger cars, as opposed to traditional sport utility vehicles (SUV) which are built on a body-on-frame chassis construction similar to pickup trucks.
> [Crossover Utility Vehicle] is a type of automobile with an increased ride height that is built on unibody chassis construction shared with passenger cars, as opposed to traditional sport utility vehicles (SUV) which are built on a body-on-frame chassis construction similar to pickup trucks.
They're often conflated as "crossover SUVs" both by car manufacturers and by the media. E.g. if you search for something like "best SUVs of 2023", half the vehicles listed in the resulting articles will be crossovers.
It also gets confusing because the biggest crossovers are built to the same bulky shape as the traditional SUVs that are killing everyone - just without a body-on-frame construction.
It also gets confusing because the biggest crossovers are built to the same bulky shape as the traditional SUVs that are killing everyone - just without a body-on-frame construction.
Crossovers are just lifted hatchbacks.
Suggests? I could have suggested that too. It does not take much thinking to do. Is there a ladder of words used, where proves is highest? If so, where does suggest go?
If you read the actual study it actually shows smaller vehicles hit bicyclist more often than SUVs by a large margin. But that SUVs cause more harm when they are hit. So SUVs actually hit less bicyclists.
You have to ask how does anyone arrive at a "55% more trauma" figure? I can see from the study they just tallied up ICD codes. This is not a particularly rigorous examination of the facts.
Also from the page containing the study:
> Fatal bicycle crash rates have risen dramatically over the past decade. In 2020, 932 bicyclists were killed on U.S. roads, up from a low of 621 in 2010. One reason may be the dominance of pickups and SUVs in the U.S. vehicle fleet.
Another reason is that there are more bicycles on the road over the last 10 years. Not an unimaginable phenomenon. Giving per capita data here would be far more useful in the analysis.
New York's estimates[1] seem to suggest that more than twice the number of people are bicycling over this 10 year period. Yet, there's less than a doubling in the fatality rate.
I don't find much of this conclusive.
[1]: https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/cyclinginthecit...
Also from the page containing the study:
> Fatal bicycle crash rates have risen dramatically over the past decade. In 2020, 932 bicyclists were killed on U.S. roads, up from a low of 621 in 2010. One reason may be the dominance of pickups and SUVs in the U.S. vehicle fleet.
Another reason is that there are more bicycles on the road over the last 10 years. Not an unimaginable phenomenon. Giving per capita data here would be far more useful in the analysis.
New York's estimates[1] seem to suggest that more than twice the number of people are bicycling over this 10 year period. Yet, there's less than a doubling in the fatality rate.
I don't find much of this conclusive.
[1]: https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/cyclinginthecit...
It's not conclusive whatsoever but look how many people are jumping on the anti-SUV bandwagon over this poor study.
Well there's a suprise, but what if its electric? Being electric it would have better avoidance tech.
SUVs are larger which make them more deadly. If it were electric, it would be heavier, and thus more deadly.
The weight difference between an ICE SUV and an electric SUV doesn’t make any meaningful difference. It doesn’t matter whether you get run over by two tons of steel or three tons.
The primary factor for the increased injury rate is the high front that impacts the body and pulls the cyclist under the car, inflicting body trauma instead of breaking legs as other cars would. Statistics for accidents with pedestrians look equally bleak.
And given the reported issues that automated driving and collision avoidance systems have with cyclists, I’m not particularly hopeful.
The primary factor for the increased injury rate is the high front that impacts the body and pulls the cyclist under the car, inflicting body trauma instead of breaking legs as other cars would. Statistics for accidents with pedestrians look equally bleak.
And given the reported issues that automated driving and collision avoidance systems have with cyclists, I’m not particularly hopeful.
It can make a difference in your braking distance and agility. Not specifically for pedestrians/cyclists, but that greater kinetic energy is a safety concern in higher speed collisions with other vehicles.
Why is vehicle weight such a big factor? How does it compare to increased risk with vehicle height (knocking people over) and blindspots?
And gas vehicle exhaust isn't exactly safer than EV
And gas vehicle exhaust isn't exactly safer than EV
The weight is an issue for performance specs like braking distance and agility. Probably not a huge difference, but a difference none the less.
Heavier and quieter. Recipe for disaster.
Don't EVs have to have an ambient running sound to help alert vision impaired pedestrians?
As far as I've experienced, they're still quieter than a ICE car.
Not sure about what's the real decibel difference or if it depends on legislation (my experience is mostly in Japan).
Not sure about what's the real decibel difference or if it depends on legislation (my experience is mostly in Japan).
Except that electric trucks are much heavier than normal trucks. Computer controlled or not, the tires arent going to stop them any faster.
The big problem is the high, flat front rather than weight, visibility, etc. (which are problems too, just not as critical when striking a pedestrian or bicyclist). Electric SUVs don't fix that.
[deleted]
Obviously vehicle safety is an important consideration, but I find that any "large car" thread brings out almost pathological vitriol.
I wonder if the vitriol is a reaction to something that these cars represent: large families, folks with land/property/"manly" business, etc.
I wonder if the vitriol is a reaction to something that these cars represent: large families, folks with land/property/"manly" business, etc.
In a city, open space is scarce, so unnecessarily large vehicles make everyone else's life worse. They are also more dangerous to everyone who isn't inside the car. So the car owner is choosing to give themselves luxury while endangering others in order to do that. They also add more to the wear and tear of public roads, which costs the taxpayer, not them. It is therefore seen as a highly selfish trade that they've willingly decided to make without the permission of those who they are indirectly harming, and they do this in many cases for no good reason pertaining to their business or family size.
most of those vehicles have a single occupant and never haul anything heavier than a coke can. the usable area to store things on the back is often the same as much smaller models from years ago!
I live outside of NYC, most of the folks in my town are young families with 2 or 3 kids. Every family has an SUV. Maybe at a given time mom might drive to work alone, but there's plenty of road trips, carpools, etc.
I used to be a "small car" guy, now I am an "SUV dad". We have a Toyota Highlander and it's "fully utilized" pretty often. Changes your perspective.
I used to be a "small car" guy, now I am an "SUV dad". We have a Toyota Highlander and it's "fully utilized" pretty often. Changes your perspective.
Wouldn’t a minivan be a better option in that case?
More passenger room, more cargo area, lower floors with the same high seating, better visibility which seems especially important around kids, comes in hybrid and AWD, most can tow the same amount as a hybrid highlander.
I own an SUV, and live in a rural area but I find it to be a pretty bad solution for moving stuff and people. I bought it, and use it, mostly for backcountry access along unmaintained resource roads.
More passenger room, more cargo area, lower floors with the same high seating, better visibility which seems especially important around kids, comes in hybrid and AWD, most can tow the same amount as a hybrid highlander.
I own an SUV, and live in a rural area but I find it to be a pretty bad solution for moving stuff and people. I bought it, and use it, mostly for backcountry access along unmaintained resource roads.
I do think minivans are somewhat more convenient but I think the line between a modern minivan and suv is minimal.
Example: take a look at the first few seconds of this video [1], can you immediately say which one is the minivan and which is the SUV?
[1] https://youtu.be/gtPyH9dB4PI
Example: take a look at the first few seconds of this video [1], can you immediately say which one is the minivan and which is the SUV?
[1] https://youtu.be/gtPyH9dB4PI
Yes, instantly.
Well, not exactly "left is SUV, right is minivan", I don't really pay close attention to nominal categories like that. But certainly I see "left vehicle is more dangerous to me than the right vehicle". When you bike all the time, you learn to make this kind of subconscious snap assessment of what kind of vehicles pose greater risk. And I checked carsized.com for objective comparisons: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-highlander-2...
The vehicle on the left has a longer and slightly higher bonnet (front hood). The left vehicle's driver-side window is smaller than the right vehicle's. And the A-pillar of the left vehicle is slightly thicker than the one on the right. Meaning at many angles, I'm more likely to be fully or partially occluded for the left driver than for the right.
The greater length and height of the SUV bonnet also means the SUV driver can't see things lower down. This hazard has been made infamous by those pictures of long lines of invisible-to-the-driver toddlers. But it's not just a problem of kids playing in driveways; it manifests on roads where there's an elevation change (hills or slopes).
The higher bonnet is deadlier in a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian, because you get hit more in the torso than the legs, and you have a bigger chance of being caught under the vehicle rather than sliding over the windshield.
Gallery of comparison pictures here: https://imgur.com/a/4ZMU3Ca (the A-pillar one is harder to measure because to see the real effect you need to be at about a 40 degree angle. also the minivan is slightly closer to the camera in the video)
I know these seem like very marginal things (and they are fairly similar vehicles all things considered) but it's all a game of numbers and probabilities. Multiplied over tens of thousands of vehicle interactions, day after day, there will eventually come an unlucky conjunction of circumstances (bad weather, bad road, badly-designed junction, distracted driver) where the minivan driver would see a cyclist and the SUV driver wouldn't. And that can have lethal consequences for the cyclist.
And there are SUVs on the roads that are much worse than that Highlander.
Well, not exactly "left is SUV, right is minivan", I don't really pay close attention to nominal categories like that. But certainly I see "left vehicle is more dangerous to me than the right vehicle". When you bike all the time, you learn to make this kind of subconscious snap assessment of what kind of vehicles pose greater risk. And I checked carsized.com for objective comparisons: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-highlander-2...
The vehicle on the left has a longer and slightly higher bonnet (front hood). The left vehicle's driver-side window is smaller than the right vehicle's. And the A-pillar of the left vehicle is slightly thicker than the one on the right. Meaning at many angles, I'm more likely to be fully or partially occluded for the left driver than for the right.
The greater length and height of the SUV bonnet also means the SUV driver can't see things lower down. This hazard has been made infamous by those pictures of long lines of invisible-to-the-driver toddlers. But it's not just a problem of kids playing in driveways; it manifests on roads where there's an elevation change (hills or slopes).
The higher bonnet is deadlier in a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian, because you get hit more in the torso than the legs, and you have a bigger chance of being caught under the vehicle rather than sliding over the windshield.
Gallery of comparison pictures here: https://imgur.com/a/4ZMU3Ca (the A-pillar one is harder to measure because to see the real effect you need to be at about a 40 degree angle. also the minivan is slightly closer to the camera in the video)
I know these seem like very marginal things (and they are fairly similar vehicles all things considered) but it's all a game of numbers and probabilities. Multiplied over tens of thousands of vehicle interactions, day after day, there will eventually come an unlucky conjunction of circumstances (bad weather, bad road, badly-designed junction, distracted driver) where the minivan driver would see a cyclist and the SUV driver wouldn't. And that can have lethal consequences for the cyclist.
And there are SUVs on the roads that are much worse than that Highlander.
(I am the person you're responding to) - thank you for that comment, this is by far the most informed/informative comment from the "don't like big cars" crowd I've ever read.
Are minivans better for not killing cyclists? They seem like they might be a little bit (bumper height, hood angle), but they're still large, tall vehicles.
One of the biggest pieces of why suvs are more dangerous is the hood height. It’s not a small factor, its the main factor.
Minivans will hit you in the lower body or legs, deflecting you up into the sloped surface of the hood.
By contrast, most suvs have blunter higher noses, causes the initial point of contact to be in the chest or head area, where injuries tend to be more life threatening, and physics will tend to cause you to topple over onto concrete and under the vehicle.
For comparison check out the contrast here https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/chrysler-voyager-20...
It’s pretty clear that the minivan will contact you significantly lower. If you want something truly scary swap the highlander for a full size SUV like a Yukon
Minivans will hit you in the lower body or legs, deflecting you up into the sloped surface of the hood.
By contrast, most suvs have blunter higher noses, causes the initial point of contact to be in the chest or head area, where injuries tend to be more life threatening, and physics will tend to cause you to topple over onto concrete and under the vehicle.
For comparison check out the contrast here https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/chrysler-voyager-20...
It’s pretty clear that the minivan will contact you significantly lower. If you want something truly scary swap the highlander for a full size SUV like a Yukon
[deleted]
SUV's are station wagons built to exploit the small truck emissions loophole. Station wagons are great, SUVs are just wasteful.
Is that really true? What's an SUV today that wouldn't pass emissions otherwise?
most of them?
are you actually going off-road? road-trips (on tarmac) and carpooling don't require an SUV. they require a car with a spacious interior, that isn't the same thing as an SUV.
Most SUVs on the market now are unibody design without a locking differential so they are not even designed to be taken off-road. But they are still much handier in an adverse weather on-road. E.g. I drove by quite a few drowned cars in a flash flood.
Do you consider something like a Subaru Outback a car while a Highlander is an SUV? Otherwise, what you are saying has not been my experience.
>Do you consider something like a Subaru Outback a car while a Highlander is an SUV?
I don't really care about labels, but the Outback is way smaller and lower to the ground: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/subaru-outback-2014...
I know which one I'd rather cycle next to.
By the way, check out the cargo volume stats listed underneath. Also the site lists the Outback as an SUV but here it's sold as an estate car.
I don't really care about labels, but the Outback is way smaller and lower to the ground: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/subaru-outback-2014...
I know which one I'd rather cycle next to.
By the way, check out the cargo volume stats listed underneath. Also the site lists the Outback as an SUV but here it's sold as an estate car.
And given that this area (and many others) have "good enough(1)" streets so that the huge majority of people don't need the off-road capabilities of a SUV it's pretty easy to be for people to assume that you are egoistic or worse when they see you driving a SUV.
This bias is probably reinforced by the coincidence(?) that the group of people driving SUVs here has a big overlap with some groups often associated with entitled egoistic behaviour.
Somehow it often feels that the people insisting on driving a SUV without a need for it are using it like an armor they ware because they are afraid of the outside world.
(1): The requirements for a road to not need a SUV are pretty low IMHO. Sure you might need a "good enough" ground clearance, motor and brakes in mountain areas, but you can get that without an SUV, many (most?) new non-sport cars fall into this category.