See this quote from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

"...growing sales of SUVs and pickups have exacerbated height mismatches among passenger vehicles, thereby increasing the risks to occupants of many vehicles struck in the side. In crashes between cars and other passenger vehicles during 2000-01, almost 60 percent of the driver deaths in the cars struck on the driver side were hit by SUVs or pickups — up from about 30 percent during 1980-81."

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html

This is why I cringe when I hear an SUV driver say they bought their SUV for safety reasons. Maybe it's safe, but at who's expense??

 

This has been studied for decades. The percent of injuries due to collisions with SUVs or trucks really has no meaning, because it depends on the percent of SUVs or trucks in the population. But, the probability that a collision will result in injury, given the type of the vehicle, does have statistical meaning. If a car is struck by an suv or truck with a high bumper, the P of injury to a person in the car is very high. That hasn't changed in decades. What has changed is knowing what to do to reduce those injuries. What needs to change is the political will to do it.

The bumper-height regulation really should set a single bumper height standard for all vehicles, with a narrow range of allowed height, and with NO exceptions. Tall vehicles might look a little funny at first, only because we are used to seeing all that ground clearance below their high bumpers. And, after a collision, if one of the vehicles is found to have had an out-of-spec bumper, the driver of that vehicle should get an extra ticket and be held liable for any injuries in the other vehicle.

So-called "off road" vehicles could be designed with hinges so that the bumpers fold for off-road use. (But, operating them on the road in the folded configuration should be a moving violation.) In reality, something like 99 percent of "off road" vehicles are never operated off of established roads. My own "off-road" truck has never even been operated on a gravel or dirt road.

 

It's not just the height of the vehicle, it's also the reduced stopping distance. This is a little crass, but the one who buys a large truck or SUV is implying that they would rather bulldoze through other vehicles to protect their own ***.

 

A lot depends to on how the SUV handles in a crash. I remember as a kid (I'm 28) there were reports on the mid 90s Explorer and Blazer and how in certain wrecks the engine would push back and through the floor of the driver's compartment.

From my experience, the big SUV drivers especially (Suburban, Escalade, etc.) drive like they are indestructable. Traveling up and down I-55 that connects Chicago and St. Louis on a regular basis it is scary to see a Suburban loaded down with luggage, kids, etc. go flying by at 90 mph. Nothing is going to protect that family if a wreck would occur at that speed and weight much less whatever they hit.

 

Standards are noted from the head, neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and femur. These injury standards, especially from the head/neck and torso (chest and abdomen), are major components of each vehicle's overall evaluation. I still doubt it.

 

I have to question the validity of this study a bit--Since it's not reflected in the findings:
- what percentage of vehicles on the road are SUVs compared to passenger cars?
- What's the delta of SUVs in 2000 compared to 1980?
- Conversely, where was the call in 1980/81 to get passenger cars off the road? It seems to me that in 1980, 70% of driver deaths were caused by passenger cars.

 

yay! dcarp has some points. Maybe that's just a false study or something?

 

Not saying that--just saying there's incomplete data on the study to make such a broad brush statement as: " Proof that SUVs are making our roads more dangerous"

 

Oh I get it. Yeah. It should somehow be covered up with a link or study that shows how they proved it...