"A study in America recently found that, for the same collision speed, the likelihood of a pedestrian dying was nearly doubled in a crash with a large SUV compared with a normal passenger car.
The researchers said other studies reported higher rates of risk - up to four times - for serious injury and death in such collisions.
It is the geometry of the front end structure of SUV that poses the increased risk, the authors said.
Pedestrians injured by cars normally suffer mainly leg and knee fractures from the primary impact with the bumper, while head injuries often occur in the secondary impact with the bonnet or windscreen. The researchers said: "SUV bonnets are higher than those of cars and this results in more severe primary impact on the critical central body regions of the upper leg and pelvis."
They said that a collision with an SUV also resulted in a doubling of injuries to vulnerable regions such as the head, thorax and abdomen. The researchers added: "The evidence shows that SUVs represent a significantly greater hazard to pedestrians than ordinary cars - and those pedestrians are getting older and more vulnerable.
The researchers said one measure should include changing crash investigation processes to identify SUVs in statistics on road accidents. They said that informing consumers of the increased risk to pedestrians from SUVs may represent a "useful first step" in raising public awareness."
can anyone explain why driver's of SUV's who hit and kill people shouldn't face criminal charges particularly now they have this information?
mandovoodoo
10-07-05, 05:35 AM
They are, of course, criminally and civilily liable as are all drivers for actions that run counter to the law or that represent negligent behavior.
I recall being hit by a VW bus. Not very friendly, either. Tire marks on my legs as I rolled out from under. The only time I didn't end up on the hood! The risk is certainly real.
Dchiefransom
10-07-05, 06:22 AM
That intent must be proven in order for criminal liability to be charged. The driver in Florida that ran down a paceline head on after crossing over a double yellow "No Passing" centerline was not charged with homicide, since they couldn't "prove" he had intent, and had his license yanked and fined about $1,000.
If he'd had three beers before doing that, he'd have been in jail. If you conciously reduce your ability to make competent decisions while driving, by drinking, you could be charged with the crime. But if you make the same exact maneuver while stone-cold sober, you can get off scott-free of criminal charges.
TeleJohn
10-07-05, 07:31 AM
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Ergo
SUV's don't kill people, people driving SUV's do.
Little Darwin
10-07-05, 08:02 AM
By the logic proposed by the OP, anyone operating any vehicle (even a bicycle) should be subject to criminal prosecution, since the seriousness of the impact is greater than if the operator had been walking. Or, if an accident involves any speed over 5 mph the operator is criminally liable because the damage is known to be more than if a vehicle is travelling less than 5 miles per hour.
But, let's ignore that point of disagreement to discuss other related issues. Traffic laws should place the limitations and the cops should ENFORCE them for safety. If you are relying on logic to prove criminal negligence, then I think you are out of luck on this point. If the law allows usage of an SUV, and millions of people do so, then you are unlikely to get ANY judge to recognize someone as negligent for using one.
I can think of no reasonable way that a law would be worded that would allow commercial trucking, which is needed for commerce, while prohibitting SUVs. Also, even if we outlaw SUV's the auto manufacturers will figure out a way to comply with the letter of the law and create a new class of vehicle... We will suddenly end up with a new crop of "mega-wagons," station wagons with that added height that makes them more convenient.
NOTE: I do not think that people driving compact cars are generally idiots. I am using the tem "idiots" in the following comment to further limit the group I am referring to, not to describe compact car drivers in general.
For full disclosure, I do drive an SUV (Saturn Vue). However, I do think I am safer to pedestrians than the idiots in compact cars that drive 10 - 15 mph faster than I do.
Little Darwin
10-07-05, 08:29 AM
If he'd had three beers before doing that, he'd have been in jail. If you conciously reduce your ability to make competent decisions while driving, by drinking, you could be charged with the crime. But if you make the same exact maneuver while stone-cold sober, you can get off scott-free of criminal charges.
Excellent point.
In our zeal to increase safety we make DUI a greater crime than any other activity that causes death or serious bodily harm.
In my region, I rarely read about a serious accident caused by drugs or alcohol (there is at least one notable exception)... I suspect that there is a major reason for that. The punishment for hit and run is significantly less than drunk driving, so a drunk driver has no reason except for conscience to remain at the scene of an accident. There is hardly a week that I don't read about a hit and run accident...
In the one notable case recently, a person crossed the center line into a line of motorcycles killing one and injuring several others (at least one critically, the widow of the man killed). The police let him go after taking the drug/alcohol tests with nothing but a ticket or two. Once the tests came back, he was arrested on homicide charges... What does it matter? The deceased is not any deader, and the injuries are no more severe? While I understand it emotionally, it makes no sense logically.
If I get drunk and shoot someone, I could possibly get off easier because I was drunk. If I get drunk and run someone over, I will suffer greater consequences because of it. I don't worry about how this effects me as a driver since I don't drink, but it doesn't make sense.
heckflosse
10-07-05, 09:08 AM
Although I tend to agree with some of that article it makes me wonder why they compared 'large' SUVs to 'medium' sized cars? Could they find any large cars or medium SUVs, you only have to look at the Honda CRV to see not all SUVs are killers. I wonder if they're going to issue the same warnings about People Carriers, Mini Buses, Vans etc. :rolleyes:
scarry
10-07-05, 09:40 AM
"[I]A study in America recently found that, for the same collision speed, the likelihood of a pedestrian dying was nearly doubled in a crash with a large SUV compared with a normal passenger car.
In the current American mindset this is totally irrelevant, as the only concern for Americans today is for ones self. There is a perceived safety advantage in driving an SUV (which is untrue in fact, due to the rollover risk and the lack of maneuverability) so any additional risk to those outside is not a concern. A totally self-centered point of view, but this is the America of today.
"The American way of life is not negotiable" Dick Cheney.
catatonic
10-07-05, 10:02 AM
Quick answer would be this, pity it will never happen:
In event of a collision, whoever was in violation of the law is automatically at fault. If both parties violated the law resulting crash, both parties are at fault. Then finally make sure they get the hell ticketed out of them.
I'm pretty sure there will be a flood of piss and vinegar over this...but it's a machine...operate it right, or not at all.
chipcom
10-07-05, 11:17 AM
Wow, imagine that, higher risk if you are hit by a larger hunk of metal. Who woulda thunk it!
DC_Emily
10-07-05, 11:25 AM
The real problem is that Americans have become too self-centered. Drivers figure if the SUV protects me, then why worry about anyone else? This applies not only to cyclists and pedestrians, but other drivers as well. Put a compact car up against an SUV, and it's rather clear who comes out alive. Trucks and large vehicles are big because their size serves a purpose. There's no reason for a family of four to drive a car that seats 8, I'm sorry. These things just arent' necessary!! Now if we all had a little concern for others, we could solve at least half of the world's problems.
FXjohn
10-07-05, 11:29 AM
The real problem is that Americans have become too self-centered. Drivers figure if the SUV protects me, then why worry about anyone else? This applies not only to cyclists and pedestrians, but other drivers as well. Put a compact car up against an SUV, and it's rather clear who comes out alive. Trucks and large vehicles are big because their size serves a purpose. There's no reason for a family of four to drive a car that seats 8, I'm sorry. These things just arent' necessary!! Now if we all had a little concern for others, we could solve at least half of the world's problems.
Derr...let's get rid of all things not necessary: boats, TV sets, motorcycles, campers, jewelry, crock pots.
Someone gets to decide if your house is too big, your car is too big, your bank account is too big etc.
scarry
10-07-05, 12:21 PM
Derr...let's get rid of all things not necessary: boats, TV sets, motorcycles, campers, jewelry, crock pots.
Someone gets to decide if your house is too big, your car is too big, your bank account is too big etc.
The moral is, use your freedom wisely. As the slogan goes, freedom isn't free.
The only reason that the "nanny state" has to get involved is because someones freedom is stepping on someone elses toes. Live and let live is an old American tradition, but Americans have forgotten the "let live" part.
lilHinault
10-07-05, 01:10 PM
Again that book "High and Mighty" is a good one to read on SUVs. It's been out a few years so your library should have it.
spud
10-07-05, 01:14 PM
Wow, imagine that, higher risk if you are hit by a larger hunk of metal. Who woulda thunk it!
Hush you! common sense is not allowed in court or in this forum! :rolleyes:
peregrine
10-07-05, 02:22 PM
The real problem is that Americans have become too self-centered. Drivers figure if the SUV protects me, then why worry about anyone else? This applies not only to cyclists and pedestrians, but other drivers as well. Put a compact car up against an SUV, and it's rather clear who comes out alive. Trucks and large vehicles are big because their size serves a purpose. There's no reason for a family of four to drive a car that seats 8, I'm sorry. These things just arent' necessary!! Now if we all had a little concern for others, we could solve at least half of the world's problems.
that may be so, but i think everyone has the right to chose what to drive to feel safe... i'm not advertising SUV's (i drive a small eco car when i have to) but some people are really paranoid about safety. i figure, all it takes is a stupid, reckless, absent-minded driver even in the littlest car to do enough damage to a pedestrian or a cyclist. God help us all!
atbman
10-07-05, 02:25 PM
It's not so much the size of an SUV which causes the higher injury/deah rate, but the fact that they are higher and squarer in front than an ordinary car.
Another factor was shown on a UK programme called Top Gear, presented by a well-known and often very funny petrolhead called Jeremy Clarkson. They tested a number of SUVs such as Grand Cherokee, Land Rover, etc. against cars of similar engine size. The SUVs consistently took longer to stop than the cars. The resultant damage to the lifelike figure used in the test was considerable.
Dead Extra #2
10-07-05, 03:45 PM
It's not so much the size of an SUV which causes the higher injury/deah rate, but the fact that they are higher and squarer in front than an ordinary car.
Even if they changed that (and it worked), some people would still consider them to be tools of Satan. Hating SUVs is a religion.
PARIS -- A band of eco-vigilantes is taking a firm but gentle stand against fast-growing SUV sales in France and Europe, deflating the tires on gas guzzlers in a protest against conspicuous waste.
Members of a group called Les Dégonflés say they recently let the air out of tires on about half a dozen SUVs parked in the upscale VI arrondissement using bicycle pumps -- a technique that they say causes no lasting damage -- and plastered windshields with leaflets proclaiming that "nearly everyone needs an oxygen mask." A spokesman for the group said they hope to recruit new foot soldiers to the cause by demonstrating their technique in an internet broadcast next month.
That must be one of the most dangerous things the antis could do :eek:
Nice to see the antis have done their research as usual :mad:
Deflate the tyre too much and the weight of the vehicle will damage the tyre wall. Damaged tyre walls result in blowouts. Blowouts cause accidents, which these treehuggers are hopefully involved in.
Aswell as that off-roaders carry pumps to inflate their tyres back up after off-roading (I carry a small petrol compressor) so all they're doing is making 'what they say' is dangerous in to something really dangerous :rolleyes:
mandovoodoo
10-07-05, 05:26 PM
That intent must be proven in order for criminal liability to be charged.
Depends on the crime. Speeding is a crime whether or not one intended to speed. Have to look at the criminal statutes to determine the elements to see whether intent is a requirement.
James H Haury
10-07-05, 05:36 PM
Vehicles have no will of their own and therefore cannot be called killers, just as a gun will never jump up and shoot someone of its own volition or a knife stab someone on it's own etc .human action is required.
chemcycle
10-07-05, 09:53 PM
SUV's are killers-its official
Yeah, we need more vehicles that pedestrians can just bounce off of......
Speeding is a crime
Actually, I think it's unlawful, not a crime, per se....
chennai
10-07-05, 09:58 PM
Even if they changed that (and it worked), some people would still consider them to be tools of Satan. Hating SUVs is a religion.
Sort of an offshoot of "intelligent design"? No one could actually design anything as stupid as an SUV, so it must have been done by a supernatural being?
chennai
10-07-05, 09:59 PM
Vehicles have no will of their own and therefore cannot be called killers, just as a gun will never jump up and shoot someone of its own volition or a knife stab someone on it's own etc .human action is required.
LOL. I remain a sucker for a good parody. It's why I love The Onion. Thanks for lightening the discussion.
catatonic
10-08-05, 01:00 AM
that may be so, but i think everyone has the right to chose what to drive to feel safe... i'm not advertising SUV's (i drive a small eco car when i have to) but some people are really paranoid about safety. i figure, all it takes is a stupid, reckless, absent-minded driver even in the littlest car to do enough damage to a pedestrian or a cyclist. God help us all!
That's the part that gets me...they CARE about safety, yet do you see them taking any special driving courses, to better understand how to safely maneuver a car, so they can avoid trouble in the first place? NO....they just buy some massive hunk of steel and hope it saves them. Prevention is the safest road travelled, and this is nowhere near as safe as prevention.
...To me these people are not paranoid at all, they are just looking for one more "quick fix", since obviously their time is too precious to think about things as important as not getting into a crash, and instead focus primarily on what happens after a crash.
Best policy: get a safe, nice handling car (there are many out there)....take an SCCA street school (course A), and learn how to maneuver that car....be sure to understand the concepts fully....it's the best saturday and $180-260 (around 260 if you need to rent a helmet) a driver could ever spend, period. It's also a fun course, not some textbook preachy sleepfest.
Heck it taught me everything I needed to know to keep myself from creaming the car in front of me when my entire braking system failed...and I cleared him just fine, and managed to turn into a side street where i coasted to a stop...if I didn't have the knowledge I had form that course I probably would have just freaked out and nailed that guy...instead I knew if I was to turn hard to the right, and put on the gas then correct to the left, the particular car (2.3l mustang) had enough room to clear, and the space between him and the curb was plenty to squeeze through (although much noise and tire smoke was involved in the maneuver) ....the part I would have freaked on was I couldn't even see his bumper when I made the maneuver...that was one less insurance claim, and one less potential injury.
To sum it up: safety comes from the driver, not the car....improving the driver is the best route.
mandovoodoo
10-08-05, 06:12 AM
That's a good point. Especially considering the different demands made on SUV drivers. SUVs are more difficult to drive. My little ancient BMW has only had a tiny fender clip in all its many years on the road thanks to its handling ability and my limited skills in car driving.
Something I notice much is that the skill, politeness, and general approach of oversize vehicle drivers is much different in rural places than in cities. Folks out where I live grow up driving pickup trucks loaded with stuff. The clunky handling and other limitations of the truck are generally worse than an SUV. So they drive SUVs very well, very cautiously compared to city people who drive SUVs just like a car. This difference is brought home to me every time I go into a city. The SUV drivers out here are just drivers, but about 1/2 the SUV drivers in cities act like idiots!
Another reason not to live in a city.
Dead Extra #2
10-08-05, 08:14 AM
Sort of an offshoot of "intelligent design"? No one could actually design anything as stupid as an SUV, so it must have been done by a supernatural being?
got religion?
royalflash
10-08-05, 08:28 AM
To sum it up: safety comes from the driver, not the car....improving the driver is the best route.
targeted driver safety training cuts accidents by about half
50% less deaths is an improvement - it is just tough luck I suppose if you are one of the unlucky ones
a trained SUV driver should therefore kill about the same number of people as an untrained normal car driver- so no problem then
ViciousCycle
10-08-05, 09:09 AM
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Which would you rather face? A quick-tempered person with bad judgment waving a loaded gun? Or a quick-tempered person with bad jugment waving a banana?
SUV's don't kill people, people driving SUV's do.
If members of your family were crossing the street, which would you rather have them face? A reckless person smashing into them with an SUV? Or a reckless person who spills some soda onto them?
Saying that "X doesn't kill people; people kill people" ignores the fact that X makes it convenient to kill with.
Az B
10-08-05, 10:26 AM
Which would you rather face? A quick-tempered person with bad judgment waving a loaded gun? Or a quick-tempered person with bad jugment waving a banana?
It depends... is the gun loaded? Is the banana ripe?
Az
heckflosse
10-08-05, 10:29 AM
If members of your family were crossing the street, which would you rather have them face? A reckless person smashing into them with an SUV? Or a reckless person who spills some soda onto them?Words fail mehttp://www.orrp.com/smf/Smileys/orrp/thud.gif
heckflosse
10-08-05, 10:33 AM
Which would you rather face? A quick-tempered person with bad judgment waving a loaded gun? Or a quick-tempered person with bad jugment waving a banana?
It depends... is the gun loaded? Is the banana ripe?
Which would you rather face? A quick-tempered person with bad judgment waving a loaded gun? Or a quick-tempered person with bad jugment waving a banana?
If members of your family were crossing the street, which would you rather have them face? A reckless person smashing into them with an SUV? Or a reckless person who spills some soda onto them?
Saying that "X doesn't kill people; people kill people" ignores the fact that X makes it convenient to kill with.
It is people who have responsibilty, not the tools they use. Assigning moral values to tools is philosophically unsound.
Saying "Tool x kills people" removes the responsibility from the person weilding that tool.
I don't disagree that some tools make it easier to kill someone than others.
Also, don't underestimate the deadly power of the banana.
chipcom
10-08-05, 03:25 PM
Also, don't underestimate the deadly power of the banana.
Been caught talking to the bosses wife with a banana in your pocket, have ya?