Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

warthog1
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby warthog1 » Wed Nov 08, 2023 7:20 pm

Mr Purple wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 6:15 pm
Nobody wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 6:02 pm
Sounds like a good idea once cars that are capable of this are ubiquitous. Until then I think there will likely be cries of elitism.
Sadly I feel you're right.

Apparently people's right to drive trumps people's right to not be run over while they're on a footpath. This should not be the case.
That is exactly how it is, it seems to me too.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 21453
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby g-boaf » Thu Nov 09, 2023 6:20 am

Comedian wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 4:34 pm
elantra wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 4:00 pm
Mr Purple wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 3:00 pm

Straight out of the 'Australian Fitness to Drive' book.

Insulin Treated Diabetes.

A person is not fit to hold an unconditional licence.

A conditional licence may be considered to at least two yearly review providing whether the criteria are met:
- The condition is satisfactorily controlled.
- there is no recent history of a 'severe hypoglycaemic event'.
- The person is following a treatment regimen that minimises the risk of hypoglycaemia and
- The person experiences early warning symptoms of hypoglycaemia.


So this is covered reasonably well in there.

While there are some situations where it would be difficult to tell the onset of hypoglycaemia they are relatively unusual (that's what they're insinuating has caused this crash). I would suggest that there may have been a series of very poor decision made on the day otherwise - including potentially the speed with which the vehicle was driven. Looking at the intersection and location on google maps suggest there was a fair bit involved.

I agree this individual should not be driving again for the foreseeable future.
I’m sure that the antecedents to this tragedy will be a complex train of unfortunate events, like most large scale disasters (trains, planes and automobiles) there are usually multiple contributing factors.

The Australian Fitness to Drive book is provided free of charge to most or all GP clinics in Australia.

And as was mentioned a few posts above, (elderly) people do sometimes “doctor shop” to find a GP who will give them the tick in the box.
This scenario most commonly occurs in urban areas where their “usual” GP has told them that it’s time to give up driving but there are plenty of other GP’s in the adjacent suburbs who are less familiar with the patients history.

It’s not hard to postulate solutions to many of these problems.
The most obvious solution would be to make it mandatory for ALL Insulin dependent diabetics to have their drivers license renewal assessment done by a DIABETES SPECIALIST (Endocrinologist)
Yes this would be an added expense to either the driver or to Medicare but look at all the expensive stuff that Medicare or NDIS does pay for already.
I would rather see my tax dollars go to preventing any future Daylesford disaster scenario than some other things that consumes mega public dollars.

I also might add that I suspect that this disaster would not have occurred if the vehicle was not an Automatic transmission car.
A manual transmission car would probably have stalled and stopped before the full extent of the carnage occurred.

Just throwing this out there.. why did the car allow it to happen? I'm pretty sure the big T would have sounded the alarm when it thought things were going badly and slammed on the brakes if you didn't act.

I do not think for a second that we should rely on autonomous systems but still.. I am unwilling to drive at a wall to confirm this idea. I can say though - the one time it was really worried I was going to hit something (right turn across me) it hit the brakes HARD.. like full pressure. Was not mucking around.

Should people on restricted licences be forced to drive certified cars. ?

From the manual...
Automatic Emergency Braking
Model Y is designed to determine the distance from detected objects. When a collision is considered unavoidable, Automatic Emergency Braking is designed to apply the brakes to reduce the vehicle's speed and therefore, the severity of the impact. The amount of speed that is reduced depends on many factors, including driving speed and environment.

When Automatic Emergency Braking applies the brakes, the touchscreen displays a visual warning and sounds a chime. You may also notice abrupt downward movement of the brake pedal. The brake lights turn on to alert other road users that you are slowing down

Automatic Emergency Braking operates only when driving between approximately 5 km/h and 200 km/h.
Automatic Emergency Braking does not apply the brakes, or stops applying the brakes, when:
• You turn the steering wheel sharply.
• You press and release the brake pedal while Automatic Emergency Braking is applying the brakes.
• You accelerate hard while Automatic Emergency Braking is applying the brakes.
• The vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, or pedestrian is no longer detected ahead.
Automatic Emergency Braking is always enabled when you start Model Y. To disable it for your current drive, touch Controls > Autopilot > Automatic Emergency Braking. Even if you disable Automatic Emergency Braking, your vehicle may still apply the brakes after detecting an initial collision to reduce further impact (see Multi-Collision Braking on page 126).

Limitations and Inaccuracies
Collision Avoidance features cannot always detect all objects, vehicles, bikes, or pedestrians, and you may experience unnecessary, inaccurate, invalid, or missed warnings for many reasons, particularly if:
• The road has sharp curves.
• Visibility is poor (due to heavy rain, snow, fog, etc.).
• Bright light (such as from oncoming headlights or direct sunlight) is interfering with the view of the camera(s).
• A camera or sensor is obstructed (dirty, covered, fogged over, covered by a sticker, etc.).
• One or more of the sensors (if equipped) is damaged, dirty, or obstructed (such as by mud, ice, or snow, or by a vehicle bra, excessive paint, or adhesive products such as wraps, stickers, rubber coating, etc.).
• Weather conditions (heavy rain, snow, fog, or extremely hot or cold temperatures) are interfering with sensor operation.
• The sensors (if equipped) are affected by other electrical equipment or devices that generate ultrasonic waves.
The self driving technology will keep getting better over time as manufacturers develop it more.

The sensors are also way better these days especially with manufacturers using multiple different ones that can be cross referenced to avoid mistakes like concrete centre dividers slowing the car down erroneously or weather conditions causing incorrect results.

I want the technology to be more and more tested and developed because I trust the computers not to deliberately close pass me and shout out the window “geroff the road” or to U turn and start chasing me..

Pretty sure that x5 driver had he been in a newer car with all the semi autonomous safety tech would have been stopped. The car would have slammed the brakes on and corrected the steering.

If you have seen any of the modern Merc like an S Class or C Class (or others from last few years) how they react in such situations (even on the proving grounds) they will really really violently slam on the brakes along with steering corrections if necessary. Things like wrong way driving it will warn about and try to stop, that’s a fairly common old driver failing which has previously resulted in sobering consequences. :(

Apologies in advance to the off topic police…

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby Comedian » Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:35 am

I agree with all of that. I also agree that telling grandpa at 78 he can't drive his 20 year old car because it doesn't have enough safety tech is going to be a real tough sell. These systems have only just reached the point where they are becoming ubiquitous. It's going to be many years until they filter down.

User avatar
baabaa
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby baabaa » Thu Nov 09, 2023 8:57 am

This could be applicable to many issue in aust, size and weight of vehicles and even the licenses of an aging population. Anyone for a brave govt?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ ... t-category

Speed limiters will soon be required for lorries in lower weight category

To improve road safety, all lorries must soon be equipped with a speed limiter if their maximum laden weight is between 3,501 and 12,000kg.
Kolette Lim
UPDATED 3 NOV 2023, 6:01 PM SGT

SINGAPORE – To improve road safety, all lorries must soon be equipped with a speed limiter if their maximum laden weight (MLW) is between 3,501kg and 12,000kg. This will ensure that these vehicles do not exceed the speed limit of 60kmh.

Lorry owners can start installing the devices in 2024, said the Traffic Police (TP) in a statement on Friday. Drivers will be given up to three years to do so, depending on the MLW and registration date of the vehicle.

Currently, it is compulsory for goods vehicles with an MLW exceeding 12,000kg to have a speed limiter installed.

“The speed limiter regime aims to improve road safety and driving behaviour. It complements other measures intended to reduce fatalities and injuries among all road users,” said the TP.

For lorries registered before 2018, a speed limiter must be installed before 2026 if their MLW is between 5,001kg and 12,000kg, and before July 2026 for those with an MLW of between 3,501kg and 5,000kg.

For newer lorries registered from 2018, drivers will have to install the device before 2027 if the MLW of their vehicle is between 5,001kg and 12,000kg, and before July 2027 if the MLW is between 3,501kg and 5,000kg.

Speed limiters will also be required for imported lorries to be approved from 2026. Relevant documentation should be submitted to the Land Transport Authority during the vehicle’s pre-registration.
[/i]

warthog1
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby warthog1 » Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:41 am

Comedian wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:35 am
I agree with all of that. I also agree that telling grandpa at 78 he can't drive his 20 year old car because it doesn't have enough safety tech is going to be a real tough sell. These systems have only just reached the point where they are becoming ubiquitous. It's going to be many years until they filter down.
Probably by the time we are 78 :oops:
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby Comedian » Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:17 am

warthog1 wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:41 am
Comedian wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:35 am
I agree with all of that. I also agree that telling grandpa at 78 he can't drive his 20 year old car because it doesn't have enough safety tech is going to be a real tough sell. These systems have only just reached the point where they are becoming ubiquitous. It's going to be many years until they filter down.
Probably by the time we are 78 :oops:
At this rate I'll still be driving a very very old landrover by then. :oops:

warthog1
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby warthog1 » Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:37 am

Comedian wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:17 am
warthog1 wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:41 am
Comedian wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:35 am
I agree with all of that. I also agree that telling grandpa at 78 he can't drive his 20 year old car because it doesn't have enough safety tech is going to be a real tough sell. These systems have only just reached the point where they are becoming ubiquitous. It's going to be many years until they filter down.
Probably by the time we are 78 :oops:
At this rate I'll still be driving a very very old landrover by then. :oops:
:lol: :lol: I'll be tottering around in an old Patrol perhaps too.
Though I doubt I'll be able to afford to fuel it or get in the damn thing by then.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6621
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby Thoglette » Fri Nov 10, 2023 11:00 pm

And more in The Conversation, from the other side of the ditch, where the regressive side of politics has returned to power

SUV and ute sales slowed due to NZ’s Clean Car Discount – expect that to reverse under a new government

Lots of links to studies and some nice twitter links
Closes with:
The sad irony is that the dominance of SUVs and utes reduces the ability of communities to create safer streets that would encourage more walking and cycling.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

am50em
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby am50em » Sat Nov 11, 2023 9:15 am

Overall, mid-size vehicles — whether conventional passenger or SUVs — strike the best balance between protecting occupants and other road users.
https://theconversation.com/ive-always- ... cars-98559

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby Comedian » Sat Nov 11, 2023 9:45 am

am50em wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2023 9:15 am
Overall, mid-size vehicles — whether conventional passenger or SUVs — strike the best balance between protecting occupants and other road users.
https://theconversation.com/ive-always- ... cars-98559
An old article but interesting. From a purely engineering perspective small vehicles are generally easier to make crash well simply because there is less energy to manage. So if you intent to run into a stationary object the small car might be just as good.

In reality though - there are many other factors. Manufacturers might not put as much safety equipment into small cars due to cost. In addition the age of the vehicle's design is likely to have a bearing as everything is evolving (although the pace of physical safety improvements has declined in recent years).

But the elephant in the room is of course compatibility with other vehicles.

I agree with the idea proposed in here. It would be good if we had a weight based tax that was significant enough to change peoples behaviour and make them choose smaller cars. Plus an advertising ban based on weight. Please!

warthog1
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby warthog1 » Sat Nov 11, 2023 10:07 am

I found it interesting that the low rider Camry wasn't significantly better than the CX5 in safety to other users or its' own occupants. A fairly large car. The Commodore was sh ite too.
We have owned a Camry and my son still has one. The current Tucson my wife drives is similar in size to a CX5.
Just a better car for our Australian road environment imo. Less scraping on approach and departure angles due to more ride height however, more significantly, better suspension travel to cope with potholed whoops that are our main and secondary highways. What used to bottom the Camry, particularly when loaded, the Tucson just cruises over.
I dont live in the city and have no interest in a low rider sled that cant cope with our sh itty roads in normal use.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby Comedian » Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:56 pm


User avatar
redsonic
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby redsonic » Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:58 pm

Amazing that the whole article just speculates about when/if the car is coming here, with no mention that it won't fit our parking spaces/ charge facilities

Mr Purple
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:14 pm

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby Mr Purple » Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:07 am

redsonic wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:58 pm
Amazing that the whole article just speculates about when/if the car is coming here, with no mention that it won't fit our parking spaces/ charge facilities
To most SUV drivers that falls under the definition of 'someone else's problem'.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14849
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby MichaelB » Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:37 am

Mr Purple wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:07 am
redsonic wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:58 pm
Amazing that the whole article just speculates about when/if the car is coming here, with no mention that it won't fit our parking spaces/ charge facilities
To most SUV drivers that falls under the definition of 'someone else's problem'.
More like they’ll start lobbying their local member to remove discriminatory car parks as their ESV’s don’t fit and they have to walk further …..

blizzard
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:56 am

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby blizzard » Sat Nov 18, 2023 10:24 am

Good news! The GMC Yukon is coming to Australia.

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/g ... -australia

am50em
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby am50em » Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:26 am

Ugly!

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3639
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby DavidS » Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:03 pm

That thing is ridiculous.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 21453
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby g-boaf » Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:57 pm

DavidS wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:03 pm
That thing is ridiculous.

DS
Just the thing to one-up those bullying drivers in Ford Rangers and similar?

They will be throwing out their Rangers and upgrading?

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby antigee » Fri Nov 24, 2023 3:14 pm

.... The UK advertising watchdog has banned two Toyota adverts for condoning driving that disregards its environmental impact in a landmark ruling, stating that the SUV ads had been created without “a sense of responsibility to society”.

It is the first time the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has blocked an SUV advert on the grounds of breaching social responsibility in an environmental context.

The regulator barred two ads, first released in a 2020 campaign: a poster and a video shown on social media, where dozens of Toyota Hilux cars drive across off-road terrain, including a river, while a voiceover describes the scene as “one of nature’s true spectacles”. The vehicles then join a road and drive through an urban area, before a lone car enters a driveway, with the voiceover continuing: “Toyota Hilux. Born to roam.”....


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ ... al-grounds

Veronica Wignall, a co-director at Adfree Cities, said: “These adverts epitomise Toyota’s total disregard for nature and the climate, by featuring enormous, highly polluting vehicles driving at speed through rivers and wild grasslands.”

Wignall said there was a disconnect between the way SUVs were advertised – with campaigns often depicting them in rugged environments – and the reality of where they were largely driven....

User avatar
baabaa
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby baabaa » Sat Nov 25, 2023 8:19 am

Skinny roads save lives, according to a study on the width of traffic lanes : NPR

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/13/12125892 ... ffic-lanes

Bigger cars and trucks are leading to more pedestrian fatalities : NPR

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/12127370 ... crash-data

User avatar
redsonic
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby redsonic » Sat Nov 25, 2023 10:49 am

baabaa wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2023 8:19 am
Skinny roads save lives, according to a study on the width of traffic lanes : NPR

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/13/12125892 ... ffic-lanes
The article didn't explain how the study proved causality rather than correlation. It could be that wider traffic lanes tend to be installed on much busier roads, with sheer numbers increasing the likelihood of crashes there. They needed to do a longitudinal study, looking at crash statistics before and after road width is changed.
Narrower roads mean cyclists are squeezed more (unless the reclaimed space is dedicated to peds/cyclists); also motorbikes and scooters can't filter to the front of traffic queues as easily, thus discouraging their use. If car parking is allowed alongside a narrow road, pedestrians can find it harder to see and be seen before crossing the road.

User avatar
elantra
Posts: 3181
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:01 am
Location: NSW and QLD

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby elantra » Sat Nov 25, 2023 7:08 pm

redsonic wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2023 10:49 am
baabaa wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2023 8:19 am
Skinny roads save lives, according to a study on the width of traffic lanes : NPR

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/13/12125892 ... ffic-lanes
The article didn't explain how the study proved causality rather than correlation. It could be that wider traffic lanes tend to be installed on much busier roads, with sheer numbers increasing the likelihood of crashes there. They needed to do a longitudinal study, looking at crash statistics before and after road width is changed.
Narrower roads mean cyclists are squeezed more (unless the reclaimed space is dedicated to peds/cyclists); also motorbikes and scooters can't filter to the front of traffic queues as easily, thus discouraging their use. If car parking is allowed alongside a narrow road, pedestrians can find it harder to see and be seen before crossing the road.
Yes it’s a complex equation and obviously skinny roads are going to prevent (some) road trauma death and injury due to speeding - but this might not include people on bicycles, and might be misleading if the conclusion lacks validity because motorists who want to go fast are using an alternative road.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nu ... %20coffee.

Attributing Causality to human behaviour (or designs that modify human behaviour) is actually a complex science with many pitfalls.
This is the science of Epidemiology, and the so-called “confounding variables” have caused people - even scientists - to come to incorrect conclusions many times in the past.
Reference to the highlighted section in the work linked to above URL.

rkelsen
Posts: 5131
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby rkelsen » Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:04 am

Comedian wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:56 pm
Good news everyone!

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/f ... -australia

Image
Commenter: "the electricute..." :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
uart
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Study: SUV Drivers Cause 55% Worse Injuries To Bicyclists They Hit

Postby uart » Sun Nov 26, 2023 3:14 pm

Comedian wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2023 12:56 pm
Good news everyone!

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/f ... -australia

Image
LOL, great news for anyone else who wants to park in that car park. :?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users