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

[Mr Purple]

I'm not the best example, but at least my 15m x 6m garage has five cars in it, parts for keeping the three classics running, and six bicycles.

Is it all on one level ? I had to stack my sprites so I could fit 2 in a 1 car garage

Yes, but it's a bit tight down one side.

Classic Mini, AW11 MR2 and BMW 140i down one side, Lexus IS200t and Valiant down the other.

I have to push the Mini and the MR2 to get them close enough together, but that's not particularly a great hardship. I think if I were to do it again I'd go with a proper parking hoist and pit.

[elantra]

I'm not the best example, but at least my 15m x 6m garage has five cars in it, parts for keeping the three classics running, and six bicycles.

Is it all on one level ? I had to stack my sprites so I could fit 2 in a 1 car garage

Yes, but it's a bit tight down one side.

Classic Mini, AW11 MR2 and BMW 140i down one side, Lexus IS200t and Valiant down the other.

I have to push the Mini and the MR2 to get them close enough together, but that's not particularly a great hardship. I think if I were to do it again I'd go with a proper parking hoist and pit.

Here’s something to think about- some clown might suggest that you trade the old Valiant in on a modern Dodge Ram.
Then you could hopefully “fit” the Mini in or on the cargo tray

That would be some spectacle.

Actually back in the mid-1970’s when Leyland Australia still existed, their range of vehicles included the last incarnation of the original Mini and the new P-76

The P-76 was a big car with an even bigger boot and people used to joke that you could fit a Mini in its boot.

[Mr Purple]

Well, I do have a similar G3 Hemi to the one they use in the Dodge Ram in the Valiant, so that might count!

Mine's bigger though (6.1L versus 5.7L). And the car's about 1000kg lighter.

The funny thing is the garage maths that results. So I can sell the Mini, but only replace it with something shorter. Which doesn't leave a great many options (that I'd want to actually drive). Maybe a Caterham Seven.

[find_bruce]

Here’s something to think about- some clown might suggest that you trade the old Valiant in on a modern Dodge Ram.
Then you could hopefully “fit” the Mini in or on the cargo tray

That would be some spectacle.

Actually back in the mid-1970’s when Leyland Australia still existed, their range of vehicles included the last incarnation of the original Mini and the new P-76

The P-76 was a big car with an even bigger boot and people used to joke that you could fit a Mini in its boot.

True words said in jest - when I needed to replace my tow car I was seriously considering a small truck, such as a Dodge AT4, which would fit my sprite on the tray - only need 3.5m. One in the right condition didn't come up.

I also considered a p76 but so few survived that people are wanting serious money for the ugly ducks

[Comedian]

Well, I do have a similar G3 Hemi to the one they use in the Dodge Ram in the Valiant, so that might count!

Mine's bigger though (6.1L versus 5.7L). And the car's about 1000kg lighter.

The funny thing is the garage maths that results. So I can sell the Mini, but only replace it with something shorter. Which doesn't leave a great many options (that I'd want to actually drive). Maybe a Caterham Seven.

It was launch photography like this that gave the game away. The usual tall german models were being dwarfed.

[Comedian]

Help me. I've just hosed way too much time and found the original image that I've been talking about. I found this website here that is the BMW press group archives.

https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/united-k ... 002-12-29/

https://sniffpetrol.com/archive/issue007.html

'GET DWARVES AWAY FROM MY CAR' SCREAMS MINI BOSS
There were angry scenes and an embarrassing revelation at a German launch party for the new Mini this week. Sources report that Mini Deutchland boss Helm Kese arrived at the function and, on sighting some people sitting near one of the cars on display, immediately became panicked. 'Get those dwarves away from my car' he screamed, before hiding behind a curtain. A fellow manager eventually pointed out that the 'dwarves' were in fact normal-sized people whose appearance had been rendered dwarfish by the distended, cartoon-like design details of BMW's new small car. 'Helm is scared of dwarves,' revealed a Munich insider, 'so his reaction was only natural, in a weird sort of way. I think he was bullied at school or something.'

Which sent me spiralling to the depths of despair, wondering if my MINI died alone. At the ripe old age of 7 I believe, because frankly it was a prototype that should never have been released to the public. Look at this picture.. scanned from film!

[Comedian]

Back on topic.

https://www.drive.com.au/news/study-cla ... ecade-ago/

[Thoglette]

Back on topic.

https://www.drive.com.au/news/study-cla ... ecade-ago/

Study claims average emissions of UK’s new cars higher than a decade ago.

New-car buying trends mean average vehicle emissions in the UK are getting worse, even with more electric cars on the road, according to a report from a climate action group.

[Comedian]

Honestly.. there is soooo much in here that I don't know where to start. I heartily recommend reading this article. They finish with a great idea of banning marketing for vehicles by size. Brilliant.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... about-suvs

Simms and Murray argue that manufacturers turned to SUV production because it afforded greater profits: “The early SUVs provided a 25% profit, compared to just 5% on ordinary cars: Ford were able to buy Volvo and Land Rover with their SUV profits by 1999.”

Murray believes that the reason the Ford Fiesta, the popular hatchback, has been discontinued is not because people stopped wanting to buy it, but because Ford stopped wanting to make it: “It’s the inexorable logic of business that you will focus your productive capacity and marketing spend on your most profitable product.”

As Murray puts is: “If you’re driving around in a small lightweight vehicle and you have a collision with, say, a Land Rover Defender, it’s going to smash you to bits.”

That understanding, he says, has led to an escalation, a sort of arms race, in which everyone buys ever larger and heavier cars to protect themselves from all the other larger and heavier cars. Simms and Murray believe the heavily encased, elevated position of the SUV driver creates a “sensation of safety” that means they “will tend to ‘export’ their risk, putting other road users at greater risk”.

According to Andrew Simms and Leo Murray, in their forthcoming book Badvertising: Polluting Our Minds and Fuelling Climate Chaos, between 1990 and 2001, $9bn (£7.4bn) was spent on advertising off-road-themed cars to an audience that hadn’t before shown much interest in driving down that path. In this century, SUV advertising has eclipsed all other car promotion.

[Mr Purple]

Yes, thanks for posting that - it was an excellent article.

All we have to do is tax vehicle registration proportionally to weight, but there seems to be a spectacular lack of political will for doing so. Yes, they will pay more for fuel, but that doesn't seem enough.

Has anyone noticed the luggage box offered as a factory extra on the latest Landrover Defenders?



It absolutely beggars belief that a vehicle can be sold in any country with a protruding chunk of metal at head height to a cyclist or pedestrian offered as a factory extra. Crazy stuff.

Also note the recent issue in Daylesford where a driver in a BMW SUV has driven through a beer garden and killed five people. I note the usual BS excuse of 'medical incident' has been dragged out. One wonders what would have happened if this 'medical incident' did not also simultaneously occur with the guy choosing to drive a 2T+ urban assault vehicle.

[Comedian]

Yes, thanks for posting that - it was an excellent article.

All we have to do is tax vehicle registration proportionally to weight, but there seems to be a spectacular lack of political will for doing so. Yes, they will pay more for fuel, but that doesn't seem enough.

Has anyone noticed the luggage box offered as a factory extra on the latest Landrover Defenders?



It absolutely beggars belief that a vehicle can be sold in any country with a protruding chunk of metal at head height to a cyclist or pedestrian offered as a factory extra. Crazy stuff.

Also note the recent issue in Daylesford where a driver in a BMW SUV has driven through a beer garden and killed five people. I note the usual BS excuse of 'medical incident' has been dragged out. One wonders what would have happened if this 'medical incident' did not also simultaneously occur with the guy choosing to drive a 2T+ urban assault vehicle.

I have seen those boxes. They don't seem to have been very popular. probably they are very expensive and hardly hold anything. So it's more of a fashion statement - like the whole car.

The grenadier has these tracks all the way down the side where you can fit "accessories". I've forgotten the proper name for them.

I mean the whole 4x4 thing seems to be pretty lose in terms of caring for the well being of others. All sorts of stuff goes.

I like the term "transferring risk onto others".

[warthog1]

Yes, thanks for posting that - it was an excellent article.

All we have to do is tax vehicle registration proportionally to weight, but there seems to be a spectacular lack of political will for doing so. Yes, they will pay more for fuel, but that doesn't seem enough.

Has anyone noticed the luggage box offered as a factory extra on the latest Landrover Defenders?



It absolutely beggars belief that a vehicle can be sold in any country with a protruding chunk of metal at head height to a cyclist or pedestrian offered as a factory extra. Crazy stuff.

Also note the recent issue in Daylesford where a driver in a BMW SUV has driven through a beer garden and killed five people. I note the usual BS excuse of 'medical incident' has been dragged out. One wonders what would have happened if this 'medical incident' did not also simultaneously occur with the guy choosing to drive a 2T+ urban assault vehicle.

My understanding is that it was a hypoglycaemic episode.

Went to a car that ran off the road yesterday in a 100kmh zone.
5 litre v8 fairlane.
Mounted the wire rope barrier and tore a front wheel off. Proceeded along a spoon drain for ~75 m on the tree side of the wire barrier over the wrong side of the road. Didn't hit anything (let alone an oncoming car) and came to a stop with no airbags deployed or significant panel damage. The 70 year old female driver had a coughing fit and lost consciousness. I have no doubt she will continue driving with her license intact.

I am starting to agree that we are utterly stupid riding our bicycles on public roads.

[Mr Purple]

What I want to know is how a major manufacturer can sell head high death boxes as an optional accessory, and yet I can be fined for widening the track by millimetres on my 1973 Mini?

Another pet hate is some of the manufacturers now fitting indicators about 80cm away from their brakelights and low down on the bumpers.



No idea how it's legal to separate your 'stopping' and 'going around corners' lights by so much, plus they can't be seen at all from many angles. Often they do it on the front as well - so you can't see them indicating around the roundabout until the last minute.

Fortunately most SUV drivers don't use their indicators anyway, so the point is largely moot.

[warthog1]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 5eigd.html

Amad said his client was an insulin-dependent diabetic, who required immediate treatment by paramedics at the scene of the crash. Police have previously said the driver was not under the influence of alcohol at the time.

Yep, more gravel here and less road.

[MichaelB]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 5eigd.html

Amad said his client was an insulin-dependent diabetic, who required immediate treatment by paramedics at the scene of the crash. Police have previously said the driver was not under the influence of alcohol at the time.

Yep, more gravel here and less road.

There needs to be something done re licence conditions re certain people. I saw an older gentleman get out of a car who's mobility (getting out and walking after) was a good example of someone who shouldn't be driving as his reaction time and mobility was severely impacted.

I really feel for the families involved at Daylesford and those others that were impacted as well. Must have been horrific.

[Comedian]

It's odd but I actually think that we need to make licences easier to loose, and probably easier to get back. We need to have a mindset of a licence being a privilege and not a right.

As it is now once someone has a licence it's basically for life. It would be a great start if people got a licence for 5 years, and if they wish to continue with the licence then they need to be retested.

People are so dependent on their cars in part because once they have a licence they have got it for life.

[warthog1]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 5eigd.html

Amad said his client was an insulin-dependent diabetic, who required immediate treatment by paramedics at the scene of the crash. Police have previously said the driver was not under the influence of alcohol at the time.

Yep, more gravel here and less road.

There needs to be something done re licence conditions re certain people. I saw an older gentleman get out of a car who's mobility (getting out and walking after) was a good example of someone who shouldn't be driving as his reaction time and mobility was severely impacted.

I really feel for the families involved at Daylesford and those others that were impacted as well. Must have been horrific.

Agreed. Not happening though. Society and our legal system it appears, despite words to the contrary, effectively see driving as a right, not a privilege.
Every effort appears to be made to keep people driving, rather than removing them from the road for the safety of others.
Fully agree on declining physical condition and cognitive ability making drivers dangerous as they age. So what, it appears. Their right to trundle on, is placed ahead of the safety of those they share the road with.

[Nobody]

There needs to be something done re licence conditions re certain people. I saw an older gentleman get out of a car who's mobility (getting out and walking after) was a good example of someone who shouldn't be driving as his reaction time and mobility was severely impacted.

Too complex an issue in AU, since vehicular mobility appears to be right, rather than a privilage. Limited licenses for old people that can no longer pass a driving test or have medical condition(s) highlights that. I'm no expert on this subject, but I was relieved when my late father passed away without killing anyone in his car. I thought he shouldn't be driving, but the authorities said it was OK by still giving him a unrestricted licence at 94 y.o. with mild dementia and a history of having stokes - 3 previously. One of those strokes while driving.

[MichaelB]

Sadly agree ^^
A previous work 'colleague' admitted to Dr shopping to get his old man a pass in his licence test so that he could continue to drive .....

I'm getting to the point that I have to tell my old man it's time to hang up the keys ...

[AdelaidePeter]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 5eigd.html

Amad said his client was an insulin-dependent diabetic, who required immediate treatment by paramedics at the scene of the crash. Police have previously said the driver was not under the influence of alcohol at the time.

Yep, more gravel here and less road.

In other words, he should not have been driving. (Yes I know I'm preaching to the choir here).

[Mr Purple]

There needs to be something done re licence conditions re certain people. I saw an older gentleman get out of a car who's mobility (getting out and walking after) was a good example of someone who shouldn't be driving as his reaction time and mobility was severely impacted.

I really feel for the families involved at Daylesford and those others that were impacted as well. Must have been horrific.

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.

[elantra]

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.

[Comedian]

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.

[Nobody]

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

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.

[Mr Purple]

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.