SUVs make up more than 40% of new cars sold in the UK – while fully electric vehicles account for less than 2%

[platinumsage]

Massive advances are being made in new cars on improving pedestrian safety, and these will no doubt be reflected in the casualty figures in time.
Nothing done about the railways at all though. Putting some Samaritan signs up won't cut it in the era of people-detecting auto-brakes.

 

[Roadkill]

Ok

454 pedestrians on road: https://assets.publishing.service.g...orted_road_casualties_-_Main_Results_2018.pdf
296 suicides, trespassers, level crossing users: Transport accidents and casualties (TSGB08) (mostly suicides)

As I thought, the figures do include suicides, which account for the vast majority of railway fatalities. To take 2019-20 as an example, 271 suicides and 40 fatalities from all other causes.

In other words, unless you're actively trying to harm yourself or do something very stupid at a level crossing, the risk of death or injury from a train is miniscule. Far smaller than on the roads.

 

[editor]

Massive advances are being made in new cars on improving pedestrian safety, and these will no doubt be reflected in the casualty figures in time.
Nothing done about the railways at all though. Putting some Samaritan signs up won't cut it in the era of people-detecting auto-brakes.

You're actually continuing with this specious comparison? Jeez.

UK road casualties
Key facts:

• In 2018, there were 1,784 people killed on the roads in Britain;
• In 2018, 25,511 people were seriously injured on the roads in Britain;
• In 2018, there was a total of 160,597 casualties of all severities in road traffic crashes;
• In 2018, the highest number of fatalities were car users, both drivers and passengers, who accounted for 44% of road deaths;
• In 2018, of the 1,784 road deaths, the majority (58%) occurred on rural roads.

 

[platinumsage]

As I thought, the figures do include suicides, which account for the vast majority of railway fatalities. To take 2019-20 as an example, 271 suicides and 40 fatalities from all other causes.

In other words, unless you're actively trying to harm yourself or do something very stupid at a level crossing, the risk of death or injury from a train is miniscule. Far smaller than on the roads.

What a ridiculous thing to say. It's not about whether the people dying are in a particular frame of mind, it's about reducing deaths by investing in technological solutions.

Following your argument, kids who run out into the road shouldn't be counted, because a sensible person wouldn't do that.

 

[platinumsage]

You're actually continuing with this specious comparison? Jeez.

UK road casualties
Key facts:

• In 2018, there were 1,784 people killed on the roads in Britain;
• In 2018, 25,511 people were seriously injured on the roads in Britain;
• In 2018, there was a total of 160,597 casualties of all severities in road traffic crashes;
• In 2018, the highest number of fatalities were car users, both drivers and passengers, who accounted for 44% of road deaths;
• In 2018, of the 1,784 road deaths, the majority (58%) occurred on rural roads.

All the more reason for people to ditch their aging estate/hatchback cars and buy new SUVs stuffed with life-saving technology and cleaner engines.

 

[Struwwelpeter]

Most of those risks have been mitigated on new vehicles by e.g. mandatory reversing cameras, active bonnets and object-detection.

Meanwhile nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains, but not even basic mitigation such as the secure fencing found in many other countries has been attempted.

1. If those features are fitted to normal cars then I suspect the mitigation point would be eroded somewhat.

2. This is bullshit. 331 people died on the railways in 2018-19. 27 members of the public, 302 suicides, 2 workers.

Rail safety | ORR Data Portal

dataportal.orr.gov.uk

In 2018 there were 456 pedestrian deaths on the road.

Knowledge centre | Brake

Learn about safe and healthy mobility with our fact and advice pages

www.brake.org.uk

 

[Roadkill]

What a ridiculous thing to say. It's not about whether the people dying are in a particular frame of mind, it's about reducing deaths by investing in technological solutions.

Following your argument, kids who run out into the road shouldn't be counted, because a sensible person wouldn't do that.

What the fuck are you on about?

e2a - actually, don't bother. I've better things to do.

 

[platinumsage]

What the fuck are you on about?

This

In other words, unless you're actively trying to harm yourself or do something very stupid at a level crossing, the risk of death or injury from a train is miniscule. Far smaller than on the roads.

 

[Roadkill]

This

I'd have thought my words were pretty self-explanatory, really. The point is that fatalities on the railway (suicides excepted) are at such a low level that all the 'technological solutions' you mention won't do much to reduce them. The risk on the roads is far, far greater. In other words, drop the railway whataboutery.

 

[platinumsage]

I'd have thought my words were pretty self-explanatory, really. The point is that fatalities on the railway (suicides excepted) are at such a low level that all the 'technological solutions' you mention won't do much to reduce them. The risk on the roads is far, far greater. In other words, drop the railway whataboutery.

Fine - if you think reducing the large numbers of railway suicides in similar ways to pedestrian road fatalities isn't worth it, I can understand why don't want to bother defending that.

 

[Spymaster]

 

[Doodler]

From 2017: SUV drivers in a study conducted in Vienna were more likely than non-SUV drivers to be observed jumping red lights, not wearing seatbelts and using mobile phones::

SUV driving 'masculinizes' risk behavior in females

The study admits it can't say much about cause and effect (in contradiction to its title), but a useful list of references is included.

 

[editor]

Fine - if you think reducing the large numbers of railway suicides in similar ways to pedestrian road fatalities isn't worth it, I can understand why don't want to bother defending that.

Comparing suicides with road fatalities is really fucking bizarre, but exactly how would you propose reducing the numbers of railway suicides? What ' technological solution,' for example, would prevent someone jumping over a bridge into the path of a train?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Lots of narrow lanes round here. On most of them a normal sized car can just about pass pedestrians safely, but a range rover can't. I make a point of not budging for SUVs too big to get past me. I'm not climbing into the brambles just because some inadequate needs a big car with a four litre engine to feel important.

 

[Spymaster]

From 2017: SUV drivers in a study conducted in Vienna were more than non-SUV drivers to be observed jumping red lights, not wearing seatbelts and using mobile phones::

SUV driving 'masculinizes' risk behavior in females

So, a decent reason to ban women from driving SUVs, in Austria?

Or do you think Austrian women should be banned from SUVs all over the world?

Maybe just ban women drivers?

The study admits it can't say much about cause and effect ....

Really? You don't say!

 

[not-bono-ever]

my current SUV lite wheels put out half the emissions that my Volvo estate did. not as long either, but taller and better for the occupants. No i dont drive it 300m to the shops either.

 

[platinumsage]

Comparing suicides with road fatalities is really fucking bizarre, but exactly how would you propose reducing the numbers of railway suicides? What ' technological solution,' for example, would prevent someone jumping over a bridge into the path of a train?

Trackside cameras near all high-risk areas alerting train drivers to the presence of line-side pedestrians. Most suicide victims loiter by or on the tracks away from platforms waiting for a suitably fast train.

If reducing pedestrian fatalities is important, this should be something to focus on rather than singling out new SUVs. Or perhaps delivery vans, which typically have worse or totally absent pedestrian protection.

It seems the article is more about “i don’t like people having big shiny cars” rather than “let’s reduce pedestrian deaths” or similar.

 

[Doodler]

So, a decent reason to ban women from driving SUVs, in Austria?

Or do you think Austrian women should be banned from SUVs all over the world?

Maybe just ban women drivers?

You should construct strawmen for a living, you obviously enjoy doing it!

 

[editor]

Trackside cameras near all high-risk areas alerting train drivers to the presence of line-side pedestrians. Most suicide victims loiter by or on the tracks away from platforms waiting for a suitably fast train.

You do understand that trains can take up to a mile to stop and that someone can jump onto a countryside bridge parapet in seconds?

So your 'technological solution' is 100% pointless, ineffective and redundant.

 

[platinumsage]

You do understand that trains can take up to a mile to stop and that someone can jump onto a countryside bridge parapet in seconds?

So your 'technological solution' is 100% pointless, ineffective and redundant.

They often travel a mile in far less than a minute, cameras on trackside land would help enormously.

 

[baldrick]

If you're comparing SUVs negatively to fully electric cars you have to recognise that there's an infrastructure burden required to make people shift over to fully electric.

We bought a brand new car just before lockdown and really wanted to make the switch over to an electric vehicle. But as lots of other people do in this country, we live in a terrace and there is no way we could get a charging point installed without it being an obstruction. So it didn't happen. Lots of people will have this problem and by making electric vehicles 'out of reach' if you like to anyone who doesn't have a driveway, like loads of other green initiatives it prices people out who would otherwise like to do the right thing.

 

[Spymaster]

You should construct strawmen for a living, you obviously enjoy doing it!

Says the bloke who just linked to the most abominable, irrelevant, piece of junk on the thread (apart from the article in the OP)!

 

[editor]

They often travel a mile in far less than a minute, cameras on trackside land would help enormously.

Explain how these hundreds of thousands of trackside cameras would somehow prevent someone committing suicide by jumping off a bridge straight into the path of a 100mph train. Thanks.

Oh and who's going to pay for all this pointless technology?

 

[Doodler]

Says the bloke who just linked to the most abominable, irrelevant, piece of junk on the thread (apart from the article in the OP)!

It certainly seems to got under your skin somehow. It's just an article.

 

[Cid]

All of which totally misses the point. But thanks for the aerodynamics lesson!

If you have an SUV which returns 30mpg for 200g/km (of which there are many), it's more efficient and cleaner than a car which returns 20mpg for 300g/km (of which there are many). The premise started at in the article in the OP is completely arbitrary. It is clickbait for morons.

Ok. This quite simple. SUVs generally have a higher COD than lower cars. This means that, on average, they are going to be less efficient in terms of fuel consumption than a lower car with a similar capacity. I don’t really care that much about the original article, they’re splitting hairs between running an SUV and anything else. But you are talking out of your arse.

 

[platinumsage]

Explain how these hundreds of thousands of trackside cameras would somehow prevent someone committing suicide by jumping off a bridge straight into the path of a 100mph train. Thanks.

Oh and who's going to pay for all this pointless technology?

I don't have all the answers but I'm sure the hundreds of fatalities each year warrant more attention than banning adverts for private cars of a certain shape.

 

[ska invita]

Tax all engines above 1.8 to death
Force all cars to have a max speed limit of 70mph
Special license to drive SUVs, achievable after going on a week long cunt awareness course, theory and practical.

 

[Spymaster]

Ok. This quite simple. SUVs generally have a higher COD than lower cars. This means that, on average, they are going to be less efficient in terms of fuel consumption than a lower car with a similar capacity. I don’t really care that much about the original article, they’re splitting hairs between running an SUV and anything else. But you are talking out of your arse.

You're saying the right things but still missing the point. You've got this half right. The article relates to fuel consumption and emissions (massive clue there). If you think I'm taking out of my arse you're silly. This is really straightforward and I'm not sure how to simplify it further for you.

When you say "similar capacity" are you referring to engine capacity? We could open a whole new can of worms here.

 

[Cid]

You're saying the right things but still missing the point. You've got this half right. The article relates to fuel consumption and emissions (massive clue there). If you think I'm taking out of my arse you're silly. This is really straightforward and I'm not sure how to simplify it further for you.

Fuel consumption and emissions are tied directly to weight and aerodynamics.

 

[platinumsage]

Fuel consumption and emissions are tied directly to weight and aerodynamics.

Let's all shove our elderly relatives into super low-drag sports cars then shall we?