BMJ  2005;331:966-967 (22 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7522.966-e

Letter

Sports utility vehicles and older pedestrians

Achieving compatibility in motor vehicle crashes

EDITOR—The chief determinants for the degree of severity of injuries in motor vehicle collisions are vehicle size and weight. If all cars were designed to be equal in standard to the best car currently available in each class, then an estimated half of all fatal and disabling injuries could be avoided.¹

Sports utility vehicles (SUVs) differ from cars in three key areas: they have greater mass and stiffness and the geometry places bumpers above the frames of struck cars, resulting in higher intrusion when striking smaller cars. Thus the safety designs that were effective 10 or 15 years ago are not adequate in today's incompatible vehicle collisions. New technology needs to be developed and implemented.² Although mass affects survival in crashes, good vehicle geometry and energy absorbing interfaces are important in developing a heavy vehicle that behaves in crashes like the average car.³

Safety standards for front-end construction which would make vehicles less hazardous to pedestrians and cyclists may be as important as standards that affect vehicle occupants. Political obstacles have made such standards difficult to implement.^{2 3 4} The high stiffness and aggressiveness of the front structures of heavy vehicles significantly exacerbates the injury risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicle occupants. The front, side, and rear design of SUVs can be effectively modified to significantly reduce the harm of heavy vehicle crashes.³

edesap{at}cw.bc.ca
Department of Paediatrics—UBC, BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit, Centre for Community Child Health Research, 4480 Oak Street, L 408 Vancouver BC, Canada V6H 3V4

Department of Paediatrics—UBC, BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit, Centre for Community Child Health Research, 4480 Oak Street, L 408 Vancouver BC, Canada V6H 3V4

---

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. World Health Organization. World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva: WHO, 2004.
2. Rowe SA, Sochor MS, Staples KS, Wahl WL, Wang SC. Pelvic ring fractures: implications of vehicle design, crash type, and occupant characteristics. Surgery 2004;136: 842-7.[Medline]
3. Desapriya EB, Chipman M, Joshi P, Pike I. The risk of injury and vehicle damage in vehicle mismatched crashes. Injury Control Safety Promotion 2005;12: 191-2.
4. Simms E, O'Neill D. Sports utility vehicles and older pedestrians. BMJ 2005;331: 787-8. (8 October.)[Free Full Text]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

Sports utility vehicles and older pedestrians

Ciaran Simms and Desmond O'Neill
BMJ 2005 331: 787-788. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hourigan, C. S (2005). Are medical schools fit for graduates?. BMJ 331: 1084-1084 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Design changes reduces SUVs aggressiveness with crash partners

Ediriweera Desapriya, et al.
bmj.com, 4 Feb 2006 [Full text]