Sports utility vehicles and older pedestrians

Recently, I commented on the paradox regarding attitudes to safety in
private versus public transport (The Psychologist, 2005, volume 18(10),
page 199). I suggested that obvious, cheaply-implemented safety
improvements to private motoring - the example of banning cell-phone use
was under discussion - are often greeted with a chorus of protest that
they impinge on the "freedom" of the motorist. In contrast, public
transport is expected to spend vast sums of money to improve safety, even
if the improvement is likely to be marginal; I cited the example of the
replacement of 'slam-door' rolling stock on Britain's railways, which
casualty records suggest will have a minimal effect.

The case of sports utility vehicles represents another expression of
this paradox. It is self-evidently obvious that pedestrians will be more
damaged by a bigger heavier vehicle which will likely be travelling faster
than - say - a modest hatchback. Yet, one gets very little sense that the
motoring community wants to eliminate SUVs in the way that slam-door
rolling stock is being eliminated on the railways.

Until the vociferous motoring lobby is curbed and the safety of
private motoring is treated with the same sense of purpose as that
expected of public transport, I see little optimism that the important
message from Simms and O'Neil's article will be acted upon.

Competing interests:
None declared