SUVs Not Safer for Children

[wren]

nabasa ko to sa local paper namin. BTW, I have nothing against SUVs, I own one.


SUVs not safer for children, study saysTendency to flip over undercuts their size advantage, experts find.
By Lisa Zagaroli -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, January 3, 2006
Story appeared in Business section, Page D1
Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

WASHINGTON - Despite their heft, sport-utility vehicles aren't any safer for children because of their propensity to flip over, a new study shows.
"Despite the larger size of SUVs and the consequent perception of improved safety, children riding in SUVs have a similar risk of injury compared with children riding in passenger cars," says the report, to be published today in the medical journal Pediatrics. "The protective effect of increased vehicle weight offered by SUVs is tempered by their higher risk of rollover crashes."


About 17 out of every 1,000 children suffered serious injuries - concussions, internal organ damage and fractures, for example - in all types of vehicle accidents.
A child who was properly restrained in a seat belt or child seat during an SUV rollover had twice the chance of serious injury compared to a child in a car, and a child who was completely unrestrained in an SUV rollover had 25 times the likelihood of being harmed, the report said.

The study was based on crashes involving 3,922 children between newborn and 15 years old that occurred between March 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2003. All the subjects were in model year 1998 or newer vehicles insured by State Farm.

The sample was taken from 49,742 crashes in California and 15 other states that are part of a multiyear child passenger safety study by researchers at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania.

Sport-utility vehicles have come under fire in recent years for their tendency to roll over; for their height and weight compared with smaller vehicles, which make them more likely to harm occupants of other vehicles in a crash; and for their fuel consumption.

There are about 28 million SUVs on America's highways, according to the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, a Washington trade group that represents car companies. A report last year by the U.S. Census Bureau said California had the most registered SUVs, with 2.8 million.

The child safety researchers said they think some parents choose SUVs because they mistakenly believe their children will be safer in them.

"SUVs are becoming more popular as family vehicles because they can accommodate multiple child safety seats and their larger size may lead parents to believe SUVs are safer than passenger cars," said the study's co-author, Dr. Dennis Durbin, an emergency physician and epidemiologist at Children's Hospital.

"When families are choosing a vehicle to be used as a family car, they should not make assumptions that an SUV's larger size will automatically result in lower risk," he said.

This study and previous analyses did confirm that bigger tends to be safer. For example, large sedans tend to be safer than midsized cars, and large SUVs safer than smaller SUVs.

"How we square that is the potential safety advantage of the added size and weight appears to be offset by the rollover risk," Durbin said. "There's no net advantage for kids in SUVs than kids in passenger cars.

"I suspect that will run counter to most people's assumptions," he said. "We were somewhat surprised by our findings."

Heightened risk with rollover crashes is a well-documented problem.

SUVs are about four times as likely to roll over as passenger cars, according to federal traffic statistics cited by the researchers.

Though rollovers represent only 3 percent of accidents, they account for more than a third of annual highway deaths, according to the federal agency that regulates cars, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

A vehicle's stability is based on a number of factors, including its height, its width between tires and weight distribution, as well as the way it is driven.

"Automakers have engineered numerous new safety technologies into SUVs over the past several model years to prevent rollovers," said Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers.

The automakers' voluntary efforts soon will be nudged along by the government.

Congress passed a major transportation bill in August that mandates the NHTSA to reduce rollovers through a variety of measures that could include requiring electronic stability control features that allow drivers to maintain better control in turns; ejection protection, such as improved door locks; and improved roof strength.

"SUVs pound for pound are safer in most crashes," said Barry McCahill, president of Sport Utility Vehicle Owners of America.

"Rollovers are still only 3 or 4 percent of crashes, and an SUV gives you pretty darn good protection. Do you pay more for gas? Yes, but I think of it as life insurance."

The NHTSA has said that 72 percent of people killed in rollover crashes aren't wearing their seat belts.

"If every SUV occupant wore their safety belt, it would save a thousand lives a year without doing anything to change technology, just using the existing technology," Shosteck said.

The new study said that a rollover increased the risk of injury to children in both SUVs and passenger cars, but rollovers occurred more often with SUVs.

Children were more likely to be properly seated in the rear of a sport-utility vehicle than in passenger cars, making them less likely to be exposed to dangerous air bag deployments, the study said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT FACTS
More than 10,000 people die in rollover crashes each year.
• Fifty-nine percent of fatalities in SUVs occurred in rollover crashes, compared with 23 percent for passenger car accidents in 2003.

• There are about 10 deaths per 100,000 registered SUVs, compared to seven for pickups, and less than four for vans and passenger cars.

• SUV registrations increased 250 percent between 1995 and 2002.

• The average SUV is about 1,300 pounds heavier than the average passenger car.

• Information on vehicle safety ratings: www.safercar. gov and www.hwysafety. org.

Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Partners for Child Passenger Safety.

[niky]

Tell me about it... kawawa ako sa gas bills dahil ayokong isakay ang baby ko sa Crosswind (heck, I don't like driving it myself, as I can never feel secure. :lol: ).

But I guess this all boils down to the fact that people are buying SUVs for the wrong reason. They're not supposed to be all-purpose family vehicles... vans do a better job of that... even if they're not as stiff structurally, their lower center of gravity gives them better handling and roll-over resistance. Most people buy SUVs as a replacement for the family sedan and drive it as such...

Also, US SUVs are just too fast and too heavy.

[espeago]

SUV for the right or wrong reason... it all boils down to the driver. It boils down
to the HUMAN element. The biggest threat to me on the road is drivers that are just plain jerks. So many drivers are rude, ignorant and lousy to everyone else on the road that they appear to be trying to kill the other drivers.

From cutting you off, running up your back bumper or driving like on a race track oblivious to everyone else's presence, it can be a survival test just navigating the highways around town.


The choice on how to make safe use of technology is the responsibility of the DRIVER.

[andre]

SUV can get you across a flooded street compared to a car.
SUV can handle our carter sized potholed streets better than a car.
SUV can withstand better on a collision with another vehicle compared to a car.
Smaller vehicle driver think twice before confronting a big vehicle on the opposite lane.

[basti08]

SUV can withstand better on a collision with another vehicle compared to a car.

amen to everything,
but dont you think that you are 10x likely to avoid an accident in a more agile and smaller car?
i prefer active rather passive safety.

[ghosthunter]

Isn't it that SUVs have a lower safety rating than sedans in crash testing? Typical difference is the amount of deformation and intrusion in the passenger cabin during a crash.

[city]

may stats ba tayo dito sa pinas?...nabalitaang ko lang na rollover e yung kay vandolph..nagrollover sa dithc ba yun?...hehehe

city

[OTEP]

SUV's are theoretically not safer than cars. Truck-based SUV's generally have lousy crash ratings, the agility of a porpoise, coupled with other inefficiencies due to their compromised designs.

However, in the real world, SUV's seem to perform better than cars. Of all the vehicles we have crashed over the years, the SUV's held up better.

Agility is somewhat a moot point when we are just sitting in traffic and we get rammed by a bus with a drug-crazed driver.

I have yet to roll an SUV on or off-road.

You just have to keep in mind that you are not driving a car and you'll be fine. And if you don't really need an SUV and you just want to be a poser, my suggestion would be just to not buy one.

[niky]

*andre: Theoretically, the high mass of an SUV should absorb impact better than cars, but with modern building methods, this is not always so. Some SUVs are built on old platforms, which are not as stiff as, say, a Honda Jazz or a "new" Mini Cooper... both of which hold their shape better in a crash than, say, an Isuzu Trooper or a Ford Explorer. Older cars were a lot softer (remember the Pasvil-flattened Sentra?) but new cars have much thicker support pillars and crash-structures... they should stand up better to runaway buses now. But I don't want to be the first to find out. :lol:

Plus the extra weight may save your life, but pity the guy you hit.

(as an aside) *ghosthunter: I know it's true of older models like Expes, Monteros, Pajeros, Troopers and the like, but I'm betting the Fortuner should hold up pretty well... as should the front half of the Alterra, since the chassis is shared with American market trucks... don't ask me if the Thai-designed rear roof will hold, though.

And I've never broken a suspension member on a pothole yet. It's simple. Drive slower over potholes. It's much safer than going over them at full speed, no matter what the vehicle.

Flood-fording is a good reason to consider an SUV, but then, in my opinion, better not to go out if it rains at all. My uncle and I went out in his 70's Land Cruiser in the middle of a flood. A lot of "posermobiles", big, powerful new trucks and SUVs with semi-offroad tires were getting stuck in the mud, spinning out and getting into all sorts of trouble... becuase they were 4x2 only. We were in a crappy old diesel LC, driving sideways and slowly, through, mud, ruts and through four foot deep water, with no problem at all.

Having an SUV that looks like it can go anywhere isn't the same as having one that can go anywhere. There's a false sense of security there that may encourage drivers to bite off more than they can chew... up until the point where they fry the ECU (oops! Didn't know that was down there) trying to ford deep water... or get stuck because their vaunted 4x4 doesn't have locking hubs... or they could just get swept away by flood waters that didn't look that dangerous because they were still shallow when the driver started out.

Yes, smaller vehicle drivers think twice... unlike Vandolph... :lol: ...An SUV will be able to do more, but it won't be able to do everything. Just keep that in mind. One or two feet of water can become three feet or more in less than an hour. If you don't need to go out, best to stay in.

There are advantages nga to having an SUV, but for some of us, they're not a big enough reason to consider switching over.

[badsekktor]

why is it that SUV's and bikes are hated?? just wondering...... i have never seen a review that generalizes cars and their flaws.... Im not here to inflame anybody, I just want to be enlightened... peace dudes!!!