Forum back online. Please post!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
New research in the United States shows that children riding in SUVs have similar injury risks to children who ride in passenger cars.The latest study, published by The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in the journal Pediatrics on Tuesday (3 January), found that an SUV's increased risk of rolling over during a crash offset the safety benefits associated with larger, heavier-weight vehicles.The study, part of an on-going research collaboration of Children's Hospital and State Farm Insurance, looked at crashes reported to State Farm involving 3,933 child occupants between the ages of 0 and 15 years who were in SUVs or passenger cars from model year 1998 onwards.Rollover contributes significantly to risk of injury in both vehicle types and occurred twice as frequently in SUVs. Children involved in rollover crashes were three times more likely to be injured than children in non-rollovers.Children who were not properly restrained in a car seat, booster seat or seatbelt during an SUV rollover were at a 25-fold greater risk for injury as compared to appropriately restrained children. Nearly half of the unrestrained children in these crashes (41%) suffered a serious injury compared with only 3% of appropriately restrained children in SUVs. Overall, injury risk for appropriately restrained children in passenger cars is less than 2%."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 study co-author Dennis Durbin. "However, people who use an SUV as their family vehicle should know that SUV's do not provide superior protection for child occupants and that age- and size-appropriate restraints and rear seating for children under 13 years are critically important because of the increased risk of a rollover crash."In a 2005 report, Children's Hospital said that SUVs in child-involved State Farm crashes increased from 15% in 1999 to 26% in 2004, while the percentage of passenger cars decreased from a high of 54% in 1999 to 43% in 2004. There was no or little growth in the percentage of minivans in the study population - 24% in 2004."Ideally, a safe family car has enough rear-row seating positions with lap-and-shoulder belts for every child under 13 that requires them and enough remaining rear-row positions to install child safety seats for infants and toddlers," noted study co-author Lauren Daly.Previous research by the hospital has shown that, within each vehicle classification, larger heavier vehicles are generally safer.Of all passenger car classifications, large and luxury cars feature lower child injury risk than mid-size or small passenger cars. Among SUVs, mid-size and small SUVs had similar injury risks, which were two times higher than large SUVs.However, compact extended-cab pickup trucks present a unique risk to children- child occupants in the rear row of compact extended cab pick-ups face a five- fold increased risk of injury in a crash as compared to rear-seated children in all other vehicle types.
It's already being misinterpreted as applying to the significantly different 4x4 vehicles used in this country, on Radio 2.
Did I post it before they did?
As has been pointed out, the US data is statistically meaningless in this country for a whole gammut of reason.
Bigger trucks,
It all contributes to make this research fascinating readin' but fundamentally invalid to the UK. As is much of the data vomited forth by our beloved Anti groups.
No I think that they were wittering on about it before you posted, as I had done a quick google to see if I could find some info about it.
And where is the confidence factor for the results?And does the report compare like for like? It seems to read that there is a 3% risk of injury in a SUV rollover compared to a 2% risk in ALL passencer car accidents.
The report seems to put little emphasis on the important result, that a passengers need to be properly restrained.
I wonder if we'll see that Disco next week, looking tiny in the car park outside Sam's? Incidentally 19cm in last 24h, giving alpine base of 149.
Now then,Copied below is a snippet, lifted verbatim from a respected industry news website ( http://just-auto.com ). I'm passing no judgement on the news it contains, because the research, to my knowledge, has yet to be replicated in the UK.So, how long do we reakon before this research gets touted by the British antis. Start your watches........[\quote]If you are interested all the 2004 US accident data (we're still waiting for 2005 report) is here:http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004EE.pdfTrawl through to about page 65 where accidents are broken down by vehicle type and you could probably find something to demonstrate 4x4's are safer to be in than small passenger vehicles in a crash. In fact I think some US pro 4x4 groups did it already.
