search text   Advanced Search

Post-publication Peer Reviews to:

ARTICLES: Lauren Daly, Michael J. Kallan, Kristy B. Arbogast, and Dennis R. Durbin Risk of Injury to Child Passengers in Sport Utility Vehicles Pediatrics 2006; 117: 9-14 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

P3Rs: Submit a response to this article

P³Rs published:

False occupant protection capabilities in SUVs

Ediriweera Desapriya, Dr. Ian Pike   (18 January 2006)

SUVs get poor rating for rear- crash protection

Ediriweera Desapriya   (24 January 2006)

False occupant protection capabilities in SUVs 18 January 2006
Ediriweera Desapriya, Research Associate Department of Pediatrics, Dr. Ian Pike Send letter to journal: Re: False occupant protection capabilities in SUVs edesap{at}cw.bc.ca Ediriweera Desapriya, et al.	Two independent trends in the developed world are likely to reverse some of the hard won improvements that have been made in road safety. One is the ageing of the population; the other the increase in the use of sports utility vehicles (SUVs, high performance four wheel drive cars capable of off-road driving). (1, 2) Vehicle incompatibility has been identified as an important influence in the outcomes of modern motor vehicle crashes. Importantly safety designs that were effective ten or fifteen years ago are not adequate in today’s incompatible vehicle collisions. (3, 4) In the United States 40% of new vehicles purchased are classified as light trucks or vans (many of which are SUVs). Preference to drive a SUV is shaped not only by individual choice but also by environmental level influences including economic and social factors. (2,4) SUVs are frequently advertised as being “safer” than smaller vehicles, and give the impression of crashworthiness to potential buyers irrespective of any advertising campaigns. Popular misbelieve that SUV has capability of providing the extra protection ability in crashes is frequently reinforced by popular culture and for this reason; change of consumers buying pattern or promotion of safe driving practices among SUV drivers especially when transporting kids may not be achieved by health promotion and education strategies alone. Popular culture itself can also be a worthwhile target for interventions. We need a strict code of practice for motor vehicle advertising in North America where SUV pandemic is growing. It should be developed, stating that advertisements for motor vehicles should not portray any form of occupant protection abilities unrealistically. Informing consumers of the false protection to its occupants from SUVs may represent a useful first step in raising public awareness. We need to warn about the increasing death and injury from sports utility vehicles and consumers should be warned of potential risk to child occupants through notices on these vehicles. We could also tackle the perception that occupants of SUVs are safer in crashes, as studies indicate higher death rates and a greater chance of roll-over in SUVs than conventional cars. It is in fact many families who buy these vehicles, unaware of their increased potential dangers over a regular car. The fundamental reason for a higher involvement of SUVs in pedestrian and other road user Road Traffic crashes is that SUV drivers feel better protected in their vehicle than in smaller motor vehicles. (5) REFERENCES (1). Simms C, O'Neill D. Sports utility vehicles and older pedestrians. BMJ 2005; 331: 787-8. (2). Desapriya, E.B., Pike, I., Sports utility vehicles and older pedestrians-Achieving compatibility in motor vehicle crashes BMJ 2005;331:966-967. (3). Rowe, S.A., Sochor, M.S., Staples, K.S., Wahl, W.L., Wang S.C., Pelvic ring fractures: implications of vehicle design, crash type, and occupant characteristics. Surgery 2004; 136: 842-7 (4). 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 (5). Desapriya, E.B., Pike, I., Kinney, J., The risk of injury and vehicle damage severity in vehicle mismatched side impact crashes in British Columbia. IATSS Research 2005; 29:60-66 Conflict of Interest: None declared
SUVs get poor rating for rear- crash protection 24 January 2006
Ediriweera Desapriya, Research Associate Department of Pediatrics Send letter to journal: Re: SUVs get poor rating for rear- crash protection edesap{at}cw.bc.ca Ediriweera Desapriya	The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) announced results of rear-crash protection tests in 2006 pickup trucks and sport- utility vehicles (SUVs). None of the 16 pickup trucks tested and only six of the 43 SUVs tested received "good" protection ratings. Nine of the pickups and 27 SUVs received "poor" ratings, while the rest had "marginal or adequate" ratings. The best rated 2006 SUVs included the Ford Freestyle, Honda Pilot, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Land Rover LR3, Subaru Forester and Volvo XC90. Tests were conducted on behalf of the International Insurance Whiplash Protection Group (IIWPG) at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in USA. Using an ICBC-developed device, car seats are measured for head restraint geometry. Seats with good or acceptable geometry are subjected to a dynamic crash test that simulates a stopped vehicle being rear-impacted by another vehicle of the same weight going 32 km per hour. Pickups and SUVs are some of the best selling vehicles in British Columbia. “We hoped these rugged vehicles, some of which are bought for their perceived safety image, would have offered more robust protection for passengers." Reference:Insurance Corporation in British Columbia (ICBC) Rates 2006 SUVs and Trucks poorly in rear end collision protection- http://www.icbc.com/inside_icbc/january2006news.asp Conflict of Interest: None declared

	Home | My Pediatrics | Journal Information | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscriptions & Services | Contact Us Click here for faster international access © 2008 American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved.