Car bonnet heights

[GingerBeverage]

I don't understand how they pass safety tests?

In crashes, high-bonneted SUVs are more likely to strike the vital organs in the core of adults’ bodies and the heads of children. Hitting pedestrians above their centre of gravity means they are more likely to be knocked forward and down and then be driven over. In contrast, low bonnets tend to hit pedestrians’ legs, giving them a greater chance of falling on to the vehicle and being deflected to the side.
The report, by the advocacy group Transport & Environment (T&E), found that the average bonnet height of new cars sold in Europe rose from 77cm in 2010 to 84cm in 2024.
The rise matches booming sales of SUVs from 12% to 56% of all cars over the same period, with the increasing size of vehicles being described as “carspreading” or “autobesity”. SUVs are also 20% more polluting on average and this rise in sales is cancelling out the reduction in climate-heating CO2 due to electric vehicles and fuel efficiency improvements.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/11/ever-rising-height-car-bonnets-suv-threat-to-children-report

Ar5eholes who drive badly and kill people drive every size and shape of vehicle. The idea that banning these will somehow improve safety I think is laughable. People not rushing on the roads, people sticking to speed limits-these are the things that matter.

Why dont we treat unsafe driving and unsafe vehicles as a child protection issue?

In particular if someone gets convicted of driving like a twat why dont they get the equivalent treatment that a kiddy fiddler gets including an angry mob outside their house?

Some years ago a child was killed near my house by a car that left the road, I dont see that driver having to spend the rest of their life travelling by bus and having to look over their shoulder just in case?

Modern vehicles are absolutely stuffed with equipment to protect the occupants in case of an accident. Why not give consideration to those outside the vehicle, including other motorists, and design them accordingly?

Modern vehicles are also stuffed with stuff and designed in ways to protect pedestrians.

NCAP safety testing actually covers is as one of the scoring criteria. The current focus (hatchback) gets a 72% rating.

The kuga (suv) gets 82%.

So in many cases, the SUV design, shape and functionality is actually better for pedestrians than other shapes and designs.

There are also safety design requirements that have made bonnets taller and boxier. The ‘ramp’ shape of older designs is pretty bad for pedestrians as get scooped up and over and thrown. That’s why newer designs are more flat fronted. Even though it’s less energy efficient. Most obvious way to see this is how premium sports cars have changed bonnet shape. They didn’t do it becayse it looks better. They did it because they had to.

Climate campaign groups like suv bashing. In this case, they’re taking opinion and presenting as fact. When the testing and standards actually say the opposite.

Referneces:
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/Ford/Kuga/39116

https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/Ford/Focus/38092

I wonder how @Chiseltip thinks the £multi-billion cost of installing crossings on every street would be met? Councils are going bankrupt and this country can barely afford healthcare and education.
When I leave my house there are no pavements, there are wandering sheep, cows and horses, and I have to drive almost 7 miles before I come across any sort of pedestrian crossing.

There's nothing wrong with big cars per se, just some drive them as though they own the road. Cars parked both sides and Mr/Mrs Toad will sail down the middle while you patiently wait at the other end (and no 'thank you' either); I can't remember a big car ever flashing to let me out in my little hatchback; I can't remember a big car ever giving me right of way when they could gave done. I'm sure the drivers of big cars aren't all like that .....🤔🤔🤔

The same way no cars are fitted with speed limiters. The technology is there. The government just simply doesn't want to upset the motor lobby.

I was in a serious car accident a couple of years ago, where a Dacia Duster drove into my hatchback. I have life changing injuries, the driver of the other vehicle walked away fine. I'm still convinced that the extent of my injuries was made worse by his car being so much bigger than mine.

I’m sorry to hear about your accident but I don’t think the size of the Duster is to blame. It’s actually quite a light car, fractionally lighter than a Škoda Octavia for example which is just a normal, sensibly sized family car.

Good luck passing a driving test with that misconception.

Completely agree, we are sensible enough to know when to cross the road. The vast majority of accidents are that, accidents - no amount of legislation or changing how cars are designed will change this.
Be sensible when crossing the road, don't play chicken whilst attempting to cross dual carriageways, and teach your children the green cross code.
Simple - take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming other things!

All vehicles are inherently unsafe. Once you get rid of those with high bonnets, what is next?

Do you keep banning until there are none left?

So fashion then, they are also easier to get in and out off.

And if you want a laugh, if you define what is or isn't a SUV, higher than average car, boxy style then a Model T becomes an SUV. As does anything from before about the 1950s.
When the fashion changed to lower sleeker cars.

It’s not a misconception, it’s the actual law. Show me where a driver is legally obliged to stop for pedestrians waiting at a crossing. A driver is only obliged to stop for pedestrians already on the crossing. Note the word should in the HC and not must.

If road deaths were a virus, we'd call it a pandemic. Stop victim blaming. Motor vehicles are the problem, not the pedestrian

I'm not victim blaming, most accidents are the drivers fault, or just an accident. We can't ban the car.

But, what else do you get rid of? Fast food, alcohol? vapes? If you are sensible whilst being a pedestrian, you will probably be ok.
If you are sensible whilst driving you will probably be ok
It's not 'you' who is the problem its the thousands of other drivers

In reality most drivers will stop if they see you waiting. I know the law about having to step out before having right of way but not many pedestrians will just step out assuming a driver will stop. It is similar to drivers legally having to give way to pedestrians when turning into a side road, in reality most drivers will carry on and most pedestrians will expect it.

Shade17

Should can be equated to must,in reality. You need to be observant and ready to stop, if people are near the crossing zone. If you don't on a test, you will fail. If you knock someone over on a zebra, 99% you will be prosecuted.

Of course. The point I was making is that there’s no misconception about having to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross, there’s obviously no such requirement. I certainly don’t condone that, at the very least it’s downright discourteous.

Absolutely agree, especially after seeing and SUV write off my car, took corner badly and hit side of my car on drivers side, luckily they hot it at the side bonnet, any further back they would have seriously hurt me or my daughter, who had just got into car and waiting to drive off. They weren't even going that fast, I would estimate max 20mph, and if they can write off a car at that lowish speed, then imagine the harm when they hit a person directly.

Due to them being higher risk, it should be mandatory for them to take an advanced driving test to prove they can handle them - so many seem to struggle to drive and to park them within a space. Like a bus or lorry has to take a specialist test as there is a higher risk when driving a bus/lorry, there should be an extra test for cars over a certain size.

I don't think you can get rid of them, some people need them for work, or due to a disability etc.

But where the risks are higher, the controls should be tighter. Just like medications, all come with some level of risk, but some more so than others. That doesn't mean we ban all medications, but that the riskier ones are controlled nore carefully in who can have them.

Having to have an advanced driving test, no points on license, having to have had a licence for a certain number of years before getting an SUV could all be options.

The Duster is still an SUV. And was much bigger than my car was. My car was a normal, sensibly sized family car.

A majority of cars on our primary school drop off are large SUVs - range rovers etc. they also all park as close as humanely (and some illegally) possible to the school including on junctions which means those who are walking have to go into the middle of the road to see before crossing. I drive to school too as we live too far to walk, but I park further away (and drive an estate)

Pp mentioned a ford Kuga, I guess they are SUVs but they aren't huge. There seems to be a sort of standard smallish SUV then then huge ones with big boxy flat fronts.

So hardly any pedestrians then 🙄

As for cost . . Its some paint, a few lights and couple of steel poles.

The Welsh government just spent 32 million putting up 20mph signs. Money isn't an issue.

Or just taking responsibility and don't walking out in front of cars.

You realise a standard EV weigh the same or more than an SUV . .

Is a land-rover Discovery an SUV?

Is a Kia Xceed the same?

What about a Dacia Duster?

Where do you draw the line at what you consider an SUV?