As Transform Scotland call for a large SUV ban in city centres, how they have surged to 30% of all cars and are 8 times more likely to kill a child

From GB News yesterday:

Scotland could introduce new restrictions on larger vehicles in city centres following fresh calls from campaigners, who warned SUVs are becoming an “emerging problem”. A new report from sustainable transport group Transform Scotland has urged the next Scottish Government to consider bringing in limits on the biggest vehicles in urban areas. According to the report, SUVs made up almost half of all new cars sold in 2023, a dramatic rise from just one in 10 in 2020. Campaigners warned that this rapid growth is already having a visible impact on Scotland’s towns and cities.

https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/scotland-suv-restrictions-parking-road-safety

The evidence:

From Towards Data Science in January 2023:

So are SUVs and pickup trucks more dangerous to pedestrians? Yes. The logistic regression models show that SUVs are 16% more likely to cause incapacitating injuries and 36% more likely to kill pedestrians than smaller cars. Pickup trucks are 33% more likely to cause incapacitating injury and 108% (more than twice as likely!) to kill pedestrians.https://towardsdatascience.com/suvs-are-killing-people-de6ce08bac3d

The above research did not consider the probable, to me, factor – height. The smaller you are, the more likely the bumper will strike you in the chest or even head.

From the peer-reviewed Journal of Safety Research in September 2022:

Results suggest that children are eight times more likely to die when struck by a SUV compared to those struck by a passenger car.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810?via%3Dihub

Anecdotal, I know, but I once witnessed a drunk hit by a Vauxhall Zafira people carrier with a low bumper and soft bonnet. It hit his legs, and deposited him on the bonnet. He rolled off, got up, took a second to regain a little balance, then walked off without even looking behind him.

Discover more from Talking-up Scotland

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

8 thoughts on “As Transform Scotland call for a large SUV ban in city centres, how they have surged to 30% of all cars and are 8 times more likely to kill a child”

  1. In Scotland 2022 – 1 child was killed 32 seriously injured – Road accidents. They are trying to reduce it by 35%. No child killed.

    Only people who live in the countryside need SUV’s. They can get snowed in.

    10% of drivers 18-24 year old (males?) cause 25% of road accidents. Raise the driving age.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. In terms of accidents per 1000 people, road accidents are higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Even in country areas SUVs are not required. Standard vans can be used for movement of bulk items.

      Like

      Reply

  2. Young male drivers are soon to be banned from carrying more than one passenger 14-20 years. Banned from driving from 11pm-6am for six months, after passing the driving test. In Scotland? 80% of young people causing accidents are male.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. Apologies for O/T subject but saw this on the BBC website today on the main Scotland page and also the top story on their Scottish politics page:

    “Lib Dem leader signals party could back Sarwar as first minister”.

    ( “could” in that sentence is quite interesting, as one wonders if currently that is only a possibility as a scenario, then what would it take to definitely make the Lib Dems to then confirm that they “would back Sarwar as First Minister”) ?

    The BBC wrote that “Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton has signalled that his party could back Labour’s Anas Sarwar in a vote to nominate a new first minister”

    He also “confirmed he would not support Conservative leader Russell Findlay or Reform chief Malcolm Offord in a vote to nominate a new first minister”

    He , Cole-Hamilton “emphasised his party’s priorities were the NHS, education, transport and the cost of living”

    (He , Cole-Hamilton, forget to add that his number one priority is the UK State being maintained to still include Scotland within it).

    He also said “It doesn’t mean forming a formal coalition” (with Labour). And that “no pacts or alliances has been agreed with Labour”.

    (Yes that seems credible (Not), because I am sure that neither he nor Sarwar have ever discussed a way to try and “oust the SNP” and so then “work together” in the same way that Malcolm Offord insisted Sarwar had suggested to him).

    Then in a classic sitting on the fence, for now that is, he then said.

    “If there was a chance to remove the SNP from power by backing a party “which shares our values, we will look seriously at that”, adding: “But I’m not going to make a commitment.”

    (Also known as him waiting to see what way the wind blows i.e. waiting on the results of the election. However what should be worrying to voters is that if the Lib Dem leader states that his party “share the values” of the current Labour party, then that is , at this moment, not a very positive or tempting prospect for all voters to get behind, surely ) ?

    Also worrying is that U turns seem very popular with pro UK parties and also popular with their branch offices , as this BBC article exposed this as a situation for Cole-Hamilton when they also wrote this:

    “The Liberal Democrats previously opposed nuclear energy – aligning with the Scottish government’s view – but the party has since changed it stance”.

    “Cole-Hamilton told Radio Scotland Breakfast that small modular reactors “should be part of the mix” because the party had concluded that the “threat” of nuclear waste was not as bad as it used to be“

    (So “not as bad as it used to be”, but then not completely free from all threat , but just , according to Cole-Hamilton , less of a threat, based on what evidence , dodgy dossiers perhaps, sourced from those whose self interests aka business interests takes precedence over public health and safety?)

    Cole- Hamilton added: “We’re not ideological about this, if it makes sense to have that part of the mix for when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.”

    OMG that is some bad logic is it not, yet somehow it is also so very very Lib Dem and also so very very Cole-Hamilton.

    I think we all surely know by now that team BT from 2014 never disbanded but are still very much active (as one voice in respect to Scotland) all in their quest to try to stop Scottish independence by fair means or foul (so far it’s been mostly foul means that they have used).

    Vote for Scotland’s best interests in May , which then means do not vote for any pro UK party…….as currently they all seem to be “going nuclear” in more ways than one.

    Liz S

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  4. Ahem, prof. A quote from GB News? A temporary aberration I trust? I also trust that normal service will be resumed without fascist telly.

    Like

    Reply

  5. A party that shares LibDem (lack of) values? That can only be Labour. See the final speech of the then Sir Malcolm Bruce on ‘manipulating the frst vote’ for Scottish parliament elections. Manipulate was the word he used. 26 March 2015 in Hansard.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Indeed.

      The same Malcolm Bruce aka Baron Bruce of Bennachie who tried to justify Alistair Carmichael being caught lying about the then FM, Nicola Sturgeon, when it was reported that “Carmichael backed the leaking of a memo during the election campaign incorrectly suggesting Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron as prime minister”.

      Bruce then said in one (of his too many) interviews that “all politicians lie”.

      He also stated when the SNP called for Carmichael’s resignation:

      “The SNP clearly want to extinguish all opposition in Scotland. That is their objective and they will stop at nothing to do it.”

      Meanwhile the Lib Dems, including their contingent within the HOL’s , never ever try to “extinguish all opposition” to their UK State , especially via those of us who support Scottish independence.

      I mean their rhetoric pre and post 2014 and also their partnership with other pro UK parties in 2014 as part of Better Together , clearly demonstrates to Scotland that their, Lib Dems, “objective” is to maintain the UK State and “they will stop at nothing to do it”.

      Funny is it not that the Lib Dems, like other pro UK parties, try to always frame it as if the only ones ever speaking about the constitutional Q is the SNP.

      Read some of the Pro UK parties campaign literature in various elections , where they write that they want our votes , or rather need our votes in Scotland, just to stop another Indy Ref happening and so then to try to stop Scottish independence .

      Of course lying as a Lib Dem politician is not punishable as it was reported that after Carmichael was caught lying – TO TRY TO GAIN A POLITICAL ADVANTAGE FOR PRO UK POLITICIANS AND SO THEN DISADVANTAGE THE SNP POLITICALLY…..

      Well The Scottish Liberal Democrats then said after that incident that “Mr Carmichael will not face any disciplinary action“.

      That’s because as far as Pro UK politicians are concerned, including the Lib Dems, “disciplinary action” should only be reserved for all SNP politicians.

      Liz S

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.