taz.de
Rising Car Hood Heights Increase Pedestrian Injury Risk in the EU
A new study reveals that the average height of car hoods in the EU has increased by 0.5 cm annually since 2010, reaching 83.8 cm in 2024, primarily due to the rise of SUVs. This increase significantly raises the risk of severe pedestrian injuries in collisions, prompting calls for an EU-wide height restriction.
- What factors contribute to the increasing hood height of new cars in the EU, and what are the resulting consequences for urban safety?
- Higher hoods, especially exceeding hip height, cause greater internal injuries and increase the likelihood of pedestrians going under the vehicle. The optimal hood height is 60-75 cm, minimizing these risks. Even advanced safety features cannot fully eliminate these dangers, particularly in adverse weather conditions.
- What are the immediate safety implications of the rising average height of car hoods in the EU, and how does this impact pedestrian safety?
- A study by Transport and Environment (T&E) reveals a 0.5 cm annual increase in average EU new car hood height, reaching 83.8 cm in 2024 from 76.9 cm in 2010. This rise, attributed to the growing popularity of SUVs, significantly increases pedestrian injury risk in collisions.
- What long-term solutions can mitigate the risks associated with increasing car hood heights, and what role can policy play in promoting safer vehicle design?
- T&E recommends an 85 cm height limit for new cars by 2035, allowing sufficient industry adjustment. Additionally, higher taxes on heavy vehicles in cities could incentivize safer design choices and address the growing safety concerns resulting from this trend. The absence of societal need for excessively high vehicles supports this recommendation.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing strongly emphasizes the dangers of high vehicle hoods and the need for regulation. The headline, while not explicitly provided, would likely reflect this emphasis. The introduction immediately highlights the increasing height of hoods and the resulting safety concerns. This prioritization might lead readers to perceive the issue as more serious than a nuanced examination might reveal.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but some phrasing could be considered slightly loaded. For example, describing the risk of higher hoods as "increasingly endangering traffic safety" introduces a sense of alarm. A more neutral phrasing might be "increasing traffic safety risks". Similarly, "heavy and high cars" carries a negative connotation; a neutral option might be "vehicles with high weight and height".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the dangers of high vehicle hoods and the call for regulation. While it mentions that active assistance systems can reduce the risks, it doesn't delve into the effectiveness or limitations of different systems available on the market. It also doesn't discuss alternative solutions beyond height restrictions and increased taxes. Omission of specific data on the number of accidents related to high vehicle hoods could also impact the reader's perception of the issue's severity.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as a choice between high vehicle hoods and increased safety. It doesn't explore other potential solutions, such as improved pedestrian infrastructure or design changes to vehicles beyond hood height. The suggestion that there's no societal need for high vehicles is also a simplification, ignoring potential uses in specific professions or terrains.
Sustainable Development Goals
The increasing height of car hoods leads to more severe injuries and fatalities for pedestrians in collisions. Higher vehicles increase the likelihood of impacts above the hip, causing damage to vital organs and the possibility of pedestrians being trapped under the vehicle. The study directly connects vehicle height to pedestrian safety and health outcomes.