As a cyclist in Austin, one of the first things I noticed when I moved to Texas was how many vehicles have grille guards. The vast majority don't buy these because they need them. They buy them because they like the look or because they think it'll make their vehicle survive a collision better. I've often thought about what the grille guard would do to me or a pedestrian.

Pretty sure they banned these in the UK decades ago. From what I remember the argument was was they are particularly bad if the pedestrian is not fully grown adult.

I worked at a dealership that sold 4X4 and trucks in Houston, Texas several years back. Big giant grille guards were sold all the time. Most of the buyers never drove off road or even in the country. So, I agree that those guards are more dangerous for non-vehicle impacts with little gain but image is everything when selling someone something.

>The vast majority don't buy these because they need them. They buy them because they like the look or because they think it'll make their vehicle survive a collision better.

Im not sure what planet you live on. They absolutely will. Cattle and deer are dumb. As a cyclist, I doubt you ever leave the city and actually think a significant amount of people buy them for looks.

To be clear: I'm talking about people who seem to live in Austin, the vast majority of which don't have any connection to farms. I'm not saying that grille guards have no legitimate purpose or that they won't protect your vehicle. I'm saying that they make the roads more dangerous for others and aren't necessary for the majority of people who buy them. Note the difference between necessary and helpful. Grille guards might help protect your vehicle but I don't think most would say they are necessary.

Anyway, I grew up in a rural area (outside of Texas) where grille guards could be useful. Didn't see many grille guards back there. I even (briefly) worked at a farm before, literally shoveling manure.

Dude, we have deer. How long you been living here anyway?

I saw more deer when I lived in the DC suburbs and far less people had grille guards. If any. I actually can't remember a single example. In both Austin and the DC suburbs pedestrians far outnumber large wild animals, so I think grille guards are frivolous and dangerous in those places.

I've lived here long enough to observe that grille guards are far more prevalent here than they are in other places, even other places where grille guards seem appropriate.

Well they’re in the hills. The deer, i mean. As to grille guards: I do agree they’re frivolous and dangerous, but you’ve been living here long enough to know those are very Texan qualities.

How many deer do you see in urban areas with lots of pedestrian traffic?

We have deer in Iowa too; 100 to the acre on average. No grill guards.

Then just don't hit the deers.

So if a truck hits you at eighty miles per hour, what will kill you: the force of the truck, or the grille guard?

Also, as a fellow Texan, you're dead wrong. The majority of the people who have those have them because they have ranches and do need them.

The answer to your question is obvious and not relevant. I don't ride on roads where anyone goes near 80 mph, so I do think that the grille guards will contribute to lethality in my case.

Given that I live in central Austin, I find it hard to believe that most drivers I encounter with grille guards need them because they have a ranch. That would imply that many more people have ranches than I believe is true. Plus, I grew up in a rural area outside of Texas and rarely saw grille guards, even on farms.

I too never drive into the local city from my suburban or rural home. The mere thought of it is insane.

Not in Austin.

Oh let me take off my grill guard every time I drive into the city.

How many time a month do you go to the city ?

It's like High and Mighty II.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Mighty-SUVs-Dangerous-Vehicles/d...

Also worth mentioning is the effect of these walls of steel on visibility, both for other drivers and for non-drivers. Lower visibility means shorter reaction windows means more collisions.

This is true and also people drive way to fast. edit: also they are distracted by phones and texting.

> leading buyers to think SUVs are safer, when that safety comes at the expense of other users of the road, including people on foot and bike.

Oh, I don't think that's misunderstood at all. Safety is generally measured with respect to the occupants of the vehicle only, everyone else be damned.

Heck, there used to be a myth that in an impending head-on collision you would speed up because that would put most of the force onto the other car and reduce your own damage. (That's not really how that works, of course)

>Heck, there used to be a myth that in an impending head-on collision you would speed up because that would put most of the force onto the other car and reduce your own damage. (That's not really how that works, of course)

That's the advice for when you're gonna hit a large animal. Getting off the brake raises the nose lessening the chance the animal will wind up sharing the passenger cabin with you. It's not totally invalid but pretty dated. With the low hoods of modern cars Bambi is gonna wind up in the passenger seat damn near every time. If you're driving some 50s-70s brick then it holds more water.

I'm pretty sure Mythbusters busted that one (for moose, at least)

Except it's the opposite, higher hoodlines (and thus more blunt noses) are actually because of pedestrian safety requirements involving contact area and crumble zones; a lot of that facade is hollow.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15118822/taking-the-h...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123098/

Is the requirement to have higher hoodlines? Or is it to have safety mechanisms within the hood, which result in higher hoodlines?