My only suggestion is irrespective of the environmental aspect is, do check the performance of your next SUV with regards to "Pedestrian Safety" crash tests (Also standardized by Euro NCAP).

Specially when you mentioned city center, and The Netherlands. The difference between a regular sedan and an SUV could be the difference between a kid with fractured legs or the weight of forever taking someone's life.

For example, I am going to buy a new car in the next 2 years, so looking a bit, and two cars I might be choosing behind would be the:

Peugeot 3008/5008, seen as a SUV in the Netherlands: 67% Pedestrian Euro NCAP score: https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/peugeot/3008/5008/26581

Peugeot 208, smaller car, same brand, same year: 56% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/peugeot/208/38543

Or the original posters BMW X3: 70% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/x3-/-x4/33285

Otoh, the BMW 3 series: 87% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/3-series/38531

Full electric BMW i3: 57% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/i3/8863

So what I am trying to say is: yes, "SUV" in general are likely to be worse for pedestrians, but there is so much variability, that "picking a SUV" doesn't mean much about safety.

A few things to take into account:

- The 67℅ in the test in 2016 for the Peugeot 3008 is based on a Pedestrian Impact performance.

- The 56% of the test in 2019 for Peugeot 208 is based on a Pedestrian Impact Performance _and_ ADAS pedestrian detection +Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) performance

An important point with Euro NCAP is that typically the tests are always getting harder year on year to account for the expected technological development. Such that the same car would progressively score less if it were to repeat the Euro NCAP test year on year.

I hope this helps your concern.

In 'standard height' cars the first impact is usually on lower limbs or torso and secondary trauma to the head will happen on the bonnet or windshield.

In SUV's, pedestrian and cyclists are much likely to suffer head trauma on first impact.

My point is, in the horrific scenario that this should happens the survival rate will always be higher for non-SUV vehicles (ideally with longer bonnets and pedestrian friendly deformable structures).

"The GHSA reported that the number of pedestrian deaths involving SUVs increased by 50 percent from 2013 through 2017, while the number of pedestrian deaths caused by passenger cars increased by 30 percent over that same period. That reflects booming sales of SUVs and the fact that pedestrians are much less likely to survive the impact of an SUV."[1]

[0] https://brandonlegalgroup.com/iihs-study-suvs-present-a-high...

[1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestri...

I hope a Cochrane meta-analysis meets your evidence based statistical standards.[0][1]

It's physics, a higher front-end means primary blunt force trauma to the chest and head (specially for children and cyclists), were by primary we mean the first and highest force trauma, and by chest and head we mean trauma to vital organs.

I am not judging if this type of vehicle is your preference but demanding scientific rigor without accepting the physics involved just feels like a cognitive dissonance. I am not arguing that higher front-end vehicles cause accidents, I am arguing that pedestrian are less likely to survive upon impact compared to other vehicles.

The only reason these vehicles are not banned from city centres is purely because they are a marketing and economical success not because of lack of evidence on their dangers.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20146143/

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33147075/

All that said there is little doubt that lower car would be safer for peds. But all I asked is some evidence and you provided some garbage.

I don't think we ought to ban trigger-vehicle-of-the-year just because you feel like it. First I totally think we should discourage driving in cities, no matter the car. Pedestrian only streets, public transport, bike lanes is 100% my vibe. If you really want smaller cars in cities - make smaller parking spots. Make it inconvenient to use them (which is already case in European cities).

So answer me - what is your fetish with SUVs in particular and why you dance around fact that there are ton of other more dangerous vehicles on the road?

p.s. again your second links are irrelevant again - one is tiny sample size, other is about trucks.

There we have common ground.

The only reason I drive it is because it's so comfortable to sit higher up, and to have a better view of the road that way.

And thereby blocking the view of 'regular' cars.

And small children.

For some reason, all of the traffic lights installed in my city now don't have a set of lights at the far side of the junction visible, so there is a fairly large window where you can be stuck with no visibility of the traffic lights in 2 lanes of traffic if you might have a filter light.

There's also rear view mirrors (big vehicle takes up more of my window, so I can't see if there's a bike coming)

Not to speak of opposing(?) traffic on smaller roads. I almost died several times ;)

Very happy to no longer have a car.

Or even how tall the windscreen is can be a significant factor, in my car it is so short that the rearview mirror covers a significant part of the street.

If the person in front of you isn't driving like such an jerk that you need to be looking around them to predict their moves or to find a passing opportunity it's not really a big deal.

That said, it doesn't explain why MPVs all but disappeared (have been almost completely replaced by SUVs).