EU Must Cap SUV Hood Heights Urges Report. Crash Test Body Says Not As Simple As That

Forbes

2 days ago

Child walks in front of SUV in London.
The increasing hood heights of new cars in Europe pose a threat to public safety, according to the advocacy group Transport & Environment (T&E). However, in response, crash-testing organization EuroNCAP, or New Car Assessment Program, says 'frontal design and reduction in aggressivity is more important than a single metric.'
Higher fronts on cars—especially SUVs, which now account for more than half of the European new car market—significantly increase the death rate when pedestrians and cyclists are struck, says a report issued today by T&E.
'The rise in high-fronted SUVs poses a clear and growing threat to public safety, especially for children,' states the report. 'With no benefit to society, it's time for lawmakers at all levels to act.'
T&E found that the average hood height— or Bonnet Leading Edge, BLE—of new cars sold in Europe rose from 77cm in 2010 to 84cm in 2024. Illustrations in the report show that drivers in the tallest cars could not see children as old as nine when they were directly in front of the vehicles.
Jeep and Land Rover SUVs have average hood heights over 100cm. T&E's report accused such auto companies of 'trading on the intimidation that comes with high-fronted vehicles [and] ignoring their related dangers.' The organization is calling on the EU to cap hood heights at 85cm by 2035.
The higher the hood, the bigger the blind spot: More high-fronted SUVs would mean more children ... More drivers don't see, says T&E.
'EuroNCAP is not against the 85cm BLE concept,' says EuroNCAP's director of strategic development Matthew Avery. However, he stresses that capping just hood height wasn't a panacea. 'Bonnet Leading Edge is one of the attributes that can be used to measure pedestrian safety, but geometry, homogeneity of features, and stiffness are all important,' he says. 'Larger cars with taller [hoods] are not necessarily less safe than smaller ones with lower [hoods]. We have many cases where the SUV is better for pedestrians than the small car. Research and testing tells us that frontal design and reduction in aggressivity is more important than a single metric.'
In crashes, says T&E's report, SUVs are more likely to strike the vital organs in the core of adults' bodies and the heads of children. Hitting pedestrians above their center of gravity means they are more likely to be knocked forward and down and then be driven over. Cars with lower hood heights tend to hit pedestrians' legs, giving them a greater chance of being deflected to the side.
Higher bonnets more often knock pedestrians under the vehicle rather than deflect them, says T&E.
Auto manufacturers claim they are committed to high safety standards, and most new vehicles are now equipped with advanced features, including pedestrian and cyclist detection technologies and autonomous emergency braking (AEB).
The T&E report says AEB can prevent some crashes but that 'a car with a good AEB system and a [hood] height between 60cm and 75cm will always be safer than a [taller] vehicle with the same AEB.'
T&E commissioned Loughborough University School of Design to test the visibility of children from tall cars. The research found that a driver of a Ram TRX was unable to see children aged up to nine who were standing directly in front, while a driver of a Land Rover Defender could not see children aged up to four and a half.
T&E also called out the often aggressive marketing slogans used in car advertising. RAM advertises some of its vehicles as 'Built to impress, known to intimidate.'
'The intention is clear,' says T&E. 'Such companies are trading on the intimidation that comes with high-fronted vehicles, ignoring their related dangers.'