20 ms·
Why are pedestrian deaths increasing in the US?
- fopen64 7y agoAt least in my country, drivers feel entitled, this is all the explanation I need.
- chiefofgxbxl 7y agoThe article links to another article by freep.com that really boils the problem down to high-profile, "blunt-nosed" SUVs and trucks (picture: https://www.gannett-cdn.com/labs/death-on-foot/graphics/NU_062018-Jeep-Honda-size-FULL.png?width=1800 https://www.gannett-cdn.com/labs/death-on-foot/graphics/NU_0...). This is something I've taken note of in my city. When I park my short sedan next to some of these pickups, the pickups' hoods are taller than my entire vehicle. So imagine your entire body being slammed by that. If you were instead struck by a sedan, your body would more likely roll over the hood and dissipate some of the impact. At the end of the day, the failure is with how our vehicles in America are tested and rated. Safety ratings for vehicles are only in "their class", meaning for instance that they don't smash a sedan into an SUV; they only smash sedans into other sedans, and SUVs into other SUVs. This presents a major asymmetry, 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. A major step toward reducing fatality rates in a vehicle-person collision is to factor in pedestrian safety when evaluating vehicle safety rates.
- larrik 7y ago> 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)
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>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.
- larrik 7y agoI'm pretty sure Mythbusters busted that one (for moose, at least)
- btrettel 7y agoAs 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.
- bin0 7y agoSo 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.
- btrettel 7y agoThe 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.
- sieabahlpark 7y agoI too never drive into the local city from my suburban or rural home. The mere thought of it is insane.
- notus 7y agoNot in Austin.
- tdxcbkif 7y agoOh let me take off my grill guard every time I drive into the city.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoExcept 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-hit-how-pedestrian-protection-regs-make-cars-fatter-feature/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15118822/taking-the-h... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123098/
- ramenmeal 7y agoIs the requirement to have higher hoodlines? Or is it to have safety mechanisms within the hood, which result in higher hoodlines?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sjg007 7y agoThis is true and also people drive way to fast. edit: also they are distracted by phones and texting.
- notacoward 7y agoIt's like High and Mighty II. https://www.amazon.com/High-Mighty-SUVs-Dangerous-Vehicles/dp/B00009NDAJ 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.
- littleweep 7y agoMore distracted drivers than ever?
- sidlls 7y agoWhat about distracted pedestrians? I've had to swerve into car lanes from the bike lane almost every day this last week because some pedestrian with his face buried in a phone absent-mindedly steps off the curb against the light. What fraction of the increase is attributable to that? When I drove a car I used to sympathize with both cyclists and pedestrians. Now that I've been commuting and frequently running errands by bicycle for a couple of years my sympathy has waned significantly due the behavior I observe in my fellow cyclists and pedestrians.
- antientropic 7y agoHow do you explain the difference with Europe? European pedestrians presumably are just as likely to be on their mobile phones...
- yan 7y ago"I drive, I ride my bike, and I walk places, but when I do one, I hate the other two"
- gaborbodoky 7y agoI think this is the essential problem. We don't know how to collaborate with one another as we always have just the one role...
- justnotworthit 7y agoI joke: "The great thing about cyclists is that they unite motorcyclist and drivers."
- jdc 7y ago"(Europeans have high rates of car ownership and as many smart phones as Americans) [..] at the same time pedestrian deaths have been soaring the US, they’ve been dropping steadily in Europe."
- wyldfire 7y agoDoes this adequately control for smart-phone-distraction? Maybe not if Europeans have social or legal elements ruling out smartphone use in the streets.
- mc32 7y agoWonder what Europe is doing differently than us. Are we seeing an increase of pedestrians on our streets and roads? Hopefully assistive technologies help curb some of these trends as they filter down to base models and older vehicles get replaced with newer one which have these features. As for the current cause, although they contrast with Europe and play it down, I have to think it’s primarily caused by driver distraction (and pedestrian as well but on the defensive side) rather than either rise of SUVs and or “entitlement” as well as perhaps a rise in “pedestrians” (people walking of running of jogging, etc.)
- maxxxxx 7y ago"Wonder what Europe is doing differently than us. Are we having more pedestrians on our streets and roads?" It's definitely about being used to it. In Munich there were pedestrians and bikers everywhere so you quickly learn to always watch. In California now I see a bike maybe once a week so I often don't look anymore.
- CydeWeys 7y agoI hate to say the "R" word, but, I think we need more regulation. It's clear that manufacturers and consumers aren't trending in the right direction here in protecting all members of society on the streets (not just those in vehicles), so the government needs to step in and mandate it. The increasing prevalence of large pedestrian-unfriendly vehicles is a terrifying trend. Another change in concert that might help is much higher gasoline taxes. Gasoline can cost upwards of $8 per gallon in many parts of Europe. When fuel is that expensive, you really don't want to get a vehicle any larger than necessary. By contrast, fuel here in the US is way too cheap, and way too many people get large vehicles who have no real need for them, and aren't charged nearly enough extra for the privilege.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoPeople buy large vehicles more than they otherwise would because these are the least regulated so they have less compliance costs baked into their price and there are less compliance based trade-offs in their design so dollar for dollar you're getting more car than you do with something small (which has to meet more stringent fuel economy and emissions requirements and has a larger proportion of it's cost made up of mandatory safety equipment). When it comes to safety manufacturers are optimizing for tests. Change the tests and you'll change what they optimize for.
- brokenmachine 7y ago>People buy large vehicles more than they otherwise would because these are the least regulated In what way are large vehicles less regulated? Legitimate question.
- supergauntlet 7y agoGas taxes disproportionately affect the poor though. I agree with your premise that we have too many large vehicles and there's no good incentive to pick a vehicle that's "just" large enough for your uses (so of course everyone picks these enormous trucks and SUVs), but I just think there has to be a better way of regulating than a gas tax.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoIt’s worth noting that even though walking is far more common in Europe, and streets are generally narrower, and in older cities, there aren’t sidewalks, but pedestrians share the roadway with cars. Despite these factors, Europe now has a lower pedestrian death toll per capita than the US. We walk less, but we die more. I think it's because of these factors, not despite them. We die more because pedestrian traffic has dropped so low that drivers no longer look for foot traffic. I have lived without a car more than a decade. Driver's frequently are shocked to notice me. I do all I can to catch their eye and make sure they see me. Otherwise, they just make their turn/ go through the crosswalk like I don't exist.
- linuxftw 7y agoI've had the same experience. I never cross in a crosswalk with a turning car without the driver first acknowledging me. People turning right on red without stopping has almost struck me before as well. You have to be super vigilant in the US when walking or you're going to get killed.
- vkou 7y agoOn my trip to work today, I observed a chap stopping traffic to jaywalk across a street to get in his car. A minute, and half a block down, I saw him honking at a pedestrian, who was crossing an intersection on the walk sign. There's an amazing bit of cognitive dissonance that happens when your run-of-the-mill moron climbs behind the wheel of a vehicle.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoShitty pedestrians make shitty drivers and vise versa. Sounds pretty reasonable and obvious to me.
- itronitron 7y agoI think the primary reason for Europe being safer for pedestrians is that the speed limits are much lower. On roads with sidewalks, the speed limit is typically 30kph to 50kph, which is 18mph to 31mph. So pedestrians have more time to hear cars, and drivers have more time to see pedestrians and stop if needed. Other factors... there is no right turn on red, most cars are manual transmission, drivers have to be more alert in order to not hit oncoming traffic, etc.
- JohnTHaller 7y agoThere's a near-exact correlation with the rise of smartphone use in the US. Anecdotally, I've almost been hit more often in recent years here in NYC and it's almost always due to absolute morons staring at their cell phone while behind the wheel.
- camhenlin 7y agoAnecdotally, and I'm sure other people can share similar experiences: I've also had a couple of instances of people jay walking, popping out from behind a parked car right into the road - staring at their cell phone and not at the street around them - and have had to slam on my brakes to keep from hitting the person. I'm glad to have been paying attention but things could have easily gone badly.
- jonnycomputer 7y agopopping out behind a huge SUV or truck nearly as tall as an adult...
- ndiscussion 7y agoNot sure if you're trying to justify the jaywalking here, but if you want to live through 2020, I suggest looking before you leap.
- jonnycomputer 7y agowho said anything about jaywalking? big cars block visibility at intersections too.
- stefan_ 7y agoBecause you were in a car with the potential to kill people. Don't equate the two things like they are somehow the same. If you think pedestrians "jaywalking" is the problem, you are the problem.
- 7y ago
- martin-adams 7y agoI'd be curious to know if there's any link the use of automatic vs manual transmission cars. In Europe 80% of cars sold are manual, and in the US 3.9% are manual.[1] That alone probably doesn't mean much because that was still the trend 10 years ago. But the use of smartphones may have increased. Long story short, does a manual transmission reduce distracted driving because it's harder to use your free hand for other activities? [1] https://www.thezebra.com/insurance-news/2805/manual-vs-automatic/ https://www.thezebra.com/insurance-news/2805/manual-vs-autom...
- CydeWeys 7y agoThose stats on automatic vs manual are out of date. Automatics are approaching half of new vehicle sales in Western European countries now. Of course, that's a leading indicator for all cars on the road, so manuals still dominate .. for now. I don't think this is particularly relevant to pedestrian deaths though. You can still find ways to distract yourself in a manual.
- eric_h 7y ago> You can still find ways to distract yourself in a manual. True, but it's harder to text and drive when you really do need both hands (and both feet) to drive successfully. Anecdotally, I find driving a manual transmission keeps me much more in tune with all of the variables involved in driving (inside and outside the car) than driving an automatic does.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoOne of my daily drivers has a manual. If I wanted to be distracted in it would not be appreciably harder. In fact it would probably be easier because the cup holder location in that vehicle is more convenient for my cell phone. If I drove something with modern performance characteristics (enough torque to start in 2nd, hill assist, etc, etc) the fact that it has a manual would be even more of a non-issue.
- 7y ago
- TheBigSalad 7y agoThere's also a trend in the US where people are moving out of suburbs and into big cities. And there are far more people walking and biking to work than ever. So there's definitely more pedestrians than 10 years ago. I can't speak for Europe's trends.
- ekianjo 7y agoPretty disappointing article since it does not answer the question at all.
- sirbranedamuj 7y agoI don't think the author claimed to have the answer, the title is literally a question. If there was a reason why surely it wouldn't be an issue because we would already know how to fix it.
- Sharlin 7y agoDiscouraging that even in Europe the curve has all but flattened.
- baybal2 7y agoCars in America got even more big and heavy, that's why. One of reason why they got so heavy in the first place... was the higher requirement for crashworthiness. People who come with those crashworthiness requirements need to put at least some effort thinking them through.
- cm2012 7y agoPedestrian deaths are at a record low in NYC due to Vision Zero. Talk about bucking the trend.
- xwdv 7y agoI hit a pedestrian a few years ago. I was heading to an intersection to make a right hand turn while at the same time a guy on his phone was walking to cross. Unfortunately he happened to somehow be walking at a constant bearing with decreasing range to my line of sight, hiding right behind my A pillar. Luckily, because I was decelerating to turn at the last minute I didn’t strike him hard enough to do much harm, but he was visibly shaken.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThat's surely one of the biggest negative consequences, for cyclists and pedestrians, of increasing car safety the last couple of decades. The pillars, and blind spots, have got so huge. You see a typical car from the 80s now, and the A and B pillars seem to have nothing to them, rather than the great chunky things current cars have.
- brokenmachine 7y agoWell, the occupants of the car are safer, and that's what we've optimized for.
- _nalply 7y agoThis happened to me too. I hit a woman on a bike, because she unfortunately kept behind a pillar. Now when turning I always rock my torso sideways to and fro to increase the view angle. I feel stupid doing this but I think I avoided one or two more accidents this way.
- antisthenes 7y agoPart of the fault lies with the absolutely awful biking infrastructure in the US. Bikers are told to share the road with vehicles even in places where it makes absolutely no sense and drivers are going at 2x-3x speed of the bike and there are no bike lane demarcations whatsoever. Newsflash for you (if any politicians are reading this) - painting a small icon of a bike on the side of the road without any physical separation IS NOT a sufficient safety feature for a "bike lane".
- sneakernets 7y agoPedestrians were in cities hundreds of years before, vehicles should never have been promoted to first place. How to fix this in the cities? Remove almost all instances of cars getting near pedestrians by: 1: Removing one way streets. Having to drive all the way around to go somewhere nearby keeps the car on the road that much longer and doubles the number of crosswalks to pass through. 2: Removing left turns. Cars invading the pedestrians' right of way from the other side of the street is dangerous. 3: Reducing city speed limits from 30mph to 15. 30mph is ridiculous. 4. Enforcing carpooling. One person driving a huge SUV is such a waste of gas, space, and contributes to highways doubling as parking lots at rush hour. 5. Promoting city housing as much as possible for all new growth. For every honest baby-boomer suburb created with proper planning, there were two white-flight suburbs hastily created without. 6. Demanding companies in the city limits revise the need for employees to commute. Employees who can do their job at home deserve that privilege.
- dumbfounder 7y agoI live in a walkable neighborhood but there are a lot of people that commute through my neighborhood to downtown DC. There are crosswalks where cars are supposed to stop for pedestrians, but many don't. I feel like the rise of these laws that require cars to stop at these crosswalks has to be part of the problem. Cars are supposed to stop but they are either driving too fast or they just don't stop. Or if you have a few lanes to cross the first car stops and the next car doesn't see you. I feel like these crosswalks give people a false sense of security that they can cross without vigilance at any time. Without these laws you simply need to wait until the coast is clear. That seems much safer to me. Is there a study to support my instincts on this?
- brokenmachine 7y agoIt sounds like you are blaming pedestrians for not being "vigilant" enough, when in reality it is the cars that are not stopping and giving way to pedestrians on a crosswalk like they're supposed to. >these crosswalks give people a false sense of security that they can cross without vigilance at any time I'm Australian so I'm not sure if a crosswalk is exactly the same, but the whole point of what we call a "pedestrian crossing" is that a pedestrian can cross at any time with as much or as little vigilance as they want. It is illegal to not give way and it is illegal to drive across the pedestrian crossing if there is a pedestrian already on it. I very much doubt you'll be able to locate a study showing that jaywalking is safer than crossing at a pedestrian crossing.
- dumbfounder 7y agoNot jaywalking. It used to be that you had to cross at a crosswalk AND wait for traffic to be clear. The crosswalk was the place to cross to make sure people weren't crossing at any place they choose. But now that there are laws that require you to stop at any crosswalk with a pedestrian in it, people are crossing and they expect the cars to stop, but not every driver is in tune with this, especially those from outside the city, and it creates a dangerous situation.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
- e40 7y agoI'm somewhat of an expert on this, since I've been walking to work since 1995 (except for 1 year) and I've logged more than 20,000 miles on sidewalks through 2 cities. What really, really concerns me, in the last few years, are tints on driver side windows. My rule is, I never walk in front of a car unless I made eye contact with the driver. I will even, if I approach from the passenger side, knock on the hood if they are looking left. With the new tints, there are many cars in my city where I cannot see the driver. At all. This confuses me, since I thought opaque tints were illegal.
- 1-6 7y agoAnecdotal... Who put you in charge of experts in walking? Lol. Flames aside, your point about tinted windows is interesting but I'm pretty sure it's not uncommon in other countries outside of the US.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- de_watcher 7y ago> I thought opaque tints were illegal. I think you can't tint front side windows in EU.
- RickJWagner 7y ago"Especially if the death rat had grown by 50 percent in less than a decade." Holy crap. There's a 'death rat'? And it is growing that fast?
- dr_dshiv 7y ago"Stop Murdering Our Children" This political campaign in the Netherlands transformed society in the 1970s. It is a model for political reform in the US https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollands-stop-murdering-children-street-safety-movement/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollan...