7 ms·

Electric vehicles often have much better safety credentials than their ICE powered counterparts for a few reasons: * All of the weight is in the bottom of the

by bb123 5y ago

Electric vehicles often have much better safety credentials than their ICE powered counterparts for a few reasons: * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in a moose (or child!) test. * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards. * The electric motors are able to respond with torque far faster (in ms) than an ICE engine, so traction and stability control are more effective. Again good for things like the moose test. * Switching our road transport to electric will probably save more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution than better pedestrian safety features ever will.

jschwartzi 5y ago
> * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in a moose (or child!) test. The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose. I would wager anything that is designed to pass the moose test will kill anything that it hits that is below the moose's center of gravity. So actually the vehicle is way less safe for pedestrians than a vehicle that would fail the moose test. But if all that matters is the safety of the occupant I guess this is okay. > * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards. The kind of "crumple zone" that enhances pedestrian and cyclist safety is more like a beer can. Again, the crumple zones in this vehicle are designed to keep the occupants safe but not designed to keep any other road user safe.
- coder543 5y ago
  > The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. The moose test is about safely dodging around a moose that wanders out onto the road without wrecking the vehicle. Why did you write this long comment as if you were an expert on the moose test if you don't even know what the moose test is? That's an incredibly disingenuous thing to do. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw
  - a2tech 5y ago
    I assume because they want to see less vehicle traffic on the road. Arguments along these lines are thrown out by people that hate cars on the road to help change the argument from facts to 'what about the children'.
- bb123 5y ago
  Ideally in the moose test the moose and car never make contact. It is a test of the car's ability to safely support extreme evasive manoeuvres, rather than its crash survivability. Tall SUVs typically fare worse at this because of their higher centre of gravity causing instability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test
- brazzy 5y ago
  > The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose. Completely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test The car fails the test (at that speed) if the "moose" is hit at all (or it skids, turns or tips over).
- bb123 5y ago
  Your second point is also untrue. The shape and structure of traditional car crumple zones and impact areas like the hood and headlights have a significant impact on pedestrian survivability: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257775117_Crumple_zone_design_for_pedestrian_protection_using_impact_analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257775117_Crumple_z... These zones are explicitly designed with pedestrian safety in mind, as it is a specific area of testing for roadworthiness certifications: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
loeg 5y ago
I agree with the rest, but I'm pretty skeptical of this claim: > Switching our road transport to electric will probably save more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution than better pedestrian safety features ever will. Do you (or anyone) have order-of-magnitude estimates for either/both of these figures? I mean, electrification in general is great, but the F150 cannot take credit for all of it. I am interested in reduced pollution deaths/QALYs that can be attributed to F150 electrification specifically -- that's the topic of this article and thread.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Here's half of the equation: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearl... https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/children https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/child... Edit: Here's relevant data to the other side: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/10/vehicle-pollution-results-in-4m-child-asthma-cases-a-year https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/10/vehicle-... https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthma_stats/asthma_underlying_death.html https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthma_stats/asthma_underlying_de...
- xmzx 5y ago
  Hang out at a bus station or a school during kid pickup time, you'll feel like you're in a coal refinery. I can't imagine that's good for your lungs.
- orangejuice101 5y ago
  Here are some stats on fossil fuel deaths in general https://youtu.be/Jzfpyo-q-RM?t=355 https://youtu.be/Jzfpyo-q-RM?t=355 On average in the US, the CO2 output required to power an electric vehicle is 1/3 of an ICE vehicle. So theoretically this would translate to less deaths as bb123 suggests, but hard to compare to direct pedestrian deaths. (Yes there are some logical gaps as ICE C02 output is a very low percentage of total fossil fuel output).
  - andys627 5y ago
hannasanarion 5y ago
> The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. Crumple zones don't help pedestrians. The new F-150 will be bigger and heavier than the absurdly huge early-00s Hummers. The hood is so tall and long that they're talking about putting forward-facing cameras inside the cab because you can't see anything in front of you shorter than 6" tall out the windshield. If Ford was interested in safety, they would reduce the outrageous length and height of the front end which is now no longer even pretending to be necessary housing for an engine. Vehicles made to work prioritize visibility, Ford trucks are made to intimidate and kill.
- driverdan 5y ago
  > The new F-150 will be bigger and heavier than the absurdly huge early-00s Hummers. Citation needed
  - driverdan 5y ago
    Since I'm getting downvoted I figured I'd post the numbers. New F-150 Lightning curb weight estimate is 6500 lbs. H1 is 7200-7500 lbs. H2 is 6400-6600 lbs. The F-150 is a couple feet longer but both the H1 and H2 are wider and taller. Use those numbers to make your own determination. F-150 specs are from here: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/product/2021/f150/pdfs/2021-F-150-Technical-Specs.pdf https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America...
- bb123 5y ago
  That’s completely untrue - The design of crumple and impact zones like the hood, bumpers and headlights absolutely do help pedestrians. There is a suite of Road safety tests designed to specifically evaluate exactly that: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
  - zip1234 5y ago
    Not in the US. See https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle-safety-standards-dont-protect-pedestrians/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle-safety-standa...
dcolkitt 5y ago
> Switching our road transport to electric will probably save more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution The sizable majority of modern car pollution comes from particulates that come off asphalt, not emissions from engines. It's still important to go EV to reduce carbon, but that doesn't improve local air quality. Modern internal combustion engines have pretty minimal pollutants in their emissions. Getting older cars off the road is the major way to improve emission pollutants. Beyond that, improving air quality to any significant degree requires either fewer cars on the road, or less heavy cars on the road. Asphalt particulates scales quadratically with the weight of the car.
mdoms 5y ago
I'd like to see some actual data rather than some handy-wavy bullet points speculating on what maybe could be the case.
lurkerasdfh8 5y ago
> The lack of engine means ... This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. this is important. It is an option they DID IGNORE! for marketing. The thing that kills pedestrians (both physically and preventing vision) is the high trunk. They could have lowered it since there is no 9L engine or whatever inside. But they decided to keep it for "frunk" marketing.

by bb123 5y ago

jschwartzi 5y ago

> * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in a moose (or child!) test. The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose. I would wager anything that is designed to pass the moose test will kill anything that it hits that is below the moose's center of gravity. So actually the vehicle is way less safe for pedestrians than a vehicle that would fail the moose test. But if all that matters is the safety of the occupant I guess this is okay. > * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards. The kind of "crumple zone" that enhances pedestrian and cyclist safety is more like a beer can. Again, the crumple zones in this vehicle are designed to keep the occupants safe but not designed to keep any other road user safe.

coder543 5y ago
> The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. The moose test is about safely dodging around a moose that wanders out onto the road without wrecking the vehicle. Why did you write this long comment as if you were an expert on the moose test if you don't even know what the moose test is? That's an incredibly disingenuous thing to do. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw
- a2tech 5y ago
  I assume because they want to see less vehicle traffic on the road. Arguments along these lines are thrown out by people that hate cars on the road to help change the argument from facts to 'what about the children'.
bb123 5y ago
Ideally in the moose test the moose and car never make contact. It is a test of the car's ability to safely support extreme evasive manoeuvres, rather than its crash survivability. Tall SUVs typically fare worse at this because of their higher centre of gravity causing instability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test
brazzy 5y ago
> The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose. Completely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test The car fails the test (at that speed) if the "moose" is hit at all (or it skids, turns or tips over).
bb123 5y ago
Your second point is also untrue. The shape and structure of traditional car crumple zones and impact areas like the hood and headlights have a significant impact on pedestrian survivability: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257775117_Crumple_zone_design_for_pedestrian_protection_using_impact_analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257775117_Crumple_z... These zones are explicitly designed with pedestrian safety in mind, as it is a specific area of testing for roadworthiness certifications: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...

loeg 5y ago

I agree with the rest, but I'm pretty skeptical of this claim: > Switching our road transport to electric will probably save more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution than better pedestrian safety features ever will. Do you (or anyone) have order-of-magnitude estimates for either/both of these figures? I mean, electrification in general is great, but the F150 cannot take credit for all of it. I am interested in reduced pollution deaths/QALYs that can be attributed to F150 electrification specifically -- that's the topic of this article and thread.

ModernMech 5y ago
Here's half of the equation: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearl... https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/children https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/child... Edit: Here's relevant data to the other side: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/10/vehicle-pollution-results-in-4m-child-asthma-cases-a-year https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/10/vehicle-... https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthma_stats/asthma_underlying_death.html https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthma_stats/asthma_underlying_de...
xmzx 5y ago
Hang out at a bus station or a school during kid pickup time, you'll feel like you're in a coal refinery. I can't imagine that's good for your lungs.
orangejuice101 5y ago
Here are some stats on fossil fuel deaths in general https://youtu.be/Jzfpyo-q-RM?t=355 https://youtu.be/Jzfpyo-q-RM?t=355 On average in the US, the CO2 output required to power an electric vehicle is 1/3 of an ICE vehicle. So theoretically this would translate to less deaths as bb123 suggests, but hard to compare to direct pedestrian deaths. (Yes there are some logical gaps as ICE C02 output is a very low percentage of total fossil fuel output).
- andys627 5y ago

hannasanarion 5y ago

> The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. Crumple zones don't help pedestrians. The new F-150 will be bigger and heavier than the absurdly huge early-00s Hummers. The hood is so tall and long that they're talking about putting forward-facing cameras inside the cab because you can't see anything in front of you shorter than 6" tall out the windshield. If Ford was interested in safety, they would reduce the outrageous length and height of the front end which is now no longer even pretending to be necessary housing for an engine. Vehicles made to work prioritize visibility, Ford trucks are made to intimidate and kill.

driverdan 5y ago
> The new F-150 will be bigger and heavier than the absurdly huge early-00s Hummers. Citation needed
- driverdan 5y ago
  Since I'm getting downvoted I figured I'd post the numbers. New F-150 Lightning curb weight estimate is 6500 lbs. H1 is 7200-7500 lbs. H2 is 6400-6600 lbs. The F-150 is a couple feet longer but both the H1 and H2 are wider and taller. Use those numbers to make your own determination. F-150 specs are from here: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/product/2021/f150/pdfs/2021-F-150-Technical-Specs.pdf https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America...
bb123 5y ago
That’s completely untrue - The design of crumple and impact zones like the hood, bumpers and headlights absolutely do help pedestrians. There is a suite of Road safety tests designed to specifically evaluate exactly that: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
- zip1234 5y ago
  Not in the US. See https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle-safety-standards-dont-protect-pedestrians/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle-safety-standa...

dcolkitt 5y ago

> Switching our road transport to electric will probably save more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution The sizable majority of modern car pollution comes from particulates that come off asphalt, not emissions from engines. It's still important to go EV to reduce carbon, but that doesn't improve local air quality. Modern internal combustion engines have pretty minimal pollutants in their emissions. Getting older cars off the road is the major way to improve emission pollutants. Beyond that, improving air quality to any significant degree requires either fewer cars on the road, or less heavy cars on the road. Asphalt particulates scales quadratically with the weight of the car.

mdoms 5y ago

I'd like to see some actual data rather than some handy-wavy bullet points speculating on what maybe could be the case.

lurkerasdfh8 5y ago

> The lack of engine means ... This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. this is important. It is an option they DID IGNORE! for marketing. The thing that kills pedestrians (both physically and preventing vision) is the high trunk. They could have lowered it since there is no 9L engine or whatever inside. But they decided to keep it for "frunk" marketing.