4 ms·

Did I miss the part where they show that pedestrian deaths have actually increased? They show that the proportion of SUVs hitting pedestrians have increased whi

Did I miss the part where they show that pedestrian deaths have actually increased? They show that the proportion of SUVs hitting pedestrians have increased which makes sense because there are more SUVs, but I didn’t see that the actual deaths have increased. Maybe I missed it!

jdavis703 5y ago
I can’t find data going up until 2020, but there are easily searchable news articles reporting on 2020 being a record year for deaths. Here’s some data, but it only goes to 2018: https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians19 https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians19
wgjordan 5y ago
The linked Dangerous by Design 2021 report [1] shows the data on increased pedestrian deaths: > The number of people struck and killed by drivers nationwide while walking increased by an astonishing 45 percent over the last decade (2010-2019). [1] https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Interestingly, the article you linked doesn't mention SUVs or refer to vehicle size at all. It attributes the increase to an emphasis on speed over safety: >state and local transportation agencies place a higher value on speed (and avoiding delay) than they do on safety...When faced with decisions that would elevate and prioritize safety for people walking but increase delay for vehicles, the decision-makers’ true priorities are laid bare. The original linked article, however, does point to another article on a govt site that gets into vehicle size. [0] But, in total the conclusions vacillate between the issue being lack of visibility (implying more accidents) and increased lethality owed to mass and, possibly the higher profile of the vehicle. Of course, you could conclude it's both more accidents and increased lethality, but the data doesn't seem to bear that out. For instance, the report cites a meta study that found a 2x-3x increase in fatalities when trucks or SUVs are involved, but the report also states the fatality rate for those vehicles is 40%. The original article further notes sales of trucks and SUVs have outpaced smaller vehicles since at least '07 and other assessments show these larger vehicles now make up 50% of vehicles on the road. So, the data seems to show disproportionately fewer fatalities for these larger vehicles. [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/12/16/2015-31323/new-car-assessment-program https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/12/16/2015-31...
  - kadoban 5y ago
    > For instance, the report cites a meta study that found a 2x-3x increase in fatalities when trucks or SUVs are involved, but the report also states the fatality rate for those vehicles is 40%. I don't understand. How is that data contradicting the hypothesis? Why is there a "but" there?
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >How is that data contradicting the hypothesis? Doesn't necessarily contradict the hypothesis on its own. My overall point is that the article cites different data, some of which is tangential to its hypothesis (while purporting to support it). Other data outright contradicts the hypothesis. Overall, the article was sloppy--just kind of throwing stuff against the wall, IMO. >Why is there a "but" there? The gov't report notes that trucks/SUVs made up 33% of the total vehicle fleet (sorry, I didn't quote that important bit in my previous comment, but it's in the report), while they make up 40% of all fatalities. That doesn't translate to a 2x-3x higher rate for trucks/SUVs.
      - scythe 5y ago
        Probably some fraction of "trucks/SUVs" are professional drivers who usually have a much lower crash rate than private drivers. But the SUV looks twice as deadly in the direct comparison of collisions, while there isn't much reason to expect the type of car has a causal effect on the chance of a collision, ceteris paribus. So we expect a truck/SUV would be twice as deadly in the same hands as a car.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Professional drivers tend to have a high fender bender rate just from sheer exposure to traffic and a very low "texted their way into a stopped traffic at 60mph" rate because if you behave like that you will have close calls first and get fired over them.
        unclebucknasty 5y ago
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  I blame more smartphones and opioid crisis
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    I would be surprised if the increase in drivers using smart phones was not a significant factor. Opioid crisis seems less likely, where’s the data?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I wouldn’t be surprised if pedestrian use of phones (and to a lesser extent, medication/intoxicants) was a contributing factor in a significantly higher fraction of mishaps than in 2010.
    - dzhiurgis 5y ago
      Since no one in this thread has any data - I’m pulling it from my ass
29083011397778 5y ago
The linked report [0] states: "As opposed to Europe and Japan, fatalities in the United States have remained steady over the last 14 years" Considering the makeup of the American vehicle fleet as opposed to the Japanese and European fleet, I'd firmly place the blame on physically larger vehicles. I think this is backed up by the stats included in the same article (on page 26): * SUVs and trucks make up ~30% of vehicles on the road (at the time of the report), but account for 40% of pedestrian fatalities * Trucks and SUVs were twice as likely to kill a child (aged 5-19 in the study), when compared to sedans * Pedestrians are 2-3 times as likely to suffer a fatality when hit by a truck or SUV, when compared to a sedan Some will point to stats one and three as conflicting. I would disagree - out of 100% of pedestrian fatalities, 40% are from trucks and SUVs. Meanwhile, out of 100% of pedestrian incidents (including both fatalities and injuries), trucks and SUVs are 2-3 times as likely to end with a dead pedestrian. [0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-12-16/pdf/2015-31323.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-12-16/pdf/2015-3...
- sagarm 5y ago
  Your phrasing leaves out a key party these killings: drivers. Accurately rephrased: * Only 30% of drivers drive an SUV or truck, but they are responsible for 40% of pedestrian fatalities * Trucks and SUV drivers are twice as likely to kill a child (aged 5-19 in the study), when compared to sedan drivers * When truck and SUV drivers hit a pedestrian, they are 2-3x more likely to kill them than sedan drivers
  - lazyjones 5y ago
    And what is the average mileage with SUV or trucks vs. other cars? What is the average age of truck drivers vs. other cars? There are many other interesting factors here that were completely ignored.

jdavis703 5y ago

I can’t find data going up until 2020, but there are easily searchable news articles reporting on 2020 being a record year for deaths. Here’s some data, but it only goes to 2018: https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians19 https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians19

wgjordan 5y ago

The linked Dangerous by Design 2021 report [1] shows the data on increased pedestrian deaths: > The number of people struck and killed by drivers nationwide while walking increased by an astonishing 45 percent over the last decade (2010-2019). [1] https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/

unclebucknasty 5y ago
Interestingly, the article you linked doesn't mention SUVs or refer to vehicle size at all. It attributes the increase to an emphasis on speed over safety: >state and local transportation agencies place a higher value on speed (and avoiding delay) than they do on safety...When faced with decisions that would elevate and prioritize safety for people walking but increase delay for vehicles, the decision-makers’ true priorities are laid bare. The original linked article, however, does point to another article on a govt site that gets into vehicle size. [0] But, in total the conclusions vacillate between the issue being lack of visibility (implying more accidents) and increased lethality owed to mass and, possibly the higher profile of the vehicle. Of course, you could conclude it's both more accidents and increased lethality, but the data doesn't seem to bear that out. For instance, the report cites a meta study that found a 2x-3x increase in fatalities when trucks or SUVs are involved, but the report also states the fatality rate for those vehicles is 40%. The original article further notes sales of trucks and SUVs have outpaced smaller vehicles since at least '07 and other assessments show these larger vehicles now make up 50% of vehicles on the road. So, the data seems to show disproportionately fewer fatalities for these larger vehicles. [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/12/16/2015-31323/new-car-assessment-program https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/12/16/2015-31...
- kadoban 5y ago
  > For instance, the report cites a meta study that found a 2x-3x increase in fatalities when trucks or SUVs are involved, but the report also states the fatality rate for those vehicles is 40%. I don't understand. How is that data contradicting the hypothesis? Why is there a "but" there?
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >How is that data contradicting the hypothesis? Doesn't necessarily contradict the hypothesis on its own. My overall point is that the article cites different data, some of which is tangential to its hypothesis (while purporting to support it). Other data outright contradicts the hypothesis. Overall, the article was sloppy--just kind of throwing stuff against the wall, IMO. >Why is there a "but" there? The gov't report notes that trucks/SUVs made up 33% of the total vehicle fleet (sorry, I didn't quote that important bit in my previous comment, but it's in the report), while they make up 40% of all fatalities. That doesn't translate to a 2x-3x higher rate for trucks/SUVs.
    - scythe 5y ago
      Probably some fraction of "trucks/SUVs" are professional drivers who usually have a much lower crash rate than private drivers. But the SUV looks twice as deadly in the direct comparison of collisions, while there isn't much reason to expect the type of car has a causal effect on the chance of a collision, ceteris paribus. So we expect a truck/SUV would be twice as deadly in the same hands as a car.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Professional drivers tend to have a high fender bender rate just from sheer exposure to traffic and a very low "texted their way into a stopped traffic at 60mph" rate because if you behave like that you will have close calls first and get fired over them.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
dzhiurgis 5y ago
I blame more smartphones and opioid crisis
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  I would be surprised if the increase in drivers using smart phones was not a significant factor. Opioid crisis seems less likely, where’s the data?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I wouldn’t be surprised if pedestrian use of phones (and to a lesser extent, medication/intoxicants) was a contributing factor in a significantly higher fraction of mishaps than in 2010.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    Since no one in this thread has any data - I’m pulling it from my ass

29083011397778 5y ago

The linked report [0] states: "As opposed to Europe and Japan, fatalities in the United States have remained steady over the last 14 years" Considering the makeup of the American vehicle fleet as opposed to the Japanese and European fleet, I'd firmly place the blame on physically larger vehicles. I think this is backed up by the stats included in the same article (on page 26): * SUVs and trucks make up ~30% of vehicles on the road (at the time of the report), but account for 40% of pedestrian fatalities * Trucks and SUVs were twice as likely to kill a child (aged 5-19 in the study), when compared to sedans * Pedestrians are 2-3 times as likely to suffer a fatality when hit by a truck or SUV, when compared to a sedan Some will point to stats one and three as conflicting. I would disagree - out of 100% of pedestrian fatalities, 40% are from trucks and SUVs. Meanwhile, out of 100% of pedestrian incidents (including both fatalities and injuries), trucks and SUVs are 2-3 times as likely to end with a dead pedestrian. [0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-12-16/pdf/2015-31323.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-12-16/pdf/2015-3...

sagarm 5y ago
Your phrasing leaves out a key party these killings: drivers. Accurately rephrased: * Only 30% of drivers drive an SUV or truck, but they are responsible for 40% of pedestrian fatalities * Trucks and SUV drivers are twice as likely to kill a child (aged 5-19 in the study), when compared to sedan drivers * When truck and SUV drivers hit a pedestrian, they are 2-3x more likely to kill them than sedan drivers
- lazyjones 5y ago
  And what is the average mileage with SUV or trucks vs. other cars? What is the average age of truck drivers vs. other cars? There are many other interesting factors here that were completely ignored.