>Probably some fraction of "trucks/SUVs" are professional drivers who usually have a much lower crash rate than private drivers. I read the crash rate as alrea

>Probably some fraction of "trucks/SUVs" are professional drivers who usually have a much lower crash rate than private drivers. I read the crash rate as already factored-in. Here's the fuller quote from the report linked [0] by the article that I'm referencing: The majority of fatal pedestrian crashes involve light vehicles. About one-third of pedestrians who are injured are struck by an SUV or pickup truck, which corresponds closely to the make-up of SUVs and pickups in the U.S. vehicle fleet. However, SUVs and pickups account for closer to 40 percent of pedestrian fatalities, which suggests that injuries may be more severe when sustained in collisions with these vehicles. Results from a meta-analysis of 12 independent injury data studies showed that pedestrians are 2-3 times more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup truck than when struck by a passenger car. So, they're saying the accident-rate is proportional—i.e. maps to the percentage of SUVs and pickups on the road. It's only the fatality rate that is increased. And, sure, 40% would be disproportionately high vs 33%, but it doesn't represent a rate that's 2x-3x higher. >there isn't much reason to expect the type of car has a causal effect on the chance of a collision Well, the original article actually suggests that reduced visibility in SUVs/trucks may contribute to higher crash rates. That's exactly the kind of thing I found sloppy. Just a statement with no data to back it up (in fact, the gov't report they linked contradicts it, as noted above). The article itself opens with this beauty: You don’t need to read a research paper to know that more people are driving trucks and SUVs (sport utility vehicles) compared to 20 years ago, that today’s trucks and SUVs are significantly bigger than they were 10-20 years ago, or that they’re more dangerous for people walking, biking, or getting around with an assistive device. It's intuitive. It's actually not intuitive that they're more dangerous for pedestrians. For instance, they could come equipped with more sensors and other tech that accounts for their size and actually makes them safer than other vehicles. Or, drivers of larger vehicles could be more cautious. Or, their increased size may make them more visible, hence, pedestrians are less likely to step out in front of them. And, what's the point of noting that "it's intuitive" anyway? Not the best way to start an article that should be (and purports to be) data-driven. In general, the article suggests a series of loosely assembled "intuition" and facts, then draws these hard conclusions that I'm not sure we're certain about yet. I'm not disputing their claims. Just saying it could be much tighter and reads a bit like an agenda loosely packaged in data and appeals to "intuition". I think the real answer is that we need more data and are still figuring this out, especially if we're looking for actionable solutions. [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...