5 ms·

"Pitt et al. (1990) examined about 1,000 urban crashes with pedestrians younger than 20 years of age taken from NHTSA's Pedestrian Injury Causation Study (PICS)

"Pitt et al. (1990) examined about 1,000 urban crashes with pedestrians younger than 20 years of age taken from NHTSA's Pedestrian Injury Causation Study (PICS) data. They found that, compared to crashes with vehicle travel speeds of 10 - 19 mph, the risk of serious injury (or death) was 2.1 for speeds of 20 - 29 mph, 7.2 for speeds of 30 - 39 mph, and 30.7 for speeds of 40 mph or more." https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809012.html https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809012.ht...

appletrotter 5y ago
Really not sure how valid this 30 year old study is anymore!
- bagels 5y ago
  I think that is a good point, as materials and pedestrian safety features of cars have changed. Seems unlikely the relationship between speed and severity would change too though.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Reporting would change too. People don't report crashes where there's no damage other than a hood and some grill plastic (such a crash may have broken a hip back in "the day"). This is even more true now that cars with nonzero amounts of pedestrian safety features have made it to the bottom of the market where people don't have the luxury of being able to mindlessly report everything to insurance and the guy who got hit and has only a minor injury looks at the situation and doesn't see a potential payday.
- zerocrates 5y ago
  Presumably from the title it's about a car hitting a pedestrian... I doubt there's been much significant innovation in that kind of safety since the 90s. Features to prevent/alert to collisions, sure, but I'd assume this is about hitting someone when going X speed; surely that's pretty similar now and then.
  - darwinwhy 5y ago
    In fact it's probably gotten worse with the growth in size of US cars. Larger cars kill pedestrians and cyclists at higher rates.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    There were active changes to cars to reduce pedestrian harm. The most visible is probably the ban of pop up headlamps. Not taking a position on the study. Just felt like sharing.
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      I actually bounced off a car with modern safety maybe 10 years ago or so, trashed a good jacket but I wasn't even shaken enough to bother getting looked over at an Urgent Care, I continued walking to lunch. Not a high speed collision of course, it was a quiet inner city street and I looked the wrong way (one way street, I looked where cars should be if it was a two way street, oops), but I suspect a 1970s car would have been markedly worse for a pedestrian. One key trick other than the pop-up headlamps going away, was a gap between the bodywork and harder internal surfaces. As I understand it that goes something like this: Think about a large steel panel such as a car bonnet (hood?), obviously it's no comfort blanket, smacking into that isn't a good idea, but it will bend and absorb lots of energy during impact. Now, think about an engine block, that's not going to bend at all. In a desire to give a more stream-lined look, older cars would mount that large panel almost touching the engine block and other large stiff elements, because why not. Well, dead pedestrians is why not. If you add a gap that gap absorbs lots of energy that otherwise is going to cause injuries to a pedestrian. I can't prove it, but I credit that for the difference between walking away with a damaged jacket and spending the rest of my working day in A&E being told I'm not dying so can't cut to the front of the queue, but I'm also not OK and so mustn't leave yet.
      - zerocrates 5y ago
        Crumple zones (or their British English equivalent if there is one) are a definite change from "classic" designs but my feeling is they were mostly in place by the 90s... but I could be misremembering.
mym1990 5y ago
Have been a statistic in all of these buckets, can confirm that hitting things at faster speeds causes more injuries heh

appletrotter 5y ago

Really not sure how valid this 30 year old study is anymore!

bagels 5y ago
I think that is a good point, as materials and pedestrian safety features of cars have changed. Seems unlikely the relationship between speed and severity would change too though.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Reporting would change too. People don't report crashes where there's no damage other than a hood and some grill plastic (such a crash may have broken a hip back in "the day"). This is even more true now that cars with nonzero amounts of pedestrian safety features have made it to the bottom of the market where people don't have the luxury of being able to mindlessly report everything to insurance and the guy who got hit and has only a minor injury looks at the situation and doesn't see a potential payday.
zerocrates 5y ago
Presumably from the title it's about a car hitting a pedestrian... I doubt there's been much significant innovation in that kind of safety since the 90s. Features to prevent/alert to collisions, sure, but I'd assume this is about hitting someone when going X speed; surely that's pretty similar now and then.
- darwinwhy 5y ago
  In fact it's probably gotten worse with the growth in size of US cars. Larger cars kill pedestrians and cyclists at higher rates.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  There were active changes to cars to reduce pedestrian harm. The most visible is probably the ban of pop up headlamps. Not taking a position on the study. Just felt like sharing.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    I actually bounced off a car with modern safety maybe 10 years ago or so, trashed a good jacket but I wasn't even shaken enough to bother getting looked over at an Urgent Care, I continued walking to lunch. Not a high speed collision of course, it was a quiet inner city street and I looked the wrong way (one way street, I looked where cars should be if it was a two way street, oops), but I suspect a 1970s car would have been markedly worse for a pedestrian. One key trick other than the pop-up headlamps going away, was a gap between the bodywork and harder internal surfaces. As I understand it that goes something like this: Think about a large steel panel such as a car bonnet (hood?), obviously it's no comfort blanket, smacking into that isn't a good idea, but it will bend and absorb lots of energy during impact. Now, think about an engine block, that's not going to bend at all. In a desire to give a more stream-lined look, older cars would mount that large panel almost touching the engine block and other large stiff elements, because why not. Well, dead pedestrians is why not. If you add a gap that gap absorbs lots of energy that otherwise is going to cause injuries to a pedestrian. I can't prove it, but I credit that for the difference between walking away with a damaged jacket and spending the rest of my working day in A&E being told I'm not dying so can't cut to the front of the queue, but I'm also not OK and so mustn't leave yet.
    - zerocrates 5y ago
      Crumple zones (or their British English equivalent if there is one) are a definite change from "classic" designs but my feeling is they were mostly in place by the 90s... but I could be misremembering.

mym1990 5y ago

Have been a statistic in all of these buckets, can confirm that hitting things at faster speeds causes more injuries heh