19 ms·

Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

• nerdponx 4y ago
  This article is a great example of how correlation might be suggestive of causation, but is not itself causation. Are pickup trucks inherently more dangerous than other vehicles? Or are pickup truck drivers more dangerous than other drivers? Or are pickup trucks more likely to be driving on more-dangerous roads than on less-dangerous roads? Unfortunately I wasn't able to read the article due to the paywall, but I didn't see any mention of controlling for confounders in the abstract.
  • Nick87633 4y ago
    I've never seen a Camry roll coal on a bicyclist but I've seen it half a dozen times by pickup truck drivers
    • alwayslikethis 4y ago
      Rolling coal generally requires diesel engines (the smoke is from partially burned diesel). Gasoline is much easier to burn and I imagine it would be rather hard to modify a gasoline car to produce black smoke.
    • DangitBobby 4y ago
      I've had plenty of people in sedans pass me in my lane with less than 1 foot of space.
      • Nick87633 4y ago
        Bobby That is a consideration I hadn't thought of... I always take the full lane unless there is a dedicated bike lane.
        • zeendo 4y ago
          I advocate taking the lane in many situations but it's worth noting that you can be passed in your lane with less than 1 ft of space even if you're taking the lane.
  • mrwh 4y ago
    Are there reasons to think that trucks are easier to drive safely? E.g. you might be able to see further (even if you can't see the child walking in front of you at the crosswalk). Seem to be plenty of reasons to think they are more dangerous, and that it would be surprising to find that they aren't.
    • nerdponx 4y ago
      Of course, but the point is that you can't disentangle that from other possible causes just by looking at the association between it and an outcome.
• sonofhans 4y ago
  > Findings suggest larger vehicles are involved in pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes with more severe injuries that result in higher hospital charges. I've commuted 10s of thousands of miles by bike the last 30 years, mostly in an urban environment. This doesn't surprise me. I can't read the whole article, and the excerpt doesn't offer any data or speculation about the causes of this. So, with some experience, I'll speculate. I'm happy to have real data instead! So, why? Well, my first thought is that the impact surfaces of those vehicles are much higher off the ground. Rather than being tossed up onto a hood, people might be more likely to be hit directly. Also, the visibility in tall vehicles is worse. For the driver of a sedan, my whole bicycle and torso are eye-level for them -- I'm easier to see. To a Suburban driver, my head and maybe shoulders are at eye level. I've ridden next to [ostensibly] passenger vehicles where the drivers are above my head level; they'd have to look _down_ to even see me. And even aside from the height, modern vehicles have narrower windows and larger pillars. This alone makes a big difference. As a contrast, compare an old car with a modern one. The old Benz has at least 150% the visibility. It's like driving inside a fishbowl. * A 1980s Mercedes wagon -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W123#/media/File:Mercedes-Benz_W123_T-Modell_rear_20090430.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W123#/media/File... * A modern Chevy Suburban -- https://www.chevrolet.com/suvs/suburban https://www.chevrolet.com/suvs/suburban
  • emmelaich 4y ago
    Agree with your speculation. Here's another one. Even WHEN THE DRIVER sees you, some subconsciously ignore you. I'v had people look straight at me, keep driving then looking shocked when they finally realise and hit the brakes. I can only surmise they perceive traffic in terms of threats. When you're in a bigger car, threats are reduced.
    • Smoosh 4y ago
      This effect also applies to motorcycle riders who are often "seen but ignored".
    • analog31 4y ago
      There's that famous video of people dancing, where a person in a gorilla suit enters and leaves the action, and at the end, people don't remember seeing the gorilla. I think drivers are creatures of habit, especially in heavy traffic on a familiar route such as their daily work commute. They are not really in complete control of their cars -- certainly if traffic is heavy enough that nobody is following at a safe distance. Now throw distractions into the mix. I'm also an experienced urban cyclist, and I believe that route choice is a major safety factor. I have some rules of thumb for roads to avoid, and am extremely lucky that I live in a town that is fairly cycle- and pedestrian-friendly. I have a hunch that car drivers in my town have gradually adapted to the presence of cyclists, for the better. I do ride on 55 mph roads in the countryside, but only ones with very little traffic, and the region has quite friendly drivers. Stories from cyclists living in other states suggest to me that straightforward aggression is a factor in a lot of the close passes and other antics that they experience.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
  > Passenger cars were the striking vehicle in most fatal pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes, though they were underrepresented relative to the proportion of all crashes in which they were involved. Though pickup trucks were the striking vehicle in just 5.6% of pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes, they were involved in 12.6% of fatalities. SUVs were similarly overrepresented in fatalities relative to the proportion of their involvement in all crashes. SUVs struck 14.7% of the pedestrians and pedalcyclists investigated here, but were involved in 25.4% of the fatalities. > In fact, passenger car sales in the United States dropped at an annual rate of 2.4% from 2008 to 2018 alone, while pickup truck sales increased at an annual rate of 6.4% (Davis & Boundy, 2020). In 2008 light trucks were about 40% of light vehicles produced, in 2018 they were nearly half (Ibid). Based on this, I would put SUV's/Trucks conservatively at say 45% of US vehicles. Based on this, their combined pedestrian/pedalcyclist crashes are 5.6 + 14.7 = 20.3% their combined fatality is 12.6 + 25.4 = 38% With these numbers, given that the crashes are lower in proportion to their overall numbers, I would say that Light Trucks/SUV's are less likely to be involved in a crash with pedestrians/cyclists but when a crash does happen it is worse. However, they do not seem to be a disproportionate cause of pedestrian/pedalcyclists fatalities compared to passenger cars.
  • osigurdson 4y ago
    The article is definitely missing some basic numbers such as what the composition of the current fleet is. In my observation, "flat" cars are definitely no longer the norm anymore. Also, the size of SUVs seems to have gone down since 2009. There are more small/medium sized SUVs in general but far fewer Yukons/Sequoias than there used to be. One thing that has obviously gone up since 2009 is driver distraction.
• sijwbebdjj 4y ago
  Americans are driving bigger and bigger vehicles, which cause even deadlier accidents with smaller vehicles and pedestrians. It's a big problem. Here's a good video on the problems with Americas increasingly large vehicles: https://youtu.be/aIy5uv5-VrE https://youtu.be/aIy5uv5-VrE
  • serf 4y ago
    > Americans are driving bigger and bigger vehicles.. vehicles have gone up in size globally. this might be driven primarily by the whims and desires of the US market, but it's by no means isolated to the United States.
    • bobthepanda 4y ago
      What is different is that Euro NCAP and ANCAP (Australia) do test pedestrian front impacts, but the US NCAP does not.
    • fomine3 4y ago
      I (and decent amount of people live in Japan) are unhappy with most car models become big for width (except JDMs and subcompacts, it's fortunate them exists). It become big because car is generally developed and sold for global market, rather than domestic.
• elihu 4y ago
  Something I've wondered about is how do some of the newer vehicle designs fare when it comes to pedestrian safety? Presumably getting hit by a Tesla Cybertruck or Canoo Lifestyle Vehicle would be pretty bad, but are they just as bad as a giant pickup truck? My intuition says yeah, probably. But there might be some nuance, like maybe the Canoo has better-than-average visibility so hitting pedestrians is less likely. I'm kind of surprised cars don't have external airbags at this point.
  • jwalton 4y ago
    They had some like this in 1939: https://youtu.be/LlyEIaRw010 https://youtu.be/LlyEIaRw010
    • elihu 4y ago
      Seems to be manually actuated. "When the scoop is open the j-walker simply can't get run over; and sometimes that's more than he deserves." Seems like a product of that weird period of history where streets used to be mainly for people, but they'd been taken over by cars and car companies were out there asserting ownership of the roads and trying to influence public attitudes by, among other things, inventing the crime of jaywalking. https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
  • bobthepanda 4y ago
    They do in Europe: https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/43844 https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele... They exist because Euro NCAP tests for pedestrian impact safety. NCAP (US) does not.
  • DangitBobby 4y ago
    EVs are probably even worse because they are considerably heavier.
• phlipski 4y ago
  I wonder if insurance rates have been adjusted to reflect this. I would assume that being "at fault" for a crash with a fatality would result in a hefty insurance payout....
  • kube-system 4y ago
    Yes, but pedestrian fatalities are relatively uncommon compared to other insurance losses, and in the US the insurance companies liability is typically capped at a fairly low level. Long story short is that insurance companies price everything in — that’s how insurance works - rates are based upon actual losses and payouts.
  • powerhour 4y ago
    Mandatory minimum insurance limits sure haven't. They've gone up in some states but are still woefully low.
    • Drunk_Engineer 4y ago
      In California, drivers are only required to have $15,000 liability insurance.
      • kube-system 4y ago
        And 17% of them just drive around with no insurance at all. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/uninsured-motorists-report/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/uninsured-motor...
        • clairity 4y ago
          i just learned from a cop that you don't even need a license to drive in LA! she said that cops don't want to put undue burden on people in a city where driving is almost mandatory for livelihood (though i don't currently own a car myself due to the hassles and cost). i kid you not.
        • sephamorr 4y ago
• yboris 4y ago
  Exactly on topic: a philosophy paper "Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked?" by Douglas Husak. Author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility with other vehicles (and pedestrians), SUV driving is immoral - imposing an oversized amount of harm to others with no proportional safety for self. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447
  • mc32 4y ago
    There are three trends: bigger mass, larger sizes and taller vehicles. Which one of the above is the most consequential? I'm guessing height. at 2500 or 5000 lbs, neither is going to be pleasant when you bang in to it. size maybe there is more surface area to get hit by, but that's unlikely to be significant. mass does influence stopping distance though, so that could be, but at the same time we now have large disc brakes with anti-skid.
    • wefarrell 4y ago
      I got into a head on collision with an SUV that came off two wheels while rounding a curve and crossed the yellow divider right into my little car. In that case it was definitely the height that did us in.
      • timellis-smith 4y ago
        Glad to hear that you lived to tell the tale. Sounds like a horrendous collision.
        • wefarrell 4y ago
          My car crumpled perfectly and my only injuries were scrapes from the airbag. The other driver broke a few ribs. I will never forget the split second I recognized there was a huge mass of metal coming straight at me at a high speed and I resigned to the fact that it would probably mean life altering injuries. Good thing I wore my seat belt!
    • 4y ago
• ramraj07 4y ago
  Honestly as an upper middle class or rich American it looks like one of the more dangerous things you could do is probably go out cycling in a road shared by these monster machines. If you crave physical activity so much there’s many other alternatives. When I lived in College Station Texas I had to use a bike (because I was broke) but I stuck to the sidewalks, rules be damned. And even in the sidewalk had to keep an eye for unruly drivers on the road alongside because the last person you want to trust not to mount the curb is a drunk Texan kid with a raised pickup after a football game. And when time came to cross a road, even if the light was green, even if I made eye contact with the dude in the truck, I wouldn’t venture out until the road was fully empty. I decided a long time back id never put myself in a place where another American in a car has to brake to not hit me when I’m outside a car.
  • dvzk 4y ago
    It's a different cycling experience to live in an area with 30+ continuous miles of a paved and forested riverside bike trail and 50+ miles of interlaced dirt trails. Cars can barely be a threat consideration most of the time.
    • esoterica 4y ago
      That's fine if you're cycling as a hobby, but if you're cycling as a means of transportation you're going to need to take the roads most of the time. Most of the places you are going to are not going to be next to a forest trail.
      • dvzk 4y ago
        It is kind of irritating for a commuter to dismiss competitive and fitness sports as hobbies, but that aside, the aforementioned trail parallels a major highway and it’s used by thousands of cyclists and commuters each day for the majority of their routes. Some toss their bikes onto the lightrail and bus racks at the end to avoid roads.
        • stouset 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• Auracle 4y ago
  I drive a Camaro. I can’t fit an infant seat behind my driver’s side seat, and I sit abnormally closer to the steering wheel than most. Never mind a larger child seat. Ok, you’re saying - but that’s a Camaro. Well, said Camaro is in repair at the moment and they gave me a loaner. It’s a Chevy Sonic. I also can’t fit the infant seat behind the driver’s side. To be fair, it’s a subcompact. However, even in my wife’s CX-5 we can barely get our hand between the driver’s seat and the latch for the infant seat to get it out. That’s after moving the seat up further than my wife prefers. I’ll be shopping for a new vehicle soon and I can definitely see how people with families instantly jump to SUVs, vans, and to some extent trucks.
  • garvield 4y ago
    There is another form factor: station wagons. I don't know why they have fallen so out of fashion in the US, they are such practical cars. Fit a family of four? No problem. Need material for your project? Fold the back seats and fit full sheets of plywood. Not even the full size SUVs has as much space as a regular old station wagon.
    • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      They went out of favor because vehicle body design trends (largely driven by safety requirements) make them have a lot less practical space inside for a given external size. The idiots who cooked up the CAFE footprint rule that resulted in all the OEMs cramming the axles to the far ends of the vehicle (killing a lot of trunk space in the process) are probably responsible for the biggest share but it's very much a death by a thousand cuts situation.
  • mrweasel 4y ago
    That's actually annoying problem with modern cars, in my case it's doesn't help much moving up to bigger cars though. I'm pretty tall, so if I'm in any of the front sets, the seat behind me become unusable. So a car that fit a family of four, because effectively a three person car. For trips with four people we put our child in the front passenger seat, my wife driving and I sit in the back. That's the only way to utilize all the seats. There might be cars available that solve the problem, but not within our budget. I get why, but it is annoying that anything above 185cm is consider outside the range of car designs. Edit: just looking up the CX-5, and I assume it's the Mazda. Those are useless, I can't even drive those, there aren't enough leg room behind the wheel. On the other hand the Hyundai i10 has plenty of space... Just not for someone to sit in the back seat.
• astrobe_ 4y ago
  Bigger vehicles are heavier; at the same speed as a passenger car, they have more kinetic energy. It is even worse when the victim is lighter, as per the momentum conservation principle. The study confirms the physics. What's unexpected is the last line of the abstract.
  • austinjp 4y ago
    The line in question: "By race, Blacks are also found to be overrepresented as pedestrian and pedalcyclist crash victims."
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • hunter2_ 4y ago
      I'm trying to figure out if this is due to pedestrian density in urban areas, hate crimes, insurance/injury fraud, less reflected light at night, ...
      • ARandumGuy 4y ago
        It's probably mostly a poverty issue. Poor people have more difficulty affording a car. This forces them to walk and bike, even in areas where the infrastructure makes it unsafe to do so (areas like this are ubiquitous in US cities). Black people in the US, due to a wide variety of systemic issues, are more likely to be poor. Which means that issues of poverty are more likely to affect black people.
• dncornholio 4y ago
  Effective cycling is only possible with effective infrastructure. If you keep sharing the same road, accidents will happen. Big cars are not a problem. The solution is build dedicated infra for cyclers. There is no other way.
• choeger 4y ago
  The sad thing is that at least some part of the growth of vehicles on the road is because few people can afford to own (and park) multiple cars or other vehicles larger than a bike. I have to move 3 kids and 2 adults regularly over longer distances, so I am pretty much constrained to a van (say a VW T7). But unfortunately, I cannot afford to accompany this expensive car with a smaller, preferrably electric, vehicle. So whenever I have to switch off the bike and move something or someone by car, I switch to the van directly. Car sharing is pretty much uneconomical at that point and a motorcycle or even a cargo bike is problematic due to space constraints.
  • globular-toast 4y ago
    A VW Golf from the 70s could fit two adults and three children. Or you could rent the van when you really need it. The trouble is when a society accepts non-sustainable solutions it's very difficult to go back to anything remotely sustainable as any technological progress is always expected to deliver "more". It also leads to people thinking their ridiculous lifestyles are baseline necessity when, in fact, they could be happy with a whole lot less.
    • goethes_kind 4y ago
      Exactly. Without judging the OP (I am also looking at buying a van (although I would not drive it regularly in the city)) it is a matter of luxury rather than necessity.
      • koheripbal 4y ago
        With three kids and car seats/boosters, there is no option. You need a minivan or SUV.
        • globular-toast 4y ago
          So you're saying all those five-seater cars that are being made are for seating five adults but if you have children you need a van?
• goethes_kind 4y ago
  Large personal vehicles should just be banned in cities. People abused the system to such an extent that now it is a matter of infringing on other people's right to personal safety not to mention the unnecessary pollution and traffic congestion. I do not want to discuss the specifics but it would be great if for example cities only allowed KEI cars or a similar concept.
  • pif 4y ago
    > Large personal vehicles should just be banned in cities. I see your point, but that will only work when small city cars will be cheap enough to let have a "real" car too for non-daily purposes (long journey, huge shopping, out with the family...).
    • Fradow 4y ago
      Isn't it already the case? A brand new C1 is about 12K€. That's not even twice the price of an electrified cargo bike (I saw about 7/8K€ floated around the other day). And if you go for used, you can get cars in good enough shape for less than 5K€. Obviously, the additional car will have a much higher running cost than if you went for an electrified cargo bike or stuck to a single car. Forcing people to make that conscious choice would be a pro in my opinion.
      • pif 4y ago
        I admit I fell in a lucky spot, but 12 k€ is just a bit less than what I paid my new Jeep Renegade, so I don't consider it that cheap. > electrified cargo bike Hilly area? Taking children to school or old parent to the doctor's? Not a chance! > stuck to a single car Yes, the SUV. Edit: > if you go for used, you can get cars in good enough shape for less than 5K€. Yeah, that's nicer. Unfortunately, you have to add insurance and maintenance, plus a parking spot at home. Still too much for people to accept non-tiny cars to be banned from the city.
        • benhurmarcel 4y ago
• rodolphoarruda 4y ago
  I would like to see a similar study with data about the type of medicine drivers were on when they struck pedestrians/cyclists. I've always got the impression that there is more people driving under the influence of those drugs than alcohol.
• jccalhoun 4y ago
  Last summer someone pulled out in front of me and totaled my Honda Fit. I would have loved to replace it with a new one but they don't sell them in North America any more. In the 90s I had a small Nissan truck (apparently it is called a Hardbody? The manual just said "nissan truck") You can't buy any truck anywhere near as small as that any more. I also had a Dodge Dakota at one point and you can't even really find a truck that small any more. I was secretly hoping that the high gas prices would encourage auto makers to reintroduce some smaller cars but it seems like supply chain issues have resulted in them only making higher end cars since they can make more money off of them.
  • Eric_WVGG 4y ago
    The thing I’m curious about is, why did sports cars stop being cool? They were everywhere in the eighties, and of course critics would describe their drivers as compensating for a subconscious lacking in masculinity or something… they understandably died off in the nineties… and now we seem to be back to compensating with huge trucks? Sports cars might be dangerous but at least that’s mostly just to the occupiers, what do we have to do to make Ferraris and Porsches (real Porsches, not those disgusting SUVs that have become their bread and butter) cool again?
    • pif 4y ago
      > why did sports cars stop being cool? They were never cool in my eyes. They offer you no space and no comfort, which everybody likes, and they try to compensate with huge speed, that nobody is allowed to attain.
    • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      > and of course critics would describe their drivers as compensating for a subconscious lacking in masculinity or something… So then the next generation grew up and bought trucks because trucks weren't constantly being shat on. And now we're seeing the beginning of a transition back with the high performance EV sports cars.
• unglaublich 4y ago
  People buy bigger cars to protect them and their family from the big cars.
  • keenmaster 4y ago
    Underrated comment. Only the government can break this game theoretic race to the biggest.
• xyst 4y ago
  As an American, we need to rethink how the cities are designed. Way too much emphasis on car centric design. An emphasis on car centric transportation means fed government and people want cars to be safer. Larger A-pillars which decrease line of sight. Larger vehicles give people a higher sense of security and safety. These 2 points make it very safe for the driver and occupants but disregard any safety for pedestrians. Which is consistent with the papers findings. Anecdotally, I have seen empty nesters and older men/women buy large SUVs and trucks not because of utility but because of the perceived safety a larger vehicle gives them. Even growing up in TX, rich parents would buy their 16 year old child a truck, SUV, or even a god forsaken hummer because it gives them peace of mind. In my opinion, if cities were re-designed around public transportation and alternative forms of transportation. We would be better off in the long run: decreased auto v pedestrian fatalities, increased air quality, decreased in air pollution related illness/disease, much more efficient use of space (parking lots/garages vs space for human beings), and much more efficient cities in terms of taxing efficiency (decreased dependency on municipal bonds), and decreased and/or stabilized cost of living for everyone
  • DawnQFunk3 4y ago
    [dead]
  • Steltek 4y ago
    The American system is broken. Many (Blue) states would happily rein in oil guzzling pickups, SUVs, etc but Federal law prevents that. Another example is states can't require truck trailers to have side barriers to keep small cars and cyclists from going under.
    • dont__panic 4y ago
      Interestingly, California has essentially put itself in the position of dictating emissions standards for the entire USA because it imposes the strictest requirements, and California is a large enough market that carmakers won't ignore it (but small enough that it's not worth separate SKUs). I wonder what would happen if California, or New York, or a consortium of smaller blue states like New England imposed safety standards that banned or heavily penalized trucks and SUVs over 4,000 lbs, oversized A pillars, etc. Would the automakers blink, and start making cars safer? Or would they just start selling the dangerous vehicles only in red states? Would blue states start to ticket dangerous vehicles purely for existing on roads?
• lightedman 4y ago
  I got nailed head-on in an 80's Chevy truck vs Mountain Bike accident. I was deprived of life function for around 25 minutes. Were it not for the mom-daughter nurse team that saw the entire accident happen as they were coming home from their shift, I'd not be here today. Impacts with large and heavy vehicles suck. I can not recommend. Stick with bumper cars.
• travisporter 4y ago
  I’m curious why they use the word pedalcyclist not just cyclist
• krnlpnc 4y ago
  I hope that more Americans will settle on CUVs as family cars. CUVs are built on car style chassis (as opposed to SUV which are built like trucks) and generally are smaller and more fuel efficient (modern turbo 4 cyl designs are pretty impressive). Yet they retain the vast majority of benefits (roomier, higher, AWD, seating up to 7) Yes CUVs are bigger than sedans, however for a family they check all the boxes and are in my opinion a vastly better alternative to vans, pickups and large SUVs, all of which often come in v6 and v8 engines.
• jannw 4y ago
  Most predictable research outcome ever. I wish I could get funding for research like this ;-)
• BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 4y ago
  Some poor physics in many comment
• BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 4y ago
  Some poor understanding of physics in many comments. High school physics deals in point masses in vacuums, but people and vehicles are not point masses. Injury is closely correlated to accelerations applied to various body parts. A sloping hood gives more space to average out the acceleration. Conversely my stepfather blacked out and fell backwards on a tile floor. A low speed impact with a high acceleration applied to the back of his skull and brain that killed him.
• Out_of_Characte 4y ago
  Articles like these make me glad to live in the Netherlands. Here we had "stop de kindermoord" which translates to "stop murdering children" which was aimed at the higher incidence rate of accidents due to motor vehicles. in the abstract they talk about vehicle type, race and other factors while I dont see the real killer anywhere in the abstract or introduction; Speed. Way back during the protest we subsequently figured out how to incorporate cars into cities without accidents. 1) In pedestrian and cycle heavy streets, you reduce the speed to a maximum of 30kmh (~20mph) and sometimes to 10 near schools and residential area's 2) traffic seperation. to improve traffic flow, the dutch governement made sure to always seperate traffic from destinations and only intersect pedestrians and cyclists in the last mile in a 30kmph area. 3) Careful road design. Its really uncomfortable to drive above the speed limit because they narrow roads, add trees, obstacles and turns that are perfectly safe at 30kmph that make driving only safe at the apropriate speeds. adding trees next to roads also increases safety for pedestrians as an offroad car is bound to hit a tree instead of a person. 4) great investment in public transport and highways. Despite everything someone might tell you, the Netherlands is a great country to drive in with the most ridiculous infrastructure to keep traffic flowing. 5) accident investigations. There's safety focused public design. We blame the road for an accident rather than a driver. Because even if someone was wasted drunk, an accident could have killed an innocent person. Therefore the road design can be changed so that even an imcompetent or drunk driver wont harm someone. Also, everyone in a car has the legal responsibility to drive safe when encountering pedestrians because as a heavy vehicle, the onus is on you to not cause damage. even if some cyclist ran a red light. You should have been able to stop. look up strongtowns for better accessibility for non-dutch speakers.
• justnotworthit 4y ago
  I wonder how much damage is solved by halfing all speed limits. I'm constantly amazed about how much risk people will take on in order to arrive home (but usually, a red light) a minute earlier.
• brnt 4y ago
  This is why weight is a concept used in the Netherlands to determine liability. The more weight you put in motion on public roads, the more liable you're going to be. In a collision, drivers of vehicles that are significantly heavier are going to be assumed at (partial) fault. Kinetics are not complicated.
• foxyv 4y ago
  We really need to add a special license requirement for vehicles over a certain size. You shouldn't be able to drive something so dangerous without additional training and restrictions. In addition we should enforce safety standards similar to commercial vehicles. Reduced speed limits, additional licensing fees, and stricter inspections. Also, traffic laws should be more heavily enforced for this class of vehicle with licensing revoked if they cannot keep a clean record. Driving a truck or an SUV that weighs more than 4 tons is a huge responsibility and we treat it the same as driving a half ton econobox. If a cop sees a 4 ton SUV breaking the speed limit on a residential zone the penalties should be much harsher than a small car, motorcycle or cyclist doing the same.