4 ms·
> They're more lethal Are they really? A quick search for "US pedestrian deaths by vehicle type" and I came across this 2005 study [0] looking at pedestrian fa
by hermitdev 4y ago
> They're more lethal
Are they really? A quick search for "US pedestrian deaths by vehicle type" and I came across this 2005 study [0] looking at pedestrian fatalities per mile by vehicle type (and I'll admit some has changed in the nearly 20 years since the study was published). What surprised me was motorcycles caused more pedestrian fatalities than light trucks per billion miles. Urban buses had the highest kill rate, nearly 4 times that as light trucks.
Happen to have anything with more current statics?
[0] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/11/4/232.full.pdf https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/11/4/232...
- Symbiote 4y agoUrban buses spend almost all their driving time on roads with pedestrians. The statistic needs to be vehicle type in accidents in urban areas.
- twblalock 4y agoThe article splits out stats for urban and rural areas for all vehicle types. Notably all vehicle types become more dangerous in urban areas but even buses on rural roads are more dangerous than light trucks on urban roads.
- Symbiote 4y agoThanks, I had not scrolled that far down. Buses have flat fronts (at least to a typical chest/head height), so they're terrible for pedestrian collisions. The typical American school bus from 2002 is horrendous -- huge blind spots, a high chassis, and the typical user being well below adult height. To European eyes, they look like some sort of off-road military transport vehicle. Though other than buses, I think the paper supports the video: > The increased risk associated with light trucks is attributed to several factors: their greater mass; greater vehicle speed of collision with pedestrians, and their front end design.