5 ms·
I think the correlation between vehicle weight and injury to pedestrians requires some nuance. The comments in the article imply that being hit by a heavy vehi
by mhandley 3y ago
I think the correlation between vehicle weight and injury to pedestrians requires some nuance.
The comments in the article imply that being hit by a heavy vehicle involves more force than being hit by a light vehicle but, other things being equal, the difference is likely to be negligible. Sure the heavy vehicle has more momentum, but neither will slow down significantly from hitting you, so the acceleration applied to a pedestrian that is hit will be more or less the same. Note this isn't true when one vehicle hits another - mass will matter then.
So what does make a difference? The shape of the front of the vehicle. With a regular car, you'll almost certainly be swept off your feet and go over the roof. Your legs will take the full force, but your torso never experiences a huge acceleration, so your chances of internal injuries are less. With a truck, there's a pretty good chance the front is vertical where it hits your torso, meaning the acceleration is much higher, and so the chance of internal injuries is much higher.
After you're hit by the flat front of the truck, where do you go then? There's a pretty good chance you go under it.
Now, heavier vehicles are also more likely to be taller, but the impact on pedestrian safety is a second order effect. If you really want to encourage safer roads for pedestrians and cyclists, maybe tax the height of the front of the bonnet (hood)?
- margalabargala 3y agoThis makes sense. An additional consideration along the same lines are that drivers of high-hooded cars have reduced sightlines and are more likely to hit someone dimply due to blindspots, and that likelihood should be be multiplied by the likelihood of injury. I would support taxing reduced driver sight and/or hood height.