42 ms·

Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians

• MarkusWandel 3y ago
  The thing is the "blunt vertical front end" thing has even taken over in the small car segment. My new 2023 Honda Civic, while not suffering in terms of forward visibility, has gone for the "squared off" look vs. the previous (2012) one. Here they are side by side... https://wandel.ca/pic.cgi?81b4b0ec https://wandel.ca/pic.cgi?81b4b0ec
  • ryandrake 3y ago
    US car and truck designs have been trending towards "belligerent" looks for decades. My totally unqualified armchair sociologist's theory is that these designs are closely tracking some overall American cultural trend towards aggression and hostility. As our society becomes more and more selfish assholes, our cars are aesthetically and functionally becoming assholes, too.
    • roughly 3y ago
      An oldie but a goodie: https://popula.com/2019/02/24/about-face/ https://popula.com/2019/02/24/about-face/
• kbar13 3y ago
  it's so scary when i see people on the streets driving vehicles where they can barely see over the hood. like i can only see the top of their head when i'm facing them head on. this means that they cannot see me at all. how on earth is anyone comfortable driving around not being able to see where they're going?
  • jjulius 3y ago
    Similarly, it always weirds me out when I'm behind someone and can't see their head or at least part of their face in their rearview. Tells me that they probably can't see what's behind them.
  • vineyardmike 3y ago
    > how on earth is anyone comfortable driving around not being able to see where they're going? Because they’re not the one that’s going to get hurt. But seriously, there’s some psychological thing going on with big cars. Like I drive a tiny car by American standards, and honestly don’t feel confident driving a big car, but I get it. You get to be higher up, which feels like you can see easily (even if objectively not true). It feels safer to drive a tank when every other car is huge (this is probably true). They have more storage, more space, which feels more comfortable. There’s probably nothing more damning than the incentive you have to be the biggest car on the road in case an accident happens. Of course intellectually it’s obvious that big cars make roads dangerous overall, they’re bad for the environment, they’re more expensive, they require a bigger garage, etc, but it’s hard to get past feelings and bad incentives.
    • MarkusWandel 3y ago
      Friends of ours who lived for a long time in Scandinavia occasionally get Scandinavian visitors. Two out of two times so far when they've dropped by with said visitors in their rental vehicle to borrow the canoe, the rental vehicle has been the absolutely biggest, bad-assest one they could get a hold of. The kind where you'd have to stand on a stool just to really look into the engine compartment. Why? Well, yes, it costs more to rent and more in fuel, but it's just so... something. Luckily here in Ontario, Canada, small cars are still somewhat normal, with about 1/3 of the road traffic being in the "compact car" class and certainly less than 1/3 in the "gratuitously huge truck/SUV" class. Most inbetween is compact SUVs and minivans.
      • Symbiote 3y ago
        Several friends and colleagues in Denmark have avoided driving in North America because the available cars were so huge. A colleague and I cancelled a rental for a work trip (took taxies instead) as the only vehicle they had was some huge pickup, which neither of us were willing to drive. I think it's far more common for Europeans to be put off from driving huge American vehicles than attracted to it.
    • david422 3y ago
  • hospitalJail 3y ago
    >how on earth is anyone comfortable driving around not being able to see where they're going? Its not about comfort, its about style. We see this in the tech world too. You can get a high tech, cutting edge feature rich, low cost, easy to use device. Or you can get one that has the cool logo on the back that makes your text messages turn blue. It creates a negative externality because people are using outdated/dangerous/worse technology simply because its the style.
    • Izikiel43 3y ago
      Also, the one with the logo and blue messages has guaranteed software updates for like 5/6 years, has great performance and is very comfortable to use, but who cares about that right?
      • hospitalJail 3y ago
        >updates for like 5/6 years But its cracked by Pegasus and Apple cannot stop them. Updates where your data is being sent to the Apple homebase isnt a pro-consumer feature. Maybe Apple really is trying to stop Pegasus, but as a consumer, merely trying doesn't count. (Maybe it does if you are trying to rationalize your Veblen Good)
        • Izikiel43 3y ago
          I had android for years, and I got tired of the buggy experience after a year of usage, and dying when I needed the most. I switched to an iphone XR, and the phone worked perfectly for over 2 years, after which I gave it to another family member and I switched to a 13 pro. Are they expensive? For sure yes, if you go top of the line, but even an older one works perfectly fine for 99% of people needs, and they will save you time and headaches for several years. That's the selling point, they are easy to use, and last a long time (in tech world terms). "It just works" is not only marketing.
          • hospitalJail 3y ago
            What bugs and dying? Google assistant sucks, but thats about it. Dying? Anyway, still too risky because of pegasus. I have secrets. I basically have 0 options.
  • bertil 3y ago
    I remember seeing a prankster passing in front of a car and miming stepping over a big obstacle. The driver looks concerned and steps out to check. Laughs. Until I realized: they genuinely had to. The driver was not checking because they saw the guy jumping over nothing and were confused: they literally could not see what was below that guy’s belt. It’s one of those things (like “ads for tax prep software” or “kindergarten-appropriate shooter drill”) that feels quaint where you don’t connect the dots because you don’t know the country, but when you do…
    • kayodelycaon 3y ago
      It's really at the point where you need a bunch of cameras to get a 360° view of what's around your car. I'd never realized how bad the visibility was before having a car with that feature. I'm surprised I haven't run over anything important in all of the years I've been driving.
      • bertil 3y ago
        If you want a violent contrast, cycling is out there. Most cars feel like submarines after riding a bike.
    • HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
      In 1990 I watched a pickup truck crush its radiator into a parking bollard that the driver couldn't see. This is by no means a new problem.
  • barbazoo 3y ago
    Also stuff on the dash like stuffies, religious paraphernalia, darkened windows, it's clear that some people don't care about seeing others.
• paxys 3y ago
  Up until recently I figured that driving was the most dangerous activity I engaged in on a regular basis, but nowadays I'm convinced that walking near an active roadway is worse. I have lost count of the number of near misses I've had due to inattentive drivers basically in tanks. The problem is significantly more noticeable after moving to the east coast where turning left or right without checking for pedestrians is the norm, and it's on you to watch for cars when you are walking regardless of what the light is and who has the right of way. And yes, car designs with massive pedestrian-sized blind spots is making this all that much worse.
  • SoftTalker 3y ago
    Wish it were another way but reality being what it is, one has to assume invisibility when it comes to cars (and buses and trucks). Assume they don't see you. If you're about to step into a crosswalk, check not only for crossing traffic but turning traffic. Be ready to dodge out of the way or wait. Even if you have the "right of way" you are going to lose if a vehicle hits you.
    • falcolas 3y ago
      "Defensive walking" courses seem to be the next thing we'll start needing.
      • wiredfool 3y ago
        Whatever you do, stay off the sidewalk.
        • falcolas 3y ago
          Probably not safe in many buildings near the roads either.
    • InCityDreams 3y ago
      Look 'em right in the eye before you cross. "If you can't see my eyes, i can't see you".
• fgsfds028374 3y ago
  [dead]
• sickofparadox 3y ago
  The CAFE regulations have been a disaster for the safety and affordability of vehicles and US regulators need to figure out a way to legislate fuel effeciency in such a way that doesnt lead to the difference between a 1990's F-150 and a 2020's F-150. It would also do the US a world of good to get rid of the chicken truck import tax.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • oatmeal1 3y ago
    They just need to close the "light truck" exception that allows vehicle manufacturers to skirt the rules with SUVs and trucks. They won't though.
    • bertil 3y ago
      No need to close it: just demand a commercial license to drive one of those. Yearly check-up, learn to look at your blind sides. If you mess up, lose your job. If those are getting tax benefits for being used by specialized industries, they should be treated as such. I want emission standards, but if you tell me that we don’t get a snowplow without exception, I’m amenable. Snow on the road is bad. Where we should all draw the line is having soccer moms do the school run in a snowplow.
    • riversflow 3y ago
      Perhaps the light truck exemption should stay, but all exempt vehicles pay a punitive mileage tax. My feeling here is that pickups as _actual_ tool/utility vehicles is valid, but we should punish the use of such dangerous vehicles when they don’t serve a purpose. A tradesmen owning a truck that he uses to transport materials and tools is one thing. The dude who works in sales at a software company and has used the bed once since he bought the truck to go camping is another. I’m not sure though, the overarching problem is that the US is vast, and what is good in one place is bad in the other. A large 4x4 truck is a menace in a dense city, but a car is crap in places with poor roads and snow. Both are common.
• falcolas 3y ago
  > While sloping front ends did not reduce the risk posed by vehicles with the tallest hoods, they did make a difference for vehicles with hood heights of 30-40 inches And these benefits is fairly likely to immediately be countered by a lift kit by the end user, bringing them back up against the 40" problem range. It's amazing to me how often lift kits are added to pickups; amazing as in "it's not actually adding to the ground clearance beneath the diff, it's mostly cosmetic." Anyways. Good article, but I have serious doubts their advice would ever be followed.
  • Arcanum-XIII 3y ago
    And those lift kit are more than probably not legal in Europe. I’m amazed (and a bit jealous) of the amount of customization possible in the US. I understand the need of regulation but… it’s way less fun. More secure though, so, I’m conflicted. In my country changing the color of the vehicle will trigger a need to recertify the vehicle. For the fucking color.
    • falcolas 3y ago
      Given some of the absurdities I've seen personally on the road in the Midwest US, I personally wish for EU limitations. And yeah, I'm a boring "old" fogie who drives a Prius. From rolling coal to 2' (.6m) lift kits, to effectively black windows and turn signals, to light bars used offensively against other drivers, reduced diameter dualie road tires with insufficient suspension support for all that torque... and that's just pickups. Yeah. The roads are perhaps not the place for this kind of weaponized "fun".
      • maerF0x0 3y ago
        also these kinds of wheel modifications/styles which essentially turn them into meat grinders https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/8rjfu4/wheel_spikes_how_is_this_legal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/8rjfu4/wheel_spikes...
        • baz00 3y ago
• sneeze-slayer 3y ago
  Great, now let's see the NHTSA (in the US) implement some pedestrian safety rules in car requirements. We have known this for years and just watched the pedestrian fatalities surge upward.
  • cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
    Never gonna happen. $$$$.
    • DoingIsLearning 3y ago
      As a European I was recently disappointed to see Biden doing a photo op in an F-150. I get that it was an electric variant and aligns with the green message. But to see the political gravitas of the POTUS backing up a design that arguably should not be road legal is very disappointing. But indeed $$$
      • manonthewall 3y ago
        F150 is the best selling vehicle in the USA, you have to learn to walk before you run. It's a foot in the door. I think a lot of people of very high green bent don't realize you can't force people in a democracy to do things they don't want. If you go too fast then they will rebel and you get someone like Trump elected who will set it back 20 years.
        • DoingIsLearning 3y ago
          I appreciate your point and I agree the outrage of "do not take away my truck" would cause whiplash, even if it is unnecessarily large and and wasteful and unsafe. But arguably the arms race of large trucks in the US, Canada, Australia, is largely a viral meme that advertisers have managed to instill with insane profit. It is not a product of exercising freedom but a product of Marketing psyops capturing reptilian brain urges from consumers. Quite succesfully I might add.
• 1-6 3y ago
  Honda has been pioneering lower front-end vehicles for years now. It's up to auto manufacturers to agree upon common bumper to bumper height so vehicles can sustain collisions. Beside the overall looks, safety-wise, when I look at Cybertrucks, I cringe because they've abandoned the pedestrian knee height rule. https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2019/05/29/capa-discusses-testing-honda-hoods-tailored-for-pedestrian-protection/ https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2019/05/29/capa-discusses...
  • elil17 3y ago
    Why should it be up to auto manufacturers as opposed to regulators?
    • cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
      Unsafe at any speed.
    • 1-6 3y ago
      I’d rather have auto manufacturers figure out creative solutions to this problem rather than screw up auto designs for generations because of some broad-sweeping regulation.
      • elil17 3y ago
        What if it was something like crash safety testing, where an outcome (forces on a crash test dummy) is mandated rather than a specific design? You could have something like a visibility requirement (for instance, driver can see the pavement three feet ahead of their front bumper) and then car companies could figure out how to comply with this (lower the height of the vehicle, make a larger windshield, etc).
  • MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
    When I look at this side-by-side photo I see the Cybertruck hood being lower than its competitors. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTeRP0vDn0ml7RKGMtYAqptIdvbbXDkNImH2UDiyMHxilEn9DKZmVXgn4gXgO09aVp96E&usqp=CAU https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTeRP0...
• ajuc 3y ago
  SUVs should cost like 10 times more than regular cars to insure. They destroy the environment and kill people and the only benefit is slightly better status signaling.
  • cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
    They're also more dangerous to their occupants than mid-sized sedans. There should also be an SUV tax.
  • splitstud 3y ago
    [dead]
  • Pxtl 3y ago
    Why outsource that cost to the private sector? Make a point-system for external-risk value on the road to other vehicles, pedestrians, etc. Figure in mass (yes, Teslas are risky too with their mass), bumper compatibility (SUV bumpers don't hit car bumpers), thick a-pillar blind-spots, pedestrian-hood-impact-behavior, frontover risk, stopping distance, etc. Then assign vehicles with high external-risk-score a stricter regimen for infractions like speeding and higher registration fees. You drive a Yaris like an absolute maniac? You can get busted a lot more times than the guy in the Rivian before they take your license away.
  • the_doctah 3y ago
    They are better at snow driving
    • jkaptur 3y ago
      They're really no better than plenty of reasonably-sized cars.
    • bdcravens 3y ago
      Then that leaves a huge part of the US that has no (or an extremely rare) need for that advantage. I can't haul a couch in my sedan, but I'm not going to buy an F-250 "just in case"
• micromacrofoot 3y ago
  tax consumer vehicles based on weight! it's long overdue, put it on an exponential scale and demolish anyone that's buying these monstrosities
  • ta1243 3y ago
    It seems that taxing by axel weight to the 4th power times by miles driven -- which is thus relative to how much damage is caused -- seems sensible. An 2600lb Nissan Micra would cost say 1c per mile and a 4100lb F150 would cost 6c per mile.
    • notact 3y ago
      Unintended consequence: Ford adds another rear axle to the F150.
      • toast0 3y ago
        A lot of bridge tolls are by axle count, so there's pressure not to increase those.
      • chung8123 3y ago
        This would reduce the gas mileage negating whatever tax savings there were as well as increase maintenance. This would also damage the roads less.
        • notact 3y ago
          My original comment was kinda ridiculous and was not worthy of a serious response ;) But, to respond to this more seriously, the people I personally know who drive gigantic trucks would most likely be proud of their reduced gas mileage. They already deliberately drive a 15mpg vehicle primarily for grocery pickup.
  • maerF0x0 3y ago
    > tax consumer vehicles based on weight! This essentially does exist in an urban environment due to fuel taxes. Still open debate if they're appropriately set (high/low) or if they funnel to the correct hands. In an urban environment (excluding hybrids and electric vehicles) the weight will directly correlate with gas consumed. More weight -> more gas, more gas -> more taxes paid
• biscuits1 3y ago
  In other news: Water is wet, and fire is hot. Bring back those pop-up headlights, and ban those tall front ends!
  • rozap 3y ago
    It's funny that popup headlights were banned in the name of pedestrian safety. But we can't tax SUVs and trucks proportional to the amount of damage they inflict on the populous and the environment because...well that would be hard.
• avar 3y ago
  > "Pedestrian crash deaths have risen 80 percent since hitting their low in 2009." It's way too common to read articles where clearly cherry-picked prose takes the place of a more informative graph, only to lookup said graph and find that the article seems to be trying to intentionally distort the data to make some point. Here's more complete data, the US population was 250 million in 1990, 330 million in 2021. So the 7400 that year was ~8400 in 1990 if it's adjusted for population growth: https://www.planetizen.com/news/2019/07/105095-us-pedestrian-fatalities-rise-while-european-pedestrian-fatalities-fall https://www.planetizen.com/news/2019/07/105095-us-pedestrian...
  • praestigiare 3y ago
    This is not a significant change, the trend still clearly shows an increase since the low in 2009.
  • zemo 3y ago
    did an suv write this
  • quadrifoliate 3y ago
    > It's way too common to read articles where clearly cherry-picked prose takes the place of a more informative graph, only to lookup said graph and find that the article seems to be trying to intentionally distort the data to make some point. Huh? The article doesn't say anything about 1990. It says they rose by 80% after hitting their low in 2009. Population rose steadily from 1990 to 2023, so if you are trying to cite population increase as a factor in the rise from 2009 to 2023, you also need to explain how it didn't contribute to the drop from 1990 to 2009. I would say that, actually, you are (perhaps unintentionally) distorting the data to fit your worldview while trying to criticize the article.
  • advisedwang 3y ago
    That article lists the minimum death rate at 4109, and 7400 today. So it went from 4109/250000000=1.64x10^-5 to 7400/330000000=2.24x10^-5. Thats an increase of 37%. That's still shocking.
• viknesh 3y ago
  This paper seems to not have controlled for vehicle weight, which is the most obvious thing I could possibly think of being a confounding variable (specifically, total force applied). They specifically call out the variables they controlled for on pages 9 & 10 of the paper (https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2294 https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2294).
• sleepybrett 3y ago
  file this under "no shit", the only thing worse would be 'reverse slope' front ends that would make sure you go fully under the car.
• xyst 3y ago
  The rise in SUV and “modern truck” sales doesn’t help either. USA transportation infrastructure is fundamentally broken. We spend trillions of dollars (highway infra, street infra, parking infra, new builds and subsequent maintenance) on this inefficient transportation system and it’s slowly starving us to death. We need to end this car centric transportation hell hole we are in. Make our infra as difficult as possible for these modern SUVs and trucks and suddenly the office workers commuting from age Styx will decrease (ie, make commute times soar, parking fines increased, decreasing available parking, narrowing roads, get rid of archaic “parking minimums” for buildings) The suburban experiment is a tremendous failure supported by endless subsidies (federal, state, local). We need to be more efficient in urban planning. Give back the land stolen for highways, redirect them so they do not run through urban cores. So much we can do. Yet this country continues to throw their hands up in the air and do nothing.
  • josefresco 3y ago
    Anecdotally I regularly run "virtual" marathons (via YouTube) and hiking/biking tracks in Europe. The vehicles that woosh past me are 80% large SUVS. The SUV problem is not just an American one.
    • morsch 3y ago
      Around 15% of registered cars in Germany are SUVs, and 40% of the new cars bought in H1/2023. So yeah, the SUV plague is very noticeable here, too, though I don't think SUVs make up 80% anywhere in Europe, yet. And also, SUV in Europe often refers to compact or sub-compact SUVs. Ie. the best selling SUV in H1/2023 in Germany was a VW T-Roc [1]. Ridiculous super-sized cars like the F150 and its ilk are still quite rare, fortunately. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_T-Roc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_T-Roc I was "upgraded" to one when renting, once. The visibility was shit due to its fashionably small windows and the trunk volume was pathetic compared to the hatchback I had ordered. Otherwise, very little difference.
  • jrsj 3y ago
    Big point of resistance here is going to be public safety. I would live in a city alone as a single man. I wouldn’t live in a city with a family. At this point even suburbs are becoming a questionable option as many cities have little to no options that are both safe and affordable, so you have to go out to the exurbs instead.
• nforgerit 3y ago
  captain obvious here: put a pedestrian next to an SUV and you see the heights nicely match the most vulnerable parts of the pedestrian's body. add emotions (due to cultural wars) and significantly worse oversight and you get what we have. shame on everyone who was part in this kind of "progress".
• beej71 3y ago
  Our Honda Fit was totaled by a Bigass Truck. Driver didn't see it over the hood and A-pillar as we were approaching from a point downhill and right of their vantage. An entire car they didn't see. I'm glad I was not on my bicycle or motorcycle.
  • zenzen 3y ago
    I’m guessing they didn’t lose their license? In the US we’re terrified to take away someone’s access to a car because there are so few valid alternatives in most of the country. To the point where driving tests are basically a rubber stamp, and re-tests are nonexistent.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • interestica 3y ago
      And then there's the absurdity of using a "driver's license" as some form of universal government ID.
      • mksybr 3y ago
        If you don't have driving abilities you can get a state ID card.
        • bmicraft 3y ago
          You mean a "non-drivers driver licence"?
          • Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
            You do know that state-issued ID cards exist, right? They usually just say "Identification card" or something. Yes, they look similar to a driver's license card, but so what? We have ID cards. We have driver's license cards. The latter is so ubiquitous that there's really no reason to require drivers to carry both. Just allow the second to be used as the first. AFAIK, in most states, they're both issued at the DMV (or your state's equivalent organization) anyways. I'm just really struggling to see what you're trying to get at. Your question is posed in such a way that I'm interpreting it to be an attempt at some sort of "gotcha" question.
• bertil 3y ago
  Given how manufacturers love advertising how aggressive, violent, and deadly their cars are, I’m not sure they will try to bury those results. I’m 50/50 on them trying to change the news cycle on those keywords vs. going all in and hiring more ad executives from firearms companies, and starting to talk about penetration and resistance. Think I’m off? What’s the next hot car coming out next month? Did it try to spin up the release with some word-of-mouth advertising “leaking” a photo of that car riddled with bullets on social media? Has that brand led the market in terms of practice in the auto industry?
• HumblyTossed 3y ago
  Wait, I thought we got the higher blunter front ends because those were deemed safer for pedestrians. Edit: My understanding (from memory) was that the lower, pointier front ends would kneecap pedestrians, causing them to impact the windscreen. Because the pilars around the windscreen are not designed to collapse, that is worse for the pedestrian. So, manufacturers made blunter front ends that would collapse in an impact.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • WkndTriathlete 3y ago
    Maybe on the planet Krypton where you live and everyone is like Superman you can get a steel front end to bend around you when it hits you, but here on earth hitting a person with that blunt front end is like taking a sledgehammer to a water balloon with about the same effect.
    • HumblyTossed 3y ago
      Stop it.
  • rconti 3y ago
    Yup, I clearly remember the EU regulators pushing for higher front ends.
• CalRobert 3y ago
  Sadly, even in places that are supposed to be reasonably safe for pedestrians, high, large, heavy vehicles are becoming more and more common. The Netherlands has a suprisingly high frequency of Dodge Rams.
  • mikrotikker 3y ago
    They're such a nice vehicle I wish I could own one. Especially the special models like the super bee or the srt10. Pretty sure you need to upgrade the tie rods if you want to do anything serious in them tho. But for me it's about as practical (but more preferable) as a Ferrari, since in my country the price can be on par with a Ferrari which makes then fancy shiny trucks more than a productivity vehicle
    • CalRobert 3y ago
      They're probably great fun in the right setting but the narrow streets where my six year old daughter is biking to school isn't it.
      • mikrotikker 3y ago
        It's not hard to not hit children. If you lose sight of them get on the picks.
• lucb1e 3y ago
  One feels like one has a lot better overview with a higher vehicle. A higher, more vertical front doesn't seem a necessity for that, though. I wonder if a combination might have the lowest risk due to the overview combined with survivable hood (if one can't just take public transport in the first place). Are there vehicles like that?
  • trgn 3y ago
    If it's overview you want, you'd want more glass, larger windows, heck, cab forward/over designs. All these big vehicles are submarines once inside.
• hateful 3y ago
  And then they back into parking spots! Every car since 2016 comes equipped with a backup camera that gives a wide view, but now they see nothing when they pull out!
  • mikrotikker 3y ago
    Yea backing them into parking spots is a lot easier with a bigger vehicle and I'm guessing the camera helps then see if they'll hit another vehicle. It's very easy to tell if a vehicle is leaving a parking spot, so use your pattern recognition given to you by evolution and don't stand in front of it. Personal responsibility people!
    • thepedestrian 3y ago
      It's very easy to tell if pedestrians are walking on a parking lot, so use your pattern recognition given to you by evolution (sic) and don't drive on them. Personal responsibility, driver!
      • mikrotikker 3y ago
        Not really if the car park is full and other vehicles are obscuring your view. At least being back in you can see a bit better. It's a danger in any type of vehicle. It's like horses and mountain bikes on shared tracks, they can hear dirt bikes or snowmobiles coming so have plenty of time to move out of the way.
• elzbardico 3y ago
  Being run over by a steel wall is more dangerous than sloping over a steel ramp. Who could imagine that?
• josefresco 3y ago
  Doesn't help that the current trend in SUV design is the boxy "Range Rover Defender" look. *https://www.landroverusa.com/defender/index.html https://www.landroverusa.com/defender/index.html
• sam345 3y ago
  Interesting and hopefully engineers can continue to improve on cars form factors in this regard. But the main reason fatalities are up is simple and obvious: cell phones and increasing use of mind and mood altering drugs in all their forms, of which legalization of marijuana has played no small part. The impersonalization and disconnectedness of modern life, and reduction of family and community connections, has also led imo to general recklessness and disregard for humanlife by a certain percentage of drivers who needlessly risk the destruction or maiming of others in street racing or other criminal recklessness so they can get a short lived adrenaline rush. E.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56154795 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56154795
  • ActorNightly 3y ago
    Yep and this is precisely why I drive a big pickup. Not because I need it, not because Im trying to flex, but because it weighs almost twice as much as regular cars. My wife works in a hospital, she sees the victims of drunk/distracted driving everyday where they are not the ones at fault. If it was plausible, I would drive an even bigger one. Once cars are fully autonomous or have mandatory drug tests to be able to start ignition, or we have more severe punishments for driving accidents, then ill gladly sell my truck. Until then, if you hit me with a regular car, you are gonna get fucked up, ill be mostly fine.
    • rozap 3y ago
      This is a very interesting attitude. Have you at all considered your impact on others?
      • Always_Anon 3y ago
        His impact will be essentially zero if he's a responsible defensive driver. I've had a license for 30+ years, have driven millions of miles, and have never, not once, been at fault in an accident.
        • mitthrowaway2 3y ago
• everdrive 3y ago
  People rightly complain about men who want a “big strong masculine” truck for no reason other than bravado. But, people tend to forget that women are the primary ones who want the other problematic category of vehicle: SUVs. They wrongly believe them to be safer, (in other words, they buy them so they can feel safer) and drive 80% of all new vehicle purchases.
• design-and-code 3y ago
  Increasingly heavy vehicles create a safety arms race that incentives every vehicle on the road to get bigger and heavier in hopes of surviving a collision with one of these behemoths. Maybe instead crash safety regulations should hold vehicles responsible for absorbing their own kinetic energy. You want to make a 6000 pound SUV, well then you need to engineer in ways to reduce the damage it does to smaller passenger cars.
• lawlessone 3y ago
  It creates a feedback loop too. You see a lot less in traffic when all the cars around you are SUV's... so you buy an SUV. Then you get some less self aware people complaining because they think there is some grand conspiracy to shrink parking spaces and roads. Neither have changed, your car got bigger and it's changed your perception of the environment around you.
• jeffrogers 3y ago
  Is this article confusing correlation with causation? What about a tall/blunt hood, but not lengthy... has that been tested? Is there anything about where and how these vehicles are used that factors in? Has driver training maintained quality over the years? In theory, I understand the incremental loss of visibility, with longer, taller hoods, but this article just seems lazy. I hope the underlying research is actually better.
• Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  The people driving those types of vehicles simply do not care. As far as they're concerned, whatever fate the pedestrian has after they hit them is not their problem. If anything, the killing of a pedestrian that dared to step in front of their path is probably a feature to them.
  • mikrotikker 3y ago
    Can confirm. I see it as aiding natural selection. There should be consequences for not paying attention and stepping into traffic.
    • liamwire 3y ago
      Does your belief in this hold true for children, the disabled, the visually impaired, etc?
      • mikrotikker 3y ago
        Hmmm hearing impaired definitely at an unfair disadvantage there.
• iambateman 3y ago
  As the parent of two young kids, this report is both obvious and heartbreaking. It’s so frustrating to see trucks and SUV’s which look like tanks driven 65mph down a road with a 35mph speed limit which I walk across daily.
  • conductr 3y ago
    Does it make you less upset when you see small vehicles driving 2x the limit on that same road?
    • trgn 3y ago
      Yes. They carry half the momentum. So I'm half upset.
      • jjav 3y ago
        Ultimately, does it make any difference? If the 7000lb monster SUV drives over you at 65mph, you're dead. But if an old 1800lb Honda Civic drives over you at 35mph, you're still dead.
        • tmnvix 3y ago
          Difference is you're much more likely to be flattened and go under a vehicle with a large, high front-end.
    • alamortsubite 3y ago
      So long as F=ma, definitely.
      • za3faran 3y ago
        KE = 1/2 mv^2 is the relevant one here.
• nedt 3y ago
  No shit sherlock. After the decades of creating safety for the people inside the vehicle it's time to care for the others. You have airbags, belts, what not ... But that only makes you more careless, because you are safe in case of an accident. Now do the same for the cyclists or pedestrians you might hit. Don't tell me that can't be done. Make the car slow when pedestrians are around you (20mph) and brake automatically before hitting someone and if it can't be avoided give them a soft cushion hit. If it can't be done that vehicle better stays out of any city.
• bozhark 3y ago
  Just in time for the _apparent_ CyberTruck release
  • 1-6 3y ago
    I know, huh? It’s almost as if Tesla fails to pay lobbying groups to promote their cars.
• jocaal 3y ago
  The fact that the market for cars is shifting in the direction of gargantuan pieces of metal is what finally convinced me there is nothing that can be done about global warming. Forget pedestrians, if everyone is starting to drive around in cars 1.5x - 2x the weight of the average car a decade ago, we are gonna waste a lot of energy.
  • 1-6 3y ago
    Sometimes the decision to move to a bigger car is triggered by roads that have been deteriorating as a result of aging infrastructure. My decision to move up to a larger car with bigger tires is based on my experience of Bay Area roads.
    • ponector 3y ago
      It's funny to hear such reasoning. Why emerging markets are dealing ok with bad roads and small cars?
      • 1-6 3y ago
        Emerging markets actually have newer roads in comparison to developed markets.
        • DoingIsLearning 3y ago
          Flawed logic, most emerging markets have new road infrastructure only around main arteries and large city connections. Unfortunately also road construction quality is lacking because of low budgets and/or corruption leading to faster degradation, often new roads are heavily damaged after a few rain seasons.
        • ponector 3y ago
          In the capital cities - maybe. But outside? You can travel on street view to Egypt or Russia, there are bad roads and no off-road vehicles.
      • stevenwliao 3y ago
• rpmisms 3y ago
  I love watching the people who never have to drive through a field, haul hay, or take cows to slaughter make assumptions about the needs of the people who do. Manufacturers won't make shorter vehicles that work for our needs, so the F-150 will remain the standard until they do. No, a Subaru will not work, nor will a minivan. Regulations are killing the usability of newer vehicles. Kill the regs. I drive a Tesla and a 1987 F-250. Make the better alternative to my 9mpg monstrosity, and I'll buy it.
• I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  The huge Ford Excursion had an initial design flaw where it would do cool stuff like monster truck over smaller cars in a head on collision >During the development of the chassis, Ford learned that its initial design caused smaller vehicles (such as a Ford Taurus) to become severely overridden in a head-on collision. In the test, the tire of the Excursion drove up to the windshield of the Taurus (reducing the chance of survival for its driver). As a response, Ford modified the chassis to include an under-bumper "blocker beam"; the device was initially tested by the French transportation ministry in 1971. For the rear of the chassis, Ford chose to include a trailer hitch as standard equipment in production to reduce underriding in rear-end collisions by smaller vehicles. We've known huge vehicles are less safe for people other than the driver/passengers for at least 20 years. There's similar pushback on automatic driving cars...nobody wants to drive a car they know might make a choice to kill them to save others, and most people want their car to protect them at the expense of others.
• t0bia_s 3y ago
  It's interesting phenomena. We care about CO2 consumption and yet, produce, buy a drive heavier vehicles to transport every year. It's hard to believe, that we really care.