4 ms·
One obvious direction not explored in the article: looking not just at the type on the vehicle involved in the deadly collision, but also the actual model and i
by alterom 1y ago
One obvious direction not explored in the article: looking not just at the type on the vehicle involved in the deadly collision, but also the actual model and its geometry.
It's not just that SUVs are deadlier than sedans.
It's also that the sedans are becoming taller, wider, heavier — and deadlier.
The article says that blunt fronts are what makes a collision more likely to result in a death. Well compare a 2000 Camry to a 2025 one then on that metric.
To test this hypothesis, we need to look at all accidents where a pedestrian was hit — and see a breakdown on whether it resulted in a fatality, by vehicle and road type.
Another thing the article doesn't consider is that the speed limits have increased across the US, and where they haven't, the enforcement is not necessarily there (cough Bay Area cough).
Solutions like lane diet (or engineering cities for anything other than automobiles) never became popular.
The outcome is inevitable.
_____
TL;DR: bigger, fatter cars going faster kill more people.
- throwaway173738 1y agoThis is another important point. A pillars are two or three times the size. That’s twice the amount of metal in your field of view where you would be looking for a pedestrian.