Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians
I think that’s more accurate. Vehicles big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered… makes no difference. There’s no greater risk to pedestrians than multi-ton moving vehicles.
EDIT: Guys, I didn’t mean one size car vs another doesn’t make a difference to the safety risk of pedestrians. It absolutely does. I mean that vehicles around pedestrians are a risk to pedestrians, regardless. This is #fuckcars, right? Stop all the down voting.
That’s actually surprising. I would think damage to lower extremities (delicate knee joints) would be far more severe from a concentrated impact area than a large area impact distributed over the entire body - when it occurs with a low speed impact.
Lower-fronted cars may cause more severe lower body injuries, but likely cause less severe injuries overall because the point of impact isn’t the torso (which is where humans keep a lot of their important bits and bobs).
I guess that’s the question. For low speed impacts the body is pretty well protected compared to the lower extremities because the energy of impact is more readily absorbed without serious damage.
There’s nuances here, but in principle you are incorrect. A car can be assumed to be infinitely heavier than a pedestrian. That means that every part of their body that’s in contact with the car will be accelerated to car speed. So it’s not that with a larger area the force is spread out, there’s actually just more places that have force applied. In other words, a low car will break your legs, a high car will break your legs and torso.
I tend to agree with you, of course, but I wonder if the large study were re-run with mass as the cause it would show similar distribution against the 6000lb+ vehicles. Mass tends to reduce braking deceleration and I didn’t see that as an explicit parameter. The “cause” is more salient to the second, smaller study which shows the “kneecap and hood carry” physics reduced hip and head injuries compated to the “body block and throw” mechanics of the flat- fronted cars.
Not to defend the Mack-Truck styling - I don’t disagree at all with the smaller impact study - I question the original implied hypothesis that the prevalence of large flat fronts as the cause of increase in deaths following the nadir in 2009. Of course anecdotes are not evidence, but I live in a college town and have since 2000 and the actions of pedestrians have changed substantially over the years. Specifically, the advent of smartphones has resulted in risky behavior both in pedestrians and behind the wheel. In 2009 less than 20% of phones were “smart.” Few of those were connected to the internet and fewer still to social media and entertainment services. Since then, the prevalence has increased to 80% and the consumption of media by orders of magnitude (measured by data usage and hours engaged). The original study implies the increase in pedestrian death solely due to nose geometry, but the quantity of impacts and conditions may not be as causative as the article seems to claim.
Not true, there’s a lot of differences between a car and a ute/suv. The high, square bonnet of a ute both makes it harder to see pedestrians and makes it much worse when they do hit. Cars are designed to hit people on the lower legs and toss them onto the bonnet, while utes hit people on the upper body and knock them over so they end up underneath a moving vehicle.
Cars aren’t great, but they’re so much better than utes and suvs.
You are correct, and I agree with you, but it’s still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is. I understand what you’re trying to go for, but stating false information won’t help to convince people.
Even if the number of cars on the road remains the same, but utes and SUVs were swapped to lower vehicles (when possible), then there would still be positive outcomes of fewer pedestrian fatalities (even if the number of accidents remains the same) and reduced carbon emissions.
Removing most cars would reduce these even more, which I assume is your desired outcome, but even just reducing the proportion of utes and SUVs would have positive effects
but it’s still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is.
Just to clarify, I said “no difference” in that “big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered” vehicles ALL cause severe injuries and death to pedestrians.
I’m not trying to argue that there’s no measurable difference in the amount of damage a larger vehicle can cause vs a smaller one, as I completely agree that there is.
My point is that they are all too dangerous to be around people, so a fatality by a car is “no different” than a fatality by an SUV.
I agree that a fatality by a car is no different to a fatality by an SUV. But I would say that there is a difference in accidents involving cars vs SUVs because the fatality rates differ, which is what is being discussed.
I might be misinterpreting your argument, but my understanding is that you’re saying because both cars and SUVs can cause fatalities, they are all too dangerous to be around people. But many things can cause fatalities, even bikes. We’ll never be able to reduce accidents entirely. But there’s a rate at which the fatalities become too high compared to the benefits. So that’s why I believe talking about the rates of fatalities is more useful than talking about whether something can cause a fatality at all. In this case, I think your acceptable rate for fatalities is at a level where all motorised vehicles clear the threshold, so that’s why you’re saying there’s no difference. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Replacing tall-fronted vehicles with short-fronted vehicles would reduce fatalities, which is why I believe there is a difference and we should try to do that where possible.
I get where you’re coming from, but without context your point comes across as more of a “all cars are dangerous therefore we shouldn’t bother regulating oversized SUVs” rather than the “Yes SUVs are particularly dangerous but let’s keep in mind that all cars are dangerous” that you were aiming for.
“all cars are dangerous therefore we shouldn’t bother regulating oversized SUVs” rather than the “Yes SUVs are particularly dangerous but let’s keep in mind that all cars are dangerous” that you were aiming for.
Oh, geeze. Yeah, I really didn’t intend for it to sound like the first part. I 1000% believe that larger vehicles NEED to be regulated, like yesterday.
A train fits that statement too. So do planes. And boats.
Trains run on tracks, and you can’t get hit by one unless you put yourself on those tracks.
I’m not aware of pedestrians and cyclists getting hit by planes. I’d be interested to hear about this trend.
Boats aren’t typically found on city streets, and pedestrian fatalities involving boats is how common?
City and suburban streets should have fewer cars on it, not more. These are pedestrian areas, and perhaps we can learn a thing or two about how to actually prevent pedestrian fatalities by looking at European city planning and design.
Shit happens. No one means to hit a pedestrian. Sometimes people with actually clean records hit pedestrians. It’s not called an accident because it was on purpose…
As is the case with every sane driver on the road. All the same, pedestrians are hit by vehicles every day.
With the volume of car travel in the world, it is a statistical certainty that people will make mistakes, be it distraction, complacency, fatigue, whatever the cause. An abundance of these high up, flat-fronted vehicles create a scenario such that WHEN those mistakes DO happen, they’re far more likely to end a life. To suggest that people should just be better drivers is essentially just wishing the problem will solve itself.
I’m from the EU and sadly this has become more and more the norm here. I remember a time when we had very little SUVs here but now they seem to be everywhere. And it’s a really busy capital city, so the streets are narrow. I can’t understand why people would buy big cars here…
Its not just SUVs in western Europe, EU crash regulations for cars hitting pedestrians have forced cars to be higher and taller at the front. Unless the seating position also rises then you lose visibility of the very front of the car. If the seating position has to rise then so does the roof and this often means the floor rises too.
Sure, these ridiculous American trucks are far far worse, and SUVs are just generally bad, but its normal cars as well.
As someone with a utilitarian need for a truck in the US, you are correct. I m7ch rather drive a Fiat Panda than my 2013 Tundra. However, I try to keep my lights low (they are adjustable from inside the cab) so as not to blind others when on the road.
Still, there should be a federal ban on these stupid things, annd these, not to mention a federal law regulating how high headlights can be from the road (looking at you Ford F-250)
Sadly, we cannot really ban them as they are utility vehicles that a small portion of the population needs. However, I still see freakin’ ads that frame them as fancy cars.
Czech ad for Amarok V6
“The new Amarok V6. Pick-up truck for every day. Powerful and comfortable”
I suggest making it illegal to have them in any color other than matte excavator yellow (for construction) or green camo (for hunting and forestry).
Sure it’s got the pop up logo triangle, but the front is still overall better.
Great viability, check out that dome. The design choices naturally focus the server outside the car rather than on instruments.
Back seats also have a big dome to look out and realise there is a world outside the car, it’s not just an iPad screen to fast-travel. Again, the focus is on what’s outside the vehicle, not in it.
On screens, there in not a single screen in that car.
Low-loading height, height clearance, deep truck. Probably more on par with a van than an SUV.
Low laying headlamps with standard incandescent bulbs, nothing that can temporarily blind people.
Sure it has rear-view viability issues, and the horn (and multitude of horn buttons) is problematic. But the Homer Simpson car is a good people and stuff mover. Could probably do without the shag carpeting though.
Larger vehicles don’t have lower safety requirements, that’s just patently false. They’re doing it for emissions compliance reasons as Koala said.
They have the same requirements, and need more much reinforcement to make up for all that added mass. Most of the NHTSA’s tests involve either a vehicle of a set size running into the test vehicle, or the vehicle under testing to run into a wall. A heavier vehicle is going to need a lot more reinforcement to reach the same level of protection running into a wall than a lighter one.
They are less safe for pedestrians, but those requirements are all more or less the same regardless of size. Manufacturers aren’t deliberately trying to make it less safe for pedestrians. They just don’t really put any effort into it other than meeting those requirements, and making the “best” car outside of that.
To be more precise: fuel efficiency standards go down with the physical volume a vehicle takes up.
So every year efficiency requirement goes up, but you just update the body every few years to add a little more sheet metal and stay within your legal mandate.
That’s not gonna solve the problem when everything is switching to electric. It’ll be even cheaper to power a vehicle like this, plus they can cram it with batteries to tout a high range. See: Hummer EV.
That is a good point. If they are not in a car, they must be either poor or stupid, which means they don’t really deserve the same rights as regular people (i.e. drivers).
And owning a truck in the the US, I feel, is a status symbol for many that purchase them rather than any need for carrying/towing stuff. So extra pointless.
Edit: And even if so, they don’t need to be so big.
I’ve noticed on facebook, that every anti-EV clown out there seems to think everyone is towing on a daily basis too.
The irony is, that the people who drive these large trucks are actually the people who tend to require the least towing capacity. In fact, I’ve maybe only ever seen 1 or 2 of those large Utes here in Australia actually tow anything remotely big. And for most tradies, Vans are actually a far better option than Utes anyway (much more secure)
Nah, because that would involve the slightest reduction in personal freedom which as we all know is a fate not only worse than death, but worse than hellfire itself.
What? Are you suggesting I drive a smaller truck just to help other people? Are you saying I crash into people? I need that giant truck! Do you know how much I haul and tow every day?! I mean, I don’t, I commute back and forth to work every day in it, but I need to do that. My coworkers see that truck next to their cars and think “Damn, that guy drives a Truck”. Maybe if they see how big of a truck I drive it’ll make up for the crippling social anxiety I have that I just keep pushing further and further down, maybe it’ll make up for not getting that promotion I worked for. Now they’ll have to notice me. So no, you aren’t taking away my F350 Mega Macho Man-Manliness Super Truck. How else will people know I’m a man?
Which is why we call them ESTs. Emotional Support Trucks.
Geez really? I had no idea that pedestrians were so careless, what is it about larger trucks that makes people jump out in front of them.
I like to see things as an opportunity, and I think we can use this as a lesson to do things differently. Like, let’s make trucks louder so you hear them before you see them. More Turbo, and how about vertical tail pipe stack. Next we can increase the number of lights, and make them brighter so that everyone can see. Let’s add more cameras and computers so the driver can see their blind spots simply by looking at the command console screen. We can even make these features available for free for a small amount of non invasive advertising.
Do you remember how trains solved the problems of cows derailing trains. They put a guard on the front. So let’s make an even bigger steel bumper.
fuck_cars
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.