Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by justinph 2677 days ago
This article fails to mention one of the biggest factors, which is the increased prevalence of SUVs and Trucks. These oversized vehicles have higher grilles and increased mass. The higher grille means injuries that on a car would have been a leg injury where the pedestrian ends up on the hood are abdominal injuries where the pedestrian can be pushed under the vehicle. The increased mass also means longer stopping distances.

Source: https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killi...

8 comments

When I moved to Texas I did not anticipate this. As a cyclist, I will definitely keep the types of vehicles in mind when choosing a place to live from here on. Texans do worse, as "grille guards" are particularly common: http://www.frontier-gear.com/products/grille-guards/

When I first saw one of these I thought it was something out of Mad Max. The vast majority of these people don't need these grille guards as they don't work on a farm or anything similar. My guess is that they are bought to make their truck or SUV look tougher.

In contrast, I grew up in a rural area where grille guards might be useful and I never saw them. Big trucks don't seem to be as common as here either.

I grew up rural Wisconsin, and moved to, and lived in, Houston for about a decade or so. It's funny you should mention how no one where you grew up has those trucks, because this was my exact same experience. Initially, I just thought that everyone in Texas was just WAYYYY more wealthy than people in Wisconsin. Then I realized, down there, it's just the culture. Whether they have money or not, they will get a giant truck or suv, even if they don't need one.
Even Austin, the most liberal of Texas cities, is horrible.

A friend of mine, who is a bike-trail advocate, was intentionally hit by the car behind him while he was stopped at a red light waiting to make a right turn. He said he waited a bit too long, the car behind him honked impatiently first, then bumped into him. He fell to the side and bruised his leg, while the perpetrator non-nonchalantly drove by, made their right turn and drove away.

I live in Austin. Sorry to hear about your friend. Can't say that I'm surprised.

Austin seems to be full of people who are happy to give cyclists lip service, but once they have to wait more than 5 seconds for a cyclists, they could hardly care less about them.

I was assaulted by a road raging driver, and to their credit the police made a token effort. Even took my statement. But they made no effort to arrest the guy as far as I can tell. Wasn't difficult for me to figure out where the guy lived, so all I can figure is that the police never bothered looking at all.

This is the most significant reason why I don't intend to stay in Austin.

The source is a long human interest piece; it's tough to figure out what actual statistics they are citing or making claims based on. Here's what I've teased out:

> That report also noted that SUVs and trucks were involved in a third of pedestrian injuries but 40 percent of deaths.

(I.e., slightly disproportionately more likely to kill in a given collision.)

That said, the number of deaths is about 4% of the total number of traffic-pedestrian crashes that go to emergency rooms. The number does not include anyone who went to urgent care, nor people who walked away.[0]

If 100% of SUV/truck drivers could switch to car-class automobiles, we'd expect to reduce pedestrian deaths about 359 (of 5376). It's something, but (1) difficult to imagine how we get there, and (2) definitely a minority fraction of 5376. I'm not sure that supports the idea that "increased prevalence of SUVS and trucks is one of the biggest factors."

In contrast, (!)34% of pedestrians killed were drunk when they died, and (!)15% of drivers were drunk when they killed a pedestrian[ibid]. These are huge numbers! 1828 and 806 lives, respectively. We can't (and don't want) to prevent people from drinking, but maybe we can improve safety for drunk pedestrians, and figure out new ways to take drivers who have been drinking off the road.

[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind...

Also bigger blind spots. On the bigger trucks it's practically impossible to see over the right front fender, so any pedestrian or cyclist approaching from that entire quarter - not just at intersections but even more so at driveways - will be in mortal danger.
Not just trucks; cars, too. Crash safety standards have made them impossible to see out of. I have a small hatchback from 2000 that you can see out of amazingly well, compared to my wife's 2008 4 door hatchback which is harder to see out of. Higher tailgate, higher rear 3/4. Then I bought a 2016 hatchback which was harder, still to see out of. Now we have a 2018 sedan that's virtually impossible to see out of with the rear 3/4. Mirrors are great in traffic, but it's much more difficult to be confident that you're not about to run something over in a parking lot. This is why reverse cameras are mandatory - you can't see out of cars anymore.
The NTSB does seem to be a lot more interested in the safety of the folks inside the vehicle than those outside. This same viewpoint is reflected in using road design principles that make perfect sense for the highway, where there are no pedestrians, being use inside the city where there definitely are.
I've personally advocated this position for nearly a decade now. I joke about having a Napolean complex with cars - I don't like driving anything that's taller than I am. (5'7") People often are confused by that comment, so I elaborate: When I'm up that high, I feel like I could run over a small child and not even feel it. Most of the people I mention this to feel more safe sitting higher in their car than other drivers, and don't see where this escalating arms race is going.
It's not the bumpers. Bumpers haven't moved much since the 90s. If anything they've moved up a little on cars and stayed static on everything smaller than a 3/4 ton truck. It's the hood/grill styling that's changed. Every SUV these days has a tall grill and hood. Even cars have become taller. It's because of the safety and fuel economy arms race. The front bodywork is one of the few things the manufacturers can sculpt however they want. The cabin needs to be deep for the crash test rating (reducing visibility in general) and the hood/windshield transition needs to be shallow for fuel economy (which has a side effect of increasing the A pillar blind spot). This is why we get vehicles with massive bulbous front bodywork. That then becomes a styling trend all in itself. Look at how the 4Runner has progressed over the years if you want a particularly ugly example.

I'd rather get hit by a 90s F-series or Miata (with the "pedestrian unsafe" folding headlights) than the modern equivalents (though the modern Miata would still be pretty tolerable).

Actually, what I've read is that modern cars are much better for getting hit as a pedestrian than those 90s small cars. Remember, Europe has very different safety regulations than the US, and manufacturers aren't going to make different cars for both markets, so because of Europe's pedestrian-safety regulations, modern cars are designed to do less damage to pedestrians when they hit them. They look worse because of the big grill (talking about cars here, not big pickups; they don't sell pickups in Europe), but it's all plastic and crumples, and it prevents the pedestrian from being picked up and slammed into the windshield, which is what would happen with that 90s Miata.
It does mention that "reducing the height of front bumpers" is needed.
New trucks are insane. You can't see a small child infront at all. Honestly I'm shocked its legal.
most of them would illegal in Europe, because of pedestrian safety.
Mass is only one factor in stopping distances. Many SUVs have more tire than they need and can stop very quickly. And some tiny/efficient cars have very light tires/brakes that mean they cannot stop as fast as they should.