[NotATroll]

> Forget better frame, chassis, and body panel design to protect pedestrians! We won't need them if AI never hits anyone.

Most car manufacturers have had this figured out for a long time with crumple zones and the like.

> Forget better braking systems that apply themselves automatically

Assisted braking technology is already implemented in some cars. Hell, Tesla implements basically exactly what you're asking for...

> Forget seat belt enhancements since that'll just inhibit nap time in my self driving car.

Teslas don't let you sleep in your car, you have to move the steering wheel periodically to prove you're still paying attention or it'll pull over and shut down.

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're expecting seat belt enhancements to be.

Far be it for me to defend the AI hype, but your "things we should be focusing on instead" don't make much sense when we ARE focusing on them.

[wbl]

Modern cars are deadly to pedestrians, especially SUVs.

[MereInterest]

Reading through the crash test procedure, it is astounding how little attention is paid to pedestrians.

1. Front crash test. Procedure: Crash car into stationary barrier at 35 mph. Is also applicable to face-to-face crash with car of same size, going at same speed.

2. Side crash test. Procedure: Slam concrete block into side of stationary car at 38.5 mph.

3. Side pole test. Procedure: Drag car sideways towards a pole.

4. Rollover resistance. Procedure: Compare the cars footprint to the height of the center of gravity.

The biggest thing to notice is that not one of these metrics involves pedestrians. Metrics 1-3 can be easily improved by making a bigger car, elevating the passengers and providing more crumple room. Metric 4 is unaffected, as the track width is increased to compensate.

If a low sedan hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian rolls over the car, having a lower impulse given over a longer period of time. If a high SUV hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian is knocked back, having a higher impulse given over a shorter period of time. Safety ratings need to account for the danger cars pose to others.

Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/ratings

Source (SSF): https://www.safetyresearch.net/rollover-stability

[Isinlor]

European safety rating has a category for "Vulnerable Road Users":

https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-3/37573

[microcolonel]

> Reading through the crash test procedure, it is astounding how little attention is paid to pedestrians.

In the U.S. at least, pedestrian safety concerns mainly affect prescriptive legislation (i.e. no pop up headlights). Some countries and blocs have testing similar to crash tests, but I'm not really sure how effective something like that is: any meaningful standard would need to have exceptions for different categories of vehicle. Though honestly I can't see that much can be done about pedestrian safety once your vehicle is colliding with a human being.

[sitkack]

This a trap we all fall into. Because you are smart but don't understand that a thing could exist, doesn't mean it doesn't. We often use this crutch when absolving someone else of an action taken or a design flaw. "I would have never thought of that!" or "How could someone have anticipated that?"

> I can't see that much can be done about pedestrian safety once your vehicle is colliding with a human being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehi...

[nkassis]

"Though honestly I can't see that much can be done about pedestrian safety once your vehicle is colliding with a human being."

I don't agree, there some definitive choices in car design that affect the aftermath of the collision that can have effect on the pedestrian surviving. As pointed above if a pedestrian is hit by a car he has a better chance to roll over the hood of the car vs an SUV where the pedestrian would probably would be hit and fall under the car.

[krisroadruck]

I imagine any multi-ton mass moving in excess of certain speeds will be deadly to unprotected soft-bodied organisms. How do Modern cars differ from non-modern cars in this respect? We've added better brakes, back-up cameras and object detection to avoid running into people, hopefully reducing the number of incidents, but yeah you hit someone with a car moving at any appreciable speed and it's gonna do damage.

[rkangel]

Look at European pedestrian safety regulations. There's a reason that the shape of the front of European cars is all kinda the same - they are designed to minimise pedestrian casualties.

Obviously no one is going to survive if you hit them at 70, but you can make a big difference in the 25-35 region that is the normal speed where there are a lot of people around.

[amflare]

Most 1-3 ton objects moving with any sort of momentum are. What is your point?

[MereInterest]

70% more likely to be killed when struck by a larger car [1]. With a higher front face, pedestrians are struck in the chest, rather than the legs. Turns out, broken legs are a lot more survivable than damage to internal organs.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-prob...

[anon73044]

By that logic, a low slung sports car is the most pedestrian safe and Ferrari's should get a pedestrian safety rebate. I'll take one!

[MereInterest]

So long as there is sufficient space between the hood and the engine, which tends to be the main issue with very low cars. Sheet metal deforms as a pedestrian bounces off of the hood, increasing the interaction time and decreasing the instantaneous acceleration. This requires at least 10 cm between the bottom of the hood and the top of the engine. Less distance, and a pedestrian instead bounces off of the engine block, which doesn't deform on impact.

[anon73044]

I was hoping for something mid-engine!

[cavanasm]

Crumple zones are designed to protect the occupants, not anyone external to the vehicle. Granted, the kind of basic design changes that would pretty obviously help with pedestrian harm are also.....not sexy. So seems unlikely car manufacturers will sacrifice too much on the aesthetics front when car ownership is such a status symbol.