Live data from Hacker News

Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

arstechnica.com

301–310 of 358 posts

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#301
Didn't we know this decades ago? Back when we also stopped allowing pop up headlights (even though I think they're so cool).

I think we should have banned or restricted sales of SUVs and "trucks" as Americans call 'em, a long time ago.

When I was growing up, cars were a very reasonable size, even for a family. Now the streets are full of giant SUVs, mostly driven by a single occupant, and usually with a driving style that the confidence and apathy of being in a larger vehicle gives them.

Too late now, I guess.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#302
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not effectively. Drivers are given extreme deference by law enforcement and in lawsuits where it’s usually assumed that the victim was at fault unless video evidence exists and is immediately available, and concepts like contributory negligence are often used to reduce legal responsibility without regard for the relative damage levels. Insurance is required, but the coverage levels are low so it’s common for the…

But contributory negligence should never depend on the relative damage level. If an accident had 10 or 1 million in damages, and was 80-20% why would the total ever matter? I think your points about insurance are worth thinking about, minimum liability is lower than most expected earnings.

> But contributory negligence should never depend on the relative damage level.

The angle I’m thinking about is that the person operating heavy equipment should be expected to exercise greater caution. If a pedestrian sets foot out of a painted crosswalk, it seems harsh to say that means the SUV driver who plowed into them is off the hook for 30% of the damages when the situation would almost certainly have avoided any injury had everyone been on foot/bike/scooter or substantially less lethal if the driver had been in a normal sedan.

Basically when I drive I’m cognizant of the fact that it’s the most dangerous thing most of us do on a regular basis. I’d like that attitude to be the default.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed this too and this is why I leave at least 5 car lengths in front of me, sometimes even more. I can see around the vehicle in front of me no problem, and can absorb the energy for those rush hour random stops. It seems like 9 out of 10 people follow with less than 3 car lengths, even at 60 to 80mph. This leaves no room for error and anecdotally I've seen it bite people many times. The 5+ car length strate…

People way overplay the “everyone will cut in front of you” if you leave five or more spaces - it really will only happen in literal stop-and-go traffic where you are going five miles per hour anyway.

I love the "people will pull in front of you" that people make.

That's what the road is for! On a multi lane road of course people can pull in front of you, that's how driving works. All people gotta do is drop back a little so there's a proper gap again. People get so hot under the collar, chill pill my dudes.

Obv not directed at OP, only at the people that make that argument.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#304
post #73

There is another angle here besides the immediate impact (pun intended) of getting hit by a big truck. I'm nearly 60, but I can remember what it was like learning to drive back in 1980. Before SUVs and huge pickup trucks became common, and before tinting windows to near opacity became a thing, it was possible to see road conditions three cars ahead -- you simply looked through the windows of the car or cars in front…

Streets haven't gotten wider since then either. Maybe less of a problem in the US where everything is planned around humongous fire trucks, but in the EU if you had a street that could easily accommodate two moving lanes with parking on either side, that has basically narrowed down to one moving lane. Also reminds me of all the regulation around car lights - you literally specified the beam pattern light intensity co…

Yeah I hate that narrow UK streets are dominated by idiot box SUVs parked on both fucking sides of the road, making it fully single lane.

I come from New Zealand; I know when you need a ute or an SUV and you do NOT need one in London.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suv style vehicles are actually a lot more dangerous in the snow. Its so much more mass you are dealing with and damage when you lose grip entirely on ice under gravity power alone. On video clips of this sedans and such might kind of bump against a parked car and come to a stop while the big Suburban goes on to total a parked car with all the kinetic energy. If you want a snow tank, get a car that weighs like ~2500l…

Again: How does this compare to an EV, which are known to be the heaviest vehicles per unit of volume on the road today?

This is a very legitimate criticism of EVs.

I think people tolerate this feature of EVs largely because they are viewed as "green", unlike similarly-massive ICE vehicles.

Form factor also plays a role, which as the article here shows is not merely an aesthetic issue. A Model 3 is heavy but at least it has a low hood.

But you are probably right. Not only are they heavy, but, led by Tesla, EVs have put huge acceleration into the hands of untrained people, together with slightly-unfamiliar controls: Single-pedal interfaces without brake lights, touchscreens that don't clearly indicate when you're in reverse, etc. This combination is likely to cause fatalities.

Electric vehicles could provide fantastic local transportation, in the form of e-bikes, scooters, tuk-tuks, and small efficient vehicles like the Aptera. They could be cheaper than current ICE cars rather than (as they are) more expensive. But our infrastructure is not built for this -- probably trillions have been dumped into highways -- and they are incompatible with the current equilibrium on American roads, where large vehicles are a best response.

And fundamentally, the technology just doesn't permit the requisite ranges without large masses. And those ranges are required because of the way everything else has been built. So we're almost trapped by path dependence.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Full disclosure: I drive a Subaru Outback. [...T]he Outback's [gas mileage] is actually shockingly good for an SUV). Funny, I call the Outback an AWD station wagon, not an SUV at all. I've got no problem with that; I'd be much happier if people bought those. Indeed, the very existence of Subarus seems to make most SUVs unnecessary. The only SUV Subaru makes (that I am aware of) is the Forester (and while that's a l…

> Funny, I call the Outback an AWD station wagon, not an SUV at all. Then you're going to need to come up with some better way of defining what a Bad Vehicle is if you want to change policy/culture, because your definition of an SUV doesn't match with reality. When you say something like "we need to make SUV drivers feel ridiculous and humiliated", but you're using a definition of "SUV" that you made up in your head,…

We can probably make this more objective by aiming for lower hood heights and lower vehicle masses.

Or, crash tests, which currently privilege the driver and passengers, should also consider other road-users, like pedestrians, cyclists, and the drivers of other vehicles -- especially small ones.

Fair point though. It's merely a marketing term of the car industry to begin with.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#307
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the spirit, but don't like the unintended consequence that it would create a stigma around sedans -- "oh, those are the cars for the bad drivers". We need to do something that makes SUV drivers feel ridiculous and humiliated. Or, failing that, just make it expensive: Weight and size dependent tolls, say (using the fourth power of weight, possibly, to match road wear equations?). Or just fewer lanes in which th…

Easy: mandate a maximum size for parking spaces, and use a physical barrier to prevent double-parking. Have fun driving your oversized SUV when have to do parkour every time you get into your vehicle.

This is honestly the constraint that I have seen push people from huge vehicles back to reasonably-sized ones. When they had to leave their habit in the Sprawl and use parking garages in even moderately-urban areas, it became unwieldy. Driving dynamics may have also played a role: They tried a smaller vehicle and realized, "hey, this drives a lot better". So there is hope.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#308
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With my previous car, I never remember having visibility issues. I then got a 2013. The pillars aie ierfect pedestian blockerr, especially when making turns. I don't see how me doing better in a roll over is better than me running someone over.

I've noticed this in the cars I've had over the past 15 years or so too. We hit a deer two years ago because it was moving perfectly in time with the side curtain airbag laden support column in my field of view. I barely saw it when I hit it even! I understand that rillover accidents have lead to these supports being thicker, but why was the solution not to lower the center of gravity on cars so they are less prone t…

Within the last two weeks I almost collided with another car while leaving a parking lot, because that car was moving in perfect sync with my left A-pillar, such that I didn't see it until it was directly in front of me. It was like a car magically appeared from thin air.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#309
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making up some macho strawman to attack actually obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more difficult. Blaming the government for getting captured by industry also obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more difficult. The current (grotesque) CAFE standards went in during the last months of the Bush administration, as a gift to the automakers.

It also looks like the solution to the problem isn't to get rid of the regulations, but to change them so that light trucks and giant cars no longer get a break on emissions/fuel economy standards. Revised regulations that incentive smaller cars would solve a lot of problems.

> Revised regulations that incentive smaller cars would solve a lot of problems.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the change in the CAFE standards had another effect that was just as important: it allowed Ford and GM to get out of the market for actual cars (sedans, coupes, and station wagons) almost entirely. Changing back to the CAFE standards from 2007 would probably decimate their current business model, and the political backlash would be severe.

Re: Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suv style vehicles are actually a lot more dangerous in the snow. Its so much more mass you are dealing with and damage when you lose grip entirely on ice under gravity power alone. On video clips of this sedans and such might kind of bump against a parked car and come to a stop while the big Suburban goes on to total a parked car with all the kinetic energy. If you want a snow tank, get a car that weighs like ~2500l…

Again: How does this compare to an EV, which are known to be the heaviest vehicles per unit of volume on the road today?

EVs are as you note terrible in the snow. For one they are heavy and its the same rubber compounds holding a heavy vs lighter car, so no matter what you need more friction than you have to stop. For two they are really powerful cars, I wouldn’t be surprised if people break traction easily. And for three your range depletes to a little over 100 miles. Untenable on mountain trips I take where I might go 50-75 miles between gas stations, far further still between superchargers.
Post reply on HN