Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
346 comments
My proposed regulation is to introduce a hazardous vehicle license for large trucks and SUVs. Everyone is automatically granted one alongside their normal drivers license, but if you're caught driving recklessly (weaving through traffic on the highway, aggressively tailgating, speeding through residential or urban areas), you lose it and you have to drive a normal-sized car. Perhaps there's a way to earn it back through paying a fine and taking a safe driving course. The classification of vehicles as hazardous should be based on factors known to increase pedestrian and vehicle collision fatalities to encourage safe designs.
Yeah but the drivers get to cosplay as Rugged Men™.
The only thing that'll reverse the trend and stop this from getting worse will be government regulation. Then come the cries of "Now they're taking our trucks!"
The only thing that'll reverse the trend and stop this from getting worse will be government regulation. Then come the cries of "Now they're taking our trucks!"
Interestingly, agricultural tractors have evolved to have better sightlines. Could that be because for these machines, the pedestrian deaths are usually members of the tractor drivers' family?
https://www.profi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/06/2...
vs
https://bigiron.blob.core.windows.net/public/items/72b53c753...
https://www.profi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/06/2...
vs
https://bigiron.blob.core.windows.net/public/items/72b53c753...
Vans are a lot better for both transporting people (more spacious compared to SUVs) and goods (easier loading and protected from the weather compared to pickups), plus of course having vastly better visibility. It always seems odd how trucks and SUVs are seen as status symbols in the US whereas in, say, Hong Kong, it is the MPV that is the status symbol. I suppose certain tax and emissions regulations in favor of trucks also contribute to their popularity.
It seems that no one has yet posted the famous article linking SUVs to immaturity and low self esteem, so here we go.
> Car companies managed this remarkable feat because they ran—and continue to run—quite possibly the most sophisticated marketing operations on the planet. They knew what people really wanted: to project an image of selfish superiority. And then they sold it to them at a markup
> Who has been buying SUVs since automakers turned them into family vehicles? They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7q7eb/electric-or-not-big-s...
> Car companies managed this remarkable feat because they ran—and continue to run—quite possibly the most sophisticated marketing operations on the planet. They knew what people really wanted: to project an image of selfish superiority. And then they sold it to them at a markup
> Who has been buying SUVs since automakers turned them into family vehicles? They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7q7eb/electric-or-not-big-s...
No sh*t sherlock!
As a pedestrian who found himself on the receiving end of a hood and survived via a last-second jump to end up on top of the said hood, I certainly concur.
As a pedestrian who found himself on the receiving end of a hood and survived via a last-second jump to end up on top of the said hood, I certainly concur.
Related: Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians (iihs.org) | 322 points by yours truly | 463 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38267588
After the cybertruck my working assumption had been that US regulators had just given up on pedestrian safety.
The US government is completely MIA on this issue. There’s no reason people need these monster trucks to drive to and from their job every day or to and from the grocery store.
I got in an argument with the Ford CMO on Twitter about this. He said that the F150 has maintained the overall footprint for years, which is true. However, if you super-impose an image of older F150s and newer ones (which I did) you find that the hood is much more "cubic" leading to a higher edge and much worse viewing angle. I believe this is entirely stylistic.
Every single time I see a huge SUV being backed into a spot instead of just parking I think about how dangerous this is. Starting in 2016 all vehicles have backup cameras so that you don't accidentally run someone over. The backup cameras have wide angle lenses. But now you'll have to pull forward with no such camera and a HUGE blind spot.
I honestly do not understand, why regulators have not mandated limits on front dead angles (space occluded from view by the hood) and max vehicle hood hight by now. Well, I understand why it hasn't happened in the U.S. (how could any regulator curtail the manhood of the truck aficionados?), but in the E.U. regulators usually are more on top of these things.
The US has some dumb legal incentives for people to drive the big stuff like
>The “light truck” loophole for pickups and SUVs that allow them to pollute more than other cars. https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abk7b/bidens-new-fuel-econo...
They should in any sane world go the other way - have a benefits for small safer cars and a bunch of tax and regulation on the monster ones.
>The “light truck” loophole for pickups and SUVs that allow them to pollute more than other cars. https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abk7b/bidens-new-fuel-econo...
They should in any sane world go the other way - have a benefits for small safer cars and a bunch of tax and regulation on the monster ones.
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.
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.
They're also do not seem aerodynamic. Note that many cars now have features meant to protect pedestrians a bit if there's an impact: the bonnet shall rise with springs, instantly (not unlike an airbag) and then the springs shall absorb the impact a bit. Some bonnet even have airbag outside the car that are supposed to protect pedestrians.
But, yup, these huge, tall, flat hoods don't seem that great.
Drive a Porsche guys, not a RAM ; )
But, yup, these huge, tall, flat hoods don't seem that great.
Drive a Porsche guys, not a RAM ; )
the current pavement princess trends have left me doubting that any more regulation of any kind will happen in the US.
The opaque tinted side windows make it hard to tell if the driver sees you at the pedestrian cross. I'm often forced to wait till they leave and they sometimes wait for me so ...
Large trucks are safer in intra-vehicle collisions. Imagine RAM vs sedan or average SUV. It’s completely rational to purchase the largest car you can afford, as long as you’re concerned about the safety of your family and yourself
This should be a surprise for nobody. See for example this great video by NotJustBikes: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=o8JKltCiITzISK8d
There are definitely polls that show women find men in trucks more attractive in the US than, say, vans. If you want to signal wealth and refinement get a luxury vehicle. If you want to signal utility and masculinity get a truck.
Article is current but the data is from 2021. I can easily find a deep journal-esque writeup dating to aug 1 2022. (JPHSC). https://doi.org/10.15586/jphsc.
v1i1.47
> Currently, it seems unlikely that NHTSA will move to regulate hood heights on new vehicles.
That's quite interesting statement. Hood (or is it bumper? -- which implies hood) heights are already regulated. Too low of a height has been determined to result in more injuries (not fatalities I guess), so the height has been forced to increase over the last decade or decades. Because of that you will never see (eg) a Lambo Diablo design again. Very very hard to find information about this imposed minimum height requirement because search results are flooded with this new finding since approx Nov 2023.
> Currently, it seems unlikely that NHTSA will move to regulate hood heights on new vehicles.
That's quite interesting statement. Hood (or is it bumper? -- which implies hood) heights are already regulated. Too low of a height has been determined to result in more injuries (not fatalities I guess), so the height has been forced to increase over the last decade or decades. Because of that you will never see (eg) a Lambo Diablo design again. Very very hard to find information about this imposed minimum height requirement because search results are flooded with this new finding since approx Nov 2023.
Yeah, that makes sense. But lots of people pointed out to me that "right of way won't matter when you're dead" and that "cemeteries are filled with people who had the right of way". That's true and taking that to heart means buying a big truck because then right of way doesn't matter and it's the other guy in the cemetery. After all, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6" or whatever. Yield to gross tonnage.
Whoever injures - or knock on wood kills - somebody with a truck with such a high hood should serve a mandatory prison sentence.
We’ve known this for years…
No duh?
Did we really need a study for this? What's next? A study to find out whether a hammer to the head or torso is more lethal than a hammer to the legs? What a total racket to spend money on something like this.
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 of you. I found it unnerving to drive behind a delivery truck because all I could see of the road was the back of the truck, so I'd change lanes so I could have more advanced notice of what was ahead of me.
These days that is mostly over: windows are too opaque, and very often that is moot because the vehicle immediately before me is well above my Corolla's vantage point.