Pedestrian Deaths and Large Vehicles
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
EDIT: Here's a more recent take on the same issue. Not much has changed apparently. [2]
1: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2007/12/the-truth-about-eu...
2: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/07/while-other-countries...
I agree that the driver tests are a joke. 90% of driving is making good decisions, yet there's not any real testing around this - even the driving test is not long enough to observe these behaviors. Instead it focuses on the other 10% of laws and physical ability, and pretty poorly at that (50 multiple choice questions yet hundreds or even thousands of driving related laws and regs).
It should totally be done, but needs to come with/after a rework of what the alternatives are for people who’re not fit to drive.
Maybe 1:100, 1:1000 something like that?
You probably think you see tons because you hate them just like the guy who hates left lane campers would swear that the Tacoma is more numerous than all work vans combined.
Modified vehicles are an easy thing to hate but I suspect they're a negligible source of anything when it comes to fatality statistics especially when you consider that the intersection of "people lifting their trucks" and "people who do a lot of driving where there are pedestrians to hit" is pretty small.
I'm sure half the people reading this won't agree, and chalk it up to confirmation bias. But between tinted front driver / passenger windows, license plate "covers" that attempt to defeat speed cameras, lift kits (leading to bumpers above maximum height), improperly-aimed aftermarket lights, and more, I'd be surprised if it was less than 40% of the vehicles on the road.
Non-owners effectively subsidize them when you factor in the huge negative externalities they impose, including on the environment, the wear and tear on roads, the public safety hazards, production opportunity costs, etc.
This thread summarizes things well: https://twitter.com/PostCultRev/status/1419689420714700805?s...
How do you propose to quantify "unnecessary"? And what would your solution be?
Pretty standard stuff in actuarial work.
Anecdotally, my compact, hatchback Kia Rio and can fit four +9ft surfboards just fine. A solution would be taxing larger vehicles to take into account the externalities they create, or do like myself and purchase a safer vehicle that can load just as easily.
If you’re not moving heavy equipment, you don’t need a big truck. If you are, treat it like a fork-list: assign a license.
"If you’re not moving heavy equipment, you don’t need a big truck. If you are, treat it like a fork-list: assign a license."
Do you mean pickups or actual big trucks? Big trucks do require different license classes.
If I really need to do truck stuff one day, I rent one from the hardware store.
Seems like this ratio isn't a great indicator of ridiculousness if we aren't factoring in other things. Not to mention it would change based on the day. If you need the truck once per week or more, it probably makes more sense to own rather than rent, even if 'the ratio' looks 'bad' 75% of the time. The number if heavy vehicles are only going to increase as we adopt electric.
I think most of the issues would be solved with better driver testing. I've noticed at least 50% of the people passing a bicycle do not leave the required 4 feet of space. Although I've also noticed many cyclists ignoring rules and blowing through stop signs etc.
And EV's are completely turning the road-wear argument on it's head
But I’d be interested in the improvements on road wear from new ev trucks - I haven’t heard of any.
To be fair, they’re definitely better for the environment. And as someone who has worked construction, the multi charging ports are a game changer. But, again, this is about safety.
The post you mention also talks about a Minivan being a better choice than a half ton truck for "hauling plywood". Minivans, according to this post, are as dangerous, or more dangerous than trucks in the US. I just don't understand what this random twitter person adds to this study outside of dogpiling on this stupid culture rift.
"I find pickup trucks, minivans and SUVs all significantly increase pedestrian fatalities relative to cars. Converting 10% of the vehicle fleet from cars to pickups is estimated to increase the pedestrian fatality rate by .04 deaths per 100,000 residents (3.4% in the median metro). I find that converting 10% of cars to minivans would increase pedestrain deaths by .05 deaths per 100,000 residents (3.9% in the median metro). Converting 10% of cars to SUVs would increase pedestrian deaths by .03 deaths per 100,000, or 2.6% in the median metro. In column 4 I further break out SUVs into Large and Small SUVs."
If I'm reading this right, it's the worst of the 3
I would expect to find that they are not as dangerous to occupants of other vehicles as trucks and larger, higher-riding SUVs, which is half of what I'm talking about here, but I could absolutely be wrong about that.
This study and the title of this post obviously state that Large Vehicles == More Pedestrian Deaths. Be it a minivan, Tesla, Truck, or whatever.
Everyone in this thread finger-pointing at their perceived cultural enemies identities is straight up moronic
“If the government wanted people to drive safely, they’d mandate a spike in the middle of each steering wheel.” – Gordon Tullock
May I invite you to migrate to Western-Europe? You can even do without a car if you want to.
(Though maybe the UK doesn't really count as "western Europe" anymore?)
Or are you in the US?
I would invite you to The Netherlands but the housing prices and rent are beyond insane… not sure that would work out.
IIHS does present some basic detail for occupants [0] [1], although only as recent as 4 years so statistics can have some time to build. That's okay, it's enough to put some perspective on new cars as well. It's at least a partially objective look at what safety by pickup vs sedan vs minivan vs whatever looks like for the people inside your vehicle.
[0] https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...
[1] pdf https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf...
Edit: Why downvote? It's all true
SUVs and trucks address the symptom, not the disease.
The other issue is that modern cars are designed differently because of safety concerns—they have less interior space for the same exterior width. Plus kids have to use car seats until they are much older than they used too. Try putting 2 kids in car seats in a subcompact with a tallish driver with the seat pushed back.
Btw I’m 6’5” and it’s tough to even find an intermediate SUV where my knees fit comfortably.
"Try putting 2 kids in car seats in a subcompact with a tallish driver with the seat pushed back."
Wife has a small SUV and I can't sit in front of the car seat for this reason. I have to hunch over or slouch in the back.
https://twitter.com/heatxdeath/status/1338979670629429249
https://twitter.com/lockheedfartin/status/133898548651007590...
https://twitter.com/Powflip/status/1055946188430757890
Modern consumer trucks have hoods taller than some full-grown adults, let alone children.
That people modify their vehicles is without question, and the examples you gave look like they're all aftermarket lifts.
- Your first link is comparing a new lifted truck with aftermarket body mods to an older model of a stock SUV.
- Your second link is comparing one of the smallest vehicles on the market, an older Mazda Miata, to a newer F-250 (a larger Ford "Super Duty" truck) with a lift, aftermarket wheels, and aftermarket tires.
- Your third link is comparing a boat of unknown size to a full-size pickup truck, and even from the angle provided, the boat is bigger.
This feels hyperbolic. I, and I imagine most people in the US, don't think our daily lives are a "disaster" and don't go outside in fear of vehicles, let alone large vehicles. We also derive a lot of utility from vehicles that makes our lives better. The choice to rely on cars or purchase a larger vehicle isn't made with solely risks and nothing positive on the balance. I feel the focus on vehicle-related fatalities is safetyism, given that there is only 1 fatality per 100 million miles traveled in the US.
Most of the people I know who have purchased SUVs do so in large part because they believe that there are a lot of other SUVs on the road, and they will be more likely to survive a collision with an SUV if they themselves are in an SUV. Another big reason is that they have kids, and in reality want a minivan, but minivans aren't "cool", so they get a SUV instead.
Not many people I know buy them for "sport utility" reasons. Maybe they drive it out to Tahoe two or three times a year (which doesn't require an SUV; a 4WD/AWD sedan is probably more stable on windy, winding, snowy roads anyway), but that hardly justifies the need.
> there is only 1 fatality per 100 million miles traveled in the US
Just because a number "feels" low to you, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to eliminate preventable deaths in order to drag that number even lower. For people whose activities are genuinely made easier, safer, better, and more comfortable with an SUV than a sedan, that's great; I have no quarrel with them. But my -- perhaps non-representative, admittedly -- experience with SUV owners is that they are buying them for the wrong reasons, which reduces safety for the rest of us.
We get it, you hate pickups. But they're really useful. And no, I'm not going to help you move...
Also, what is your proposed solution?
How does this relate to my comment? Or is it just a general observation that trucks may be a greater danger to drivers and passengers in smaller vehicles than said vehicles' crash safety results would suggest? In that case, I would agree.
> Also, what is your proposed solution?
Some starting points off the top of my head:
* Higher taxes/registration fees/etc on owning and operating large personal vehicles. * More stringent licensing requirements for operating large vehicles. * Restrictions on how large personal vehicles can be marketed, and/or cigarette-style disclaimers on ads. * Safety-focused regulation that effectively bans dangerous stock vehicle configurations. * Safety-focused regulation that effectively bans dangerous aftermarket modifications. And, crucially, enforcement thereof.
I could go on.
Not only trucks, but yes. Even compact cars vs full size cars (eg Tesla S v Dodge Dart). There's only so much that engineering can do to compensate for mass discrepancies.
"Higher taxes/registration fees/etc on owning and operating large personal vehicles."
Most states do this already with the registration. Of course there's the second order taxation on the increased fuel usage.
"More stringent licensing requirements for operating large vehicles."
This should be done for all vehicles since the tests are a joke. Not to mention there's the possibility that the smaller cars involved in the crashes could be at fault (ie not all truck involved crashes are the fault of the truck and increased training just for the larger vehicle won't help them).
"Restrictions on how large personal vehicles can be marketed, and/or cigarette-style disclaimers on ads."
I don't really see the point of this. If anything the disclaimer would be promoting the safety for the prospective buyer, providing incentive to buy it.
"Safety-focused regulation that effectively bans dangerous stock vehicle configurations."
What would that look like beyond the current requirements?
"Safety-focused regulation that effectively bans dangerous aftermarket modifications."
I could see some utility in this. Is there any data to show the frequency with which non-illegal modifications where a contributing factor so that cost benefit analysis could be performed?
Do more of it, then. :)
> This should be done for all vehicles since the tests are a joke.
Agreed, but I still think there is value in even higher standards for larger vehicles, from both a deterrent perspective and a competency one.
> Not to mention there's the possibility that the smaller cars involved in the crashes could be at fault (ie not all truck involved crashes are the fault of the truck and increased training just for the larger vehicle won't help them).
Also consider that more onerous licensing requirements will (hypothetically) deter people from buying the regulated vehicles, meaning there will be less of them on the road, meaning it's less likely that one will be involved in any given collision.
> I don't really see the point of this. If anything the disclaimer would be promoting the safety for the prospective buyer, providing incentive to buy it.
If the restrictions are "you cannot advertise them" then I think it would be very effective in slowing or reversing their proliferation. Surely there is some happy medium.
> What would that look like beyond the current requirements?
I'd probably look at Europe as an example.
Beyond that, I might approach the problem by establishing a baseline in certain collision tests with practical and reasonably sized cars that achieve a high safety standard, e.g. frontal pedestrian impact for something Camry-sized, and ban or more stringently regulate any configuration that (when tested) presents a statistically significant relative increase in risk to the other participants in the collision.
> I could see some utility in this. Is there any data to show the frequency with which non-illegal modifications where a contributing factor so that cost benefit analysis could be performed?
I'm not aware of any such studies. They'd be hard to do comprehensively, since modifications are so variable, but I imagine some straightforward correlations could be proved out with some effort e.g. ride height vs. crash danger.
It would be expensive data to gather, but what's a human life worth? We also might consider simply banning certain kinds of modifications, e.g. those that significantly change vehicle geometry relative to stock and/or remove safety features. Roads are public infrastructure, not a private playground, and the onus should be on those who wish to modify their vehicles outside of regulated configurations to prove that they are safe.
If it's not working, they why continue? At levels where it does work, you will just disadvantage the less wealthy as the people who can afford it will choose to buy it.
"Agreed, but I still think there is value in even higher standards for larger vehicles,
Also consider that more onerous licensing requirements will (hypothetically) deter people from buying the regulated vehicles, meaning there will be less of them on the road, meaning it's less likely that one will be involved in any given collision."
If that's the case, then why not remove commerical trucks altogether since they are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes (11%)? I don't really like the concept of restricting people for the purpose of reducing their freedoms. Boths sides use it on issues they feel should be abolished but are protected (abortion, guns). I'd rather see progress that addresses the real issues than tries to restrict people for the sake of restricting them. It just seems lazy.
"If the restrictions are "you cannot advertise them" then I think it would be very effective in slowing or reversing their proliferation. Surely there is some happy medium."
How many people actually buy their type of vehicle due to advertising? In my experience, people know they want a sports car, SUV, or truck.
"I'd probably look at Europe as an example."
To my knowledge, they still allow larger vehicles, but they just aren't as popular. Is there a specific regulation?
"practical and reasonably sized cars"
This is highly subjective. A truck is a reasonable and practical size if you live on a farm or participate in specific activities. Using this type of language makes it seem like you have bias against larger vehicles.
"It would be expensive data to gather, but what's a human life worth?"
Why not just ban vehicles altogether if that's the basis?
"We also might consider simply banning certain kinds of modifications, e.g. those that significantly change vehicle geometry relative to stock and/or remove safety features."
There can be areas where higher ground clearance is required. Many people still live on dirt roads that can be rough. There are also areas with significant snowfall that this can be useful for. Should we also make handicap vans illegal because they're modified. Even then, what if the geometry change is actually beneficial (rebuilding older cars with modern suspensions, or lowering a truck)? I don't think bans are really going to make a difference and would just be a ham-handed "fix".
"Roads are public infrastructure, not a private playground, and the onus should be on those who wish to modify their vehicles outside of regulated configurations to prove that they are safe."
States do require this. They have safety regulations and many have safety inspections. Again, I think safety mostly hinges on good decisions and I don't see any data suggesting that specific vehicles or modifications will make a significant difference.
To the extent that it's already being implemented, who says it isn't working?
> At levels where it does work, you will just disadvantage the less wealthy as the people who can afford it will choose to buy it.
So? Regulation is often a compromise.
> If that's the case, then why not remove commerical trucks altogether since they are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes (11%)?
I think this is pretty obvious: they're a necessary component of our economic apparatus. A shiny new F-150 with an empty bed and truck nuts on the back bumper isn't.
> I don't really like the concept of restricting people for the purpose of reducing their freedoms.
Reducing freedoms isn't the purpose; saving lives is. Should I be allowed to drive as fast as I want wherever I want just because I want to? No; roads are public infrastructure, and we regulate their use for the public good.
> How many people actually buy their type of vehicle due to advertising? In my experience, people know they want a sports car, SUV, or truck.
I would expect this to be a change that takes decades to unfold. But, surely, you aren't claiming that consumers aren't affected by advertising?
> To my knowledge, they still allow larger vehicles, but they just aren't as popular. Is there a specific regulation?
I expect cultural factors are to blame for our obsession with large vehicles (that, as you say, doesn't seem to be shared by the Europeans). So, given that they seem to have achieved a significantly lower road fatality rate per capita than we have, I would suggest looking at their safety regs and synthesizing what we learn there with our own needs in implementing regulation targeted at improving road safety.
> This is highly subjective. A truck is a reasonable and practical size if you live on a farm or participate in specific activities.
This isn't germane to my point. I'm suggesting that we start with "basic car" to establish a baseline for safety, based on certain basic and plausible assumptions about low mass, low bumper and hood height, etc. being safer. From there, we can evaluate the safety of other configurations. This will also give us the chance to test our initial assumptions about what configuration is safest.
> Using this type of language makes it seem like you have bias against larger vehicles.
When they cause thousands of preventable deaths, I certainly do have a bias against them in certain contexts.
> Why not just ban vehicles altogether if that's the basis?
It's a serious question: what is a human life worth?
Is it worth Thanos-snapping every vehicle in existence out of existence right now, all at once? I think the suffering (total logistic collapse) that would result from that action would far outweigh the preventable deaths caused by large vehicles in our current configuration of reality.
So--in practice--we will have to perform some good faith cost-benefit analysis rather than rushing to absurd extremes, won't we? :)
> There can be areas where higher ground clearance is required. Many people still live on dirt roads that can be rough. There are also areas with significant snowfall that this can be useful for. Should we also make handicap vans illegal because they're modified. Even then, what if the geometry change is actually beneficial (rebuilding older cars with modern suspensions, or lowering a truck)? I don't think bans are really going to make a difference and would just be a ham-handed "fix".
I have to wonder if you have any idea how complicated regulation gets because it has to function in the messy real world.
Do you really think I'm suggesting we carve these HN comments into stone tablets and hold them up as law? Or is it your position that if I can't cover every corner case of what would necessarily be a sprawling, thousands-of-pages sort of thing in my HN comments, it's infeasible in practice?
> States do require this. They have safety regulations and many have safety inspections.
To the extent that they actually do have any meaningful restriction of aftermarket mods, enforcement seems to be laughable--much like driver licensing.
> I don't see any data suggesting that specific vehicles [...] will make a significant difference.
Check OP's link at the top of this thread for some, and Google for more. It is not hard to find.
If you're talking about modifications specifically, I don't think the fact that nobody seems to have gone looking yet is a good argument that nobody should go looking. Do you?
I think that would be self evident in the high number of large vehicles right? Is there any counter evidence?
"So? Regulation is often a compromise."
This seems pretty flippant. We could use this same logic for any number of good or bad policies. Eg not everyone can afford college - so? Doesn't seem like strong support.
"I think this is pretty obvious: they're a necessary component of our economic apparatus. A shiny new F-150 with an empty bed and truck nuts on the back bumper isn't."
Do you have any data to back that up? The people I know with trucks tend to use them in ways that you can't use a car. Without data my claim is anecdotal - your's seems to be a stereotype.
"Reducing freedoms isn't the purpose; saving lives is."
If that's true, then show me the data. Show me why this is the only way.
"Should I be allowed to drive as fast as I want wherever I want just because I want to? No; roads are public infrastructure, and we regulate their use for the public good."
This is a very different situation and it's disingenuous to use that as an analogy. One is about behavior, the other is about a categorical ban. One has data supporting it, the other one does not. In fact, speed is a bigger factor in crashes than vehicle type. Why not limit everyone to 25 mph? That would be more effective than what you are proposing.
"I would expect this to be a change that takes decades to unfold. But, surely, you aren't claiming that consumers aren't affected by advertising?"
I'm claiming that there is little to no influence on vehicle type. Brand, sure. Do you have any evidence that it influences type and by how much?
"I expect cultural factors are to blame for our obsession with large vehicles (that, as you say, doesn't seem to be shared by the Europeans). So, given that they seem to have achieved a significantly lower road fatality rate per capita than we have, I would suggest looking at their safety regs and synthesizing what we learn there with our own needs in implementing regulation targeted at improving road safety."
The major difference is the stringent driving test. It's not just fatalities, but accidents in general.
"This isn't germane to my point."
Then why bring it up?
"I'm suggesting that we start with "basic car" to establish a baseline for safety, based on certain basic and plausible assumptions about low mass, low bumper and hood height, etc. being safer. From there, we can evaluate the safety of other configurations. This will also give us the chance to test our initial assumptions about what configuration is safest."
You seem to also be saying that you want to ban, or regulate out of existence, many vehicles (as states in your prior comments).
"When they cause thousands of preventable deaths, I certainly do have a bias against them in certain contexts."
Do you have data to support this? Thousands seems very overdramatic when there are 30k fatalities overall per year. Again, if you're talking preventable deaths, then why not focus on low hanging, universal fruit of increasing driver testing or decreasing speed limits?
"Is it worth Thanos-snapping every vehicle in existence out of existence right now, all at once? I think the suffering (total logistic collapse) that would result from that action would far outweigh the preventable deaths caused by large vehicles in our current configuration of reality."
It would be a transition, not a sudden thing.
"So--in practice--we will have to perform some good faith cost-benefit analysis rather than rushing to absurd extremes, won't we? :)"
That's my point with your extreme position without any data supporting it. If you take into account all the saved lives from reduced pollution and increased physical activity, then my suggestion doesn't look so absurd, right?
"I have to wonder if you have any idea how complicated regulation gets because it has to function in the messy real world."
I do.
"Or is it your position that if I can't cover every corner case of what would necessarily be a sprawling, thousands-of-pages sort of thing in my HN comments, it's infeasible in practice?"
It is feasible to convey your point that exceptions would exist instead of waiting several responses.
"To the extent that they actually do have any meaningful restriction of aftermarket mods, enforcement seems to be laughable--much like driver licensing."
Then why not enforce the current restrictions and see where we stand? Iterate.
"Check OP's link at the top of this thread for some, and Google for more. It is not hard to find."
I did, but there's nothing showing a significant difference. Most of that analysis was looking at ownership rates of vehicle types and overall pedestrian fatalities. Not especially stringent. On top of that, we are talking about around 500 deaths per year. You could make a bigger impact by banning many other things, like pools, alcohol, etc. In any case, this doesn't show data on non pedestrian crashes.
"If you're talking about modifications specifically, I don't think the fact that nobody seems to have gone looking yet is a good argument that nobody should go looking. Do you?"
I'm suggesting that restrictions be based on data with a clear and compelling benefit, which you have yet to provide.
You brought it up, buddy. I'm talking about what you said. Your reply to my quoted text was not germane to said text and its context.
I'm going to disengage from this discussion now, as there is not much more for me to say that I haven't already said, and the discussion is going in a nonproductive direction (as above). Frankly, I don't think you're doing a great job examining your own position. If you want to know more about where I stand on these issues, you can read my other comments in this thread.
I'll leave you with this: despite your continuing attestations to the contrary, data showing the dangers presented by large vehicles are not in short supply. The OP's link is an example of some; here^[1] is another example, to the effect that pickup trucks "were still 2½ times as likely to kill the driver of a car they crashed into, compared with a car colliding with another car". Look for more, if you like; if you're making a good faith effort, you'll find plenty, and you'll also find obvious gaps where we simply have not looked very hard. And if saving lives is not a "clear and compelling benefit" for you, then that's your choice, and--though it's one I disagree with--I am evidently not going to convince you otherwise.
(Or, if you believe saving lives is good but that our current status quo is already optimal and that any conceivable regulation would be counterproductive, I am similarly powerless to sway you if you will not be swayed. I honestly have no idea which it is. Looking back, you have really contributed very little constructive content to this discussion.)
Now you're just making things up.
"And if saving lives is not a "clear and compelling benefit" for you"
Again, you're using appeal to emotion, which is not a solid argument.
"Frankly, I don't think you're doing a great job examining your own position."
That's my opinion of you as well.
"Looking back, you have really contributed very little constructive content to this discussion"
I feel I have contributed more that you simply by questioning your unsupported suggested restrictions. I guess that makes sense that you're from the UK, with all the other odd restrictions. You are arguing about something that doesn't even affect you!
Way to cherry pick from your article. You can see that article doesn't support an outright ban and shows that technology has been making improvements to survivability. I don't want a ban in the US, and quite frankly, your opinion on the matter is moot.
"A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences."
"Large vehicles aren't as big a threat to people in small vehicles as they used to be."
Nah. Appealing to emotion would be like e.g. if I told you you should visit somebody who's lost a loved one to a collision with a pickup truck and tell them to their face that there would have been no "clear and compelling benefit" to reducing the odds of that tragic outcome.
If you think (and you evidently do) that simply stating we should endeavor to save lives where we can is an "appeal to emotion", well, I don't even know what to say to that. It's absolutely asinine, almost unbelievable.
> Way to cherry pick from your article.
If anybody here's cherry-picking it's you, by failing to respond to the point I actually cited the article for. It's great that things are getting better! But do you seriously have nothing to say to the 2.5x figure?
Come on. Respond to it, I dare you. Tell me there's no "clear and compelling benefit" to keeping those vehicles off the road in cases where there was no good reason for them to be on it in the first place.
2.5x.
Also, I actually live in the US. I think your takeaway from that other comment (about my UK citizenship) and its context is quite telling.
> I don't want a ban in the US
Yeah, I noticed.
See, you are making the assumption that there are not any good reasons. This premise is false and brings us back to your subjective comment about reasonable and practical vehicles. You even stated that large truck serve a purpose, but you somehow do not see any purpose for pickups. You have not stated a clear and compelling reason to ban these vehicles. What is the other number that 2.5x is modifying? I'm guessing it's quite low.
Please do some research on appeal to emotion.
I thought you were disengaging?
Hmm. What do you think I meant by that?
On that subject, though: this is why getting into it with people like you is a waste of time. You say where are the data, where are the data, and then when you are shown the data you debase yourselves with endless intellectual contortions to avoid acknowledging it.
> I'm guessing it's quite low.
Keep guessing, then. Relevant public data^[1] are yours for the taking if you decide, probably offline, that you'd rather not remain willfully ignorant. But I'm not going to hold your hand anymore, because it is an absolute waste of time.
^[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
Please don't resort to personal attacks.
If you want to understand the data and methodology behind that particular number, you should go read the paper. That's how this works. I've given you more than enough information to find it.
> Please don't resort to personal attacks.
I am simply calling a spade a spade. I spent far too much time here responding to your comments in good faith, when it is now clear that you will misrepresent my statements at every possible opportunity while consistently contributing nothing to the discussion yourself.
If you feel that there was more value to be extracted from this discussion, I recommend that you take these "personal attacks" as constructive criticism.
I've made my own choices from this kind of ethical basis - I can't morally justify feeling like I've marginally increased my personal safety if doing so significantly increases the risk exposure to non-consenting bystanders.
Do not forget that city design has a huge impact on pedestrian deaths. In essence: larger roads, more deaths. Fewer deaths in old cities, because of narrower streets from past centuries.
http://www.justintyndall.com/uploads/2/8/5/5/28559839/tyndal...
Also important to point out, a 2021 Oddesy or Sienna weighs within 100-200 lbs of an F150 depending on the trim level.
Seems like the largest unique cohorts at risk are intoxicated people in urban areas at night and the elderly. Not sure blaming truck and SUV design is the most effective solution to this problem as it seems mental status is a big player here.
You can't stop people in cities havibg a drink or getting old...