"At speeds in excess of 40 miles per hour, 100% of the SUV incidents studied resulted in the death of a pedestrian, compared to 54% for crashes involving cars at this speed."[0]
"The GHSA reported that the number of pedestrian deaths involving SUVs increased by 50 percent from 2013 through 2017, while the number of pedestrian deaths caused by passenger cars increased by 30 percent over that same period. That reflects booming sales of SUVs and the fact that pedestrians are much less likely to survive the impact of an SUV."[1]
I don't understand the claim that SUVs are the cause of increased pedestrian deaths.
I understand that SUVs are more damaging to pedestrians when hit, but it doesn't look like SUVs are contributing to pedestrian deaths any more than other vehicles. From 2012 to 2021 the percent of pedestrian deaths caused by SUVs went from 17% to 24%, but the production share of SUVs also jumped from 21% to 45%. The share of SUVs on the road will lag production, so it would be better to compare number of vehicles or miles driven, but it's difficult to find that data. I did a few estimates and I keep getting the surprising result that fewer pedestrians are killed per registered SUV than registered sedan, pickup, van, or truck.
There's a lot of other good data. Deaths are largely increasing in adult populations (20-69 years) while children are safer than ever. (Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people by age, 1975-2021: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes... ) Deaths are most likely to happen when it's dark (77% from 9 pm to 6 am, more deaths in winter than summer), and from 2010 to 2021 deaths during the day increased 30% but deaths at night increased 86%. Increasingly deaths are occurring in urban areas (84%). And most of those killed are men (75%).
The bigger the vehicle, the less fatalities overall for passengers/drivers of that vehicle in car accidents in the US. This has lots of compounded factors, but the increase in size is easily a survival factor against other large vehicles. I'll take the trade for the pedestrian death increase, which is a fraction of total car-related fatalities. I also feel that the number of pedestrians has increased due to various factors, which has led to a predictable increase in accidents and fatalities.
This study feels like a lot of hand waving on a slow news cycle, when those numbers aren't alarming in the slightest.
You may personally think that, but traffic safety data is unambiguous. The higher the front end and the heavier the vehicle, the more likely pedestrians are to die.
The data I can find with a very quick google shows that higher vehicles are more dangerous to pedestrians and so the move towards SUVs and trucks has put pedestrians at higher risk .
The article links to another article by freep.com that really boils the problem down to high-profile, "blunt-nosed" SUVs and trucks (picture: https://www.gannett-cdn.com/labs/death-on-foot/graphics/NU_0...). This is something I've taken note of in my city. When I park my short sedan next to some of these pickups, the pickups' hoods are taller than my entire vehicle. So imagine your entire body being slammed by that. If you were instead struck by a sedan, your body would more likely roll over the hood and dissipate some of the impact.
At the end of the day, the failure is with how our vehicles in America are tested and rated. Safety ratings for vehicles are only in "their class", meaning for instance that they don't smash a sedan into an SUV; they only smash sedans into other sedans, and SUVs into other SUVs. This presents a major asymmetry, leading buyers to think SUVs are safer, when that safety comes at the expense of other users of the road, including people on foot and bike.
A major step toward reducing fatality rates in a vehicle-person collision is to factor in pedestrian safety when evaluating vehicle safety rates.
"As opposed to Europe and Japan, fatalities in the United States have remained steady over the last 14 years"
Considering the makeup of the American vehicle fleet as opposed to the Japanese and European fleet, I'd firmly place the blame on physically larger vehicles. I think this is backed up by the stats included in the same article (on page 26):
* SUVs and trucks make up ~30% of vehicles on the road (at the time of the report), but account for 40% of pedestrian fatalities
* Trucks and SUVs were twice as likely to kill a child (aged 5-19 in the study), when compared to sedans
* Pedestrians are 2-3 times as likely to suffer a fatality when hit by a truck or SUV, when compared to a sedan
Some will point to stats one and three as conflicting. I would disagree - out of 100% of pedestrian fatalities, 40% are from trucks and SUVs. Meanwhile, out of 100% of pedestrian incidents (including both fatalities and injuries), trucks and SUVs are 2-3 times as likely to end with a dead pedestrian.
This article only touches on what exactly makes roads deadlier, but it's an interesting topic. For example, increasing the curb radius at an intersection is generally seen as good for drivers, because it allows the driver to take the turn at faster speeds. However, this increased speed increases both the curb to curb distance for pedestrians and the speed of collisions.
The article touches on SUVs being more common and deadlier, but doesn't go into why that is. For a typical sedan, a pedestrian is struck at the legs, then rolls over the car. By contrast, an SUV strikes a pedestrian in the chest, and is pushes the pedestrian forward because it is too high to roll over. This means that the pedestrian both has a higher delta v (direct impact vs glancing blow), a shorter collision duration (single impact vs roll), and a more fragile region (the torso has important organs that the legs so not). All of these combine to increase the fatality rate when hitting pedestrians, turning a broken leg into a death.
I know that sometimes SUVs or trucks are needed, such as for electrical workers who need to get to a repair site during/after a snowstorm. In most cases, though, there is a social responsibility not to buy SUVs, due to the danger they pose to society in general.
> Pedestrian fatalities are up big timein the U.S.
The problem with this statistic is it might have teeth viewed in isolation, but loses its impact if you broaden the statistics to account for who and how many are dying in vehicle related fatalities. If larger modern vehicles provide greater safety to the passengers within, and if passengers are more likely to die by vehicle accidents than pedestrians, a small move of the needle in vehicle passenger safety due to larger vehicles might cause significant improvement number of total vehicle related fatalities despite pedestrian deaths increasing.
Safety... for whom? Occupants, yes. But for pedestrians, bicyclists and other vulnerable road users, it's gotten worse with the trend for larger vehicles [1][2][3] in the last decade.
Pedestrian fatalities are included in the linked stats, but the proportion of pedestrian fatalities has been increasing. There are a number of potential explanations, including the increased prevalence of SUVs and trucks against which pedestrians fare worse, but nothing concrete yet. Vehicles are being designed with pedestrian safety in mind, but if a greater proportion of people are driving SUVs and trucks to get around, I think it's logical that more pedestrian fatalities would follow.
>Probably some fraction of "trucks/SUVs" are professional drivers who usually have a much lower crash rate than private drivers.
I read the crash rate as already factored-in. Here's the fuller quote from the report linked [0] by the article that I'm referencing:
The majority of fatal pedestrian crashes involve light vehicles. About one-third of pedestrians who are injured are struck by an SUV or pickup truck, which corresponds closely to the make-up of SUVs and pickups in the U.S. vehicle fleet. However, SUVs and pickups account for closer to 40 percent of pedestrian fatalities, which suggests that injuries may be more severe when sustained in collisions with these vehicles. Results from a meta-analysis of 12 independent injury data studies showed that pedestrians are 2-3 times more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup truck than when struck by a passenger car.
So, they're saying the accident-rate is proportional—i.e. maps to the percentage of SUVs and pickups on the road. It's only the fatality rate that is increased. And, sure, 40% would be disproportionately high vs 33%, but it doesn't represent a rate that's 2x-3x higher.
>there isn't much reason to expect the type of car has a causal effect on the chance of a collision
Well, the original article actually suggests that reduced visibility in SUVs/trucks may contribute to higher crash rates. That's exactly the kind of thing I found sloppy. Just a statement with no data to back it up (in fact, the gov't report they linked contradicts it, as noted above).
The article itself opens with this beauty:
You don’t need to read a research paper to know that more people are driving trucks and SUVs (sport utility vehicles) compared to 20 years ago, that today’s trucks and SUVs are significantly bigger than they were 10-20 years ago, or that they’re more dangerous for people walking, biking, or getting around with an assistive device. It's intuitive.
It's actually not intuitive that they're more dangerous for pedestrians. For instance, they could come equipped with more sensors and other tech that accounts for their size and actually makes them safer than other vehicles. Or, drivers of larger vehicles could be more cautious. Or, their increased size may make them more visible, hence, pedestrians are less likely to step out in front of them.
And, what's the point of noting that "it's intuitive" anyway? Not the best way to start an article that should be (and purports to be) data-driven. In general, the article suggests a series of loosely assembled "intuition" and facts, then draws these hard conclusions that I'm not sure we're certain about yet. I'm not disputing their claims. Just saying it could be much tighter and reads a bit like an agenda loosely packaged in data and appeals to "intuition".
I think the real answer is that we need more data and are still figuring this out, especially if we're looking for actionable solutions.
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.
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i...
Weight is directly called out as a factor:
> SUVs can cause more harm to a person on foot when a crash occurs because of their greater body weight and larger profile
reply