America's love of SUVs is killing pedestrians

[grandep]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

[mak1277]

Article admits that they can't account for distracted driving ... I find it hard to believe that an increase in pedestrian deaths since 2009 isn't more directly correlated to cell phone use than to SUVs.

[mak1277]

Also interesting to see that total fatalities (pedestrians+drivers) are actually down...could one infer from this that the old line about SUVs being safer is possibly true?

[Just Joe]

And complicated interior options like the stereo/GPS system/touch screens... Of course that is a problem in cars, trucks and vans as well.

[partdopy]

Article admits that they can't account for distracted driving ... I find it hard to believe that an increase in pedestrian deaths since 2009 isn't more directly correlated to cell phone use than to SUVs.

What about distracted walking?  Saw someone walk into a street sign about 30 minutes ago because whatever was on their phone was more important than paying attention.

[Radagast]

Article admits that they can't account for distracted driving ... I find it hard to believe that an increase in pedestrian deaths since 2009 isn't more directly correlated to cell phone use than to SUVs.

Yup. Blaming SUV's would be fun, but when I see "since 2009" I think "smart phones." At 30 mph I doubt a pedestrian would prefer to be hit by a Taurus over an Escape.

[mak1277]

Article admits that they can't account for distracted driving ... I find it hard to believe that an increase in pedestrian deaths since 2009 isn't more directly correlated to cell phone use than to SUVs.

Yup. Blaming SUV's would be fun, but when I see "since 2009" I think "smart phones." At 30 mph I doubt a pedestrian would prefer to be hit by a Taurus over an Escape.

yeah, for sure.  The article actually has a direct quote that says speed is the #1 determining factor in whether or not there is a fatality. 

[the_fixer]

Article admits that they can't account for distracted driving ... I find it hard to believe that an increase in pedestrian deaths since 2009 isn't more directly correlated to cell phone use than to SUVs.

What about distracted walking?  Saw someone walk into a street sign about 30 minutes ago because whatever was on their phone was more important than paying attention.

The_fixer sheepishly raises hand and admits to walking into something while looking at phone... sooo embarrassed.

I also think there are other factors at play and do not think it can clearly be directed at SUV's

But hey it sounds good right?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[MilesTeg]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

Doubtful this has anything significant to do with car (size) choice, but rather the scourge of mobile devices (and in car devices) and associated distracted driving that have proliferated in the last decade.

[soccerluvof4]

I gotta agree with it being more cell phone related. I spend alot of time around college campus's and see so many close calls. And lets face it , an SUV today is not what they once were and if anything closer to the size cars use to be. People just are not paying attention to the road be it in the car or walking around them.

[MilesTeg]

I gotta agree with it being more cell phone related. I spend alot of time around college campus's and see so many close calls. And lets face it , an SUV today is not what they once were and if anything closer to the size cars use to be. People just are not paying attention to the road be it in the car or walking around them.

Yep, can't forget that part of the problem is probably pedestrians being distracted too, not just drivers.

[Ichabod]

Pedestrians are much more likely to die when hit by a SUV. This is because of hood height and angle. Percentage wise, more pedestrian fatalities now involve SUVs. It seems likely a pretty obvious relationship to me.

Distraction is undoubtedly a factor as well and would explain an increase in pedestrian accidents, but if not for the popularity of SUVs more of those would be survivable accidents.

[marty998]

Pedestrians are much more likely to die when hit by a SUV. This is because of hood height and angle. Percentage wise, more pedestrian fatalities now involve SUVs. It seems likely a pretty obvious relationship to me.

Distraction is undoubtedly a factor as well and would explain an increase in pedestrian accidents, but if not for the popularity of SUVs more of those would be survivable accidents.

Yep, instead of just knee capping you, an SUV will take out most of the rest of you.

[Radagast]

OK, having now read the article apparently 30 mph is surprisingly survivable at 50/50, so now I change my mind and say at that speed I'd prefer to be hit by a Taurus rather than an Escape.

But I still think "smart phones" when I see this.

[Raymond Reddington]

IMO self driving cars may be the (very expensive) solution:

-Bad drivers who become uninsurable become required to purchase expensive self driving vehicles, or give up car ownership entirely.
-Big clown car SUV's already have stiff financial penalties for those dumb enough to purchase them without a need. I'm against lumping all vehicles in the category as small light SUV's like the CR-V, which aren't clown cars, which don't take up excess parking, which have carbon emissions only slightly higher than many coupes and sedans, are not nearly as bad.
-In cities, more public transit is required, and large cities need to have reduced growth as this is what will fuel the growth and improvement of mid sized cities as people move there. In US cities especially, expanding public transit needs to come with expanding the presence of police and tolerating less chaos and disorder. Public transit in the US needs to become clean, safe, and not a haven for the homeless. Public transit everywhere else in the world does not carry this stigma, and as a result, the expansion of it is rarely opposed. But in the US, it carries the very real perception of increasing crime, and thus is opposed at every turn. And statistically, crime does go up when public transit serves an area in this country. We need to look at why that is so that it can expand to meet the needs of today's cities.

[Just Joe]

Who decides who "needs" an SUV? Also - if a CRV is okay, but what about a Honda Pilot?

[grandep]

Pedestrians are much more likely to die when hit by a SUV. This is because of hood height and angle. Percentage wise, more pedestrian fatalities now involve SUVs. It seems likely a pretty obvious relationship to me.

Distraction is undoubtedly a factor as well and would explain an increase in pedestrian accidents, but if not for the popularity of SUVs more of those would be survivable accidents.

Yes, this was the main point of the article. Smart phones and distracted walking/driving would certainly increase the frequency of accidents involving pedestrians but would not necessarily increase the portion of those accidents that result in death, while an increase in the number of SUVs would. Besides, the authors of the studies that the article cites are surely at least as smart as the above commenters, so they undoubtedly controlled for distractions and phone usage.

[JLee]

Pedestrians are much more likely to die when hit by a SUV. This is because of hood height and angle. Percentage wise, more pedestrian fatalities now involve SUVs. It seems likely a pretty obvious relationship to me.

Distraction is undoubtedly a factor as well and would explain an increase in pedestrian accidents, but if not for the popularity of SUVs more of those would be survivable accidents.

Yes, this was the main point of the article. Smart phones and distracted walking/driving would certainly increase the frequency of accidents involving pedestrians but would not necessarily increase the portion of those accidents that result in death, while an increase in the number of SUVs would. Besides, the authors of the studies that the article cites are surely at least as smart as the above commenters, so they undoubtedly controlled for distractions and phone usage.

I see an awful lot of speculation and assumption here, but no supporting evidence. ;)

[grandep]

Pedestrians are much more likely to die when hit by a SUV. This is because of hood height and angle. Percentage wise, more pedestrian fatalities now involve SUVs. It seems likely a pretty obvious relationship to me.

Distraction is undoubtedly a factor as well and would explain an increase in pedestrian accidents, but if not for the popularity of SUVs more of those would be survivable accidents.

Yes, this was the main point of the article. Smart phones and distracted walking/driving would certainly increase the frequency of accidents involving pedestrians but would not necessarily increase the portion of those accidents that result in death, while an increase in the number of SUVs would. Besides, the authors of the studies that the article cites are surely at least as smart as the above commenters, so they undoubtedly controlled for distractions and phone usage.

I see an awful lot of speculation and assumption here, but no supporting evidence. ;)

Feel free to read through the article and follow the sources found therein to satisfy your empirical curiosity. The article does indeed cite evidence that shows that SUVs cause a disproportionate number of pedestrian deaths.

[JLee]

Pedestrians are much more likely to die when hit by a SUV. This is because of hood height and angle. Percentage wise, more pedestrian fatalities now involve SUVs. It seems likely a pretty obvious relationship to me.

Distraction is undoubtedly a factor as well and would explain an increase in pedestrian accidents, but if not for the popularity of SUVs more of those would be survivable accidents.

Yes, this was the main point of the article. Smart phones and distracted walking/driving would certainly increase the frequency of accidents involving pedestrians but would not necessarily increase the portion of those accidents that result in death, while an increase in the number of SUVs would. Besides, the authors of the studies that the article cites are surely at least as smart as the above commenters, so they undoubtedly controlled for distractions and phone usage.

I see an awful lot of speculation and assumption here, but no supporting evidence. ;)

Feel free to read through the article and follow the sources found therein to satisfy your empirical curiosity. The article does indeed cite evidence that shows that SUVs cause a disproportionate number of pedestrian deaths.

From the original article itself:

Many who died were males, were jaywalking or had alcohol in their systems on multilane roads in urban areas at night. Some might have been distracted, just as vehicle drivers could have been, by texting or talking on cellphones, although data is lacking to quantify distraction.

[One]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

Curious how many drivers lives suv/truck save vs compact car.  I prefer a truck for the safety margin/insurance.  Pretty sure my F150 will do better in a head on collision than a ford fiesta.   

[Radagast]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

Curious how many drivers lives suv/truck save vs compact car.  I prefer a truck for the safety margin/insurance.  Pretty sure my F150 will do better in a head on collision than a ford fiesta.

In the base case, two small vehicles collide and occupants are at equal risk of death. One of them upgrades to a larger vehicle to improve individual odds, but that probably lowers the odds of the smaller vehicle occupant by a greater amount. Collisions with large stationary objects or very large vehicles are probably impacted very little by additional mass.  A larger vehicle will generally be easier to roll. I'd say that larger vehicles can only result in a net increase of fatalities. The increasing size route is one of those games where collectively everyone wins by keeping things small, but individuals increase odds by being larger at a loss to the greater population.

[Seadog]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

Curious how many drivers lives suv/truck save vs compact car.  I prefer a truck for the safety margin/insurance.  Pretty sure my F150 will do better in a head on collision than a ford fiesta.

...Unless you hit an F350. There in lay the arms race problem. You get a bigger car to be safer, but it's a bit of a zero sum game. Then the only solution for others is to get equal or bigger cars, and to retain your safety advantage have to go bigger still, and then you get this current mess.

[clutchy]

Also interesting to see that total fatalities (pedestrians+drivers) are actually down...could one infer from this that the old line about SUVs being safer is possibly true?

SUV's are safer now and the bigger the safer.  Once they solved the rollover issue they became the safest vehicles on the road for the people driving and people in smaller cars became less safe.

[grandep]

In the base case, two small vehicles collide and occupants are at equal risk of death. One of them upgrades to a larger vehicle to improve individual odds, but that probably lowers the odds of the smaller vehicle occupant by a greater amount. Collisions with large stationary objects or very large vehicles are probably impacted very little by additional mass.  A larger vehicle will generally be easier to roll. I'd say that larger vehicles can only result in a net increase of fatalities. The increasing size route is one of those games where collectively everyone wins by keeping things small, but individuals increase odds by being larger at a loss to the greater population.

Exactly, and because there is no cost associated with driving a larger, more dangerous vehicle (safer for the driver but more dangerous to others) other than the marginally higher fuel costs, there is nothing disincentivizing the arms race. We've already seen some domestic automakers cease production of most, if not all, of their sedans and smaller models.

[clutchy]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

Curious how many drivers lives suv/truck save vs compact car.  I prefer a truck for the safety margin/insurance.  Pretty sure my F150 will do better in a head on collision than a ford fiesta.

In the base case, two small vehicles collide and occupants are at equal risk of death. One of them upgrades to a larger vehicle to improve individual odds, but that probably lowers the odds of the smaller vehicle occupant by a greater amount. Collisions with large stationary objects or very large vehicles are probably impacted very little by additional mass.  A larger vehicle will generally be easier to roll. I'd say that larger vehicles can only result in a net increase of fatalities. The increasing size route is one of those games where collectively everyone wins by keeping things small, but individuals increase odds by being larger at a loss to the greater population.

That used to be the math but now with software and new tech they don't roll anymore.  They're just safer period. 

You'll notice the least safe cars are the smallest like versa's and elantra's etc... so the mass still plays a role in regards to the counter party making them less safe.

[Radagast]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

Curious how many drivers lives suv/truck save vs compact car.  I prefer a truck for the safety margin/insurance.  Pretty sure my F150 will do better in a head on collision than a ford fiesta.

In the base case, two small vehicles collide and occupants are at equal risk of death. One of them upgrades to a larger vehicle to improve individual odds, but that probably lowers the odds of the smaller vehicle occupant by a greater amount. Collisions with large stationary objects or very large vehicles are probably impacted very little by additional mass.  A larger vehicle will generally be easier to roll. I'd say that larger vehicles can only result in a net increase of fatalities. The increasing size route is one of those games where collectively everyone wins by keeping things small, but individuals increase odds by being larger at a loss to the greater population.

That used to be the math but now with software and new tech they don't roll anymore.  They're just safer period. 

You'll notice the least safe cars are the smallest like versa's and elantra's etc... so the mass still plays a role in regards to the counter party making them less safe.

If you put the same software and tech in a shorter car, it will still be proportionally harder to roll. You would have to change the physical aspects of the larger vehicle such as lowering the center of gravity or widening the wheel base to match the smaller car to achieve equal rollover resistance. Which of course is possible.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/passenger-vehicles
It is interesting that all sizes of SUVs have lower occupant fatality rates than any size of pickup or car (apparently except what appears to be minivans, which are similar to small SUVs in terms of safety and probably size).

[matchewed]

a) Correlation != Causation
b)http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[grandep]

a) Correlation != Causation
b)http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Correlation is not a sufficient condition for causation, but it is a necessary one. Therefore the fact that there is correlation between increased SUV ownership and pedestrian deaths means the causative link is at least plausible and worthy of investigation and cannot be casually dismissed with a pithy comment.

[TheWifeHalf]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

There may be other ways, but pickup license plates cost more than a car's. Insurance costs more too. 
A lot of times when a bunch of kids have to go to, or come home from, a school activity. The mom with the van is recruited to do the driving. She's not allowed to charge money for their ride, so a lot of those kids mom's, with little cars, will have to drive them individually. Is using all those cars more gas efficient that the mom with the van?

Maybe the school has to have a van to drive kids around. Charge more for the van, your property taxes go up (if, like around here, taxes pay for the schools.

If you truly feel this way, get the gears spinning and start what ever is required to make it happen. Let us know, as consumers, how we can help (if we want to).

[RetiredAt63]

As the driver of a car, I hate meeting SUVs and trucks at night on country roads.  Their headlights are higher, so it is like meeting a car with high beams on when they are coming at me.

Some article somewhere online showed where a pedestrian's body goes when hit by a car or SUV.   Cars are much less damaging.

[clutchy]

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/

Pedestrian deaths are at their highest since 1988, and have increased 46% since 2009. Controlling for other factors, the rise in popularity of SUVs seems to be the primary cause of this trend.

One solution that the article does not mention that I would like to see considered is a tax penalty for large vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and vans) to act as an incentive against buying large vehicles, which have "invisible costs" both in safety and increased emissions. Clearly the added costs of the vehicles and the lower gas mileage alone is not enough to incentivize people toward buying sedans and other smaller cars.

Curious how many drivers lives suv/truck save vs compact car.  I prefer a truck for the safety margin/insurance.  Pretty sure my F150 will do better in a head on collision than a ford fiesta.

In the base case, two small vehicles collide and occupants are at equal risk of death. One of them upgrades to a larger vehicle to improve individual odds, but that probably lowers the odds of the smaller vehicle occupant by a greater amount. Collisions with large stationary objects or very large vehicles are probably impacted very little by additional mass.  A larger vehicle will generally be easier to roll. I'd say that larger vehicles can only result in a net increase of fatalities. The increasing size route is one of those games where collectively everyone wins by keeping things small, but individuals increase odds by being larger at a loss to the greater population.

That used to be the math but now with software and new tech they don't roll anymore.  They're just safer period. 

You'll notice the least safe cars are the smallest like versa's and elantra's etc... so the mass still plays a role in regards to the counter party making them less safe.

If you put the same software and tech in a shorter car, it will still be proportionally harder to roll. You would have to change the physical aspects of the larger vehicle such as lowering the center of gravity or widening the wheel base to match the smaller car to achieve equal rollover resistance. Which of course is possible.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/passenger-vehicles
It is interesting that all sizes of SUVs have lower occupant fatality rates than any size of pickup or car (apparently except what appears to be minivans, which are similar to small SUVs in terms of safety and probably size).

 

It just doesn't matter.  They solved the issue and mass now equals safety.