A new NYT analysis found that anyone shorter than 5-foot-6 — about half of American adults — would frequently be knocked to the ground in front of today's average vehicle.
The kinetic energy difference between a 180 pound person and a 3,000 pound vehicle or a 6,000 pound vehicle is completely irrelevant. The height of impact from a truck or suv is what makes it worse.
Either way, it’s surely more like 90% cell phones distracting drivers than it is vehicle type.
A 3,000 punt vehicle will have a lot less braking distance than a 6,000 pound one.
A big vehicle like that has a lot more horizontal blind spot, it’s been a major thing with drivers of those monstrosities literally not seeing kids, people in wheelchairs etc.
Most people are out of their depths with such big vehicles in many ways, they should require a specific license because it’s such a different thing compared to a normal sized car in so many ways.
It’s a real bad combination of way to big cars with all the negatives + phone and in car touch screen use.
It’s absolutely not 90% either of them, it’s a combination.
This is also mostly American, no other country has cars like that in those numbers (per capita), and Americans also have a higher phone usage while driving percentage than most of the world.
I’ve been an EMT and firefighter for nearly 20 years, buddy. I’m on scene at these vehicle crashes. The drivers are usually so shaken by what’s happened that they usually just straight up tell the truth if it to me. It’s cell phones. It’s almost always cell phones. "Texting spouse. Reading a text. Dropped my phone and was reaching for it. Changing songs on my phone. Just looked down at my phone for a moment. ".
I’m literally there and have seen the change for 20 years. Personally watched it. It’s cell phones. Not your little opinion based on nothing but your flawed thoughts.
It’s also almost never braking distance. All the bad wrecks and fatalities tend to never have much distance at all showing they applied brakes before contact. Bigger issue with suvs and trucks (aside from higher impact point I mentioned to begin with) in crashes is that they aren’t as stable. Easier to roll over or lose control of them after jerking the steering wheel.
Re-read our comments. I stated the height was causing more accidents to be deadly. I said it has nothing to do with the difference in kinetic energy between cars and trucks. Because that’s stupid.
Bigger in the context of vehicles means not only heavier, but also a higher point of impact. It could be the difference between getting hit in the legs vs the torso. Or the difference between rolling onto the hood vs knocked down and run over.
You have it backwards. Larger vehicles of course have more energy, but pedestrians are too light for that to make a difference.
If you get hit by an oil tanker ship going ~1 kmh, that ship has orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than a car at highway speed, yet, unless theres a wall or something, the ship will merely push you harmlessly aside.
Its about the manner of delivery, not the vehicles energy.
Larger cars are more dangerous because they hit you higher up, where you have more vital organs.
I don’t think that we see the same increase in pedestrian fatalities in other countries though, which do have smart phones but do not have massive personal trucks.
The minima at 2009-2010 is absurdly clear though. You undid 20 years of progress in about 10 years. I’m honestly shocked - what happened in 2009 to cause this? I would think increasing truck sizes would cause a much more shallow minima, since truck sizes don’t suddenly increase from one year to the next.
The rise of smartphones with instant messengers might have contributed to that.
Texting and driving is a thing…
…which triggers a certain kind of rage/hate in me when I spot people doing that, which I usually do several times each day.
You may be right, but as with the trucks, I would expect a much less sharp minima: Smartphone and instant messaging adoption didn’t happen all at once, but from this graph we see that we’re going from a substantial year-on-year decrease directly to a large year-on-year increase. A change that is gradually adopted over the course of several years can’t really cause that kind of effect.
The minima at 2009-2010 is absurdly clear though. You undid 20 years of progress in about 10 years. I’m honestly shocked - what happened in 2009 to cause this?
But the US Department of Transportation was concerned that smaller vehicles are less safe in the event of an accident, and this department oversees Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Hence, the agency discouraged manufacturers from reducing vehicle size to meet the standards by ensuring that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards require higher fuel economy for smaller vehicles than for larger vehicles.
…
Since the adoption of size-based standards in 2012, new vehicles have been getting larger, and sales have shifted from cars to light trucks. Between 2011 and 2022, the average vehicle footprint (roughly, the area defined by the four wheels) increased by about 4 percent, and the share of cars in total sales dropped from about 65 percent to 40 percent. In the GHG standards that EPA proposed in April this year, the agency notes that the increasing size and shift from cars to trucks has increased average emissions rates by about 10 percent.
That’s not the EPA’s fault, that’s the fault of government that allows the loophole because trucks are high profit vehicles for Ford, GM and Stellantis.
The instant messengers on the smart phones might have played a critical role. Whatsapp started in 2009.
Texting and driving is a thing, so there’s a way to derive causation and not only correlation from that.
…it triggers a certain kind of rage/hate in me when I spot people texting and driving, which I usually do several times each day.
I saw a chart that showed a much stronger correlation with smart phones
Why not both?
If phones are causing more collisions… then bigger vehicles have more kinetic energy, hence more deaths…
The kinetic energy difference between a 180 pound person and a 3,000 pound vehicle or a 6,000 pound vehicle is completely irrelevant. The height of impact from a truck or suv is what makes it worse.
Either way, it’s surely more like 90% cell phones distracting drivers than it is vehicle type.
A 3,000 punt vehicle will have a lot less braking distance than a 6,000 pound one.
A big vehicle like that has a lot more horizontal blind spot, it’s been a major thing with drivers of those monstrosities literally not seeing kids, people in wheelchairs etc.
Most people are out of their depths with such big vehicles in many ways, they should require a specific license because it’s such a different thing compared to a normal sized car in so many ways.
It’s a real bad combination of way to big cars with all the negatives + phone and in car touch screen use. It’s absolutely not 90% either of them, it’s a combination.
This is also mostly American, no other country has cars like that in those numbers (per capita), and Americans also have a higher phone usage while driving percentage than most of the world.
I’ve been an EMT and firefighter for nearly 20 years, buddy. I’m on scene at these vehicle crashes. The drivers are usually so shaken by what’s happened that they usually just straight up tell the truth if it to me. It’s cell phones. It’s almost always cell phones. "Texting spouse. Reading a text. Dropped my phone and was reaching for it. Changing songs on my phone. Just looked down at my phone for a moment. ".
I’m literally there and have seen the change for 20 years. Personally watched it. It’s cell phones. Not your little opinion based on nothing but your flawed thoughts.
It’s also almost never braking distance. All the bad wrecks and fatalities tend to never have much distance at all showing they applied brakes before contact. Bigger issue with suvs and trucks (aside from higher impact point I mentioned to begin with) in crashes is that they aren’t as stable. Easier to roll over or lose control of them after jerking the steering wheel.
I completely agree about the cause of the accident, but there is actually a big correlation between vehicle height and accident mortality, the NYT published this report recently about it.
So it seems @9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works was actually correct and it’s both.
Re-read our comments. I stated the height was causing more accidents to be deadly. I said it has nothing to do with the difference in kinetic energy between cars and trucks. Because that’s stupid.
Thats not how kinetic energy works, no pedestrian is heavy enough to stop any car, small or large.
Bigger in the context of vehicles means not only heavier, but also a higher point of impact. It could be the difference between getting hit in the legs vs the torso. Or the difference between rolling onto the hood vs knocked down and run over.
I agree, large cars are generally much more lethal to pedestrians, due to their shape, not kinetic energy.
Force= Mass X Acceleration, so any any given speed, more mass nets more force. More force = more trauma.
if you get hit by a wall with infinite weight, moving at 1km/h, it has infinite energy, yet it will merely push you away
Kinetic energy is related to mass and the square of velocity
A heavier vehicle absolutely has more killing power against a pedestrian…
You’re right. The mass of the pedestrian makes no difference… any vehicle is going to turn them into a red mist
You have it backwards. Larger vehicles of course have more energy, but pedestrians are too light for that to make a difference.
If you get hit by an oil tanker ship going ~1 kmh, that ship has orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than a car at highway speed, yet, unless theres a wall or something, the ship will merely push you harmlessly aside.
Its about the manner of delivery, not the vehicles energy.
Larger cars are more dangerous because they hit you higher up, where you have more vital organs.
I don’t think that we see the same increase in pedestrian fatalities in other countries though, which do have smart phones but do not have massive personal trucks.
In Europe:
In the US:
Not exactly the same years, of course, and comparing data sets is tricky.
The minima at 2009-2010 is absurdly clear though. You undid 20 years of progress in about 10 years. I’m honestly shocked - what happened in 2009 to cause this? I would think increasing truck sizes would cause a much more shallow minima, since truck sizes don’t suddenly increase from one year to the next.
The rise of smartphones with instant messengers might have contributed to that.
Texting and driving is a thing…
…which triggers a certain kind of rage/hate in me when I spot people doing that, which I usually do several times each day.
You may be right, but as with the trucks, I would expect a much less sharp minima: Smartphone and instant messaging adoption didn’t happen all at once, but from this graph we see that we’re going from a substantial year-on-year decrease directly to a large year-on-year increase. A change that is gradually adopted over the course of several years can’t really cause that kind of effect.
deleted by creator
Dumb as fuck EPA emissions standards
…
That’s not the EPA’s fault, that’s the fault of government that allows the loophole because trucks are high profit vehicles for Ford, GM and Stellantis.
The instant messengers on the smart phones might have played a critical role. Whatsapp started in 2009.
Texting and driving is a thing, so there’s a way to derive causation and not only correlation from that.
…it triggers a certain kind of rage/hate in me when I spot people texting and driving, which I usually do several times each day.