Current Events > America's love of SUVs is killing pedestrians

(+) Yeah! (+)

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

A Detroit Free Press/USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found that the SUV revolution is a key, leading cause of escalating pedestrian deaths nationwide, which are up 46 percent since 2009.

Almost 6,000 pedestrians died on or along U.S. roads in 2016 alone nearly as many Americans as have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. Data analyses by the Free Press/USA TODAY and others show that SUVs are the constant in the increase and account for a steadily growing proportion of deaths.

- Federal safety regulators have known for years that SUVs, with their higher front-end profile, are at least twice as likely as cars to kill the walkers, joggers and children they hit, yet have done little to reduce deaths or publicize the danger.
- A federal proposal to factor pedestrians into vehicle safety ratings has stalled, with opposition from some automakers.
- The rising tide of pedestrian deaths is primarily an urban plague that kills minorities at a disproportionate rate.

- It is most prominent in cities both in the industrial heartland and warm-weather spots on the nations coasts and Sun Belt. Detroit; Newark, New Jersey; St. Louis; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Miami, San Bernardino, California, Birmingham, Alabama; Tampa; Fayetteville, North Carolina; and Phoenix had the 10 highest per-capita death rates among cities with populations of at least 200,000 in 2009-16.

Vehicle safety measures, which the federal government says could save hundreds of pedestrian lives every year, are available but not widely employed by some automakers nor are they required.

Along with automakers, cities can take action that saves pedestrians. New York City, for example, cut such deaths nearly in half in just four years. The need for steps such as lower speed limits, more midblock crosswalks and better lighting grows in urgency as automakers move strongly toward truck and SUV production.

SUV sales topped sedans in 2014; pickups and SUVs now account for 60 percent of new vehicle sales. Ford recently announced plans to discontinue U.S. sales of most passenger cars, while Fiat Chrysler has already done so.

It might seem obvious that a larger vehicle can cause more damage in a crash, whether to a smaller car or an unprotected skull, but some researchers have been hesitant to assign blame for the spike in pedestrian deaths to Americas love of SUVs, in part because various factors are at play in every crash.

Each of the 5,987 pedestrians who died in 2016, according to federal data, had his or her own tragic ending.

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.

Some of these other factors also saw increases in recent years, but the SUV component stands out.

Data and safety experts verified that long-standing common factors in pedestrian deaths, such as alcohol and jaywalking at night, did not account for the growth.

A key factor consistently backed by data is growing involvement of higher-profile, blunt-nosed SUVs.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety calculated an 81 percent increase in single-vehicle pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs in 2009-16. The Free Press/USA TODAY analysis of the same federal data, counting vehicles that struck and killed pedestrians rather than the number of people killed, showed a 69 percent increase in SUV involvement. The assessment also showed increases each year in the proportion of fatal pedestrian crashes involving the popular vehicles.

---

If they don't want to get killed by a SUV, they should have been in an SUV themselves. No one has time for small cars anymore.
---

Abyssea posted...

If they don't want to get killed by a SUV, they should have been in an SUV themselves. No one has time for small cars anymore.

Do you know what pedestrian means?
---

Is this supposed to guilt trip car manufacturers or something? They have no duty to design for the safety of pedestrians being hit by a fucking car. Their obligation is to design for the safety of the car's occupants.
---

ban SUVs
---

The fact that the auto industry has actually been moving towards more SUVs and trucks pisses me off every time I think about it. Not just because of climate change, but because these behemoths are never as cool as cars.
---

Frostshock posted...

They have no duty to design for the safety of pedestrians being hit by a fucking car.

They do, though. We have plenty of regulations on car design for that purpose.
---

A lot of this is the fault of Obama's cash for clunkers program.
---

So why is it the car's fault and not the driver's that pedestrians are being hit?
---

Frostshock posted...

Is this supposed to guilt trip car manufacturers or something? They have no duty to design for the safety of pedestrians being hit by a fucking car. Their obligation is to design for the safety of the car's occupants.

Car manufacturers have no obligation to make their cars not death machines for everyone outside of them? You sure?
---

s0nicfan posted...

So why is it the car's fault and not the driver's that pedestrians are being hit?

The drivers are an independent variable here; all things considered an SUV is more likely to kill a pedestrian it hits than a sedan. And not just slightly:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration made the connection in 2015 that SUVs were deadlier for pedestrians than cars, referenced on page 90 of a 195-page report. That report, citing 12 independent studies of injury data, said pedestrians are two to three times more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup than when struck by a passenger car.

---

Antifar posted...

Abyssea posted...

If they don't want to get killed by a SUV, they should have been in an SUV themselves. No one has time for small cars anymore.

Do you know what pedestrian means?

yea, "person who's not in a SUV"
---

Better to wait for the walk at a crosswalk than roll the dice
---

If the pedestrians had guns then this wouldn't be a problem.
---

99.9% of the people who own SUVs dont need them and never use the extra space.

My Subaru Outback is classified as a station wagon, but it is just as capable as the other oversized SUVs (which should be forced to park in the WAY back of parking lots).

We need the leg room and I have kids.

Most people who buy them have two or three kids rattling around in a vast backseat. Youre getting less than 10mph. Just admit that you made a bad buy.
---

Fucking soccer moms are to blame for this.
---

Time to upgrade everyone to semi tractors! They're safer if you get hit by a SUV and you never know when you need to haul your family, relatives and maybe another car too!

A lot of vehicles have pedestrian detection and automatic breaking now. Toyota has it as standard feature.

It's the older SUVs that are less safe, but at the end of the day, it's the driver's fault, not the SUV.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Frostshock posted...

Is this supposed to guilt trip car manufacturers or something? They have no duty to design for the safety of pedestrians being hit by a fucking car. Their obligation is to design for the safety of the car's occupants.

Car manufacturers have no obligation to make their cars not death machines for everyone outside of them? You sure?

They have an obligation to not make the front bumper a giant bayonet, sure.

But if a pedestrian is getting hit by a car, all assumptions are out the window. The rules of the road have been violated somehow by either the driver or pedestrian, putting the pedestrian in grave danger. This should not be something that stifles automobile innovation.
---

It isnt like these SUVs are thirty feet tall or something. People not paying attention and fucking around on their phones while speeding kills people
---

Antifar posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So why is it the car's fault and not the driver's that pedestrians are being hit?

The drivers are an independent variable here; all things considered an SUV is more likely to kill a pedestrian it hits than a sedan. And not just slightly:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration made the connection in 2015 that SUVs were deadlier for pedestrians than cars, referenced on page 90 of a 195-page report. That report, citing 12 independent studies of injury data, said pedestrians are two to three times more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup than when struck by a passenger car.

Sure, but I feel like "we should make it so people hit by cars don't die as often" is best solved by making fewer people hit pedestrians and not by redesigning cars. This would be like dealing with too many people burning their tongues on hot coffee by pushing Keurig to reduce the temperate of their k-cup brews. It feels like a roundabout solution.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Sure, but I feel like "we should make it so people hit by cars don't die as often" is best solved by making fewer people hit pedestrians and not by redesigning cars. This would be like dealing with too many people burning their tongues on hot coffee by pushing Keurig to reduce the temperate of their k-cup brews. It feels like a roundabout solution.

The way that you reduce the number of pedestrians being hit requires redesigning streets and laws regulating the streets

Is that really easier than changing how we design cars?

Those are both heavy lifts
---

A bit off topic still a badass pedestrian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcpSGB3odyU" data-time="
---

s0nicfan posted...

Antifar posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So why is it the car's fault and not the driver's that pedestrians are being hit?

The drivers are an independent variable here; all things considered an SUV is more likely to kill a pedestrian it hits than a sedan. And not just slightly:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration made the connection in 2015 that SUVs were deadlier for pedestrians than cars, referenced on page 90 of a 195-page report. That report, citing 12 independent studies of injury data, said pedestrians are two to three times more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup than when struck by a passenger car.

Sure, but I feel like "we should make it so people hit by cars don't die as often" is best solved by making fewer people hit pedestrians and not by redesigning cars. This would be like dealing with too many people burning their tongues on hot coffee by pushing Keurig to reduce the temperate of their k-cup brews. It feels like a roundabout solution.

What is your solution that doesn't involve touching cars? Making it illegal to run people over?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

What is your solution that doesn't involve touching cars? Making it illegal to run people over?

Look at what's causing people to hit other people and work towards reducing that. Maybe cell phone use penalties aren't high enough. Maybe we need louder crossing signals or more obvious crosswalks. I think generally you solve a problem by looking at the root cause. Every collision prevented is a person guaranteed not to die. Redesigning car hoods only reduces the likelihood of people dying when hit... but they're still being hit, and they're still dying (just at a reduced rate).

EDIT:
Balrog0 posted...

The way that you reduce the number of pedestrians being hit requires redesigning streets and laws regulating the streets

Is that really easier than changing how we design cars?

Those are both heavy lifts

Oh no, it's certainly harder. I didn't mean to imply that was the easier solution if that's how you read it. But we should be solving the right problems where possible, not tangential ones born from the root problem in the first place.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

The fact that the auto industry has actually been moving towards more SUVs and trucks pisses me off every time I think about it. Not just because of climate change, but because these behemoths are never as cool as cars.

It's an incredibly stupid move. I know they make more money for each one sold versus smaller vehicles, but the combination of increased gas prices and longer term auto loans (plus the allowance of such loans to people who can barely afford them) will blow up in their faces. Seems like it's primed to explode at any moment.
---

Frostshock posted...

This should not be something that stifles automobile innovation.

They're already doing that by shifting towards more of a focus on gas-guzzling behemoths and routinely suppressing innovation by buying up patents.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

What is your solution that doesn't involve touching cars? Making it illegal to run people over?

in urbanist circles, the most widely discussed policies I see are lane and road diets (making lanes smaller and/or reducing the number of car lanes, replacing the space with more sidewalks/bike lanes/on-street parking to separate pedestrians from traffic)
---

s0nicfan posted...

Redesigning car hoods only reduces the likelihood of people dying when hit... but they're still being hit, and they're still dying (just at a reduced rate).

And this is a problem, how? Why do people think "You aren't permanently erasing the problem for all eternity, so what's the point" are arguments against solutions?

Though you actually could get pretty close to that by making an aggressive push towards self-driving cars instead of sucking up as much money as possible on SUVs before fossil fuels dry up and the environment dies.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Redesigning car hoods only reduces the likelihood of people dying when hit... but they're still being hit, and they're still dying (just at a reduced rate).

And this is a problem, how? Why do people think "You aren't permanently erasing the problem for all eternity, so what's the point" are arguments against solutions?

Though you actually could get pretty close to that by making an aggressive push towards self-driving cars instead of sucking up as much money as possible on SUVs before fossil fuels dry up and the environment dies.

"Us people" think that because it's an extremely common psychological tactic used to change the argument so the responsible parties can avoid dealing with their faults. For example, the big push for using reusable bags at the shopping market made the environment a "personal responsibility" focus when a 1% decrease in Wal-Mart's pollution profile would have the same effect as the entire country foregoing plastic bags. Michelle Obama's health push started as a way to get kids eating less garbage, and junk food companies came in to "help" and turned it into getting out to exercise more. Sugar is the only item on nutrition labels without a % daily value because they were able to change the conversation to be about fat. In all these examples, people felt "I did something good" and moved on, completely forgetting that their original push was never addressed.

People aren't very good at multitasking as a collective, so the more you focus on these low hanging fruits, the more you're guaranteeing that the root problem never gets addressed. Shoot for the moon and try to take on the big problem, rather than change some small easy thing that makes you feel good and minimally changes things.
---

---

Put those fat metal poles that pop up out of the ground at crosswalks and have dedicated time to where its only pedestrians crossing.

That and pay the fuck attention to where you're going, both as a pedestrian and a driver.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Oh no, it's certainly harder. I didn't mean to imply that was the easier solution if that's how you read it. But we should be solving the right problems where possible, not tangential ones born from the root problem in the first place.

oh yeah, I agree for sure

I guess my point is, it might be more feasible to regulate the cars than make the necessary changes to our infrastructure and stuff though
---

The rising tide of pedestrian deaths is primarily an urban plague that kills minorities at a disproportionate rate.

jesus fucking christ. apparently suvs are racist now too! guess its time for blm to start protesting suv makers right??
---

Does this mean it's good or bad to have an SUV?
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

ban SUVs

---

i wouldnt be caught dead without a 4x4 living in michigan.

Monolith1676 posted...

Fucking soccer moms are to blame for this.

Yup.

Women love SUVs for several reasons:

1. They think they are safer (this is false, they are in fact more dangerous than sedans)

2. They like that they are higher off the ground, because women are manlets and being so high off the ground is a novelty for them

3. They enjoy the extra space so they can fit all of their shopping bags and crotch spawn

4. SUVs are bigger, which means they are an extremely conspicuous form of consumption, EVERYONE will notice Carol's new white Chevy Equinox

5. SUVs are associated with luxury. Men are primarily concerned with functionality and performance because they are hunters, women care about having a miniature house on wheels because they are gatherers that live in the nest and collect colorful berries. When a dumb man has money to blow he buys a new bitchin V8 Dodge Charger, when a dumb woman has money to blow she throws it all away on some stupid Lexus luxury vehicle

Women are the biggest consumers and their economic influence is growing, it's no wonder the big stupid SUV market is red hot these days.

clearaflagrantj posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Fucking soccer moms are to blame for this.

Yup.

Women love SUVs for several reasons:

1. They think they are safer (this is false, they are in fact more dangerous than sedans)

2. They like that they are higher off the ground, because women are manlets and being so high off the ground is a novelty for them

3. They enjoy the extra space so they can fit all of their shopping bags and crotch spawn

4. SUVs are bigger, which means they are an extremely conspicuous form of consumption, EVERYONE will notice Carol's new white Chevy Equinox

5. SUVs are associated with luxury. Men are primarily concerned with functionality and performance because they are hunters, women care about having a miniature house on wheels because they are gatherers that live in the nest and collect colorful berries. When a dumb man has money to blow he buys a new bitchin V8 Dodge Charger, when a dumb woman has money to blow she throws it all away on some stupid Lexus luxury vehicle

Women are the biggest consumers and their economic influence is growing, it's no wonder the big stupid SUV market is red hot these days.

CANYONERO!!!
---

Abyssea posted...

Trump's America.
---

HylianFox posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Fucking soccer moms are to blame for this.

Yup.

Women love SUVs for several reasons:

1. They think they are safer (this is false, they are in fact more dangerous than sedans)

2. They like that they are higher off the ground, because women are manlets and being so high off the ground is a novelty for them

3. They enjoy the extra space so they can fit all of their shopping bags and crotch spawn

4. SUVs are bigger, which means they are an extremely conspicuous form of consumption, EVERYONE will notice Carol's new white Chevy Equinox

5. SUVs are associated with luxury. Men are primarily concerned with functionality and performance because they are hunters, women care about having a miniature house on wheels because they are gatherers that live in the nest and collect colorful berries. When a dumb man has money to blow he buys a new bitchin V8 Dodge Charger, when a dumb woman has money to blow she throws it all away on some stupid Lexus luxury vehicle

Women are the biggest consumers and their economic influence is growing, it's no wonder the big stupid SUV market is red hot these days.

CANYONERO!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_Jl5WFQkA" data-time="
---

How many people who were in car crashes where the SUV was not at fault survived the collision but would've likely died if their car wasn't an SUV?

How would autonomous driving reduce these figures regardless of whether or not we're talking about sedans vs SUVs?
---

clearaflagrantj posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Fucking soccer moms are to blame for this.

Yup.

Women love SUVs for several reasons:

1. They think they are safer (this is false, they are in fact more dangerous than sedans)

2. They like that they are higher off the ground, because women are manlets and being so high off the ground is a novelty for them

3. They enjoy the extra space so they can fit all of their shopping bags and crotch spawn

4. SUVs are bigger, which means they are an extremely conspicuous form of consumption, EVERYONE will notice Carol's new white Chevy Equinox

5. SUVs are associated with luxury. Men are primarily concerned with functionality and performance because they are hunters, women care about having a miniature house on wheels because they are gatherers that live in the nest and collect colorful berries. When a dumb man has money to blow he buys a new bitchin V8 Dodge Charger, when a dumb woman has money to blow she throws it all away on some stupid Lexus luxury vehicle

Women are the biggest consumers and their economic influence is growing, it's no wonder the big stupid SUV market is red hot these days.

Hopye so you get out of bed every day being this blindly sexist
---

s0nicfan posted...

HylianFox posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Fucking soccer moms are to blame for this.

Yup.

Women love SUVs for several reasons:

1. They think they are safer (this is false, they are in fact more dangerous than sedans)

2. They like that they are higher off the ground, because women are manlets and being so high off the ground is a novelty for them

3. They enjoy the extra space so they can fit all of their shopping bags and crotch spawn

4. SUVs are bigger, which means they are an extremely conspicuous form of consumption, EVERYONE will notice Carol's new white Chevy Equinox

5. SUVs are associated with luxury. Men are primarily concerned with functionality and performance because they are hunters, women care about having a miniature house on wheels because they are gatherers that live in the nest and collect colorful berries. When a dumb man has money to blow he buys a new bitchin V8 Dodge Charger, when a dumb woman has money to blow she throws it all away on some stupid Lexus luxury vehicle

Women are the biggest consumers and their economic influence is growing, it's no wonder the big stupid SUV market is red hot these days.

CANYONERO!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_Jl5WFQkA" data-time="

Ah, classic

Anyway I hate SUVs for the simple reason that whenever I go to the store I always end up wedged between two SUVs that I can't fucking see around. Get those massive pieces of shit off the road!!!
---

People need to stop jaywalking and shit.

The rising tide of pedestrian deaths is primarily an urban plague that kills minorities at a disproportionate rate.

It is official. SUVs are racist
---

clearaflagrantj posted...

Women love SUVs for several reasons:

1. They think they are safer (this is false, they are in fact more dangerous than sedans)

2. They like that they are higher off the ground, because women are manlets and being so high off the ground is a novelty for them

3. They enjoy the extra space so they can fit all of their shopping bags and crotch spawn

4. SUVs are bigger, which means they are an extremely conspicuous form of consumption, EVERYONE will notice Carol's new white Chevy Equinox

But... 3 of those reasons are also why men buy pick-up trucks... >_>

3 is the truck's bed, obviously.
---

what about compact SUVs? that's what I've saving up for. I need the AWD.
---

LedZeppelin posted...

The rising tide of pedestrian deaths is primarily an urban plague that kills minorities at a disproportionate rate.

jesus fucking christ. apparently suvs are racist now too! guess its time for blm to start protesting suv makers right??

That is not at all what this is saying
---

are minorities just more likely to jaywalk then? I mean... how could it be effecting them more statistically?
---