Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/

by pseudolus • 2 years ago

302 345 2 years ago

Interestingly, agricultural tractors have evolved to have better sightlines. Could that be because for these machines, the pedestrian deaths are usually members of the tractor drivers' family?

https://www.profi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/06/2...

https://bigiron.blob.core.windows.net/public/items/72b53c753...

porphyra2• 2 years ago

Children keep getting killed by their own parents' SUVs though...

mtoner23• 2 years ago

Some SUVs even have front cameras now to help see children

Swizec2• 2 years ago

Could that be because for these machines, the pedestrian deaths are usually members of the tractor drivers' family

I have a different guess after seeing tractors in use as a kid: Driving tractors is a high precision affair. You're moving around expensive equipment that you don't want to bump. You're plowing next to all sorts of hazards you don't want to fall into. You have to park within an inch of attachments before hooking them on.

Good sight lines help with all this.

riversflow2• 2 years ago

Also, tractors are built to do work, not keep their occupants safe in a crash.

alan-hn7• 2 years ago

One could say that navigating a large vehicle through streets populated by humans should be considered a high precision affair, or is the difference expensive equipment vs human lives?

48864w6ui• 2 years ago

It looks like sloped noses are about a decade old and are sold as hi vis for work. Given the obvious advantages, something must have changed for them to be so new? Now that ag tractors have slope noses, might Chelsea tractors eventually copy the look?

trgn4• 2 years ago

One of the reason I'm holding on to an old car, apart from out of spite, is the big windows and fantastic visibility. It's like stepping into a sunroom compared to new cars.

kube-system2• 2 years ago

Agricultural tractors aren't made with any consideration for pedestrian safety. The reason they have good visibility is because that makes them easier to use, and there is no other competing reason not to surround the driver with a lot of glass.

Passenger vehicles have other requirements that complicate this:

1. They must be attractive enough to sell in volume to the end buyer

2. They require large A-pillars to absorb crash impacts

You could make an SUV that looks big fish bowl, but it would be difficult to simultaneously achieve safety targets and be a commercial success.

alan-hn7• 2 years ago

I'm sure you could achieve safety targets with a vehicle that was safe for those outside of it as well, perhaps safety for your children crossing the road should be attractive to consumers?

matsemann3• 2 years ago

London has enforced a Direct Vision Standard [1 example image] for big vehicles. I hope my city will soon as well. Having large trucks, trailers etc. in the city with no visibility to pedestrians is a death trap.

My city's new trash truck [2]. Instead of the standard "high" trailer seating above the engine, it's now down on a pedestrian level and can see clearly in what's normally a "blind spot" when turning right.

[1] https://fncdn.blob.core.windows.net/web-clean/1/root/direct-... [2]: https://storage.googleapis.com/smallstep/sites/33/2022/02/Re...

astrolx• 2 years ago

No sh*t sherlock!

As a pedestrian who found himself on the receiving end of a hood and survived via a last-second jump to end up on top of the said hood, I certainly concur.

porphyra2• 2 years ago

Vans are a lot better for both transporting people (more spacious compared to SUVs) and goods (easier loading and protected from the weather compared to pickups), plus of course having vastly better visibility. It always seems odd how trucks and SUVs are seen as status symbols in the US whereas in, say, Hong Kong, it is the MPV that is the status symbol. I suppose certain tax and emissions regulations in favor of trucks also contribute to their popularity.

RangerScience• 2 years ago

AFAIK, exactly this - something about how trucks and SUVs are classified differently and so have different emission standards, which results in other effects that are then appealing to consumers.

Plus, of course, marketing.

toast03• 2 years ago

Minivans are light trucks for fleet purposes, so they can also get bigger engines and what not, if that's what people are looking for.

riversflow2• 2 years ago

Vans are not better for goods as a universal rule, they are better for certain classes of goods. I do not want a yard of manure/dirt/gravel dumped in my van, but thats a common use of a pickup in my neck of the woods. Like extremely common.

Hong Kong

Hot take: The Americas just aren't developed to the level of Eurasia, and we should stop pretending like they are.

mlinhares2• 2 years ago

I think this is an incentives game, Americans have much more land and money to pay for expensive development (like suburbs) that just do not make financial sense in the EU or Asia in general, as they either lack land or it would be too expensive to pay for the infrastructure needed to make it all work.

I also haven't met an American that has been to a high quality of life and walkable city in the EU and didn't come back with a changed perspective on what life could be like. Once you visit places like London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, Amsterdam and the like and stay there for a while you rethink the suburban life.

I'm in the burbs because having small kids in big US cities is super shitty and expensive but as soon as they get older the goal is to find a nice city to move to. Either here or in Europe.

aidenn07• 2 years ago

Can't even buy the MPV in the US anymore...

toast03• 2 years ago

Vans tend to have pretty good visibility, but not compared to a single cab truck.

Loading into a van can be easier or harder depending on the goods. Larger items are easier into a truck, IMHO, since you don't have to rearrange or remove the seating, and don't have to negotiate door openings, and sometimes it's useful to get help over the sides of the bed. Lower typical height of van floors can be helpful though. Pickup beds tend to have more and better tiedown points, too.

I have a pickup and a van, and a c-max, and I would most likely give up the c-max first; especially if either or both the van and the pickup had reasonable fuel efficiency.

crote9• 2 years ago

Larger items are easier into a truck, IMHO, since you don't have to rearrange or remove the seating

Think less minivan and more Mercedes-Benz Sprinter. You load them more like a moving truck: giant doors in the rear, big empty space to put stuff in.

baggachipz2• 2 years ago

Yeah but the drivers get to cosplay as Rugged Men™.

The only thing that'll reverse the trend and stop this from getting worse will be government regulation. Then come the cries of "Now they're taking our trucks!"

KennyBlanken• 2 years ago

Every time I see someone behind the wheel of the absolute largest SUV a company offers, it's a small woman. Even as far back when SUVs first became a thing, I noticed that the smallest moms at school at the biggest SUVs.

They love the "might" that a huge vehicle gives them.

beretguy2• 2 years ago

So… Rugged Women™, then.

practicemaths2• 2 years ago

TBF Trucks and SUVs are relatively easier to drive in certain regards.

Such as being able to see over parked traffic when making a turn.

And I've found driving taller vehicles more comfortable for my back coincidentally.

7e• 2 years ago

If you’re short, you prefer a vehicle which elevates your view.

dingnuts2• 2 years ago

it's because they are mothers with >2 children. You cannot fit three car seats in the backseat of modern sedans, and station wagons don't meet the emissions requirements.

Large SUVs meet CAFE regulations by being large enough to be regulated as a different class of vehicle. Want smaller trucks? Complain to your Congresscritter to reign in the EPA and force them to write better regulation that does not have these unintended effects.

trgn4• 2 years ago

All true.

_everybody_ drives huge SUVs. A few rugged men(TM) driving a large truck isn't the problem, they're couleur locale. It'd be adorable, like people wearing cowboy hats in Texas.

The web of interwoven incentive structures - reptile brains, cafe standards, cheap gas, safety arms race, ... - pushing _everybody_ towards larger vehicles is the problem. System and id are completely misaligned, killing thousands in the process.

filoleg6• 2 years ago

God, this is pretty much my mother.

She couldn’t care any less about “ruggedness” or that “tough guy” image. Her only argument ever is “safety.”

I am not in it to change her mind. But whenever she brings this topic up and I show her the actual safety ratings for different vehicles, it’s almost as if her brain shuts down. She would say something along the lines “uh oh idk, maybe, who knows, it doesn’t feel as safe,” and the whole thing gets forgotten. Right until she decides to bring it up again from scratch at some point later, as if our previous conversations about it never happened.

Lowkey, I think it would be an interesting idea to mandate displaying brightly colored safety ratings for every car on display at a dealership. No need to overcomplicate it by showing the entire stat sheet with a bajillion different numbers. Just one giant number for the overall rating, and about 4-5 subcategory numbers (e.g., driver safety score, passenger safety score, etc.). I think 1-2 of those metrics should be “the safety sub-category on which our car scored the worst.”

My only worry about this is that the metrics themselves become the target goal, leading to either car manufacturers influencing safety rating boards or them maliciously complying by gaming the metrics just for those measured categories at the expense of everything else. Though the latter isn’t as much of a concern, given that it is pretty difficult to accomplish, and it would still have a large negative effect on the overall score.

drewcoo• 2 years ago

Every time I see someone behind the wheel of the absolute largest SUV a company offers, it's a small woman

With tiny dogs. Maybe they're the preferred vehicle of tiny dogs.

olyjohn4• 2 years ago

Please don't ignore that every other person also has moved from driving cars to crossovers that offer no actual advantages over a regular car. Most people want to sit high, and that's what sells crossovers. The hoods are higher in them too and we can't discount this and blame it all on big trucks.

closewith4• 2 years ago

Ease of entry alone, especially for the elderly or with young children, is an incredible advantage.

What it sounds like is that crossovers don't offer advantages that appeal to you.

Johnny5552• 2 years ago

that offer no actual advantages over a regular car. Most people want to sit high

Isn't that the advantage? In a world where SUV's and trucks are more popular than sedans, sitting higher gives a sight advantage (and probably safety advantage in a side collision with one of those high cars). I drive a midsized sedan most of the time, but when I drive the RV (which has a higher seating position than many SUV's), I love the extra forward visibility, instead being at tailgate level, I can see through the back window of the truck/SUV in front of me.

somerandomqaguy• 2 years ago

...what?

If you've got back, hip, knee, or ankle problems, then trying to bend down into a low car is an undignified exercise at best, a struggle at worst. A CUV doesn't have that problem, you just sit into it like a chair.

For a family with young children, securing child seats into a CUV involves a lot less bending over then in lower car. Bear in mind that many child seats are 40 lbs.

If you live in a snowy area, the greater ground clearance makes it less likely to get stuck in residential roads that are lower priority for snow removal. You also have better approach angles as well, which can become a concern if you live in an area that's very hilly with steep driveways.

You probably don't see advantages, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

sickofparadox4• 2 years ago

It's government regulations that made trucks get this big, most people simply buy what is available in the form factor they like. Trucks are the most popular form factor in the United States (with pickups a close second)[1], and the manufacturers keep making the cars bigger because of the poorly written CAFE laws[2]. I, and I suspect most Americans with pickups, would prefer to purchase one the size of a '90s F-150 as compared to the monsters of today but manufacturers can't or won't sell me one. Making up some macho strawman to attack actually obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more difficult.

[1] https://www.motortrend.com/features/car-types-models-body-st....

[2]https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...

closewith4• 2 years ago

Does anyone call an SUV a truck? Surely pickups are trucks.

jewayne8• 2 years ago

Making up some macho strawman to attack actually obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more difficult.

Blaming the government for getting captured by industry also obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more difficult. The current (grotesque) CAFE standards went in during the last months of the Bush administration, as a gift to the automakers.

stcredzero4• 2 years ago

It's government regulations that made trucks get this big, most people simply buy what is available in the form factor they like.

Lots of Americans want smaller trucks. I just saw a Netflix show where a main character prized his old Toyota pickup. This is also evidenced in the importation of Japanese "K-car" trucks.

cameldrv• 2 years ago

You can still get something like a 90s F-150, but it's now called a midsize truck. The main difference is that the bed will be smaller and the interior will be larger. There are even some smaller unibody trucks like the Maverick coming on the market.

What you can't seem to get is something like a first generation Tacoma or 90s S-10 without 4WD that's low to the ground. All of the newer trucks have very high bed sides that make loading them from the side a huge pain even if you're tall.

ToucanLoucan• 2 years ago

It's government regulations that made trucks get this big

This is presented incredibly dishonestly in this context. It's well understood that automakers had their grubby little hands all over emissions regulations in the late Bush admin. They spent oodles of cash, tons of lobbyist time, and BEGGED for the exclusions for trucks that made complete sense at the time for TRUCKS, as in, pickup trucks used by laborers that needed the power and relaxed emissions standards that they asked for. And then, once that was done, set about changing 2/3 of their sales into trucks, so they could continue selling ever larger vehicles at ever higher prices with ever worse fuel economy.

most people simply buy what is available in the form factor they like. Trucks are the most popular form factor in the United States (with pickups a close second)[1]

Which is directly traceable to substantial and aggressive marketing pushes by the American auto industry to shove trucks and SUV's down American's throats, because they could sell them for higher prices than the vans and station wagons that were already popular at the time.

And even now, the solution proposed for all the issues these oversized stupid machines cause, is more sensors, more cameras, more safety features that, OH WOW, they get to charge more money for! No way!

and the manufacturers keep making the cars bigger because of the poorly written CAFE laws[2].

Again, the way this is framed posits that the CAFE standards were flawed output by the legislators themselves, and not the result of back and forth negotiations with the auto industry for decades prior.

I, and I suspect most Americans with pickups, would prefer to purchase one the size of a '90s F-150 as compared to the monsters of today but manufacturers can't or won't sell me one.

Except now after decades of this shit, even if you can find a smaller vehicle, many consumers have (correctly) identified that their neighbors are driving suburban panzers, and not having one yourself puts you and yours at an elevated risk in a collision. Tons of people have reasonably sized vehicles in this country, and if you get t-boned by some jack-off in a lifted F-350 driving one, there is a not-insubstantial chance you're going to die, because those vehicles are not designed with safety in mind: they are designed to appeal to a marketing demographic that has been created: the modern man seeking to reclaim his masculinity because his accounting job doesn't let him imagine himself a hunter seeking the mammoth well enough, or whatever the fuck.

Making up some macho strawman to attack actually obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more difficult.

It isn't making up strawmen, it's pointing to a strawman manufactured by the auto industry that needs to be burned. The ONLY reason all these stupid machines are out driving today is because we as a society permit it. That can be changed. We are allowed to simply say that if you cannot demonstrate competence to handle a vehicle of this size, you do not get to drive one, end of discussion. It's not like we haven't had multiple classes of drivers licenses since basically the inception of drivers' licenses for this exact reason: because handling a 55 foot LTL truck is harder than handling a Honda Civic.

This is a cultural issue as much as it is a political one. You can't just not take into account the long-term and well documented history of the auto industry and it's involvement here, any more than you can not take into account the documented history of the NRA/gun manufacturers with regard to our gun problem.

arh68• 2 years ago

Trucks sure are popular, but gov't regulations didn't "make" them big.

Given the popularity of F-250s / 2500s, which hardly meet any CAFE standard, the truckers don't yearn for the Ranger. They like 12mpg turbo diesel. We could repeal CAFE, get Ford to make them, but they still wouldn't sell. Tacoma loyalists keep the mid-size truck alive, but they're just a small fraction of 1500/2500 buyers.

People like big trucks, and that's fine: but why blame it on the gov't ?

njarboe4• 2 years ago

Trucks have a 25% import tax in the US and cars don't since the 1960. US domestic vehicle manufacturers have spent many decades to convince people to buy trucks and SUVs because of this fact. Google "chicken tax". Large station wagons used to be quite popular in the 1960's

kspacewalk23• 2 years ago

It's not just because of this fact. It's also because trucks and SUVs are exempted from fuel efficiency standards that apply to sedans. So out sedans go, Ford doesn't even bother with them at all anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/04/07/trucks-ou...

hipadev23• 2 years ago

Government regulation is what forced manufacturers to make bigger vehicles.

jewayne8• 2 years ago

But who asked for the government regulations? Perhaps the manufacturers themselves?

Edit: Yeah, it was the manufacturers.

infecto• 2 years ago

While I do believe people often buy trucks for the looks and emotional feeling, I equally feel that your projection itself is just as dangerous as the idea behind it.

stcredzero4• 2 years ago

Yeah, contemptuously painting a diverse group of people with a broad brush as pernicious -- History has something to say about this mental move.

havefunbesafe• 2 years ago

The only way to reverse the trend is to create a motocross hitch that doesn't pulverize the suspension of a car/crossover.

FooBarBizBazz7• 2 years ago

You think it's all dudes driving these things though? Surely yeah, that's the case for big stupid pickup trucks. But SUVs are driven by anxious Starbucks moms. "I need to feel safe." Hausfrauenpanzeren.

HeatrayEnjoyer3• 2 years ago

Better their trucks than my family members.

rhuru2• 2 years ago

Common sense is the first casualty when any topic has political bias to it. This comment demonstrates that.

Large vehicles are important part of American economy and mostly driven by blue collar workers doing their work. For example things like plumbing, construction site work etc. Now a days environment scientists and engineers too drive these large vehicles as they are very important for their day to day work. Not everyone can drive Tesla Model 3 everywhere.

In fact majority of those large vehicles are you see are mostly driven by such needs ( pun intended).

But the research on this topic itself is pretty shoddy. For example one has to look at other variables. Who was driving when the accident happened ? Chances are someone who was rushing to his work.

A lot of other data points out that the drivers are at fault are often poor people going to their work in their work vehicle. Another data is he victims too are poor people going to their work and disregarding basic pedestrian safety.

These are not men pretending to be rugged.

the_gastropod• 2 years ago

Large vehicles are important part of American economy and mostly driven by blue collar workers doing their work

Aaaaaaaabsolutely not! Trucks outnumber cars in every U.S. state. "Blue Collar" workers represent something like 16% of the U.S. workforce. The vast majority of truck drivers are not blue collar workers.

Other countries have blue collar workers too. And trucks! Have you seen what they look like? Check this bad-boy out. This is peak performance when it comes to manly-man workin' trucks. [1]

[1] https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2FA3BTR/a-small-blue-pickup-utilit...

crote9• 2 years ago

Large vehicles are important part of American economy and mostly driven by blue collar workers doing their work. For example things like plumbing, construction site work etc.

The problem is that this argument is demonstrably not true. Trucks vastly outnumber blue collar workers, and most blue collar workers would be better served by a Volkswagen Transporter or a Mercedes-Benz Sprinter. You're not seeing those in the US because they have an insane import tax.

The traditional target for pickup trucks, farmers, almost universally hate modern trucks because they are simply way too tall to be practical - they'd rather have a 1990 model than a 2024 one.

The vast majority of pickup trucks see zero offroad use, and practically never carry anything in their bed. They are essentially pavement princesses used to commute to an office job.

CRConrad22• 2 years ago

Large vehicles are important part of American economy and mostly driven by blue collar workers doing their work. For example things like plumbing, construction site work etc.

So explain the difference between the twentieth century (and the first few years of the twentyfirst), when trucks were an exception and cars were the norm, and now. Are you saying there were almost no plumbers and construction workers around then, or that almost everyone is a plumber or construction worker now?

somedude895• 2 years ago

Did we really need a study for this? What's next? A study to find out whether a hammer to the head or torso is more lethal than a hammer to the legs? What a total racket to spend money on something like this.

anotherhue• 2 years ago

You may enjoy

"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial"

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

SECProto• 2 years ago

If one wanted to make a regulation regarding hood height, having a study like this as evidence would be critically important. Gut instinct alone wouldn't suffice

tempestn• 2 years ago

First, things that are obvious aren't always correct. It's better to rely on actual data than intuition alone. Second, the study not only gives the qualitative result that higher hoods are more dangerous, but also begins to quantify the effect, and can give an idea of the specific height at which the pedestrian danger begins to spike.

tasty_freeze2• 2 years ago

I'll take your question seriously. Why do people do studies like this when the answer seems obvious?

(1) It quantifies the seriousness of the problem. Does it increase the chance of death or significant injury by 1%, 10%, 50%? Without reading the article, what is the "obvious" answer to that question?

(2) People believe many "obvious" things that aren't true. They are trivial to find simply by finding two groups with opposite beliefs on a subject and both think their conclusions are obvious. Eg, did the COVID-19 vaccines reduce or increase death rates? It seems obvious to me that it was a great benefit, but there are people going on TV claiming the vaccines killed millions of people.

(3) Even in areas that aren't contentious, there are many widely believed but untested assumptions. If someone didn't spend the time and effort to validate those things, we might never find what is really true. 50 years ago it was unquestioned that stress is what causes ulcers. Almost nobody questioned that except for the one guy who did the experiment that proved it was bacterial in origin. Had his result been negative, you'd be here to mock him.

newaccount74• 2 years ago

You need a study because otherwise people keep posting links to youtube videos claiming that hood heights aren't that dangerous and it's actually less lethal because pedestrians are less likely to hit the windshield with their head.

chowells• 2 years ago

Hood heights that are too low are also shown to cause more injuries. In fact, there would seem to be an optimal range. Studies seem like a great way to find out what that range is in practice.

jewayne8• 2 years ago

But remember, injuries and fatalities are not the same thing. It could be the building shin-busting bumpers is the best way to save lives. Who knows?

leotravis10• 2 years ago

Related: Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians (iihs.org) | 322 points by yours truly | 463 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38267588

youngtaff• 2 years ago

We’ve known this for years…

jiveturkey2• 2 years ago

Article is current but the data is from 2021. I can easily find a deep journal-esque writeup dating to aug 1 2022. (JPHSC). https://doi.org/10.15586/jphsc. v1i1.47

Currently, it seems unlikely that NHTSA will move to regulate hood heights on new vehicles.

That's quite interesting statement. Hood (or is it bumper? -- which implies hood) heights are already regulated. Too low of a height has been determined to result in more injuries (not fatalities I guess), so the height has been forced to increase over the last decade or decades. Because of that you will never see (eg) a Lambo Diablo design again. Very very hard to find information about this imposed minimum height requirement because search results are flooded with this new finding since approx Nov 2023.

jiveturkey2• 2 years ago

can't understand the downvote but i found the reg.

FMVSS (not sure if this is written by NTHSA or what) requires bumper to be 16-20in for passenger cars and max 28in for light trucks. This then effectively dictates the minimum hood height.

I additionally found a voluntary program in Eu called EEVC around bumper, hood and windshield design factors to reduce ped injury. NHTSA also has pubs around it but in the time I'm willing to invest I couldn't find if these are required or even voluntary or what in the US. Nice, brief summary article with diagrams from 2002: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123098/

tfourb• 2 years ago

I honestly do not understand, why regulators have not mandated limits on front dead angles (space occluded from view by the hood) and max vehicle hood hight by now. Well, I understand why it hasn't happened in the U.S. (how could any regulator curtail the manhood of the truck aficionados?), but in the E.U. regulators usually are more on top of these things.

HeyLaughingBoy4• 2 years ago

Are you saying that trucks with high hoods are prohibited in the EU?

CalRobert2• 2 years ago

They're not. The Netherlands is full of Dodge Rams.

havblue2• 2 years ago

There are definitely polls that show women find men in trucks more attractive in the US than, say, vans. If you want to signal wealth and refinement get a luxury vehicle. If you want to signal utility and masculinity get a truck.

0xdde• 2 years ago

Of course studies showing anything are out there. Much less likely that they are properly set up and therefore believable.

HeyLaughingBoy4• 2 years ago

Seriously? There are polls that show anything you want. And if you have trouble finding one, you just create your own. Polls are essentially meaningless.

_dp9d• 2 years ago

I would be very shocked to learn those polls were funded by the makers of large SUVs and trucks. /s

francisofascii• 2 years ago

honestly, I believe it. I would blame the truck ads that have brainwashed Americans into thinking that driving a truck makes you more masculine or tough.

havblue2• 2 years ago

I'd go even earlier though. Frederick Jackson Turner "The Significance of the Frontier in American History". Americans have different views on rugged individualism than Europeans do, so I didn't think it's surprising that we want to project cowboy country onto urban environments. Advertising is just tapping into the rugged lumberjack ideal.

actionfromafar2• 2 years ago

Great. Tax the trucks more and driving one will be an even better signal!

beretguy2• 2 years ago

Whoever injures - or knock on wood kills - somebody with a truck with such a high hood should serve a mandatory prison sentence.

dingnuts2• 2 years ago

vehicular manslaughter is already a crime, and these trucks have been regulated INTO existence, not out of consumer desire and a lack of regulation. Consumers preferred small trucks until they disappeared due to CAFE standards.

If you want the government to intervene, their first step should be to remove the regulations that encourage this growth in vehicle size to begin with, rather than going after consumers who have very little choice in trucks

acdha3• 2 years ago

The average American truck buyer picked it as a lifestyle accessory - it’s not like there was a huge shift in the percentage of trades jobs over the last few decades! Liability would be one way to encourage expressing that fashion aesthetic in other ways.

s1artibartfast5• 2 years ago

I think it should depend on the circumstances.

If the pedestrian is at fault, I think the individual, or their estate, should have to pay for the truck repairs and therapy for the driver.

matsemann3• 2 years ago

In the Norwegian traffic law, it specifically says that you are to slow down in areas with children. So "the child ran into the street chasing a ball right in front of my truck" isn't a valid excuse, as that's something "to be expected" when driving in a residential area.

At least in theory. Unfortunately the cops here almost never wants to prosecute cars hitting kids or pedestrians. There's always an excuse. "The sun was in their eye", "kid didn't wear high vis (it was daytime)".

burnerburnson2• 2 years ago

I'd guess the majority of pedestrians who are at fault for accidents are vagrants who can't or won't pay for any damage they cause.

I don't see well-to-do businessmen jumping into the road all that often, but I do see deadbeat beggars do it every day.

cbondurant• 2 years ago

the current pavement princess trends have left me doubting that any more regulation of any kind will happen in the US.

alistairSH5• 2 years ago

Not just the pavement princess stuff - Congress is simply doing less period.[1]

Through most of the 20th century, 1000+ laws/year was common. Since 2000, that's dropped to <500 laws/year.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...

mensetmanusman• 2 years ago

Pages of laws passed is a better metric as the laws have become more bundled due to partisanship.

kjkjadksj6• 2 years ago

Hard to measure between eras with the evolution of pork barrel politicking and other recent cultural practices.

Havoc2• 2 years ago

After the cybertruck my working assumption had been that US regulators had just given up on pedestrian safety.

iknowstuff2• 2 years ago

The cybertruck has not been shown to have lower pedestrian safety than other trucks.

Ironically, you’re commenting on an article about higher hoods, and the CT has one of the lowest hoods among trucks on the market.

Havoc2• 2 years ago

I'm commenting on pedestrian safety & regulators absence. Sharp edges and rolled steel instead of crumple zones is absolutely a bad time if you're a pedestrian. High hoods isn't the only possible risk.

kspacewalk23• 2 years ago

The Cybetruck's obnoxious hood height[0] and curb weight[1] all but guarantees that it's dangerous for pedestrians. Not that singling out Cybetruck is completely fair, all large EVs are strictly worse for pedestrian safety due to their weight.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2023/12/05/with-litt...

[1] https://www.autoweek.com/news/a46013576/tesla-cybertruck-spe...

kjkjadksj6• 2 years ago

The thing looks like a maul made for splitting wood and you know its owners will drive like they have a lawyer on retainer.

autoexec3• 2 years ago

Honestly all the "self-driving" car companies allowed to beta test their products on public streets show a strong disregard for pedestrian/public safety.

maxglute• 2 years ago

I thought there were regulations against sharp angles on hoods. I assume cybertruck geometry does not violate, but those chamfers still look dangerous as hell.

jetrink• 2 years ago

My proposed regulation is to introduce a hazardous vehicle license for large trucks and SUVs. Everyone is automatically granted one alongside their normal drivers license, but if you're caught driving recklessly (weaving through traffic on the highway, aggressively tailgating, speeding through residential or urban areas), you lose it and you have to drive a normal-sized car. Perhaps there's a way to earn it back through paying a fine and taking a safe driving course. The classification of vehicles as hazardous should be based on factors known to increase pedestrian and vehicle collision fatalities to encourage safe designs.

FooBarBizBazz7• 2 years ago

I like the spirit, but don't like the unintended consequence that it would create a stigma around sedans -- "oh, those are the cars for the bad drivers". We need to do something that makes SUV drivers feel ridiculous and humiliated. Or, failing that, just make it expensive: Weight and size dependent tolls, say (using the fourth power of weight, possibly, to match road wear equations?). Or just fewer lanes in which those vehicles are allowed. "You don't get the elite lane."

HeyLaughingBoy4• 2 years ago

We need to do something that makes SUV drivers feel ridiculous and humiliated

Oh, that couldn't possibly have any side effects.

danaris7• 2 years ago

If we're going to try to "punish" SUV drivers for driving those vehicles, then I think we need to both recognize and do some things:

1) We need to recognize that there's a wide variety of vehicles in the SUV category. Many of them have replaced (not supplemented, replaced, because they sell better and car companies are hyperoptimizing their profits like everyone else) old standards like station wagons and minivans in manufacturer lineups. Most of them do not have the stupidly-high hoods that this article is actually about: those are primarily on pickup trucks.

2) We need to recognize that, at least for some SUVs, there are genuine, non-overcompensating use cases. Like driving on snowy, icy winter roads in the northern US and all of Canada.

3) Having recognized these things, we need to make sure there is provision in place for the people who have actual needs these vehicles are fulfilling—whether because they fall into the smaller category of people who would always need these things, or because they fall into the much larger category of people who would have bought a minivan or station wagon in the '80s and '90s, but most of those have gone away—before we start treating them all like the worst members of the category.

Full disclosure: I drive a Subaru Outback. I drive it for three main reasons: it's extremely reliable, it has amazing cargo capacity (which I do use regularly), and its AWD is a godsend on the roads in upstate NY in the winter. (Is it possible to drive on these roads without it? Absolutely; I drove a Toyota Corolla for over a decade. But I am much less stressed with the AWD.) I just bought my second one, after shopping around extensively to find something that would fulfill my requirements, but get better gas mileage (which, to be fair, the Outback's is actually shockingly good for an SUV).

The Outback is also basically the shape of a station wagon. It does not have an unhealthily high hood. I honestly don't know how its weight compares to other non-SUVs, but my understanding is that right now, the heaviest cars are electric cars, so using weight alone is also not a great metric.

Ultimately, I think what people like you need to do is consider this question: Are you actually trying to solve a real problem with what cars are on the road? Or are you just looking for a socially-acceptable group of people to bully and be mean to? Because your proposals sound a lot like they're aimed at the latter, and very little like they'd be effective at the former.

jjav4• 2 years ago

I like the spirit, but don't like the unintended consequence that it would create a stigma around sedans

It doesn't need to be anything punitive, just make it that more training is required.

You start off with a basic license that allows for something like a 1.0 liter engine car (I know, also need to change regulations to encourage the manufacturing of small cars).

Then with more experience and more training you can level up to higher power and weight categories, if you want. The training needs to become more and more difficult (not paper DMV tests), that cuts out the people who want the 9000lb truck just for status since most people won't bother. If you need that 9000lb truck enough to go through the training, have at it.

crote9• 2 years ago

Easy: mandate a maximum size for parking spaces, and use a physical barrier to prevent double-parking. Have fun driving your oversized SUV when have to do parkour every time you get into your vehicle.

sschueller• 2 years ago

In Europe vehicles like the Humer electric can't even be driven with a regular license because of its weight (3500kg is the limit). It's basically a large truck and requires a much more involved license.

Hamuko2• 2 years ago

The EV Hummer is probably impossible to get registered as anything other than a truck, but there's some trickery you can do with regular pick-up trucks. I found at least one F-150 on sale that is registered as a van and you can drive it with a regular passenger car (B) license instead of a light truck (C1) license. Shockingly, the van F-150 isn't even prohibitely expensive in tax: just 531€ per year. Although with 1.70€ to 1.90€ per litre of 95E10, you'll probably just deposit all of your savings at the pump instead.

BobaFloutist5• 2 years ago

Just require a class A/B license to drive anything above...I don't know, 4000lbs? Exclude batteries from the weight if that becomes a problem for electric cars.

gnicholas• 2 years ago

Although I see why you'd want to exclude batteries from weight, I'm not sure it's totally justified. After all, F = MA regardless. A friend of mine was hit by an EV and suffered broken bones, despite being belted, and on the opposite side of the car that was hit. If it had been a lighter vehicle, her injuries wouldn't have been as bad.

punkybr3wster4• 2 years ago

In the F150 Lightning the batteries even on a standard range weigh as much as a Volkswagen. The standard range batteries weigh something like 1800lbs. The ER model has about 25% more battery and the Platinum weight is like 7150lbs! So maybe around 2100lbs of that is battery?

So you’re still over 5000lbs on that monster without the batteries.

jjav4• 2 years ago

Exclude batteries from the weight if that becomes a problem for electric cars.

Mass is mass, whether in the form of battery or frame metal.

While encouraging lighter cars would be a huge win, carving a massive exception to heavy EVs completely defeats the point.

porkbeer4• 2 years ago

Why exclude ecars? They are just as dangerous.

TrevorJ• 2 years ago

The reason some of these vehicles ARE so big IS the regulations. We could look at rolling back THOSE changes first.

punkybr3wster4• 2 years ago

This is the one time I always pull out my “Thanks Obama!” without being ironic.

mrguyorama• 2 years ago

Consumers just prefer larger vehicles here in the US, and those same preferences are also becoming the norm in other countries. You can't blame the modern Camry being gigantic on the Chicken Tax. You can't blame larger vehicles being associated with luxury on efficiency regulations.

TheCoelacanth2• 2 years ago

They should just be outright banned. The high hood doesn't serve any practical purpose.

mikrotikker• 2 years ago

How do you even work on the engine in that thing?

adamredwoods• 2 years ago

Yes.

I've always wondered if a larger vehicle hit a smaller vehicle, can they sue the larger vehicle for knowing that it could possibly inflict more damage to the smaller car? In other words, more care to avoid collisions?

tasty_freeze2• 2 years ago

There is another angle here besides the immediate impact (pun intended) of getting hit by a big truck.

I'm nearly 60, but I can remember what it was like learning to drive back in 1980. Before SUVs and huge pickup trucks became common, and before tinting windows to near opacity became a thing, it was possible to see road conditions three cars ahead -- you simply looked through the windows of the car or cars in front of you. I found it unnerving to drive behind a delivery truck because all I could see of the road was the back of the truck, so I'd change lanes so I could have more advanced notice of what was ahead of me.

These days that is mostly over: windows are too opaque, and very often that is moot because the vehicle immediately before me is well above my Corolla's vantage point.

aidenn07• 2 years ago

Non-trucks attempting a right-turn-on-red next to trucks are also more likely to hit a pedestrian, though if they are driving in a sane manner, it's unlikely to be fatal. I cannot see a pedestrian over the hood of a truck stopped just short of the crosswalk until my bumper is already well into the crosswalk.

anonymouskimmer3• 2 years ago

Not nearly as bad as hitting someone, but it's also annoying when a person is honking behind me and I'm thinking "Dude, I can't turn right until the light turns green because I can't see oncoming traffic since the truck/SUV in the left lane pulled forward.".

stefan_• 2 years ago

Streets haven't gotten wider since then either. Maybe less of a problem in the US where everything is planned around humongous fire trucks, but in the EU if you had a street that could easily accommodate two moving lanes with parking on either side, that has basically narrowed down to one moving lane.

Also reminds me of all the regulation around car lights - you literally specified the beam pattern light intensity color and what not, but you couldn't be bothered to narrowly restrict the height off the ground? Great, now everyone in a sedan is being blinded by all sorts of SUVs and trucks. Utter failure.

Jayakumark• 2 years ago

To add to it, they should put a limit on Lumens on Headlight something like not to exceed 2000 lumens, Also its temperature should be 3000k range like old cars but new ones are like 8000k. yesterday night - saw a light that must be atleast 20000 lumens its like watching sun, cant see anything for a few seconds.

Zancarius5• 2 years ago

Great, now everyone in a sedan is being blinded by all sorts of SUVs and trucks. Utter failure.

I drive a truck and live in a mountainous area. Trust me, it's not just sedans. Nearly everyone drives around with their brights on and it seems they no longer bother to turn them down when approaching traffic (automatic dimming features don't work well up here). Consequently, night time driving is dangerous. I don't know what their advertised beam pattern is, but it's like driving passed spotlights aimed at your eyes while on the road when you're on the outside lane.

FWIW mine are halogens (2014). Plenty bright (and aim-able—for towing), but they're useless when you're temporarily blinded by super bright LEDs.

dysfunction2• 2 years ago

Streets may not have gotten wider in a given city/town since then, but there's been a lot of population growth and development in that time in the sunbelt where urban planning has favored very wide roads. So even if roads themselves aren't getting wider, people have been moving to places where roads are wide.

crote9• 2 years ago

Streets haven't gotten wider since then either.

In proper urban design that's actually a feature. People don't care about the posted speed limit - they probably won't even notice the sign. Instead they drive at the speed which they feel is appropriate for the road.

A lot of the suburban infrastructure in the US was developed around collision safety. This means wide roads and large setbacks, all in order to get rid of anything to collide with. However, this means that a regular residential street now feels extremely safe to drive: it's essentially a highway, so people will drive at highway speeds.

On the other hand, plenty of suburban road infrastructure in Europe has been explicitly designed to feel unsafe. The roads are intentionally made narrow, visibility is poor, and you'll run into plenty of obstacles like chicanes. Although plenty of that is a leftover from the pre-car era, it's nowadays an intentional design decision for new roads even when there is plenty of space. It's physically impossible to drive on those streets at highway speeds, so people are forced to slow down. Anyone with even the vaguest sense of self-preservation will drive a lot slower with a 6-inch clearance to oncoming traffic than with a 6-feet clearance. The lower speeds in turn actually make the roads safer, and make it possible to share them with cyclists and other low-speed traffic.

Fun fact: the narrowest residential street allowed in the US is wider than a highway lane in The Netherlands.

fennecbutt3• 2 years ago

Yeah I hate that narrow UK streets are dominated by idiot box SUVs parked on both fucking sides of the road, making it fully single lane.

I come from New Zealand; I know when you need a ute or an SUV and you do NOT need one in London.

wharvle2• 2 years ago

Windows and front/back windshields are way smaller now, too. It's like we're all driving around looking out of tank-viewport-slits. (I'm sure there are exceptions in some models—I drove a buddy's Jeep-truck the other day and the unusually-good-by-modern-standards visibility nearly turned me into a Jeep guy on the spot—but that's the trend)

hwillis• 2 years ago

Hmm. I'm not sure how true that is, but that might be a perception thing because hoods have gotten longer and windshields have gotten more slanted. Being farther from the front of the car/windshield makes your view angle smaller even if the height of the window hasn't changed.

Surprisingly, sloped windows are more of a safety thing than a fuel efficiency or aerodynamics thing. If the windshield is too sloped, it acts like a wedge that throws air up above the car and causes a ton of turbulence. It's more important that the airflow stays stuck to the top surface of the car, and a steeper windshield helps with that.

mturmon• 2 years ago

Yes. As you may know, recent safety regulations prompted by rollover incidents have meant that the "A" and "C" pillars connecting the body to the roof have been made wider. [See the first 2 paragraphs of the "Design" section of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_(car) ]

It seems like there's a second-order effect here on visibility that may not have been really appreciated.

saltcured2• 2 years ago

Cars in the 80s and 90s definitely had more of a "greenhouse" feel to them, with mostly transparent glass and small framing.

Due to a mixture of standards, this has changed. The roof cap and pillars have thickened and curved for roll-over protection, and front pillars are also thicker to hold air bags that didn't exist in those older cars. The windows sills are higher up relative to the driver, to improve side-impact protection.

There are other changes too, such as dark coatings around the edges of windshields and fat mounts behind the rear view mirror to hold sensors, cameras, etc. As a tall driver, I find these changes very frustrating. The rear view mirror is capable of hiding a crossing car at a 4-way stop, and I sometimes cannot even see overhead traffic lights when stopped in the first position at an intersection.

burnerburnson2• 2 years ago

I regularly pass people on the right and then cut them off getting back into the left lane just so that I don't have to be stuck behind someone I can't see around.

The tinted front/rear windows really piss me off because they make my drive more dangerous for very little reason. I'd make them illegal if it were up to me.

BobaFloutist5• 2 years ago

I'd make them illegal if it were up to me.

They mostly are (at least the front windshield is), it's just not really enforced.

el_benhameen2• 2 years ago

Tinted front windshields are illegal in California, among other states, fwiw. The law just isn’t enforced, just like modded exhaust, and residential speed limits … and passing on the right.

dcotter2• 2 years ago

Know what's already illegal? Passing on the right:

Laws that cover passing when crossing the centerline of the roadway is not required (where there are multiple lanes in the same direction), often say something like this:
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.

source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-tick...

Symbiote• 2 years ago

It's even more noticeable cycling. An adult on a bicycle has their head just above roof level of an ordinary car, which is excellent as it gives a view of cars coming the other way.

I go through the area where all the really rich people live, and it's easy to see over their sports cars, luxury sedans etc.

Continuing through the wannabe-rich area, my view is then blocked by SUVs and similar.

(Whether this is important depends mostly on how well separated car and bicycle traffic is.)

gardenhedge• 2 years ago

Just stay well enough back from the car in front of you and you'll be fine..

mbostleman• 2 years ago

I think that's more of a function of the relative difference between the sizes of your vehicle and the other vehicle, not the absolute size of the other vehicle. The relative size is a big factor in why mixing bikes with cars is so deadly. The other one, of course, is relative speed. Years ago I got my CDL and there was a multiple choice question to the effect of what is the safest speed to drive. Three of the answers were all relative to the speed limit and the correct answer was relative to other traffic: the safest speed is the speed of the cars around you, or zero relative speed.

cyckl• 2 years ago

This is one of the reasons I daily drive a 1990 BMW 325i—the visibility is just unparalleled.

porkbeer4• 2 years ago

Same with most 90s cars. My old honda is practically a greenhouse, and was ctitisized for its c pillar at the time.

okdood64• 2 years ago

Even with the increase visibility, I'm sure you'd be much safer in a 2020 BMW 3-series. Heck even a 2010.

Shocka1• 2 years ago

I've noticed this too and this is why I leave at least 5 car lengths in front of me, sometimes even more. I can see around the vehicle in front of me no problem, and can absorb the energy for those rush hour random stops. It seems like 9 out of 10 people follow with less than 3 car lengths, even at 60 to 80mph. This leaves no room for error and anecdotally I've seen it bite people many times.

The 5+ car length strategy has served me extremely well in many years of a 2 hour commute. I can't remember once where I had to panic brake due to being surprised by a random 70mph to 0mph stop, and I can only assume that I'm helping drivers behind me get to their destination safely as well due to absorbing that slinky effect.

The only con is people jump in front of me here and there, but that doesn't bother me one bit.

bombcar3• 2 years ago

People way overplay the “everyone will cut in front of you” if you leave five or more spaces - it really will only happen in literal stop-and-go traffic where you are going five miles per hour anyway.

bradgranath• 2 years ago

No duh?

sf_rob• 2 years ago

I got in an argument with the Ford CMO on Twitter about this. He said that the F150 has maintained the overall footprint for years, which is true. However, if you super-impose an image of older F150s and newer ones (which I did) you find that the hood is much more "cubic" leading to a higher edge and much worse viewing angle. I believe this is entirely stylistic.

kjkjadksj6• 2 years ago

Another big difference between a new one and a 50 year old one, is the cabin on the old one is basically like driving in an aquarium tank in terms of visibility with the lack of a or b pillar obstruction and low belt lines. Suspension is also generally lower on smaller tires from the ones I still see around town from the 70s. Sometimes their hoods aren’t much taller than a sedan but that could be from the suspension setup.

renewiltord• 2 years ago

Yeah, that makes sense. But lots of people pointed out to me that "right of way won't matter when you're dead" and that "cemeteries are filled with people who had the right of way". That's true and taking that to heart means buying a big truck because then right of way doesn't matter and it's the other guy in the cemetery. After all, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6" or whatever. Yield to gross tonnage.

quadyeast• 2 years ago

The opaque tinted side windows make it hard to tell if the driver sees you at the pedestrian cross. I'm often forced to wait till they leave and they sometimes wait for me so ...

sporkland• 2 years ago

Illegal but not enforced in California. I say we let these people run a few more years and then basically revoke the license of anyone that has done this for a year. The front dark tinted window is nearly 100% correlated with reckless, aggressive driving for me.

tomaskafka2• 2 years ago

It seems that no one has yet posted the famous article linking SUVs to immaturity and low self esteem, so here we go.

Car companies managed this remarkable feat because they ran—and continue to run—quite possibly the most sophisticated marketing operations on the planet. They knew what people really wanted: to project an image of selfish superiority. And then they sold it to them at a markup
Who has been buying SUVs since automakers turned them into family vehicles? They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7q7eb/electric-or-not-big-s...

Nifty3929• 2 years ago

Judgement and condescension are unlikely to change minds or behavior, or add anything else of value. It will only make people wonder who really has an issue with immaturity and low self esteem.

tomaskafka2• 2 years ago

Those words are the characteristics that the actual SUV marketers see in their data and user behavior :).

TacticalCoder• 2 years ago

They're also do not seem aerodynamic. Note that many cars now have features meant to protect pedestrians a bit if there's an impact: the bonnet shall rise with springs, instantly (not unlike an airbag) and then the springs shall absorb the impact a bit. Some bonnet even have airbag outside the car that are supposed to protect pedestrians.

But, yup, these huge, tall, flat hoods don't seem that great.

Drive a Porsche guys, not a RAM ; )

pants2• 2 years ago

Americans love to buy 6,000lb tanks with the aerodynamics of a brick and then complain about high gas prices. It's the American way.

ChrisLTD• 2 years ago

The US government is completely MIA on this issue. There’s no reason people need these monster trucks to drive to and from their job every day or to and from the grocery store.

amai• 2 years ago

This should be a surprise for nobody. See for example this great video by NotJustBikes: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=o8JKltCiITzISK8d

hateful• 2 years ago

Every single time I see a huge SUV being backed into a spot instead of just parking I think about how dangerous this is. Starting in 2016 all vehicles have backup cameras so that you don't accidentally run someone over. The backup cameras have wide angle lenses. But now you'll have to pull forward with no such camera and a HUGE blind spot.

fennecbutt3• 2 years ago

Didn't we know this decades ago? Back when we also stopped allowing pop up headlights (even though I think they're so cool).

I think we should have banned or restricted sales of SUVs and "trucks" as Americans call 'em, a long time ago.

When I was growing up, cars were a very reasonable size, even for a family. Now the streets are full of giant SUVs, mostly driven by a single occupant, and usually with a driving style that the confidence and apathy of being in a larger vehicle gives them.

Too late now, I guess.

tim333• 2 years ago

The US has some dumb legal incentives for people to drive the big stuff like

The “light truck” loophole for pickups and SUVs that allow them to pollute more than other cars. https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abk7b/bidens-new-fuel-econo...

They should in any sane world go the other way - have a benefits for small safer cars and a bunch of tax and regulation on the monster ones.

stjuma• 2 years ago

Large trucks are safer in intra-vehicle collisions. Imagine RAM vs sedan or average SUV. It’s completely rational to purchase the largest car you can afford, as long as you’re concerned about the safety of your family and yourself

CRConrad22• 2 years ago

as long as you’re

ONLY

concerned about the safety of your family and yourself

There, FTFY.

And yeah, most people are only concerned about that.

That's why regulation is needed, for the common good.

Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds

Related Stories