Vehicles have gotten a lot bigger over the last few decades, particularly when it comes to trucks and SUVs. In particular, hood heights have gotten much taller as trends have shifted towards taller, more aggressive designs. The trend has raised safety concerns around visibility and pedestrian impacts, particularly when it comes to small children. A new research paper has found significant correlations between larger vehicles and pedestrian fatalities.
The study is the work of Justin Tyndall, an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Hawaii. Tyndall’s research focuses on cities, transport, and housing. His latest paper, The effect of front-end vehicle height on pedestrian death risk, is published in the upcoming March 2024 edition of Economics of Transportation, and also available on his personal website.
Tyndall’s hypothesis was that vehicles with taller front-end designs could be more dangerous for pedestrians in a crash. In these incidents, the higher front-end is more likely to make contact with a person’s head or torso, inflicting greater injuries. In contrast, a vehicle with a lower hoodline might instead hit a pedestrian’s legs, where injuries are less likely to be fatal. Motivating this research are the sobering statistics on pedestrian deaths from traffic collisions, which hit approximately 7,400 fatalities in 2021, up 77% compared to 2010.
Earlier studies have been done in this area, but many haven’t been able to drill down into specifics like hood height due to the limitations of available data. Tyndall’s point of difference was to source vehicle measurements using the VINs of vehicles that show up in U.S. & Canadian crash data. The paper features a basic analysis of pedestrian deaths per vehicle category, which shows that pickups and SUVs are most likely to cause a pedestrian fatality in the event of a collision. But it’s the statistics on front-end height that prove the most telling.
Armed with this data, Tyndall was able to more precisely analyze the relationship between vehicle size and pedestrian deaths. His analysis determined that front-end height is the best predictor of pedestrian fatalities versus any other vehicle dimension, like weight or wheelbase. For a 3.93-inch (10 cm) increase in front-end height, Tyndall found there was a 22% increase in the probability of a pedestrian death. This analysis controlled for other factors like crash characteristics, to ensure a fair comparison.
The study also determined that women, children, and the elderly were more strongly affected in this regard. Tyndall suspects that this could be in part related to the lower average body height for women, similarly for children and older people.
Split across these categories, the data gets interesting. A 3.93-inch (10 cm) increase in hood height raises the risk of fatality by 19% for male pedestrians. For female pedestrians, it goes up by 31%.
Taking the same 3.93-inch increase in height, for those aged 18-65, the risk increases by 21%. For those over 65, the increase is a higher 31%. The results are the most sobering when it comes to children, however. For those under 18, the probability of death goes up by a whopping 81%. That’s four times higher than in adults, and suggests that shorter individuals may be at much greater risk from vehicles with super-tall bonnet lines.
Tyndall suggests there is scope to improve pedestrian safety by limiting hood heights. If front-end heights were limited to 49.2 inches (125 cm), he estimates there would be 500 fewer pedestrian fatalities every year. He bases this number off the approximate hood height of a Honda CR-V. The SUV is taller than most traditional car body styles, but measurably lower than larger SUVs and trucks on the market.
Of course, Tyndall isn’t the only one looking at this problem. The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety published similar conclusions last year. The agency determined that vehicles with tall front ends were more dangerous to pedestrians. Furthermore, it found that medium-height vehicles with blunter, more vertical front-end designs were also more dangerous. Ultimately, it found that pickups, SUVs and vans with hoods over 40 inches were far more dangerous for pedestrians in the event of a collision. They were 45% more likely to cause a fatality compared to other vehicles with more sloping designs and hood heights of 30 inches and below.
Similarly, a study from the European Transport Safety Council concluded that SUVs and pickups made roads more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants alike. It similarly found hood height to be predictive of greater harm. “A pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car with a bonnet 90 cm [35.4 inches] high runs a 30% greater risk of fatal injury than if hit by a vehicle with a bonnet 10 cm [3.93 inches] lower,” read the study release, a notably similar figure to Tyndall’s own findings.
Anyone can look at a big SUV or pickup truck and guess that it might be more of a threat in the event of a collision with pedestrians. Beyond that, it’s clear that multiple studies have found numbers to back that up. Whether it leads to any change in vehicle design standards remains to be seen, but regulators would certainly have plenty of data on their side if they were to move in that direction.
Image credits: Title – Sven D via Unsplash License, Figures – Justin Tyndall via research paper, Chevy, IIHS
Any vehicle with a hood over 36″ should be required to have school bus fish eye mirrors at the front corners.
With great size, comes great responsibility, to butcher spider-man. Commercial vehicles have always been over-sized, and the drivers are usually attentive, and drive accordingly. The BIG problem, as I see it, is that everyone wants a commanding view, and does not want to feel out-sized by traffic around them. This has led to an arms race that is illogical. I suppose we all need Futurliners.
Ironically the hoods on the medium duty trucks like a Chevy 5500 dump truck have hoods that are more sloped than Chevy pickup trucks.
That’s the paradox. As commercial vehicles are getting more sensible, aerodynamic, the common pick-ups are becoming more ridiculous.
And pickup owners have been complaining that pickups have gotten too big.
They are. I’ve had a F350, and Chevy Cheyenne, both 4×4 so a little taller than the RWD models, and both from the 80s. They were enough of a PITA to lift trunk rounds into.
“Tyndall suggests there is scope to improve pedestrian safety by limiting hood heights. “
Yup… and I’m completely sure that manufacturers could EASILY reduce their hood/grill heights by at least 6″… Especially given that modern half ton trucks don’t need to accommodate the massive big block V8s used in the past.
I would also argue that pickups have become too powerful in general and some powertrain downsizing in that segment is in order.
How is it that we now “need” 400-500HP engines when 20 years ago we got by just fine with engines with half or a bit more than half that level of power?
Nah… manufactures (and their customers) only “need” it because they have a Big Dick Syndrome Horsepower war they are fighting among each other.
It’s mainly about marketing and image, not need.
And while we are lowering the height of hoods, we should also look at lowering the height where modern headlights are placed.
Modern full size pickup trucks are fucking annoying with their high-mounted ultra bright headlights that are positioned in line with a regular car’s rear window.
You don’t need to lower horsepower and torque to reduce the hood height. The Dodge Demon proved that along with the Corvette, Ferrari, Bugatti, and Koenigsegg.
I can verify at least that the 3rd-gen Silverado with the 6.2L V8 has a ton of room between the engine and the hood. The horsepower was definitely nice to have for towing at altitude, though having to tuck into the right lane with the semis at 45mph for a couple miles on a climb isn’t the end of the world.
In May 2022 I was bicycling and got plowed over by a red light runner. She was driving a Honda Fit. I came away with one night in the hospital and a wrist that had to be surgically put back together, and a hell of a hipper, and of course the psychological trauma, but I am very thankful it wasn’t some bro-dog in a bro-dozer. So yeah, if you’re going to get hit like that make sure it’s a Honda Fit.
Out of curiosity I just took 30 seconds to measure the hood on the old, slightly lifted XJ- ~43″ at the front and 48″ at the back. Of course if it hit a pedestrian, there would be other major issues such as the winch bumper, but if a lifted offroad vehicle can come in under the proposed hood height limit from the article, it seems like a pretty low bar.
Try a 1970’s Ford Highboy.
In other words, pedestrian deaths surge from 1 for every 82,500 people to 2 for every 82,500 people.
What do you get out of downplaying the figures Wang Strangler? Do you need the big tall truck so everyone knows you’re a big strong boy? Did a pedestrian cause your embarrassing downstairs situation that you feel a need to compensate for?
Stating facts can upset some people. I understand.
It’s also a fact that the figure doubled dummy
You are absolutely correct, 2 is double of 1, if it was 3 it would be triple.
Great you can do basic math, now work on some basic empathy you worm
Awww, but I love you.
Yes! Terrible, isn’t it! If we had twice as many plane crash deaths or e coli deaths or school bus deaths, you better believe something would done about it.
Not that terrible.
Hell, it’s scary riding around in the P Car.. the bumpers of the newer Suburbans and Yukons that litter our streets around here are basically at the height of the windows. Add all the lifted trucks that would literally run the car over if they rear ended it.. it’s terrifying. Good thing our city pretty much sucks for walking …?
Good, now that pedestrian safety f’d up the front end designs of cars and made their visibility worse in terms of raised cowls, they can force a droopy nose on trucks. Added benefit to that is they won’t likely look as intimidating, discouraging the poser buyers from filling out traffic with them while real truck users will probably appreciate the better sight lines. Who knows, it could even cause a resurgence in minivan sales if the big SUVs end up looking like vans, anyway.
Nah. Bull bars and Grille guards are still a thing.
First Cabover/cab forward automobiles were considered too dangerous to the front occupants in a crash so they were mostly done away with, yet they tend to have the best driver visibility of anything on the road, and with that great driver visibility comes the lowest chance of running into a pedestrian. Conversely however if you do run into a pedestrian with a cabover/cab forward vehicle they’re the worst off/
Vehicles with more durable builds and more ground clearance became popular, likely due to worsening road quality in the US as well as weaker builds for regular cars, however due to the crash-worthiness issues of Cabover/cab forward designs one couldn’t have great driver visibility as well as great ground clearance and a durable build. So now you’re stuck with a large hood if you want good ground clearance and a durable build.
Now because of the driver visibility issue and biomechanics of human beings in a collision with an automobile it requires short but long hoods which almost certainly necessitates low ground clearance, and will almost certainly make for less compact automobiles.
I’m almost certainly out of the new car market due to bad regs and the regs that come with this will almost certainly not be good.
Funny how the rest of the world still seems to manage fine with cabover trucks and buses.
Depends on your definition. The ID Buzz had the driver sat pretty far back with massive A pillars at the absolute worst angle for driver visibility.
Even Europe’s cabovers are getting snouts on them, look at the new Europe only Ford Transit EV.
I’m thinking commercial trucks, not passenger vehicles. I should have clarified.
Even then that’s subjective. Commercial vehicles that often have passenger variants suffer from crash testing standards. ones that are not subject to said standards are built more logically from a driver visibility and space utilization perspective.
Finally. Some common sense injected into front-end design.
Tax passenger vehicles based on weight, make all passenger vehicles have to meet the same emissions limits, and as a bonus, make gas $10/gal. Giant trucks would be driven to near-extinction in an instant and we’d all soon be hooning around in Euro hot-hatches.
The issue of where would the tax dollars go comes to mind.
Just like social security (which is supposed to run out before I’m eligible for it) what’s to stop the government from pilfering the coffers of it and spending it on some country most Americans can’t find on a map whether it be for bombing them, fomenting coups, supporting terrorist organizations there, all of the above, etc.
Tax dollars have a horrible ROI. Small “Trucks” (which includes small cargo vans) went the way of the Dodo due to the chicken tax at first then CAFE after that with the footprint rule, not because of lack of demand. Which is your tax dollars at work btw.
I love the Nissan eNV200, the closest thing to that I can get in the US would be the new Ram Promaster EV and they’re not selling it in the US in a 118″ WB variant unlike the current ICE Ram Promaster, and even then it’s much larger and heavier than the eNV200. Almost certainly the reason it was never sold in the US is the Chicken Tax. CAFE will almost certainly become irrelevant as ICE is phased out but then some other protectionist BS will get passed because domestic automakers cannot compete with smaller, more fuel efficient offerings.
It doesn’t matter where the tax dollars would go, since if this worked, there would very quickly be no tax revenue from this source. Transit and electrical infrastructure would be the logical places for a couple years of bonus funding but it’s just a big stick.
My pick for forbidden truck I’d most love to see hear is the Toyota IMV 0.
My guess is the would be a massive amount of insurance fraud so people could afford small vehicles as their large heavy vehicles would be reduced to their scrap value.
Even with that I think there would still be a decent amout of revenue from said tax plan, and how tax dollars are used is of great concern to the US public since it can result in us getting drafted
In many states, they used to be taxed / insured based on weight. When I was a kid, pickup trucks all wore commercial plates even if they were for personal use.
Then they did some roadside weigh stations and found out almost all of them were registered / insured at much lower weights than they were rolling around at. Instead of cracking down, they just made trucks and SUVs passenger vehicles.
It all comes down to closing the obvious loopholes. If you are claiming commercial use but can’t prove it with tax records, that’s fraud.
People weren’t really trying to scam. Trucks were basic and cheap. Nobody bought one for status or luxury. I don’t believe there was an option to register one as a passenger vehicle at the time. The registry would just issue you commercial plates if you went there to register a pickup truck.
Of course, this would be after standing in line for 4 hours or so because this was the 80’s. Also, there would absolutely spell something wrong on your documentation. Sometimes the color of the car, sometimes your address, usually the make/model of the vehicle itself.
Around me I still see a lot of large trucks (F250 and higher) rolling on commercial plates, sitting in office parking lots.
I’m for all that, except make gas at least $20/gal
Funny, someone just commented on something I said along these lines on Jalopnik a couple years ago and I saw that there was some loser saying comments like mine were why they were fleeing to Autopian. We’re everywhere baybee
Good luck getting the GOP to pass this.
Simple solution, Don’t be a pedestrian.
No kidding. Why should I care? My kids are INSIDE this monstrosity.
Never leave the truck. Just because that grocery doesn’t have a drive-through window doesn’t mean you can’t drive through it.
This is becoming even more of an issue now that basically all SUV’s are adopting full-size truck style front ends. For instance, my inlaw’s new Pathfinder I can’t see freaking ANYTHING in front of me when I drive it. And that’s just a family crossover.
My daughter and I were walking through a grocery store parking lot the other day, and a Sierra (admittedly some sort of package where it was lifted and butched up from the factory) started out of a parking space (moving forward) and straight up didn’t see us at all despite looking forward. I had to pull my daughter out of the way and past in a quick emergency maneuver despite me being closer to the front of the truck. I’m 5′-10″! But the top of the hood was at my neck! And the guy who was startled by our existence, flipped us off! A dad and a five year old walking through a parking lot!
(Btw guys, I know not all big truck drivers are like this, but there are some obvious cultural issues at play here, and these sorts of things happen wayyyyyyy too often.)
At some point this, and the unregulated lifting of things, is going to need to be addressed. Yeah I know, a person’s rural vanity is more important than the lives of people on foot in America so I doubt anything will be done to change things. But holy crap have the size of these front ends gotten out of control.
My brain made Sierra = Sienna and I was trying SO HARD to imagine a lifted minivan …
I’ve done this a bunch of times, haha.
Toyota actually has a trim called the Sienna Woodland Edition for the current generation of Sienna that gets a modest lift and AWD. As expected it was/is (I’m not 100% sure if they still do it) too expensive for what it was, but still pretty neat.
AWD vans are awesome, and there should be more of them. Minivan front ends are great, because they’re not needlessly chunky, and you can see out of them just fine.
Don’t worry I’ve got you.
https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-ultimate-utility-vehicle-concept-2015-sema-show-debut/
“(Btw guys, I know not all big truck drivers are like this, but there are some obvious cultural issues at play here, and these sorts of things happen wayyyyyyy too often.)”
Yeah… not all of them. But a hell of a lot of them are. Let’s be honest… a lot of these large trucks are bought by people who WANT to intimidate other people.
Great. Now do the same research on the only feature of a full size SUV (or any other vehicle lately, really) that has caused me near-miss situations with pedestrians in the last two decades: absurdly oversized A-pillars.
Even in my wife’s QX56, I have never lost sight of a pedestrian over the top of the hood. But even in my 2005 Accord, I have definitely lost sight of pedestrians in the crosswalk, who often are walking at the precise rate to leave them completely obscured by one or the other of my A-pillars while rolling at 1 or 2mph in an intersection until it’s almost too late.
“The space age” begin a decade before I was born, and yet even in 2024 you’re telling me there is no way to maintain rollover crash safety for a vehicle’s occupants without making the A-pillars as thick as a goddamn telephone pole?
On that note, I would like to see more in-depth research on a subject related to this and I’ve been thinking about it for a while.
I think we are sort of seeing the diminishing returns of the constant increases in highway crash safety requirements. It’s almost like a non-stop arms race between the NHTSA, EPA fuel regs and the manufacturers. I think we passed the point where we have really made gains in safety a long time ago.
Every year the crash tests get more stringent. Cars get bigger to add more airbags, crumple zones, stiffer reinforcements. Car gets heavier and less maneuverable, less able to avoid a crash, less visibility. More crashes but people survive but more stringent crash tests next year. Rinse and repeat.
Cars now are safer and so much less safe and there needs to be more comprehensive safety research. What is the right balance of active safety, passive safety and crash avoidance (maneuverability + visibility)?
I think the safety machine is far too entrenched in the current process to change and do the work needed to really assess safety and what gets us to a better place sadly.
If it should ever happen then we really have to address how good is driver education. And is there any blame put on pedestrians for not being aware and looking up before being in the road? I don’t want to blame the victims here and drivers always have the responsibility of looking out in high ped traffic areas, but there has absolutely been an increase in pedestrians not being aware and not following the rules of the road for their part.
Ok, who wants to tackle all that? Nah, we’ll just keep doing what we’re doing.
There’s an insurance industry force in the mix that distorts design decisions as well. Many critics have looked into your opbservations. They are real, and should be addressed. I suspect that right about now though, most manufacturers of vehicles destined for North American consumers, have just accepted the inevitabiity of CUV herds roaming the continent, and are so shell-shocked by the impending EV requirements, that they refuse to even think about a fundamental change in safety design. It’s a bridge too far.
Sadly I think that anything that forces manufacturers (and the entirety of the industry as a whole) to alter current process is a bridge too far. Humanity as a whole has the same attitude where doing what we’ve always done is just the way.
It would require a change at a fundamental level that we just don’t have the appetite for.
When those A-pillars have to support 3 tons, they’re going to be thick.
I’ve lost entire tractor trailers behind the massive A-pillars on modern cars.
The truck I didn’t see was coming the opposite way on a two lane road with a curve at just the angle that it was invisible until it passed me.
I lose pedestrians behind the massive A-pillars all the time and actively bob my head to either side of the A-pillar to try and spot them when I’m in pedestrian heavy areas.
The Bermuda A-Pillar?
You shouldn’t be rolling in an intersection like that. You were clearly not stopped the appropriate time according to the law if your pillar obscured them and you almost hit them because you can’t be bothered to fully stop or to pay full attention.
Or… pedestrians sometimes cross against the light?
I can’t say it’s a perfect solution, but some municipalities have started instituting advanced pedestrian signals. I find at least in my Mazda2, I’m most likely to miss a pedestrian on the opposing left corner, by my driver’s side A-pillar, and with the advanced signal, they’re back into my field of view by the time I’m able to turn, so it’s a good start.
Now there should be a study of injuries from falling off the stools/ladders/scaffolding needed in order to check the oil or refill the windshield washer on pickups and SUVs?
They look menacing because they *are* menacing.
[Insert Elon’s comment about the Cybertruck “winning” a crash.]
Someone should market sedans informed by BattleBots with angled wedges to roll high bumpered vehicles and a spinning flail to remove greenhouses over 6 ft.
Since trucks can be designed to increase lethality towards cars, return the favor.
At any point, do we consider lightening up on some of the passenger car regulations that make SUV’s/light trucks more appealing to both consumers and manufacturers in pursuit of the greater good, or just keep assuming we can ban our way out just like everything else?
This guy gets it.
Ah, yes, we should just leave it to the manufacturers to build things for the greater good and not chase the reinforcement of this type of vehicle is what we want, as it drives the greatest profits for them.
Honestly, future laws should really consider a “you’ve taken this too far” clause to nudge the manufacturers to do the right thing without explicitly documenting each little thing.
Eh, if I had my way, we’d harmonize the passenger car and light truck regulations into a singular category, scrap the footprint rule, and just start recognizing that manufacturers will exploit any loophole they can to maximize profit, so maybe we figure out what the most societally good version of widely popular car is and accept a few compromises?
Like, if modern passenger cars weren’t pushed to get 40+ MPG on the highway, can we dial back the aerodynamcs a touch to get a decently sized car that’s still ultimately more pedestrian friendly, lighter, and more economical than a small crossover?
So, what you’re saying, we need a “people’s car”?
I like the idea of reviving a modern 2CV over a(nother) new Beetle.
I’m not entirely sure a 2CVesque people’s car is quite the right direction. I’m thinking original Ford Taurus as a sort of platonic ideal, but I’m hardly committed to that as an absolute. If nothing else, while the Maverick is a touch big, I’d like to know what barriers there are from Ford building and selling 500k Maverick hybrids a year assuming the demand seems to be there.
The barrier, is a production capacity built on the assumption of selling a zillion Lightnings. Daddy’s been cooking twenty dollar bacon burgers all day, and didn’t anticipate the surge in demand for two dollar hot dogs. He’s so hungry for the profit on the burgers that he doesn’t want to recalibrate and rethink how profit on the two dollar dog is gonna make bank.
The US really needs to implement some kind of pedestrian crash test and “other vehicle” crash test standards. Our regulatory system totally ignore externalities. Vehicles are getting more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists. They’re causing more damage to the roads. They’re physically taking up more space. It’s unsustainable.
We have been turned into a nation of wusses and there is good money in making us that way and maintaining it. Even putting insurance and government aside, there is no way an OEM is going to be into relaxing safety even if they were allowed (they are, really, as they fight to keep hitting the moving goalpost of high IIHS ratings that drive sales. Government crash standards are much lower) unless they want to go out of business. After all, what else do they really have to offer—their boring, ugly vehicles with terrible space efficiency for their footprints have to have something.
America doesn’t like pedestrians anyway.
I live near a Buick/GMC dealer and run past it often. When the I believe 2021 Sierras came out I ran past them and couldn’t believe how tall the hood was. I stopped running to see where it reached me. I’m 6’3″ and the hood came up to if I remember correctly my mid chest. That’s just stupid. I’m guessing the front of the hood is about 55″ tall. The hood line is just about the same height as my roofline so I just love when I get blinded by one of these behemoths in traffic at night.
If you really want to illustrate how absurdly gigantic trucks have become: have you ever seen a modern-day Silverado or F-150 at a stoplight next to a 70s/80s square body? The older truck looks like a toy next to the new one. And those are full size trucks, mind you.
Midsized trucks are now bigger than full-sized trucks of the past. And remember when the Tacoma was a mini truck?
Yup! I saw that once and laughed at the absurdity of it all.
Also I remembered carsized and have been messing around with that all morning. Unfortunately they don’t have old trucks in their database.
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/hyundai-elantra-2018-sedan-vs-gmc-yukon-2020-suv/front/
I was behind a newer Ranger yesterday in traffic, appeared to be a base model, not an off road version or whatever. I was laughing at how tall it is. Why is it like that? It’s not even the size of the truck body itself, although that has grown a lot, it’s the wheels and lift on that thing. Seems impractical if you’re doing truck stuff with it.
What about visibility? Two stories: A gal in an ’80s Blazer rolls up to an intersection, looks both ways then looks toward oncoming traffic again, taking an extra moment. In that time a kid on a skateboard came from around a building and apparently believing she was just stopped there rode in front of her. And, unable to see the kid, she went. He was holding onto the grill, being dragged under the truck when somebody who happened to be nearby started screaming and waving at her and she stopped in time. She was utterly freaked, never even saw the kid in spite of how careful she was being. I witnessed all this from across the intersection and would never forget. I happen to have a ’90s 4WD Dodge truck that I actually lowered an inch that is far better visibility-wise and yet: I stop at a light to make a right, roll forward to spot traffic coming and have to wait there in the crosswalk. A very short older lady comes walking down the sidewalk from my right and because I’m sitting there in the way now, goes around behind me. So I’m watching for an open spot, it comes, I take one last look and I start to go…in that amount of time the gal had changed her mind and come around in front of me instead and I could just see the top two inches of her head over the hood. That I had the truck I did instead of a newer one with the absurd stupid high grille that seems so important to manly styling nowadays literally saved her life, not to mention what would have occurred with my own situation.
I think that some driving aids like 360 cameras, cross traffic and blind spot monitoring and pedestrian detection should be mandatory for these new trucks. Sure, there will be a ton in the road without these for a while, but at least the future will be safer.
Specially with these new eletric cars/trucks that are silent.
Unless the monitors are connected to AI, they won’t do a lot of good. I don’t want drivers looking at another screen, I want them looking out of (and seeing out of!) the damn windows! (All that extra space under the hood is largely wasted, anyway.)
Most of them beep like crazy and flash “OMGLOOKOUT!” messages. If needed, they hit the brakes for you.
As a driver of a small car, the backup camera and the rear cross traffic warnings are really helpful when I’m parked between a Yukon and an F-350.
Exactly, just like those warning in an airplane, it is better to pay attention when it beeps. If people can’t see, the next one is to make them hear something.
Better than smelling shit when it is about to happen.
Add another screen to further distract the inattentive driver? Sounds like a winner.
Silent? PWS (Pedestrian Warning Systems) have been mandated in the U.S. in (I think) 2013 and newer cars. If a vehicle has an all-electric mode it has to make a noise for pedestrians at low speeds.
Well I am shocked to discover getting hit by a big heavy thing is more dangerous than a smaller, less heavy thing. Thanks science!
They explicitly said that the hood height was a better predictor than vehicle weight.
Alright calm down, it was a snarky comment about how stupid of a study it is, no need to get all wound up about a smartass remark not being factually accurate.
Sorry…didn’t catch the tone.
I think it’s legitimately interesting if the height is a greater factor than the weight.
And I apologize for my response, it came across a little more aggressive than intended.. maybe I need to stay off the internet today.
I can’t say I’m shocked by the height being a factor, I’d rather be punched in the stomach than the face.
Automakers will respond by demanding stricter regulations for pedestrians, i.e. toughening us up so that our bodies aren’t so squishy when we get trucked by one of their highly profitable dreadnoughts.
Start looking for the “You must be this tall to cross the street” signs at crosswalks near you.
Who are all these dead pedestrians anyway?
Can’t they afford a car?
Why are they walking in the road?
Roads are for cars, not people.
Bicycles are inherently dangerous.
I bet they’re looking at their phones.
/sarc
The problem that I see with new vehicles is that windows are getting smaller and the sheet metal is bigger (Look at the thick A-Pillars). I can see better outside while I am driving my old GMC Envoy without any camera or assisted driving system than the Chevy Blazer I also own.
I turn my neck around to change lanes and I dont see anything, I had to add those tiny mirrors to amplify the image of what is around me.
The pillar issue is a problem that is not going to go away until Mr. Scott comes back in time and gives us the formula for invisible aluminum.
I have a Volvo S60, and the a-pillars are insanely thick, causing a huge blind spot. On the other hand, you drop this thing from 40 feet onto its roof and those insanely thick pillars barely bend. Lots of safety for the passengers, not so much for pedestrians/cyclists.
Beam me up!
https://4dproducts.co.uk/transparent-aluminium-see-through-metal-is-now-a-reality/
Interesting! Sounds like it might be awhile before it is cost reduced enough for widespread use, but if they could make all of a car’s windows/windshield out of that, pillars wouldn’t need to be so damn thick.
If only the A-pillars from the Volvo SCC caught on.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/ibimg/hgm/2000×1125-1/100/357/volvo-safety-concept-car_100357335.jpg
Jaguar Land Rover once showed off a “see-through” A-pillar that was actually a screen paired with a camera to “seamlessly” create one panorama from door to door.
Can you imagine the nausea when you move your head / sightline?
Wasn’t raising hood heights supposed to be better for pedestrian safety at one point? At least, government standards relating to such things was the excuse we were given for taller hoods and the resulting giant grilles, wasn’t it?
Europe created minimum frontal height regulations to lower leg injuries. Oops.
‘well, well, well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions’.gif
I don’t think lifting the hood height to above our shins needed to result in hood heights above our heads. There’s a lot of wiggle room in there. Like 5 feet in my case.
Of course you’re right, but this is a specific example of a general trend when it comes to automotive regulations that have conspired to get us to this point.
With nothing but the best of intentions, regulators write a law to ‘make cars safer’ in [insert whatever fashion happened to be brought to their attention by lobbyists here]. The law gets passed to much fanfare and increases their reelection chances by a few percentage basis points. Meanwhile an army of unelected bureaucrats at the appropriate government agency goes to work interpreting the law and writing the actual rules that the automakers all have to abide by. It doesn’t matter if the rule is good or bad, or if the unintended consequences are worse than the original ill the law was drafted to fix; once the rule is written the automakers must comply.
Note that this process is in no way holistic – no one is paying any attention to how (for instance, and using US agencies and etc. since that’s what I know) EPA CAFE rules might interact with NHTSA rollover roof crush safety rules – cars need to be taller and heavier with worse outward visibility to comply with the safety rules, which is in direct contravention of the fuel economy rules that are trying to make efficiency better – but wait! There’s a carve out in the fuel economy rules that says that a certain vehicle ‘footprint’ makes it not a car anymore, but a truck, and we can still hit the truck efficiency requirements with these newly taller, heavier things we were forced to make. All we have to do, ironically, is make them taller and heavier yet to get into the right footprint. Quick, call the marketing department and get them to convince everyone that this is the kind of vehicle they ‘actually’ want!
Then the next problem comes up – gee, this totally unexpected SUV boom has filled the roads with big cars with poor visibility (can’t imagine why) – let’s pass a law mandating ultrasonic backup sensors and cameras, and blind spot monitoring systems (we could just revise the FMVSS standards for side view mirrors to allow a portion of them to be convex like they do in Europe, but that’d be way too hard) – what do you mean driver distraction? That’s not the issue at hand. Anyway, let’s get this bill passed, it’ll make everything better!
And the beat goes on.
Ford has/had convex parts of the mirrors and they were pretty useful. I’m too lazy to look up the reg, but if there’s an issue with others implementing them, it might be down to the regulations stipulating a certain size of mirror and they can’t afford to take area away from the standard glass (though, the Focus had them, possibly the Fiesta, so I can’t imagine this is the case). Otherwise, other OEMs probably prefer to sell upgraded “safety” packages where a camera does the same job as a mirror.
The US fmvss says that side mirrors must be flat. Some European cars had a section of the glass that was convex to help with blind spots; the Ford solution (I have the same on my mustang and love them) is to make the flat glass a separate piece, large enough on it’s own to meet side view mirror requirements. Since the convex part of the mirror is a separate piece of glass, that’s allowed… ????
Ah, OK, yeah that’s basically what I figured. It’s one of the things I wish other companies would adopt (that and the capless fuel filler—it’s such a minor thing, but I appreciated it).
Yeah, I agree with generally with your points. I was just being snarky about the swing from one extreme to another.
If only Congress could do something really effective, like berate executives on tv in a meaningless publicity exercise. That would really fix things!
I believe the hood “height” regulations required something of a crumple zone between the sheet metal and any hard objects (radiator core support, engine valve cover, etc). Most manufacturers chose to comply by making the hoods taller – not really the intended effect, but how it worked out.
Well, there’s a limit, the taller hoods/giant grilles for pedestrian safety thing mainly just applies to passenger cars, trucks weren’t part of that equation
A big, blunt front end to reduce concentrated impact force, and an air gap between the engine block and the hood to cushion impact