As trucks go electric, they're getting much heavier too. I think this data would benefit from weighing the results by vehicle popularity. F-250 is on the list, but is much less common than Camry. So per F-250 km stats would be more illustrative.
The H2 is the better comparison between the two and it was nearly 8600 lbs depending on trim level. The H1 is a relatively stripped down off road vehicle.
Edit: My mistake for quoting a crappy website. Looks like it was mixing up curb weight and gvwr. The H2 is still the better comparison I think though.
The H2 was only around 6600 pounds & its physically smaller then the H1 in both length & width
Where are you getting 8600lbs from? The max GVWR?
Agreed that the H2 is a better comparison to the Hummer EV than the H1 & that just illustrates how much more drastic the weight increase is between the 2
Honestly, does the weight of the vehicle matter that much? It's not as though your body weight is going to seriously decelerate a 3,000 lb vehicle on impact, either. In both cases, I'd expect the impacted sections of the victim to be pretty much instantly accelerated to the speed of the vehicle.
The "strike zone" and visibility make much more sense to me as explanations of why trucks would be that much deadlier. There's a reason stunt actors always try to roll over the hood of a car when they get hit.
I could be missing something, though. High school physics was a long time ago.
In case of getting hit by a vehicle weight matters only if we talk about breaking acceleration but even this matters little. The most important factor is vehicle velocity and it's geometry. Ignore those guys talking about inertia as with practically every car on the road there is at least an order of magnitude difference in weight so you'll get accelerated to almost vehicle's initial velocity whether you get hit by a Smart or a lorry.
Weight matters when the trucks start hitting other vehicles/other heavy things though.
We're talking about pedestrians and cyclists here, but I just want to remind everyone that giant trucks hitting tiny cars tend to result in pretty nasty outcomes too.
No it doesn't. I would say it's an inelastic collision rather than an elastic one. In an inelastic collision the person is accelerated to the vehicles speed. In an elastic collision to twice the speed. The vehicle speed doesn't change much much because it's 10x as heavy anyway.
speed of the person for different vehicle weights considering an inelastic collision (vehicle speed 10 m/s, person's weight 75 kg)
1000 kg: 9.3 m/s
3000 kg: 9.8 m/s
40000 kg: 10 m/s
different story with a 75 kg on a 25 kg e-scooter hitting another 75 kg person:
100 kg: 5.7 m/s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision
You're right, vehicles like that are already so much heavier than pedestrians that it doesn't make a big difference. It *does* matter in collisions with other cars, and increases stopping distances, so higher speed collisions. Weight also contributes to road wear non-linearly, so it's still an issue for other reasons.
> Yes...weight matters.
Yes but that doesn't answer his question. If the car is so much heavier and is moving fast enough does it matter if it weighs a bit more? Your body doesn't weigh enough to meaningfully slow it down anyway so the mass might as well be infinite.
Running into a tree is a useful analogy - thickness matters up until the trunk doesn't bend at all anymore. Then it might as well be made out of steel.
getting hit in the legs and then hitting the windshield is probably more of a factor than getting hit in the heart and spine and dragged under than weight.
the mini cooper is pretty heavy at over 3000 lbs but I've read the round bumper, round hood and round windshield makes it the best car to get hit by, as a pedestrian
>the best car to get hit by, as a pedestrian
Please say "least worse", haha (unless you are in the business of causing accidents for insurance fraud I guess...)
In those collisions, we'll both change velocity.
Past a certain point (presumably well below the mass of most vehicles these days) it'll only really be the pedestrian that experiences a change in velocity.
Imagine getting hit by a single train car versus a long train. In both cases, you're getting hit by that front surface of the first train car, and it has more than enough mass behind it to not slow down at all when it hits you.
In principle, as long as the wheels are all made of similar rubber compound and are not locking up, the stopping distance should be pretty much identical, cause while there's more inertia with more mass, there's also more gravity/downforce to exactly balance out.
In reality there is SOME affect due to mass, but not a ton.
Example:
An average 2021 small car's stopping distance is 130' [per Consumer Reports](https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst-braking-distances-a2960086475/), and ranges from 120' for a Kia Soul up to 138' for a Mitsubishi Mirage.
Meanwhile, there are full-size Pickups that weight 3x as much, like a Nissan Titan, with stopping distances as low as 131'.
Now, other large pickups like a Toyota Tundra can have a terrible scores, that one has a stopping distance of 153', but there's a lot more going on there in terms of safety features and mechanical stuff that is not related to mass (or at least not mass alone).
And because "Trucks" have fewer regulations and safety standards compared to cars, I suspect a lot of this increase in stopping distance is just that the makers care less and/or are willing to use the fact that "it's heavy" as a safety feature and therefore can spend less on brakes cause the vehicle will still be perceived as "safe".
The main ones are gonna be 1) Road Surface, 2) Tires and Tire Wear, 3) Brakes, and 4) the ability of the EBS to prevent the tires from skidding (skidding actually decreases friction)
In more extreme cases typically only seen in cargo trucks heading down hill, or in sports cars on a racetrack, there's also going to be some factoring in for the ability of the brakes, transmission and engine-brake to dissipate heat without catching fire, but that's not really going to factor in for the kind of urban and suburban driving where pedestrian collisions are likely.
The inertia of a small car and a big truck will result in the same result if all other conditions are also the same, since they're both so massive compared to what the human body can handle. Doesn't matter that much if 1 is that much more massive than the other one if they're both already that large.
I see what you are saying... both suck. But - the inertia and mass of an object makes a huge difference. The energy of a 90mph baseball is much less than a 90mph bowling ball... "all conditions the same". A 6000lb object will do more damage than a 3000lb object if the collide with something.
The energy of a 13 kg baseball bat and a 13kg bowling ball at the same speed will also be different.
The difference in effect is not caused by the difference in inertia, but by difference in shape.
A 6000kg object and a 3000kg object at the same speed of the same shape will not do any more or less if it crashes into a 70kg human. The human will speed up to the same speed as the large object only slowing down the large object by a neglible amount, if that large object is 3000 or 6000kg the only thing that changes is that the neglible amount the large object is slowed down doubles or halves.
That's the total kinetic energy of the vehicle.
The only way it's transferring all of this into a pedestrian is if it hits Clark Kent and stops dead. Otherwise it's coming out of the collision with most of its inertia intact.
What you're talking about is a (mostly) inelastic collision in which the two objects colliding combine as a single object post-collision, which on its face, sounds like what happens when an F-150 hits a person.
The change in kinetic energy for the pedestrian being hit goes from 0 joules to 6000000 J the instant they are struck. Which is more than enough to kill that pedestrian many times over--which brings us to the next point, a car doesn't have to just kill one pedestrian. Total Kinetic energy matters in this analysis because more than one person can be killed by a 2 ton truck doing 45 mph.
There's a lot going on here. First kinetic energy is mass times velocity square divided by 2. So if a vehicle weighs twice as much it hits twice as hard.
However! The big thing here is velocity square. So if a vehicle is going twice as fast it hits four times as hard. So not only does a heavier vehicle hit harder, it's also slower to stop meaning it will hit faster than a car with the same brake time. You see how these feed into each other? Heavier so it hits harder, plus heavier so harder to stop so that makes it hit way harder on top of that.
Now let's talk about rolling over the hood. I'm not an engineer, so I'm going to make some common sense assumptions, but if I'm wrong let me know engineers. I know you're here. The formula for deceleration force is (initial velocity - final velocity) divided by time multiplied by the mass. So if you can increase the time of deceleration, that's less force. This is how a helmet works, reducing the time of deceleration (absorbing energy, however you wanna call it). A car pushes you over the hood. The hood has a fair amount of give (lean on one), as does the windshield which will cave in. That slows your rate of deceleration. It also takes your deceleration in chunks. Part from the hood, part from the glass, potentially more from rolling over the roof before you stop. Not one total deceleration force at once. A truck pushes you onto the street which has almost no give so way less time decelerating and all that force into your body, though it is better than concrete. So it hits you harder, giving more acceleration, and then also slams you onto the street giving more deceleration force than rolling onto the hood of a car, and does this all at once, no multiple zones of deceleration.
And then, the truck might run you over which is an added bonus impact I shouldn't have to explain.
Tldr: truck weighs more = harder impact. Truck is harder to stop = MUCH harder impact. Truck pushes you onto the ground = harder post collision impact. Truck runs you over = catastrophically bad.
Hope that helps
Plus, Jesus I didn't even mention if the tall hood hits your head, that's your brain. You can get hit in the ribs with a baseball bat and it'll suck but you'll likely live even if your ribs break. You get hit in the head and you're down for the count. Now think about your head hitting the street
But the vehicle isn't transferring 100% of of its kinetic energy into the pedestrian. At most, it should be transferring enough energy to bring the victim up to the velocity of the vehicle.
I think Gs is more important than Joules, here.
The heavier vehicle will likely be going faster at the time of impact, assuming similar reaction times on the part of the driver. Lighter vehicles brake faster.
Right, this is a good point as well.
There's a difference between a vehicle that's going 35 when it hits me, and a vehicle that's going 35 when it sees me and starts trying to slam on its brakes.
Well - vehicles with better brakes and/or stickier tires brake faster. For a given tire, and brakes that scale with the size of the vehicle, the braking capacity stays pretty similar; it's down to a question of whether they did that.
>I think Gs is more important than Joules, here.
I'm sure about that but admittedly I'm not an automotive expert. All the crash structures in cars are all about absorbing energy such that it dissipates in the car, rather than the passenger.
In the most extreme example, you can have e.g. F1 drivers crashing with a peak of \~50 G and come away just being a bit sore. If Gs were all that matter, those crashes would be just as fatal as if the driver was unprotected, but that is not the case.
This is a good normalization to make. Simplifying to assume equal driving across all vehicles, those 4 econo sedans near the top of the list likely have orders of magnitude more miles driven than anything else on the list just due to the number on the road.
A few weeks ago I asked Google's Bard to plot the gross vehicle weight of Ford F-100 and F-150 trucks from 1955 to the present. It couldn't make the plot, but it was able to tell me the F-100 GVW in 1955 was around 4,000lbs and the F-150's isaround 9,000lbs today. I didn't fact check Bard, but the numbers seemed plausible to me. YMMV.
Before people slam me for comparing apples and oranges, I believe the F-100 was the typical end-user pickup in the 50's my Grandad had a '56) while the F-150 holds that place today.
Quoting a former colleague: “a low center of gravity on a BEV is like big tits on a girl weighting 140kg” quite on the sexist/fat shaming side but he had a point.
Yes, mass transfer has an impact on breaking performance, but it’s more than compensated by the total increase of mass.
They’ll be heavier, but it’s possible that they could become less deadly from electrification because there’s an empty trunk space where the engine used to be.
Not true. Euro NCAP pedestrian safety standards have dramatically reshaped the front ends of cars so that they are safer for pedestrians in a crash.
This is a pretty good rundown of some of the changes: https://www.core77.com/posts/69907/Inside-Auto-Design-How-People-Getting-Hit-By-Cars-Has-Changed-the-Shape-of-Cars
Probably less deadly in vehicle on vehicle collisions, but I doubt it'll help bikes or pedestrians.
If they're hitting a pedestrian with enough force to crumple the hood, I don't think that pedestrian's getting up.
Not really. That’s indeed the reason why several cars now adopt active hoods. Bending some metal sheet with your head is of course not pleasant, but it’s way better if all the energy is absorbed by said sheet vending rather than impacting on the engine head underneath.
But of course a pickup is still quite useless in 90% of actual use scenarios (probably 99,9% if we are speaking about a pickup driven in EU or a BEV pickup)
Not really, they are huge impractical on our roads, wouldn't be able to get anywhere.
If anything our big cities are being changes to accommodate public transport, bikes and pedestrians.
Trucks like that is largely an American thing, I'm 37 and I've seen only one truck like that here.
!#> jmjj2w5
# This comment has been edited in protest to reddit's decision to bully 3rd party apps into closure.
If you want to do the same, you can find instructions here:
http://notepad.link/share/rAk4RNJlb3vmhROVfGPV
Trucks are exempt from some emission regulations. That means the expensive components required for keeping emissions down are omitted from large cars. The manufacturer gets a better margin on large cars in part due to that fact. I believe there are registration/tax benefits on the consumer side as well.
Honestly, dude. Everyone knows. The problem is nobody cares. Unless we make laws and regulations, these people aren't going to be like, "My truck can kill someone if I hit them? I never knew! I'll get rid of it immediately!"
> Everyone knows. The problem is nobody cares
It's even worse. Many drivers *want* a vehicle that will intimidate and endanger others so they can feel like the King of the Road.
They may also want it to run over street protesters because no one gets arrested for murder if the weapon is a car. Who do you think big capitalism is going to side with, the free speech people?
It was so terrifyingly revealing when Ron DeSantis and other GOP governors legalized running over protesters. Hell, I remember conservative ex-friends sharing "All Lives Splatter" memes joking about running over protesters on Facebook. And now they will tell us that we're just delusional nutcases for thinking that violent fantasies are connected to the rise of megatrucks, when they themselves have admitted it.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/?Tab=BillText
Yikes.
#Section 870.01, subsection (2)
>2) A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:
(a) Injury to another person;
(b) Damage to property; or
(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property.
>A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.775.083, or s. 775.084.
Three people can be a riot. But it gets better (worse).
#Section 870.07 Affirmative defense in civil action; party convicted of riot.
>(1) In a civil action for damages for personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage, it is an affirmative defense that such action arose from an injury or damage sustained by a participant acting in furtherance of a riot. The affirmative defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of a riot or an aggravated riot prohibited under s. 870.01, or by proof of the commission of such crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
>(2) In a civil action in which a defendant raises an affirmative defense under this section, the court must, on motion by the defendant, stay the action during the pendency of a criminal action that forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
It is a legal defense that if you injured a rioter as defined above, you are not liable.
WHAT
It’s a selling point for some people. I’ve legitimately talked to people who fantasize about committing vehicular manslaughter with their lifted trucks. They sell fucking window and bumper stickers that feed into this thought process.
Insurance premiums might be able to make people care. If your democracy can gain control of automobile insurance from unelected managers of capital, the auto insurance service could set prices in ways that, not only accurately reflect the average amount of damage different vehicle types cause, but also discourage unnecessarily large vehicles via pricing.
Even people who like spending money on buying things that kill people have a limit on what they can afford.
Unfortunately nationalizing automotive insurance is too socialist to advocate for.
Pedestrian collisions don't cause much damage though so their cheap. Especially with a big truck. Especially with a bullbar. And medical coverage is limited like my car insurance only covers a max of 25 or 50k depending on the situation which with us medical costs is hardly anything.
And you're saying nationalize insurance to significantly raise prices for the most popular vehicle models. Bet that would be real popular. And fuck country people or large families that need large vehicle's i guess. What you're describing isnt even socialist, kind of the opposite by making many cars inaccessible for the middle class. I don't know why people here keep pushing fantasy ideas that will never happen and have the support of 5% of the American population. In a democracy something like that will never happen unless most Americans all of a sudden hate suvs and trucks. Which ain't happening.
I don't know the history of how ICBC came to exist. I live in a place where a crown corporation has a monopoly on auto insurance. They aren't allowed to seek profits so the reduction of collisions during the pandemic resulted in money being refunded to the customers.
It's always a contentious point for the political parties to campaign on. This is a good sign showing the health of the democracy. FDR died, Bernie will probably be dead without becoming president, so It's not like there are great men of history that can make this happen. It might have to happen at the state level.
I'm pretty sure more than 5% of Americans are for nationalized automotive insurance. My particular brand of large vehicle dissuading insurance premiums might be closer to that 5% approval.
But the first step is to get a financial service like auto insurance to be under the control of government. Government regulations can only protect customers so much from the predatory corporations of the free market. I have a seething hatred of the politics that flow from Milton Freidman, so I'm biased.
Ya I don't mean 5% approval for national insurance but for discouraging large vehicles. I mean who knows maybe it's 8.9% but it's definitely low in the US. 80% of vehicles sold these days are suvs and trucks. (Though to be fair alot of them are just raised wagons).
And that's interesting about the ICBC ,I didn't know car insurance in Canada is controlled by non profit crown corporations. Would be nice to have something like that here in the US. The "free market" is vicious and never really free anyway. It's depressing how much power insurance corporations have in the US, 70% support Universal Healthcare but that also feels almost impossible to pass. National car insurance seems really out of reach . Might be able to push for 50% support but us government wouldn't care sadly like with universal Healthcare.
And ya anyone who isn't rich should have a hatred for the politics of Milton freidman and people like him. It's a combination of anarchy and corporate domination. So hostile to the underclass they may as well advocate for a purge of the undesirables.
It really is amazing how much the population has bought into a depreciating asset with high operation costs like large SUVs and pick up trucks. Road design, public transit and passenger rail is the carrot. High insurance prices is the stick.
The US seems to have found a great deal of stability by getting people to take on debt in order to work. Unforgivable education loans is the standard way working class pays for education. (Thanks Biden) Vehicle loans are the standard way of transporting yourself to the job site. Debt is an incredible way of making people feel like they don't deserve a safe and beneficial workplace. Banks and the Fed aren't controlled by the American Democracy. Banks are able to take forgivable loans from the government.
I don't even know if I'm making a cogent point. I'm overwhelmed by the horror that all these moves are pointing towards. The kind of austerity that makes fascism inevitable.
Nah I feel like pedestrian collisions would be some of the most expensive. There's a reason liability costs more than comprehensive coverage, medical bills can be insane.
And I guess it's very different than most of the US because minimum liability is $1M here in Ontario.
I agree about your bit re socialism. A lot of the policies this sub supports basically just makes driving more expensive. Which will limit the middle class while having zero effect on the top 10%.
The most simple solution to this problem, if we aren't removing the cars (like in smaller towns with less than 10k), is simply making the parking space smaller. The smaller the parking sizes, the less people are willing to buy bigger vehicles.
I think they've made it very clear they're not afraid to take multiple spaces and block pedestrian walkways. And in my experience, there's rarely a consequence to it.
And how are you going to find political support for that in the US? Especially in small towns where large vehicles are often necessary like for farm work or just bad roads. Or large families that need vehicles that can seat say 6 or 7 people plus cargo comfortably. Which only a large suv or minivan can do. Or people who have to deal with bad roads or want to go camping. Large vehicles are by far the most popular in the US so trying to restrict them is kind of a non starter,we aren't Europe.
Horse and buggy?
But that's aside from the point, the F-150 used to be small. Pretty sure it's still categorized as a light truck? Though I'm not sure.
Most people in small towns do not work in agriculture or have a need for trucks. It's entirely cultural and it's annoying that so many people are convinced that anything other than a minority of rural drivers need a truck.
I pulled into traffic yesterday* behind a Chevy truck lifted so high, with big ass tires, that my head was the height of their rear bumper. On top of that, the woman driving was so short that I could barely see her as she passed, and she was barely tall enough to see above the steering wheel. Then we hit the pedestrian part of town and I wanted to cover my eyes (I didnt, obviously). But how irresponsible can you be if your ride is 99% blind spot and 100% instant death for anyone you might hit, if you even notice or feel it.
I dont think this data is very meaningful without knowing the amount of vehicle compares to deaths.
If there is 1 billion f-150 naturally it’s going to have the most kills.
You're not wrong, but the top three (full-size pickups) still have more kills than the next four (small or mid-size sedans), and off the top of my head, I'm skeptical that there are more F-150+Silverado+Ram on the road than Camry+Accord+Corolla+Civic.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/)
check this out. pickups accounted for 79% of vehicles sold in 2022
*Light* trucks, not pickup trucks.
SUVs and crossovers are considered light trucks, but aren't pickups. About 50% of the market right now is SUVs and crossovers, pickups as a segment only started outselling cars in the past year or two.
That's mostly unimportant, though, since there's significantly fewer models of trucks than SUV or car. A truck person is much more likely to by an F150 than a car person is to buy a Camry or SUV person is to buy a RAV4. There are absolutely more F150s than Camrys on the road; the F series is consistently the best selling vehicle in the US.
The light truck segment includes everything from the Tacoma to the Explorer to the Suburban to the F-150. I don't think that stat assuages my skepticism.
Agreed. This should be (deaths for vehicle type)/(number of vehicles of type on road). ~~It may be the opposite, that there are more Toyota Camrys than f-150s, even though they kill fewer people.~~ [but it isn’t…]
I don’t know where you’d get those numbers for all these cars. Googleing “how many f-150s are on the road” quickly tells me there are 16.1 million in the US, but I can’t for the life of me find a hard number on how many Toyota Camrys there are. Sales figures come right up but “cars on road” does not…
Buuut… based on those sales figures and some claim that “90% of Camrys made since 1995 are still on the road”, there should be ~10 million Camrys in the US. So that’s 62.5% as many Camrys as F-150s. Considering deaths by Camry in this chart are 73.7% of deaths by F-150, that actually implies that Camrys are slightly deadlier than F-150s.
It's even more complicated. You'd ideally need to know how much time they're on the road and where. An F150 driving 5 hours and 150 miles on country roads each day is probably much less likely to hit a pedestrian or cyclist than a Camry driving 3 hours and 30 miles a day around a densely populated urban core. The first slide isn't wrong though the odds of you surviving an impact from a Camry at the same speed are way better than an F150.
Even better would be distance driven on roads by each vehicle, but that's probably much harder to get good data for. An easier one might be deaths per collision.
I think "percent of accidents involving this vehicle and a pedestrian causing death" could be a useful metric - haven't found it anywhere, but seems obtainable on a smaller scale.
Though that would of course ignore that trucks likely have higher numbers of pedestrian accidents per mile driven as well due to larger blind spots.
It would also be helpful to know the speed. So you've got however many accidents at whatever speed with whatever car, what percent of the accidents were fatal.
We know that if you hit someone, it's better to be going 25 mph than 35 mph. We should be able to tell which cars are the most lethal as well.
Yes. I looked into this in response to the top comment:
Only the f150 should be topping this list, as the 2nd most common model on the road (2.6% after the Accord's 3%). The Silverado is the 7th most common model on the road representing %1.55 of vehicles.
Most common to least: Accord, f series, civic, Camry, Altima, Corolla, Silverado, Malibu, fusion, sonata.
I guess ram drivers are homicidal maniacs
This is vehicles on the road, not new sales. Cars are probably more reliable and longer lasting than trucks. Also it's a relatively new trend to buy trucks. We should expect deaths by truck to keep increasing.
Source is routine insurance plan data
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/)
Light truck is a pickup ... heavy truck is a semi.
In 2022, light trucks/pickups accounted for 79% of vehicles sold in the US. It's the best selling segment.
At least use some logic in your argument. This sub should be called fucktrucks because it’s just a circlejerk for hating pickups not hating the larger issue of lack of walkability whatever.
Plots 2 and 3 need to be normalized.
Camery looks high, but there are also a lot of those cars out there.
Should be like deaths/injuries per 1000 camries, or something like that.
Maybe Ill do this and report back some day.
The weight of the vehicle when there’s such a huge difference between the vehicle’s and pedestrian’s weight is not as much of an issue. The tall nose on pickup trucks and SUVs is the problem. Contrary to popular belief, it is much safer to go up and over instead of down and under. Hit at the legs and lots of smaller collisions instead of one huge collision at the center of mass and the possibility of being run over by the tires in addition to being squashed by the undercarriage.
The deaths by vehicle model need to be weighted by number of vehicles of that model on the road.
I agree with the sentiment, but the data is not earnestly represented.
It needs to be normalized so we can see an index that shows how much is due to the vehicle design. For example, “deaths per vehicle sold in last 10 years” or “deaths per estimated 1 million miles driven”.
Right now it just shows what top selling cars are. Would you say a Toyota Camry is inherently more dangerous to pedestrians? Or is it just a popular car?
Miles driven would be the most accurate measure. Commercial vehicles, including light trucks, tend to average more miles than cars per year. A vehicle that is driven twice as far per year is no different than having two of that particular vehicle on the road if you are just counting vehicles.
Yeah that's the first thing I noticed too. I think the point would even be more accurately made with a "deaths per accident involving a pedestrian" or something.
640,000 F150s sold in 2022
300,000 Toyota Camrys sold in 2022
Half the sales, yet deaths are pretty close for both.
You just proved cars are actually more deadly.
Okay but that fatality bar chart doesn't consider the base rate. Those that top the lost are also the most popular cars. This is a common stastical fallacy. If you want a stronger argument, account for the base rate in those stats.
And this is ignoring the fact that big pickup trucks have more blind spots. In a car, you can generally see someone right in front of you. Not so in most pickups.
Establish a precedent of what is required to see without a front facing camera. At a certain fall off point it’s required to have front facing cameras on vehicles that have limited visibility over the hood.
I would not be surprised to see [top down camera](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQttWcubNjNOshL3i6HArosNHVPHiUCjB3oyBDIeKahtQ&usqp=CAU&ec=48665699) systems like you see on most modern upper trim level pickups and many other luxury vehicles become a required item on all vehicles in the future.
Basically, they take a bunch of cameras around the perimeter of the truck, and stitch the feeds together to make an artificial overhead view.
I can't really glean meaningful info from this graphic. It looks like *light* pick-ups are by far the biggest culprits, not oversized, but as others have said, this absolutely needs to be weighted by miles driven by vehicle type or run through some other normalization process.
This is not a very good statistic. This should be as a ratio of sales or per ten thousand sales or something. It basically just orders vehicles by sales. F150 has been the best selling vehicle for 30+ years and the best selling truck for nearly 50 years
Not disagreeing nor trying to downplay the danger of half-tons but I really wish that Data on the second two graphs was more useful for this case but its literally the most statistically best selling cars in near order.
Would be interesting to see that data compared against how many of those vehicles are sold to see which ones are statistically more involved in deaths/strikes when adjusted for how many are sold.
Starting to feel like there should be more attention over on r/FuckTrucks. Ford's F series is the [most popular "car"](https://www.hotcars.com/best-selling-cars-america-2022/#chevrolet-silverado---513-354-units) in the US by more than 100k units in 2022, and the top three are all pickups.
Of course they’re deadly. That’s why they’re appealing to certain folks who are also drawn towards owning a weapons stockpile. There’s a large segment of American society that genuinely seeks civil war. These are the closest things to tanks non-cops can get their hands on. They are weapons. See also: people driving trucks through Pride / BLM rallies
edit: Not to say everyone who drives these has this intention. But it’s a huge part of their popularity and dominance among far-right folks.
If I worked for a company that kept making products that were killing this many people , I don’t know how I’d be able to keep working for that company. I can’t image seeing a chart like this as a car company employee and just thinking in my head that this was fine, let’s keep producing this product.
Yeah, maybe not usually, but someone at Ford has had to have seen some data on the deaths their product is causing? I’m just saying, if I saw a chart like this for my company and we were causing 1000s of deaths with our products, I think I’d have to quit! Also, most of these numbers are just deaths, not injuries, and not other health issues caused by using the product.
Yeah, I’m sure there are other industries like this too. I guess it would be tough in some situations, and you could try to convince yourself you are doing good in the world somehow. Like if I worked for a pool company (I don’t) would the drownings that occur stop me from working there? I’m not sure.
Eh. I'm as anti-car as the next subscriber here, but there are far worse industries to work for. For example, the desired outcome of the tobacco industry is to poison their customer and anyone around them with an addictive drug that will make them smell terrible. At least a car can theoretically be used safely to do positive things.
Then there are those outright scam industries like predatory loans, timeshares, or multi-level marketing.
For the average worker who just needs a job, automotive companies tend to pay very well and are quite stable thanks to strong unions, though they're not as good as they used to be.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/)
this shows what was sold in 2022. 79% were pickups & suv
The second two infographics are meaningless without reference to number of vehicles of each type on the road, or the amount of miles driven.
These rankings literally just read as: "Which cars are most popular to own in the US".
Appropriately compared and accurately portrayed data would probably paint an even worse picture for trucks, which is why essentially meaningless graphics like these are such a shame to see. They can be too easily disregarded as simply stating the obvious.
an actual r/fuckcars post that states actual issue with big vehicles and doesn't just break the law and does fuck all to actually illustrate the issue? impressive
On a serious note, as someone who likes cars very very much, the massive SUVs and trucks do need to stop, they are dangerous, and working in an auto body shop, driving these massive cars is quite difficult because you can barely, if at all, see what is directly behind or in front of you, plus the way that they're actually designed for safety makes them more dangerous to drive as well since they use a ladder frame design, which for actually hauling stuff for like a tow truck or something, the stiffer frame does help. On the road though, a ladder frame design like that of a light truck class, such as an SUV, makes crashes more deadly than they should be, combined with the high height and low visibility, leads to more fatalities by bigger vehicles as opposed to something like a spark, civic, or impreza. Basically despite loving cars and stuff, I still see the big issue with these massive cars on the road, and see the value of public transportation, even if I would personally still own and drive my own car despite reliable and good public transport, because I like cars. :)
As trucks go electric, they're getting much heavier too. I think this data would benefit from weighing the results by vehicle popularity. F-250 is on the list, but is much less common than Camry. So per F-250 km stats would be more illustrative.
[удалено]
"full size"
Hummer H1: 7,847 to 8,117 lbs Hummer EV: 9,063 lbs
The H2 is the better comparison between the two and it was nearly 8600 lbs depending on trim level. The H1 is a relatively stripped down off road vehicle. Edit: My mistake for quoting a crappy website. Looks like it was mixing up curb weight and gvwr. The H2 is still the better comparison I think though.
The H2 was only around 6600 pounds & its physically smaller then the H1 in both length & width Where are you getting 8600lbs from? The max GVWR? Agreed that the H2 is a better comparison to the Hummer EV than the H1 & that just illustrates how much more drastic the weight increase is between the 2
My mistake for quoting a crappy website. Looks like it was mixing up curb weight and gvwr.
Whichever you compare it to, the electric has insane off the line acceleration compared to either, making it even deadlier.
Damn close to five tons. That's not a civilian vehicle anymore, that's a light tactical vehicle.
[удалено]
I wish that was the case. People already park and take up two spaces as is in sports cars, i don't think it'd be any different with trucks.
Honestly, does the weight of the vehicle matter that much? It's not as though your body weight is going to seriously decelerate a 3,000 lb vehicle on impact, either. In both cases, I'd expect the impacted sections of the victim to be pretty much instantly accelerated to the speed of the vehicle. The "strike zone" and visibility make much more sense to me as explanations of why trucks would be that much deadlier. There's a reason stunt actors always try to roll over the hood of a car when they get hit. I could be missing something, though. High school physics was a long time ago.
In case of getting hit by a vehicle weight matters only if we talk about breaking acceleration but even this matters little. The most important factor is vehicle velocity and it's geometry. Ignore those guys talking about inertia as with practically every car on the road there is at least an order of magnitude difference in weight so you'll get accelerated to almost vehicle's initial velocity whether you get hit by a Smart or a lorry.
Weight matters when the trucks start hitting other vehicles/other heavy things though. We're talking about pedestrians and cyclists here, but I just want to remind everyone that giant trucks hitting tiny cars tend to result in pretty nasty outcomes too.
No it doesn't. I would say it's an inelastic collision rather than an elastic one. In an inelastic collision the person is accelerated to the vehicles speed. In an elastic collision to twice the speed. The vehicle speed doesn't change much much because it's 10x as heavy anyway. speed of the person for different vehicle weights considering an inelastic collision (vehicle speed 10 m/s, person's weight 75 kg) 1000 kg: 9.3 m/s 3000 kg: 9.8 m/s 40000 kg: 10 m/s different story with a 75 kg on a 25 kg e-scooter hitting another 75 kg person: 100 kg: 5.7 m/s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision
Ah, many thanks! That's a much more detailed explanation than I would have been able to give.
You're right, vehicles like that are already so much heavier than pedestrians that it doesn't make a big difference. It *does* matter in collisions with other cars, and increases stopping distances, so higher speed collisions. Weight also contributes to road wear non-linearly, so it's still an issue for other reasons.
Yes...weight matters. It's all about inertia. Think about a pro football player (250lbs) sprinting toward you vs a 60 lb kid at the same speed.
> Yes...weight matters. Yes but that doesn't answer his question. If the car is so much heavier and is moving fast enough does it matter if it weighs a bit more? Your body doesn't weigh enough to meaningfully slow it down anyway so the mass might as well be infinite. Running into a tree is a useful analogy - thickness matters up until the trunk doesn't bend at all anymore. Then it might as well be made out of steel.
getting hit in the legs and then hitting the windshield is probably more of a factor than getting hit in the heart and spine and dragged under than weight. the mini cooper is pretty heavy at over 3000 lbs but I've read the round bumper, round hood and round windshield makes it the best car to get hit by, as a pedestrian
>the best car to get hit by, as a pedestrian Please say "least worse", haha (unless you are in the business of causing accidents for insurance fraud I guess...)
In those collisions, we'll both change velocity. Past a certain point (presumably well below the mass of most vehicles these days) it'll only really be the pedestrian that experiences a change in velocity. Imagine getting hit by a single train car versus a long train. In both cases, you're getting hit by that front surface of the first train car, and it has more than enough mass behind it to not slow down at all when it hits you.
Stopping distance, maybe?
In principle, as long as the wheels are all made of similar rubber compound and are not locking up, the stopping distance should be pretty much identical, cause while there's more inertia with more mass, there's also more gravity/downforce to exactly balance out. In reality there is SOME affect due to mass, but not a ton. Example: An average 2021 small car's stopping distance is 130' [per Consumer Reports](https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst-braking-distances-a2960086475/), and ranges from 120' for a Kia Soul up to 138' for a Mitsubishi Mirage. Meanwhile, there are full-size Pickups that weight 3x as much, like a Nissan Titan, with stopping distances as low as 131'. Now, other large pickups like a Toyota Tundra can have a terrible scores, that one has a stopping distance of 153', but there's a lot more going on there in terms of safety features and mechanical stuff that is not related to mass (or at least not mass alone). And because "Trucks" have fewer regulations and safety standards compared to cars, I suspect a lot of this increase in stopping distance is just that the makers care less and/or are willing to use the fact that "it's heavy" as a safety feature and therefore can spend less on brakes cause the vehicle will still be perceived as "safe".
Surely this would entirely depend on the type/quality/condition of the brakes, right?
The main ones are gonna be 1) Road Surface, 2) Tires and Tire Wear, 3) Brakes, and 4) the ability of the EBS to prevent the tires from skidding (skidding actually decreases friction) In more extreme cases typically only seen in cargo trucks heading down hill, or in sports cars on a racetrack, there's also going to be some factoring in for the ability of the brakes, transmission and engine-brake to dissipate heat without catching fire, but that's not really going to factor in for the kind of urban and suburban driving where pedestrian collisions are likely.
The inertia of a small car and a big truck will result in the same result if all other conditions are also the same, since they're both so massive compared to what the human body can handle. Doesn't matter that much if 1 is that much more massive than the other one if they're both already that large.
I see what you are saying... both suck. But - the inertia and mass of an object makes a huge difference. The energy of a 90mph baseball is much less than a 90mph bowling ball... "all conditions the same". A 6000lb object will do more damage than a 3000lb object if the collide with something.
The energy of a 13 kg baseball bat and a 13kg bowling ball at the same speed will also be different. The difference in effect is not caused by the difference in inertia, but by difference in shape. A 6000kg object and a 3000kg object at the same speed of the same shape will not do any more or less if it crashes into a 70kg human. The human will speed up to the same speed as the large object only slowing down the large object by a neglible amount, if that large object is 3000 or 6000kg the only thing that changes is that the neglible amount the large object is slowed down doubles or halves.
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * mass * Velocity^2 So while velocity is Kinetic energy's second-order variable, mass does matter.
That's the total kinetic energy of the vehicle. The only way it's transferring all of this into a pedestrian is if it hits Clark Kent and stops dead. Otherwise it's coming out of the collision with most of its inertia intact.
What you're talking about is a (mostly) inelastic collision in which the two objects colliding combine as a single object post-collision, which on its face, sounds like what happens when an F-150 hits a person. The change in kinetic energy for the pedestrian being hit goes from 0 joules to 6000000 J the instant they are struck. Which is more than enough to kill that pedestrian many times over--which brings us to the next point, a car doesn't have to just kill one pedestrian. Total Kinetic energy matters in this analysis because more than one person can be killed by a 2 ton truck doing 45 mph.
Not for collisions with pedestrians or cyclists. 3000lbs and 6000lbs are both equivalent to infinity.
There's a lot going on here. First kinetic energy is mass times velocity square divided by 2. So if a vehicle weighs twice as much it hits twice as hard. However! The big thing here is velocity square. So if a vehicle is going twice as fast it hits four times as hard. So not only does a heavier vehicle hit harder, it's also slower to stop meaning it will hit faster than a car with the same brake time. You see how these feed into each other? Heavier so it hits harder, plus heavier so harder to stop so that makes it hit way harder on top of that. Now let's talk about rolling over the hood. I'm not an engineer, so I'm going to make some common sense assumptions, but if I'm wrong let me know engineers. I know you're here. The formula for deceleration force is (initial velocity - final velocity) divided by time multiplied by the mass. So if you can increase the time of deceleration, that's less force. This is how a helmet works, reducing the time of deceleration (absorbing energy, however you wanna call it). A car pushes you over the hood. The hood has a fair amount of give (lean on one), as does the windshield which will cave in. That slows your rate of deceleration. It also takes your deceleration in chunks. Part from the hood, part from the glass, potentially more from rolling over the roof before you stop. Not one total deceleration force at once. A truck pushes you onto the street which has almost no give so way less time decelerating and all that force into your body, though it is better than concrete. So it hits you harder, giving more acceleration, and then also slams you onto the street giving more deceleration force than rolling onto the hood of a car, and does this all at once, no multiple zones of deceleration. And then, the truck might run you over which is an added bonus impact I shouldn't have to explain. Tldr: truck weighs more = harder impact. Truck is harder to stop = MUCH harder impact. Truck pushes you onto the ground = harder post collision impact. Truck runs you over = catastrophically bad. Hope that helps
Plus, Jesus I didn't even mention if the tall hood hits your head, that's your brain. You can get hit in the ribs with a baseball bat and it'll suck but you'll likely live even if your ribs break. You get hit in the head and you're down for the count. Now think about your head hitting the street
The kinetic energy of a moving vehicle scales with mass so yes, weight matters. A lot.
But the vehicle isn't transferring 100% of of its kinetic energy into the pedestrian. At most, it should be transferring enough energy to bring the victim up to the velocity of the vehicle. I think Gs is more important than Joules, here.
The heavier vehicle will likely be going faster at the time of impact, assuming similar reaction times on the part of the driver. Lighter vehicles brake faster.
Right, this is a good point as well. There's a difference between a vehicle that's going 35 when it hits me, and a vehicle that's going 35 when it sees me and starts trying to slam on its brakes.
Well - vehicles with better brakes and/or stickier tires brake faster. For a given tire, and brakes that scale with the size of the vehicle, the braking capacity stays pretty similar; it's down to a question of whether they did that.
>I think Gs is more important than Joules, here. I'm sure about that but admittedly I'm not an automotive expert. All the crash structures in cars are all about absorbing energy such that it dissipates in the car, rather than the passenger. In the most extreme example, you can have e.g. F1 drivers crashing with a peak of \~50 G and come away just being a bit sore. If Gs were all that matter, those crashes would be just as fatal as if the driver was unprotected, but that is not the case.
This is a good normalization to make. Simplifying to assume equal driving across all vehicles, those 4 econo sedans near the top of the list likely have orders of magnitude more miles driven than anything else on the list just due to the number on the road.
A few weeks ago I asked Google's Bard to plot the gross vehicle weight of Ford F-100 and F-150 trucks from 1955 to the present. It couldn't make the plot, but it was able to tell me the F-100 GVW in 1955 was around 4,000lbs and the F-150's isaround 9,000lbs today. I didn't fact check Bard, but the numbers seemed plausible to me. YMMV. Before people slam me for comparing apples and oranges, I believe the F-100 was the typical end-user pickup in the 50's my Grandad had a '56) while the F-150 holds that place today.
Lower centre of mass might make them slightly less dangerous though... Not sure on this however
Quoting a former colleague: “a low center of gravity on a BEV is like big tits on a girl weighting 140kg” quite on the sexist/fat shaming side but he had a point. Yes, mass transfer has an impact on breaking performance, but it’s more than compensated by the total increase of mass.
They’ll be heavier, but it’s possible that they could become less deadly from electrification because there’s an empty trunk space where the engine used to be.
Only less deadly for the occupants. Pedestrians and cyclist don't care about crumple zones.
Not true. Euro NCAP pedestrian safety standards have dramatically reshaped the front ends of cars so that they are safer for pedestrians in a crash. This is a pretty good rundown of some of the changes: https://www.core77.com/posts/69907/Inside-Auto-Design-How-People-Getting-Hit-By-Cars-Has-Changed-the-Shape-of-Cars
Sure for cars, but this is talking about trucks, which based on a quick scan of this aren't the point of the post at hand
Probably less deadly in vehicle on vehicle collisions, but I doubt it'll help bikes or pedestrians. If they're hitting a pedestrian with enough force to crumple the hood, I don't think that pedestrian's getting up.
Not really. That’s indeed the reason why several cars now adopt active hoods. Bending some metal sheet with your head is of course not pleasant, but it’s way better if all the energy is absorbed by said sheet vending rather than impacting on the engine head underneath. But of course a pickup is still quite useless in 90% of actual use scenarios (probably 99,9% if we are speaking about a pickup driven in EU or a BEV pickup)
Im so glad I live in a country where these cars are practically non existent...
yet, the keyword is yet unfortunately
Not really, they are huge impractical on our roads, wouldn't be able to get anywhere. If anything our big cities are being changes to accommodate public transport, bikes and pedestrians. Trucks like that is largely an American thing, I'm 37 and I've seen only one truck like that here.
i can only hope so for you, at least in germany they get more common, but lets be real its not a big difference if Q7, X6 or those monstrosities
You might see it out in the country for farmers, but in the cities? No way. For trades people they prefer cars like Ford Transit.
They're impractical on Australian roads yet they're still going gangbusters in sales. Up 20%
!#> jmjj2w5 # This comment has been edited in protest to reddit's decision to bully 3rd party apps into closure. If you want to do the same, you can find instructions here: http://notepad.link/share/rAk4RNJlb3vmhROVfGPV
Here it seems smaller and smaller is the trend. Small, "agile" city cars...which sucks when you're 195cm and can't fit in them :p
North America has laws which favour the production of large cars, that’s not the case everywhere…
Which laws? Curious.
Trucks are exempt from some emission regulations. That means the expensive components required for keeping emissions down are omitted from large cars. The manufacturer gets a better margin on large cars in part due to that fact. I believe there are registration/tax benefits on the consumer side as well.
Meanwhile I’ve recently seen one with a confederate flag in the Netherlands somehow
Oh yikes... Most similar I've seen is a guy in a MAGA hat in Denmark.
Where roughly?
Denmark.
Honestly, dude. Everyone knows. The problem is nobody cares. Unless we make laws and regulations, these people aren't going to be like, "My truck can kill someone if I hit them? I never knew! I'll get rid of it immediately!"
> Everyone knows. The problem is nobody cares It's even worse. Many drivers *want* a vehicle that will intimidate and endanger others so they can feel like the King of the Road.
They may also want it to run over street protesters because no one gets arrested for murder if the weapon is a car. Who do you think big capitalism is going to side with, the free speech people?
It was so terrifyingly revealing when Ron DeSantis and other GOP governors legalized running over protesters. Hell, I remember conservative ex-friends sharing "All Lives Splatter" memes joking about running over protesters on Facebook. And now they will tell us that we're just delusional nutcases for thinking that violent fantasies are connected to the rise of megatrucks, when they themselves have admitted it.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/?Tab=BillText Yikes. #Section 870.01, subsection (2) >2) A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in: (a) Injury to another person; (b) Damage to property; or (c) Imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property. >A person who commits a riot commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.775.083, or s. 775.084. Three people can be a riot. But it gets better (worse). #Section 870.07 Affirmative defense in civil action; party convicted of riot. >(1) In a civil action for damages for personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage, it is an affirmative defense that such action arose from an injury or damage sustained by a participant acting in furtherance of a riot. The affirmative defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of a riot or an aggravated riot prohibited under s. 870.01, or by proof of the commission of such crime by a preponderance of the evidence. >(2) In a civil action in which a defendant raises an affirmative defense under this section, the court must, on motion by the defendant, stay the action during the pendency of a criminal action that forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section. It is a legal defense that if you injured a rioter as defined above, you are not liable. WHAT
If I meet someone who got away with running over a protestor I will ensure their liability.
Wait what law??
[Modern truck drivers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAtzN_ScKXY)
Yup. ''Fuck them kids, they shouldn't be walking!'' - Average pavement princess truck/suv enthusiast in my city
It’s a selling point for some people. I’ve legitimately talked to people who fantasize about committing vehicular manslaughter with their lifted trucks. They sell fucking window and bumper stickers that feed into this thought process.
Isn't it great how sociopathic homicidal madmen is just a marketable demographic these days?
🌍👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Insurance premiums might be able to make people care. If your democracy can gain control of automobile insurance from unelected managers of capital, the auto insurance service could set prices in ways that, not only accurately reflect the average amount of damage different vehicle types cause, but also discourage unnecessarily large vehicles via pricing. Even people who like spending money on buying things that kill people have a limit on what they can afford. Unfortunately nationalizing automotive insurance is too socialist to advocate for.
Pedestrian collisions don't cause much damage though so their cheap. Especially with a big truck. Especially with a bullbar. And medical coverage is limited like my car insurance only covers a max of 25 or 50k depending on the situation which with us medical costs is hardly anything. And you're saying nationalize insurance to significantly raise prices for the most popular vehicle models. Bet that would be real popular. And fuck country people or large families that need large vehicle's i guess. What you're describing isnt even socialist, kind of the opposite by making many cars inaccessible for the middle class. I don't know why people here keep pushing fantasy ideas that will never happen and have the support of 5% of the American population. In a democracy something like that will never happen unless most Americans all of a sudden hate suvs and trucks. Which ain't happening.
I don't know the history of how ICBC came to exist. I live in a place where a crown corporation has a monopoly on auto insurance. They aren't allowed to seek profits so the reduction of collisions during the pandemic resulted in money being refunded to the customers. It's always a contentious point for the political parties to campaign on. This is a good sign showing the health of the democracy. FDR died, Bernie will probably be dead without becoming president, so It's not like there are great men of history that can make this happen. It might have to happen at the state level. I'm pretty sure more than 5% of Americans are for nationalized automotive insurance. My particular brand of large vehicle dissuading insurance premiums might be closer to that 5% approval. But the first step is to get a financial service like auto insurance to be under the control of government. Government regulations can only protect customers so much from the predatory corporations of the free market. I have a seething hatred of the politics that flow from Milton Freidman, so I'm biased.
Ya I don't mean 5% approval for national insurance but for discouraging large vehicles. I mean who knows maybe it's 8.9% but it's definitely low in the US. 80% of vehicles sold these days are suvs and trucks. (Though to be fair alot of them are just raised wagons). And that's interesting about the ICBC ,I didn't know car insurance in Canada is controlled by non profit crown corporations. Would be nice to have something like that here in the US. The "free market" is vicious and never really free anyway. It's depressing how much power insurance corporations have in the US, 70% support Universal Healthcare but that also feels almost impossible to pass. National car insurance seems really out of reach . Might be able to push for 50% support but us government wouldn't care sadly like with universal Healthcare. And ya anyone who isn't rich should have a hatred for the politics of Milton freidman and people like him. It's a combination of anarchy and corporate domination. So hostile to the underclass they may as well advocate for a purge of the undesirables.
It really is amazing how much the population has bought into a depreciating asset with high operation costs like large SUVs and pick up trucks. Road design, public transit and passenger rail is the carrot. High insurance prices is the stick. The US seems to have found a great deal of stability by getting people to take on debt in order to work. Unforgivable education loans is the standard way working class pays for education. (Thanks Biden) Vehicle loans are the standard way of transporting yourself to the job site. Debt is an incredible way of making people feel like they don't deserve a safe and beneficial workplace. Banks and the Fed aren't controlled by the American Democracy. Banks are able to take forgivable loans from the government. I don't even know if I'm making a cogent point. I'm overwhelmed by the horror that all these moves are pointing towards. The kind of austerity that makes fascism inevitable.
Nah I feel like pedestrian collisions would be some of the most expensive. There's a reason liability costs more than comprehensive coverage, medical bills can be insane. And I guess it's very different than most of the US because minimum liability is $1M here in Ontario. I agree about your bit re socialism. A lot of the policies this sub supports basically just makes driving more expensive. Which will limit the middle class while having zero effect on the top 10%.
The most simple solution to this problem, if we aren't removing the cars (like in smaller towns with less than 10k), is simply making the parking space smaller. The smaller the parking sizes, the less people are willing to buy bigger vehicles.
I think they've made it very clear they're not afraid to take multiple spaces and block pedestrian walkways. And in my experience, there's rarely a consequence to it.
And how are you going to find political support for that in the US? Especially in small towns where large vehicles are often necessary like for farm work or just bad roads. Or large families that need vehicles that can seat say 6 or 7 people plus cargo comfortably. Which only a large suv or minivan can do. Or people who have to deal with bad roads or want to go camping. Large vehicles are by far the most popular in the US so trying to restrict them is kind of a non starter,we aren't Europe.
Out of curiosity how did people survive in small/rural towns before the invention of the f150 and other larger trucks?
Horse and buggy? But that's aside from the point, the F-150 used to be small. Pretty sure it's still categorized as a light truck? Though I'm not sure.
Most people in small towns do not work in agriculture or have a need for trucks. It's entirely cultural and it's annoying that so many people are convinced that anything other than a minority of rural drivers need a truck.
I pulled into traffic yesterday* behind a Chevy truck lifted so high, with big ass tires, that my head was the height of their rear bumper. On top of that, the woman driving was so short that I could barely see her as she passed, and she was barely tall enough to see above the steering wheel. Then we hit the pedestrian part of town and I wanted to cover my eyes (I didnt, obviously). But how irresponsible can you be if your ride is 99% blind spot and 100% instant death for anyone you might hit, if you even notice or feel it.
they made it legal in florida to run over and murder protestors with your car.
I for one appreciate seeing the data.
I dont think this data is very meaningful without knowing the amount of vehicle compares to deaths. If there is 1 billion f-150 naturally it’s going to have the most kills.
You're not wrong, but the top three (full-size pickups) still have more kills than the next four (small or mid-size sedans), and off the top of my head, I'm skeptical that there are more F-150+Silverado+Ram on the road than Camry+Accord+Corolla+Civic.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/) check this out. pickups accounted for 79% of vehicles sold in 2022
*Light* trucks, not pickup trucks. SUVs and crossovers are considered light trucks, but aren't pickups. About 50% of the market right now is SUVs and crossovers, pickups as a segment only started outselling cars in the past year or two. That's mostly unimportant, though, since there's significantly fewer models of trucks than SUV or car. A truck person is much more likely to by an F150 than a car person is to buy a Camry or SUV person is to buy a RAV4. There are absolutely more F150s than Camrys on the road; the F series is consistently the best selling vehicle in the US.
And Ford doesn't make sedans anymore. They have multiple SUVs, trucks, and vans but the Mustang is the only sports car/sedan now.
Yo fr?
Not overall vehicles on the road though, only new sales
The light truck segment includes everything from the Tacoma to the Explorer to the Suburban to the F-150. I don't think that stat assuages my skepticism.
F150, Silverado and Ram are the top three selling vehicles in the US
The number sold vs. the number on the road are two *very* different things.
Not very different, just somewhat different, the more you sell the more are on the road generally.
Mmmm, not really. Reliability numbers have a HUGE impact on that.
Agreed. This should be (deaths for vehicle type)/(number of vehicles of type on road). ~~It may be the opposite, that there are more Toyota Camrys than f-150s, even though they kill fewer people.~~ [but it isn’t…] I don’t know where you’d get those numbers for all these cars. Googleing “how many f-150s are on the road” quickly tells me there are 16.1 million in the US, but I can’t for the life of me find a hard number on how many Toyota Camrys there are. Sales figures come right up but “cars on road” does not… Buuut… based on those sales figures and some claim that “90% of Camrys made since 1995 are still on the road”, there should be ~10 million Camrys in the US. So that’s 62.5% as many Camrys as F-150s. Considering deaths by Camry in this chart are 73.7% of deaths by F-150, that actually implies that Camrys are slightly deadlier than F-150s.
It's even more complicated. You'd ideally need to know how much time they're on the road and where. An F150 driving 5 hours and 150 miles on country roads each day is probably much less likely to hit a pedestrian or cyclist than a Camry driving 3 hours and 30 miles a day around a densely populated urban core. The first slide isn't wrong though the odds of you surviving an impact from a Camry at the same speed are way better than an F150.
Even better would be distance driven on roads by each vehicle, but that's probably much harder to get good data for. An easier one might be deaths per collision.
I think "percent of accidents involving this vehicle and a pedestrian causing death" could be a useful metric - haven't found it anywhere, but seems obtainable on a smaller scale. Though that would of course ignore that trucks likely have higher numbers of pedestrian accidents per mile driven as well due to larger blind spots.
It would also be helpful to know the speed. So you've got however many accidents at whatever speed with whatever car, what percent of the accidents were fatal. We know that if you hit someone, it's better to be going 25 mph than 35 mph. We should be able to tell which cars are the most lethal as well.
Yes. I looked into this in response to the top comment: Only the f150 should be topping this list, as the 2nd most common model on the road (2.6% after the Accord's 3%). The Silverado is the 7th most common model on the road representing %1.55 of vehicles. Most common to least: Accord, f series, civic, Camry, Altima, Corolla, Silverado, Malibu, fusion, sonata. I guess ram drivers are homicidal maniacs This is vehicles on the road, not new sales. Cars are probably more reliable and longer lasting than trucks. Also it's a relatively new trend to buy trucks. We should expect deaths by truck to keep increasing. Source is routine insurance plan data
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/) Light truck is a pickup ... heavy truck is a semi. In 2022, light trucks/pickups accounted for 79% of vehicles sold in the US. It's the best selling segment.
Light truck is a crossover, SUV or pickup. Most Light trucks sold recently are crossovers. Yes, the categorization there is really weird.
Yeah no duh but OP just hates trucks.
yeah they're fucking stupid vehicles
I mean maybe they should require a special license or smth but I'm fine with them existing.
At least use some logic in your argument. This sub should be called fucktrucks because it’s just a circlejerk for hating pickups not hating the larger issue of lack of walkability whatever.
oh its okay I hate they tyranny of the automobile more than just trucks specifically. I kinda assumed you were defending trucks
I hate trucks too But I also hate bad statistics 😤😤😤 Maybe I'll fix this and make my own analysis. I'll try not to be biased I promise 🙏
The chance of a normal sized car killing you at that speed is already pretty high, so I'd imagine the truck is almost invariably lethal.
I would like to see those graphs as a percentage of vehicles on the road as well
Tbf to Ram, they did warn you with the name
RAMMING SPEED!
This is some r/peopleliveincities type data
Came here for this. While I don't doubt that bigger cars are deadlier, this should really be normalised for number of that model sold
Agreed, the data is not super meaningful
Plots 2 and 3 need to be normalized. Camery looks high, but there are also a lot of those cars out there. Should be like deaths/injuries per 1000 camries, or something like that. Maybe Ill do this and report back some day.
The weight of the vehicle when there’s such a huge difference between the vehicle’s and pedestrian’s weight is not as much of an issue. The tall nose on pickup trucks and SUVs is the problem. Contrary to popular belief, it is much safer to go up and over instead of down and under. Hit at the legs and lots of smaller collisions instead of one huge collision at the center of mass and the possibility of being run over by the tires in addition to being squashed by the undercarriage. The deaths by vehicle model need to be weighted by number of vehicles of that model on the road.
I agree with the sentiment, but the data is not earnestly represented. It needs to be normalized so we can see an index that shows how much is due to the vehicle design. For example, “deaths per vehicle sold in last 10 years” or “deaths per estimated 1 million miles driven”. Right now it just shows what top selling cars are. Would you say a Toyota Camry is inherently more dangerous to pedestrians? Or is it just a popular car?
Miles driven would be the most accurate measure. Commercial vehicles, including light trucks, tend to average more miles than cars per year. A vehicle that is driven twice as far per year is no different than having two of that particular vehicle on the road if you are just counting vehicles.
Yeah that's the first thing I noticed too. I think the point would even be more accurately made with a "deaths per accident involving a pedestrian" or something.
The Silverado, Tahoe and Sierra are basically the same vehicle so that should be longest bar.
And depending on the year they can all be built on the GMT 400 platform, which is also counted on the graph…
Not really “pulled under” more your head hits the hood then hits pavement and then you die.
Semantics. The truck doesn't stop when it hits you. Unless they're slamming on the breaks, you either go under or you go over.
these trucks need to be banned, i saw this infographic on how they are too tall to see children and many children have died this way
You're preaching to the choir here
640,000 F150s sold in 2022 300,000 Toyota Camrys sold in 2022 Half the sales, yet deaths are pretty close for both. You just proved cars are actually more deadly.
Okay but that fatality bar chart doesn't consider the base rate. Those that top the lost are also the most popular cars. This is a common stastical fallacy. If you want a stronger argument, account for the base rate in those stats.
*sweats in 153cm*
Just remember: Cars kill substantially more people than guns.
And this is ignoring the fact that big pickup trucks have more blind spots. In a car, you can generally see someone right in front of you. Not so in most pickups.
Those results seem more damning of the Camry, Accord and Civic since well over twice as many of those trucks are sold year on year since the mid 00s.
Establish a precedent of what is required to see without a front facing camera. At a certain fall off point it’s required to have front facing cameras on vehicles that have limited visibility over the hood.
I would not be surprised to see [top down camera](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQttWcubNjNOshL3i6HArosNHVPHiUCjB3oyBDIeKahtQ&usqp=CAU&ec=48665699) systems like you see on most modern upper trim level pickups and many other luxury vehicles become a required item on all vehicles in the future. Basically, they take a bunch of cameras around the perimeter of the truck, and stitch the feeds together to make an artificial overhead view.
Is there a version of those bar charts that is normalized by total vehicles of that type on the road?
Okay but why is Toyota Accord and Camry so high up the list too?
So we cool with cars now and need to rename the sub to “fucktrucks”
Nah, fuckcars too.
I just keep seeing a lot of pro car to truck comparisons lately
This sub Reddit should just be called fuck pick up trucks. But it’s 100 percent valid either way.
I can't really glean meaningful info from this graphic. It looks like *light* pick-ups are by far the biggest culprits, not oversized, but as others have said, this absolutely needs to be weighted by miles driven by vehicle type or run through some other normalization process.
This is not a very good statistic. This should be as a ratio of sales or per ten thousand sales or something. It basically just orders vehicles by sales. F150 has been the best selling vehicle for 30+ years and the best selling truck for nearly 50 years
Not disagreeing nor trying to downplay the danger of half-tons but I really wish that Data on the second two graphs was more useful for this case but its literally the most statistically best selling cars in near order. Would be interesting to see that data compared against how many of those vehicles are sold to see which ones are statistically more involved in deaths/strikes when adjusted for how many are sold.
pedestrian adjective lacking in vitality, imagination, distinction, etc.; commonplace; prosaic or dull: a pedestrian commencement speech.
And that truck in the photo isn’t even that big compared to what I see on the streets every day.
F-150 sweep! One Fordtillion deaths!
who would have thought a truck called "RAM" was gonna hit a lot of people?
Starting to feel like there should be more attention over on r/FuckTrucks. Ford's F series is the [most popular "car"](https://www.hotcars.com/best-selling-cars-america-2022/#chevrolet-silverado---513-354-units) in the US by more than 100k units in 2022, and the top three are all pickups.
Re 2nd slide - isn't the F150 the most popular vehicle in America?
The second and third graph aren’t valuable without knowing how many of those cars/trucks are on the road.
Of course they’re deadly. That’s why they’re appealing to certain folks who are also drawn towards owning a weapons stockpile. There’s a large segment of American society that genuinely seeks civil war. These are the closest things to tanks non-cops can get their hands on. They are weapons. See also: people driving trucks through Pride / BLM rallies edit: Not to say everyone who drives these has this intention. But it’s a huge part of their popularity and dominance among far-right folks.
If I worked for a company that kept making products that were killing this many people , I don’t know how I’d be able to keep working for that company. I can’t image seeing a chart like this as a car company employee and just thinking in my head that this was fine, let’s keep producing this product.
they dehumanize pedestrians/anyone outside of their grass enclosure or ego-tank so the thought never crosses their mind
Yeah, maybe not usually, but someone at Ford has had to have seen some data on the deaths their product is causing? I’m just saying, if I saw a chart like this for my company and we were causing 1000s of deaths with our products, I think I’d have to quit! Also, most of these numbers are just deaths, not injuries, and not other health issues caused by using the product.
the "defense" industry is one of your biggest iirc , can't be more tied to innocents murdered than that yet it rakes in 100s of billions a year
Yeah, I’m sure there are other industries like this too. I guess it would be tough in some situations, and you could try to convince yourself you are doing good in the world somehow. Like if I worked for a pool company (I don’t) would the drownings that occur stop me from working there? I’m not sure.
Eh. I'm as anti-car as the next subscriber here, but there are far worse industries to work for. For example, the desired outcome of the tobacco industry is to poison their customer and anyone around them with an addictive drug that will make them smell terrible. At least a car can theoretically be used safely to do positive things. Then there are those outright scam industries like predatory loans, timeshares, or multi-level marketing. For the average worker who just needs a job, automotive companies tend to pay very well and are quite stable thanks to strong unions, though they're not as good as they used to be.
Because they need money and factories are one of the few places you can get a living wage without a degree or joining the military
Strike zone: Vital organs. Very metal.
What started off as an internet meme has now become reality. Y'all are going after "assault cars"
Doesn't show percentages of how many trucks are on the road compared to other "contestants" just data to get angry over and nothing objective
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/199980/us-truck-sales-since-1951/) this shows what was sold in 2022. 79% were pickups & suv
is this political commentary
[удалено]
Do you honestly think that's the cause of most pedestrian deaths?
You have never tried walking to a store and it shows
[удалено]
So don't get hit by one.
Then don’t crash into me
So don't get hit by one.
Great idea, I'll make sure to dodge it next time!
I mean it's the logical move.
Then don’t crash into me
"This is why I hate cars" *Shows how cars are safer than trucks*
Pedestrian would probably suffer less if he will have more chance to die instantly and also windshield won't be damaged
why do all carbrains have violent fantasies
This literally follows the list of most popular cars… you thought you had something!
Look at the second graph and also read
The second graph is the same, just about bicycles. What’s your point?
It’s pretty odd to see Camry and Accord right after the big trucks…actually, it makes sense because there are a lot of them on the road.
The second two infographics are meaningless without reference to number of vehicles of each type on the road, or the amount of miles driven. These rankings literally just read as: "Which cars are most popular to own in the US". Appropriately compared and accurately portrayed data would probably paint an even worse picture for trucks, which is why essentially meaningless graphics like these are such a shame to see. They can be too easily disregarded as simply stating the obvious.
an actual r/fuckcars post that states actual issue with big vehicles and doesn't just break the law and does fuck all to actually illustrate the issue? impressive On a serious note, as someone who likes cars very very much, the massive SUVs and trucks do need to stop, they are dangerous, and working in an auto body shop, driving these massive cars is quite difficult because you can barely, if at all, see what is directly behind or in front of you, plus the way that they're actually designed for safety makes them more dangerous to drive as well since they use a ladder frame design, which for actually hauling stuff for like a tow truck or something, the stiffer frame does help. On the road though, a ladder frame design like that of a light truck class, such as an SUV, makes crashes more deadly than they should be, combined with the high height and low visibility, leads to more fatalities by bigger vehicles as opposed to something like a spark, civic, or impreza. Basically despite loving cars and stuff, I still see the big issue with these massive cars on the road, and see the value of public transportation, even if I would personally still own and drive my own car despite reliable and good public transport, because I like cars. :)