The biggest car news and reviews, no BS<\/p>\n
Our free daily newsletter sends the stories that really matter directly to you, every weekday.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tBigger cars, bigger danger. Pedestrian fatalities have surged 75% since 2009, linked to the rise of larger vehicles like SUVs and pickups.\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tSize matters in safety. Larger vehicle dimensions contribute to increased pedestrian deaths, with 200-400 lives potentially saved annually if cars hadn\u2019t grown.\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tRegulations and repercussions. Changes in emissions and fuel economy rules inadvertently encouraged bigger cars, impacting pedestrian safety.\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tPhysics of impact. Larger vehicles distribute force differently, but their height and mass increase the risk of deadly collisions.\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\tBottom line: The rise of larger vehicles has significantly increased pedestrian fatalities, highlighting the unintended consequences of regulatory changes and vehicle design trends.\t\t<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\u2726
\n\t\t\tAI assisted, editor reviewed\n\t\t<\/p>\n
Since 2009, there has been a documented shift in road safety for American pedestrians. After decades of declines, pedestrian fatalities have been steadily increasing since the Great Recession. Deep down, we already knew why: it\u2019s because the cars keep getting bigger. According to a new study<\/a> by The New York Times and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, thousands of deaths would have been prevented over the past 16 years if cars had not grown so significantly in both height and weight. <\/p>\n \u201cAfter analyzing federal and industry records, including never-before-examined data on vehicle dimensions, we found that the rise of large pickups and S.U.V.s is an important factor,\u201d the Times report said.<\/p>\n \u201cOur estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,\u201d the report continued. \u201cThat represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.\u201d<\/p>\n According to the report, pedestrian deaths have not only increased by 75% since 2009, but the fatalities have been correlated with the hazards presented by the physical heft, height, and blind spots inherent to today\u2019s big trucks and SUVs. <\/p>\n Why 2009? The answer lies in the confluence of several consequential events of that decade. The truck and SUV boom really started in the \u201990s, and likely would have kept right on roaring through the late aughts had it not been for the financial crisis. The interruption was brief, and soaring gas prices pushed nearly-new SUVs into the secondary market even quicker than usual.<\/p>\n Then, in the immediate aftermath of 2008, we saw not only the introduction of a stricter emissions regimen, but the restructuring of the way vehicle fuel economy was calculated to begin with. Not long after that, Cash for Clunkers came along and erased nearly 700,000 cars from the used market entirely<\/a>, forcing buyers into newer models that were ostensibly more fuel-efficient.<\/p>\n The Obama-era revision is now referred to as the \u201cfootprint model.\u201d It\u2019s a formula that classifies cars by several different factors, including physical dimensions and tire size. The EPA\u2019s new rules basically allowed automakers to pollute more so long as they made their cars a larger at the same time, but the minutiae of the government\u2019s regulatory framework is of less importance than its unintended consequences<\/a>, including the (literal and figurative) rise of the crossover, which has since supplanted the low-slung midsize sedan as America\u2019s favorite family car\u2014for now, at least<\/a>.<\/p>\n Pop quiz: You\u2019re going to get hit by something coming at you at 50 miles per hour; given equal mass, would you rather that be a small object, or a large object?<\/p>\n Whap! Time\u2019s up. What did you get hit by? If you picked small, you might be dead. If you said \u201clarge,\u201d your odds are lower. Why? Two reasons. First, F=ma and second, P = F\/A. OK, I suppose that\u2019s really just one reason, and it\u2019s called \u201cphysics.\u201d<\/p>\n In long hand, those formulas represent two related concepts. The first is force (equals) mass (times) acceleration. In other words, the force an object hits you with scales with how much it weighs and how fast it\u2019s moving. To skip the algebra, a heavier object moving faster hurts more. Duh, right? <\/p>\n The second formula says that pressure (equals) force (divided by) area. This describes how the impact of that flying object is distributed. If you make the area (A) larger, the pressure (P) gets smaller even if the weight of the object is the same. As the contact area increases, the force exerted on any given part of that contact area goes down. In other words, if you could blow a bullet up to many hundreds or thousands of times its size without changing its mass, its deadliness would decline in inverse proportion to its physical size, even if it still hit you at several hundred feet per second. <\/p>\n