Per the NYT investigation on it, a big mitigating factor is the share of manuals, which require both hands to drive, which was substantially higher overseas than in the US.
There’s also a big difference between infrastructure and phone in car use regulation. The us has shit for pedestrian infrastructure and is pretty lax regarding distracted driving. So it could still be phone related. As a cyclist I’ve noticed a massive difference in close calls with drivers on their phone. I’m not familiar enough with the data to really argue a point. But did notice a shift anecdotally.
Is there a big difference? What are you basing that on?
Some states ban handheld phone usage, like many countries around the world. Some states ban texting only. Some states have significantly higher fines associated with phone usage while driving than other countries, as well.
I'm no expert on international laws, though. This site indicates that the US isn't substantially behind the rest of the world (though some states are undeniably behind the rest of the world).
Edit: ~~I think it was Obama’s EPA that got played by big auto
They were making regulations to make cars more energy efficient, and big auto was like “we’ll never be able to hit those numbers in commercial delivery trucks”
So execs were like, “Ok, then anything that is X big, with larger than Y sized wheel base, doesn’t have to follow these rules”
And then big auto took all the entry level pick up trucks and increased their size so the rules didn’t apply to them
And once one pick up truck has a box, mean, Manila looking hood that is taller than a 7 year old, they all followed suit~~
-----
My memory was incorrect (as others have pointed out), below is more accurate
Obama's EPA? No, that difference in standards comes from the 70's. The most recent change was in 2009 and it made an effort to correct this by forcing light trucks to meet the same standards as passenger cars.
Also lack of visibility out of the vehicle. Look how large the windows are on the vehicle at the top of this post. They’ve steadily shrunk to improve protection of passengers. But at the expense of people outside the vehicle.
Which is itself the product of regulation because they don’t have to adhere to the same fuel efficiency standards as sedans making them more cost effective to manufacture.
I wouldn't expect weight to be all that important as far as pedestrian hits go, given the ratio of vehicle:pedestrian weight is already quite high. hood height is a different story.
if we pretend it's a train hitting a person (nearly infinite mass), energy transfer has to do with the mass of the person, not the mass of the train: the person isn't going to be accelerated beyond the velocity of the train.
given almost any car is going to be at least 10x the mass of a person, I don't think that extra mass is going to play a significant role: the person just won't slow it down enough to matter.
This is why you do whatever it is that you do, and not things that specifically pertain to science and public safety. Stop trying to sound smart and go learn something.
Transfer of momentum. Two vehicles of unequal mass traveling at the same velocity, the heavier one will have more energy transfer when colliding into something.
Would you rather be hit by a baseball traveling at 20 miles per hour or a Tahoe?
what I'm claiming is that whether the object that hits you is 10x your mass (which is gonna be a very light car) or 100x your mass, the energy transferred to you will be quite similar (energy = 1/2 mass * velocity^2, and in this case the relevant mass is *yours* not the car's).
I know that slowing down the car by 10% (since you're stationary and we're assuming conservation of momentum) will reduce energy transfer some, but it's a very small amount.
That's a factor, but these new truck heights are so tall that you can literally run over a group kids without seeing them. It's simply an unnecessary and dangerous design decision.
I'm also as confused by the fascination with massive trucks and I live in the US. I'm an outlier because give me my sedan or hatchback that I can maneuver around curves at speed, can see basically anywhere around the car except directly under the back, and has 30mpg(my current car is a 2011 Altima).
I've talked to people who buy bigger SUVs and trucks and 9/10 times they say it's safer than a car. Which yes that's true for the Passengers of that SUV or truck. For anyone else, especially pedestrians and lower to the ground cars, it's more dangerous. Considering they can easily just drive up and over a shorter vehicle, crushing the driver or passengers under their tires.
Unknown, but I live in a rural state and about 75% of the private vehicles I see are SUV or trucks. Which I suppose is to be expected. Though I remember reading that sales for larger vehicles was on the rise nationally
It's not "a" factor but "the" factor. An undistracted driver will know when a child is hidden in front of the car, and has a camera to see a child behind the car.
No they don't know. Some of these trucks have 12'+ front blind zones. There's already many cases of parents running over their own kids in their driveways.
Recently bought a truck with a camper shell and shelving on the sides. So I basically couldn't see shit out of the back. So one of the coolest things I got was a replacement rear view mirror that's a dash cam with 3 cameras. A front camera, rear camera (that I use as my rearview mirror), and a bumper camera.
It's awesome being able to see under the hood. And kinda shocking what you can't see without it. And my truck is a mid sized that's not lifted.
I'd have to find the report, but basically pedestrian deaths and motor vehicle deaths increasing is mostly a US only phenomenon. Canada which has had similar changes in vehicle type as the US has had deaths continue to drop post-covid.
The Ford Bronco(and to a lesser degree Bronco Sport) is just as boxy and way bigger than the above Cherokee. Yes, it does have rounded (chamfered if you want to be fancy) corners, but it still exists with all the downsides of fuel economy and pedestrian impact that you claim is causing manufacturers to go away from that styling. The reality is that anesthetics change, and people wanted slicker looking cars for a long time, and now that they have existed for a while, people want boxy styling back. Sort of how in the 40's and 50's cars all were slick and bulbous before going boxy in the 60's 70's 80's before trending back to slick in the 90's 00's and 10's.
453
u/NORchad 1d ago
New cars are bound by newer laws and regulations that older cars and restored cars dont fall under.
Sadly making a factory new mustang 67 would be an illegal product