Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The net death rates of people killed by small cars is still higher overall than SUVs and light trucks.

That being said, even the article mentions the primary factor in pedestrian deaths is the shape of the hood and the height of the hood:

"Even when the hood isn’t that high, a boxy front-end — with a grille that’s nearly vertical and a hood that goes almost straight out from the windshield — is more likely to cause death or serious injury to a pedestrian. In general, vehicles with box-shaped front ends, even when they’re only medium height, are roughly 26% more likely to kill a pedestrian, according to the IIHS."

Seems like it's at least partly a visibility issue (I'm not convinced that height matters as much as the angle a driver sits at from within the truck to be able to see what's in front of it), also the odds of getting slammed under the vehicle rather than rolled over the top of it.

That being said, none of these apply to the Cybertruck, which has an almost entirely sloped frontend with a low hood height and massive windshields for visibility paired with probably the most advanced pedestrian detection systems on the market.



> Seems like it's at least partly a visibility issue

I don’t see how that can follow from that article, as it says

“Researchers at the institute looked at records of almost 18,000 incidents in which vehicles struck pedestrians”

That, to me, indicates they looked at P(death|being hit), and ignored P(being hit)

The original article (https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2294) and its blog post (https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...), to me, say the same thing.

That also describe the reasonably well-known reason for the increased risk, once hit: for pedestrians, it’s better to end up on the bonnet than under the car, or, as you phrase it ”the odds of getting slammed under the vehicle rather than rolled over the top of it”

Of course, decreasing P(being hit) also helps, but doing both is the best option.


>> Seems like it's at least partly a visibility issue > I don’t see how that can follow from that article, as it says

Very simply, if you don't see a pedestrian approaching from the side due to the limited visibility of the vehicle, then as a driver you have less time to react and slow down. The slower a vehicle is going at the point of collision, the more likely a pedestrian is to survive.

If a vehicle is going 45mph and hits a pedestrian, it doesn't much matter the aerodynamics of the vehicle or even the weight or size of the vehicle, that is an incredible force of impact.

So of course visibility is a factor in deaths and that's why newer SUVs and trucks with collision avoidance systems reduce deaths by 27%.

From [1], "SUVs, pickups, vans and minivans are substantially more likely than cars to hit pedestrians when making turns, suggesting that these larger vehicles may not afford drivers as clear a view of people crossing the road, a new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows". Notably, these types of collisions would not result in a roll over the top of the vehicle in any case as the pedestrians are being struck by the corner of the vehicle at an angle.

"Earlier studies have shown that A-pillars — the struts connecting the roof to the vehicle’s body on either side of the windshield — can create blind spots that can make it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians and that these blind spots grow larger as A-pillars become wider."

[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/suvs-other-large-vehicles-o...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: