Can anyone provide anything that says this is a real concern…? Because people keep saying it, and no one wants to prove it. So strange… should be easy, no? So why can’t anyone do it?
the likelihood of large trucks hitting pedestrians is substantially higher, and the likelihood of those impacts being deadly is even higher than that.
Even ignoring statistics here, basic static analysis of the factors at play would argue that there should be an expected increase in these stats. For one thing you have significantly less immediate LOS meaning it’s not incredibly apparent what is directly in front of you which should make it quite obvious as to why they’re more dangerous, especially at lower speeds. You feel much safer in them due to their size, so you are more likely to be paying less attention or none at all, assuming that other people will notice your massive pavement princess coming down the road.
The front of the vehicle is a literal wall, so the chance that you impact someone, and drag them across the road for a significant distance, or even just run them over outright is significantly higher, because low hoodline vehicles often just throw people up on their hoods, an f150 is significantly less likely to do this, considering how much higher off the ground the hoodline is already, especially when you add in children. It also has considerably more mass, meaning it’s going to impart significantly more energy into a pedestrian, even at low speeds. A lot of these trucks are also lifted and stanced (or as i liked to refer to them “tonked” because they look like tonka trucks) which means if you do impact a pedestrian, you’re likely to stuff them straight into your front suspension and driveline, which is sure to cause all kinds of fun problems.
So why are rates only going up in the US…? Other places have these same trucks and don’t have the same issues.
I appreciate you not providing sources from outside the US to support it’s not a US only problem. Every article people provide is about the US, other places have these trucks, why don’t they have the same issues?
Why in this so hard for you guys to find? And why is every answer skirting around the actual question? Lmfao.
probably a combination of the fact that there are substantially more trucks in the US compared to places in the EU for example where the statistics are probably significantly closer to “margin of error” levels of accuracy.
The US also has substantially more people driving, substantially more road, substantially less skilled drivers one could argue, though i would argue we have a much wider range of skilled drivers, than somewhere like germany for example, where they have a might tighter though higher sitting range of skilled drivers.
edit: a lot of these trucks outside the US are likely to be work vehicles exclusively i imagine, where as in the US they’re primarily work and personal, though i sure do see a lot more personal trucks on the road than i do work trucks on the road.
In short, other places don’t have these issues because other places simply have a lot less vehicles, and a lot less traffic, as well as a lot less of these trucks per capita compared to the US which is just statistically what you expect to see in the results.
Dangerous vehicles are really only dangerous when in large numbers because otherwise they are quite literally a statistical anomaly. It’s why old vehicles are still allowed on the road in the US even though they’re less safe, there just isn’t enough of them for it to be statistically significant.
Why did you mention the EU? What about Canada? Mexico? Australia? Where these vehicles actually exist, but the numbers aren’t the same as the Us…?
Canada is basically identical to the US in every metric you mentioned, yet the stats aren’t the same. You keep trying to find other reasons why, when I’ve already explained it.
