Share this comment
You wrote:
"In a remarkable paper, John F. Saylor nailed the problem of competing interests. It is in the consumer, or driver's interest, to have a heavier and higher vehicle 'since vehicle height and weight negatively correlates with increased pedestrian safety and crash compatibility but positively correlates with increased occupant pro…
You wrote:
"In a remarkable paper, John F. Saylor nailed the problem of competing interests. It is in the consumer, or driver's interest, to have a heavier and higher vehicle 'since vehicle height and weight negatively correlates with increased pedestrian safety and crash compatibility but positively correlates with increased occupant protection.' "
It would seem that since most pedestrian deaths occur in urban areas, and the current policy is to make downtown/urban centers car-free, that this is being phased out for the most part. Second, the uptick in pedestrian deaths is largely because the people who are being hit and killed are (a) addicts (b) mentally ill or (c) both.
Other items of note:
• The IIHS graphic of car fatalities based on year range is fake. Best fit line for 2003-06 models during 2004-07 missed the last data point; it should yield a nearly-flat line when including the last data point.
• *ANY* vehicle traveling >40 mph that hits a pedestrian will result in near 100% fatality rates; this has little to do with the weight of the vehicle and entirely with the speed, since F = m • a, where F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration.
• Truck sales are slowing because people cannot afford them, especially as inflation continues to bite the consumer in the wallet. If trucks continue to increase in cost, like some of the new models that retail in excess of $100K, fewer people will be able to afford them—especially if MPG is only in the teens.