Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Utah State Prof Says Hybrids Don't Kill More Pedestrians

Posted by timothy on from the hard-experiment-to-re-run dept.

thecarchik writes "Preliminary data seemed to show that hybrids were more likely to be involved in pedestrian crashes or hit cyclists. But now EV enthusiast Mark Larson (he's also an Emeritus Professor of Spanish at Utah State University) has analyzed some additional data and found this not to be the case at all. He used 1994-2008 figures from the Fatality Reporting System maintained by the NHTSA and found that the rate of pedestrian fatalities has in fact fallen over that same period."

9 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Well Fuck... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you have any idea what welding ramming spikes to my Prius will do to my mileage?

  2. The study just involves blind people by Meshach · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary fails to mention that the liked study only focuses on blind people. So blind pedestrians are no more likely to get hit by a hybrid then full sighted pedestrians.

    --
    "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
    Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:The study just involves blind people by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Informative

          You know, I've seen an increasing trend in that. "Experts" have been coming out with "studies" in fiends. Because they have "Professor" or "Doctor" somewhere near their name, they are immediately presumed to be experts in the field that they are discussing. It rarely takes much research, sometimes just reading the article, to find out that their area of expertise has nothing to do with the topic of the study.

          The article does hit both sides of it though, which is good. I couldn't find what he is currently teaching though. He's listed to be an instructor in the USU Art Department. His USU profile page doesn't really indicate much. The indicated department doesn't show him as being on the faculty nor staff.. That would be consistent with the "Emeritus" part of his title. He was a professor. He was in the art department, which doesn't seem to include any language arts.

          I did find some rough name matches, so his art field may have been photography. Beyond that, I couldn't find anything about this guy.

          So, his credentials went from sounding like an expert in the field, to "Mark Larson, retired art teacher", or more simply "Mark Larson, bored retired guy".

       

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:The study just involves blind people by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 5, Funny

      Indeed. I had to switch to a truck because I got tired of having to back over 'em as they crawled for help.

  3. Emeritus Professor of Spanish? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about data analysis by someone who isn't an "enthusiast" and by someone who is qualified?

    "...rate of pedestrian fatalities has in fact fallen over that same period" yes, we've been designing pedestrian safe bumpers and hoods in that period, cross walks are safer with better lights and audible warnings.

    As someone who was clipped by a Prius in a parking lot when it was on battery, the damned things are quiet as hell and sneak up on you like a ICE powered automobile doesn't.

    1. Re:Emeritus Professor of Spanish? by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is a simple technique that electric vehicle drivers could practice, that would solve this quietness problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_a_raspberry

      I drive a hybrid, and I find I get just the right noise level by wedging a playing card between my tire and the wheel well.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  4. Let's spot the non-sequiturs. by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's keep in mind this is a professor emeritus of Spanish. He evidently doesn't know jack about quantitative analysis.

    If silent hybrid vehicles posed a threat to pedestrians, he reasoned, then the number of pedestrian deaths should have risen since 2000, when the first hybrids were sold.

    Well there's your problem right there. You can't identify the contribution due to hybrids by looking at the total. There are on the order of what, 100 million vehicles on the road, and maybe 1% of them are hybrids. So if pedestrian kills by the other 99% of vehicles drop by 1%, hybrids could be 99 times more deadly than them and you wouldn't notice from this guy's analysis.

    Second, Larson really only addresses half the issue. Fatalities from accidents are one data point, but injuries would be another--and are far more common than deaths.

    What he said.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  5. This proves AQ are nice guys by ewn1453 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Preliminary data seemed to show that Al-Qaeda were violent terrorists. But now AQ enthusiast Mark Larson (he's also an Emeritus Professor of Spanish at Utah State University) has analyzed some additional data and found this not be the case at all. He used 1988-2001 crime data from the Uniform Crime Report and found that the murder rate in fact fell over that same period.

  6. very very hard to attribute this to mere stupidity by drfireman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's most astonishing about this is that the linked article states that Larson's analysis has two problems. The only way I can figure you'd stop at two is that one and two are the only numbers you know. Or perhaps more astonishing is the fact that nowhere in this list of flaws did the author of the article see fit to point out that this is a completely meaningless analysis. Instead the author of this article, who obviously has even less experience analyzing and undertanding data than this Larson fellow, focused on two very peripheral and arbitrarily chosen points. If you want to see this kind of analysis done right, visit http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/.

    For the benefit of the exceptionally clueless, let me just point out that this article failed to mention the most obvious and devastating flaw with this kind of analysis -- the critical assumption that no other factor could possibly have influenced pedestrian fatalities since 2000.