Hybrids Safer In Crashes — Except For Pedestrians

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hybrids Safer In Crashes — Except For Pedestrians

Posted by timothy on Sunday November 20, 2011 @01:29AM from the downloadable-cartones-soon-enough dept.

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Hybrid vehicles are safer than their conventional counterparts when it comes to shielding their occupants from injuries in crashes with the odds of being injured in a crash 25 percent lower for people in hybrids than people traveling in comparable non-hybrid vehicles. "Weight is a big factor," says Matt Moore, of the Highway Loss Data Institute. 'Hybrids on average are 10 percent heavier than their standard counterparts. This extra mass gives them an advantage in crashes that their conventional twins don't have.' The study's findings are good news for green-minded drivers who are also looking for safety in their cars, but it's worth noting that hybrid vehicles are much quieter than gas-powered cars, posing a risk to pedestrians. "When hybrids operate in electric-only mode, pedestrians can't hear them approaching," says Moore. Earlier this year, Congress gave the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration three years to come up with a requirement for equipping hybrids and electric models with sounds to alert unsuspecting pedestrians."

72 of 392 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hybrid Pedestrians? by rossdee · 2011-11-20 01:32 · Score: 5, Funny

So if your a hybrid pedestrian you are more likely to be injured?
1. Re:Hybrid Pedestrians? by Ihmhi · 2011-11-20 01:45 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Of course. If all the hybrids are killed, then we won't have a defense against the black oil.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
mahna-mahna by bazorg · 2011-11-20 01:32 · Score: 5, Funny

If electric cars get customisable running sounds, I'll want the mahna-mahna song.
1. Re:mahna-mahna by SJHillman · 2011-11-20 01:38 · Score: 2
  
  Companies already pay to wrap cars in visual advertisements, this could open up auto-auditory advertisements. You'd get paid a couple hundred bucks a month to drive around blasting an add for Cialis.
2. Re:mahna-mahna by realityimpaired · 2011-11-20 01:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What makes you think they'd pay you for the privilege? They'll just follow the current trend in the fashion industry, and treat you like a billboard, and charge you extra for the privilege of advertising for them....
3. Re:mahna-mahna by Bengie · 2011-11-20 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Badger badger badger ...
  "pedestrians can't hear them approaching"
  Blind and deaf, that's impressive. Should one be walking around with that kind of disability combo?
4. Re:mahna-mahna by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-11-20 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's why you LOOK where you're going before you stupidly step into the street.
5. Re:mahna-mahna by ColdWetDog · 2011-11-20 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You can only be young once.
  But you can be immature forever.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:mahna-mahna by AmiMoJo · 2011-11-20 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You don't seem to know a lot about reducing the risk of injury to a normal human being. Unfortunately our senses are not perfect, sometimes we miss things or are distracted and forget to look. Audio cues help prevent mistakes turning into accidents and have been shown to be very effective. Emergency vehicle sirens, for example, have been improved so that they give drivers some idea of the direction the vehicle is approaching from.
  The problem with EVs isn't as bad as some people make out though since much of the noise is from the tyres on the road and air being forced aside; the engine contributes relatively little. We have an opportunity here to develop sounds that make people take notice rather than the default noise a petrol engine makes, and the person inside the car need not hear it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:mahna-mahna by robot256 · 2011-11-20 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because when I think "manly", "make my penis bigger", and "attract women" I think of a little rinky dink eco-friendly compact car....
  It just depends on what kind of women you want to attract. If you want to attract shallow, vain women who flock after rich men with fancy cars, then no, you don't want a hybrid. If, on the other hand, you want to attract shallow, vain women who flock after trendy urbanites up on the latest fads, then yes, you do want a hybrid. If you want to attract women who aren't shallow or vain, try finding ones that don't care what kind of car you drive.
8. Re:mahna-mahna by PCM2 · 2011-11-20 09:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The problem with EVs isn't as bad as some people make out though since much of the noise is from the tyres on the road and air being forced aside; the engine contributes relatively little.
  In traffic, maybe. But I don't think this is necessarily about people crossing at the light at a crosswalk at a busy intersection.
  I live in a city, where there's a lot of ambient noise. That city is San Francisco, where, as you can imagine, there are a lot of hybrid cars. And I can tell you, while not being elevated in my mind quite to the level of "cause for concern" just yet, quiet cars can be a problem.
  I live on a predominantly residential street, where people have their cars in garages with very short driveways that cross the public sidewalk. The sound a combustion engine makes when it's backing out of a garage at low speed is very much more noticeable than the more-or-less complete silence of a hybrid engine. If, as you're walking along, you were fussing with your shopping bags, or tugging on your dog's leash, or looking over your shoulder to see if the bus is coming, it would be very easy to get run over by a hybrid car without ever realizing it was coming.
  Hybrid cars also round streetcorners in front of you when you're preparing to cross the street. Some of the cross-streets on the street I live on are one-way, single-lane streets, on hills, with a building right on the corner. It's very easy to be surprised by a car making a lefthand turn as you're walking up the road -- even more so if the car doesn't make any noise.
  The problem isn't a crisis, but it really is about more than just accommodating "stupid people," or handicapped people who can't hear at normal levels. Regular people can very easily miss a hybrid car coming.
  Also, I think some of the people who scoff at this idea live in parts of America where you're essentially wedded to your car. There are many cities, however -- San Francisco, Boston, Portland, New York, Seattle -- where a lot of people, or even a majority, don't rely on a car for most of their travel. That means they spend at least part of their day on foot or on a bike on public streets. In New York and San Francisco, lots of people don't even own cars. So maybe you're not likely to get run down by a hybrid car every day, but if you're on the street every day, all year long... it could happen.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
9. Re:mahna-mahna by AmiMoJo · 2011-11-21 01:00 · Score: 2
  
  Also, I think some of the people who scoff at this idea live in parts of America where you're essentially wedded to your car. There are many cities, however -- San Francisco, Boston, Portland, New York, Seattle -- where a lot of people, or even a majority, don't rely on a car for most of their travel. That means they spend at least part of their day on foot or on a bike on public streets. In New York and San Francisco, lots of people don't even own cars. So maybe you're not likely to get run down by a hybrid car every day, but if you're on the street every day, all year long... it could happen.
  Thanks for pointing that out. Having spent some time in and around Tokyo know for certain that a car is not necessary. You can get almost everywhere by train, and perhaps a short bus ride or walk. People on /. seem to think public transport is a bad thing but actually a well run system gets you from A to B quick and easier than a car does.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
10. Re:mahna-mahna by stewbacca · 2011-11-21 01:34 · Score: 2
  
  Somebody ran a find/replace script on your post. You've described America SUV driver quite nicely, but for some reason it says "Prius" everywhere it should say "Chevy Suburban".
11. Re:mahna-mahna by greed · 2011-11-21 03:42 · Score: 2
  
  Not so much; this is more danger approaching from the side. Generally in situations where the pedestrian has right-of-way--like his example of crossing the street and someone making a left turn.
  If you can hear the car coming, you can get out of the way--even when it's the car driver who should be yielding. You're still hurt even when you're not at fault.
  We could ask for drivers to be held to the actual traffic law, but history is against us, here.
This annoys the hell out of me ... by Snard · 2011-11-20 01:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

... The fact that hybrids are being labeled "dangerous to pedestrians" because they don't make noise to warn people to jump out of the way when they are jaywalking or texting/surfing on their phone while they are crossing the street.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't required noisemakers on bicycles for the same reason.

--
- Mike
1. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by Hentes · 2011-11-20 01:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They did, all bycicles in my country are required to have a bell.
2. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by tenco · 2011-11-20 01:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  cars are a lot more lethal in a crash than bicycles.
3. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by mikael_j · 2011-11-20 01:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Every time I hear or read about people demanding that electric cars somehow make unnecessary noises I get a little annoyed. One of the great things about electric cars (beyond not running on fossil fuel) is that they don't contribute to noise pollution.
  This wouldn't be a problem if people just paid a little attention before crossing the street, I've never been hit by a car even though I frequently listen to music while walking or riding my bicycle (not counting the time I was drunk and not paying attention, but that was all my own fault and luckily I wasn't injured beyond a few bruises).
  I just don't get what is so hard about not randomly walking out into the middle of the street without first checking that there aren't any vehicles headed your way
  
  --
  Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
4. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by lochnessie · 2011-11-20 01:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The motivation behind this is not to protect oblivious smartphone users, but for people with visual impairments who have traditionally relied on engine noise to identify approaching vehicles at low speed. The smartphone users will still be in danger, because they're invariably wearing headphones too.
5. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by realityimpaired · 2011-11-20 02:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Smart people ( a set in which you are not included ) use bells on their bicycles,
  whether for the purpose of warning pedestrians or warning bears.
  Stupid people use them too, largely because in this country, it's a $145 fine for not having a bell on your bicycle if the police catch you. It's a lot to pay for want of a $3 bell and a few minutes' work installing it, and anybody who didn't flunk grade 6 math shouldn't have too hard a time figuring out that buying the bell is better economy....
6. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-20 02:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Interesting. All the cars in my country are required to have a working horn. Does it make a difference just because the horn or bell is there? Or, maybe they have to - you know - actually ring it or press the horn? Saying bikes have bells is really like saying cars have horns. Apparently that isn't enough to fix this problem. Instead, they want the car to emit internal combustion engine sounds. Perhaps we can even get it to emit a realistic smell?
  
  I remember reading Robert Heinlein's "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls". In one chapter they have a guy with an electric car rigged up to emit annoying sounds like it had an IC engine. Looks like reality may be going there too.
7. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by Zero__Kelvin · 2011-11-20 02:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It must be very annoying to drive your bicycle with the bell constantly ringing
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
8. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by smellotron · 2011-11-20 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This wouldn't be a problem if people just paid a little attention before crossing the street
  
  You are making the assumption that pedestrian collisions are caused by the inattention of pedestrians. Assholes in hybrids will continue to roll through right-turns-on-red, ignore (or race) pedestrians already crossing, dart around between lanes for a single-car "advantage", zip through small neighborhood streets at 50mph, etc. In all of those situations, there is a defensive advantage because of sound. If that advantage goes away, the assholes just get more dangerous.
  Hmm.. Come to think of it, the police can solve most this by enforcing existing traffic laws. Once they start doing that, then I'll be in favor of reducing the noise pollution that cars make. In the meantime, they appear to split their time between catching speeders and only the grossest of safety violators, and I'll take the noise pollution over death.
9. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by BlueStrat · 2011-11-20 02:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The motivation behind this is not to protect oblivious smartphone users, but for people with visual impairments who have traditionally relied on engine noise to identify approaching vehicles at low speed. The smartphone users will still be in danger, because they're invariably wearing headphones too.
  Then by the same logic, why haven't all road-legal vehicles been required to have rotating warning lights, strobes, or a similar visual warning system?
  Why does the government hate deaf people? Is it because they can't hear the political speeches and must read them, therefor fixing more firmly in their minds the memory of the promises a politician makes and then breaks?
  I probably shouldn't go giving the politicians any ideas, or parents will need $1,500 worth of required and certified safety strobes, flashers, and running lights for their kid's Big Wheel. The only licensed/certified maker, of course, would be owned by a recent departee from whatever administration is in power.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
10. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by Joce640k · 2011-11-20 02:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yep. We need pedestrians to adapt to the cars, not the other way around.
  It's a ROAD. Try opening your fucking eyes...
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by Joce640k · 2011-11-20 02:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Literally one week ago I was hit on my bike by a car when I was crossing a crosswalk. I had the right-of-way, I was in the crosswalk, and I was fucking visible. I was not in violation of anything when I was crossing that street. But this SUV zooms up, sees their red light and tries to suddenly change plans and make a fast right instead of waiting for their light to change and going straight like the "body language" of the vehicle was advertising, and them I'm in the way because the driver's doing shit I don't expect and which goes against what they're SUPPOSED to do when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, and they hit me and I go down, and end up on my back staring at headlights.
  "Zooming SUV"? I assume it was making a noise....probably a huge four or five liter size noise.
  Please explain to us how a hybrid have been more dangerous. Maybe it wasn't the type of car that caused the problem, it was the driver. Maybe we should deal with the real problem, not the imagined problem.
  
  --
  No sig today...
12. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by LordLimecat · 2011-11-20 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  I tend to agree with this, but would wonder if you had actually seen / been around any silent all-electric vehicles. Its easier to scoff and laugh about stupid pedestrians before you experience what they mean by "silent". I was just over in Shanghai where they have more electric scooters / electric bikes than cars, and comparing them to normal bicycles is a bad comparison. Normal bikes you can generally hear coming, the electrics just make a bit of a whoosh as they go by. They tend to get quite a bit more dangerous in the evening.
  Now granted this is in a city where most of the lights and lane lines seem to be taken as advisory rather than mandatory, but it really was quite a bit more dangerous because of them. There is literally no warning if you dont happen to see an electric vehicle coming until it goes past.
  So keep in mind, next time you feel like scoffing about such a proposal, its pretty easy to ridicule some difficulty when you havent experienced it for yourself.
  (All that said, Im still pretty uncomfortable with such a suggestion.)
13. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by hedwards · 2011-11-20 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I take it you aren't blind and don't know anybody that's blind. The reason for this mandate is because pedestrians need all the help they can get to locate potential hazards. Seeing and hearing a car is vastly superior to just hearing it or just seeing it.
  And yes, I do look both ways, but that doesn't mean that I have eyes on the back of my head, so if I'm nearly half way into the lane as I cross the street, I can't necessarily see the car behind me that thinks it's OK to take a sudden right turn.
14. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by mikael_j · 2011-11-20 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You can hear electric cars just fine if you actually pay attention to your surroundings (doubly so if we get rid of the majority of loud combustion engine-powered cars). I definitely hear when an electric car approaches if I'm not listening to music, at it sounds nothing like a bicycle btw (just in case someone feels the need to claim otherwise).
  Just because everyone is used to cars being loud as hell doesn't mean it's a good thing.
  
  --
  Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
15. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by TheLink · 2011-11-20 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  Modern ICE cars are also pretty quiet.
  
  Between the low and very high speeds the tyre noise makes up much of the car noise. The hybrids often have low resistance tyres so maybe they make less tyre noise.
  
  I'd like to see real proof that it is a problem before we have laws requiring that hybrid and electric cars be noisy.
  
  In fact, if cars were quieter you'd be able to hear the faster vehicles and other stuff more easily.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
16. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by ironjaw33 · 2011-11-20 03:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I remember at least two incidents where I've nearly been hit by a hybrid while I was crossing an intersection (two different intersections in completely different towns). In both cases, the property owners adjacent to the intersecting road had erected a hedge or fence right up against the road. This is illegal because you can't see, but plenty of property owners do it just the same. Because I couldn't see unless I stepped into the road, I listened for oncoming cars first. Hearing nothing, I proceeded to walk into the intersection where I was nearly mauled. Since I was paying attention, I was able to jump out of the way just in time.
  It's more than not paying attention, it's that everyone has to realize that hearing can't be relied upon to tell whether or not a vehicle is approaching. I've learned my lesson and remember that when I'm crossing a street that I might not be able to hear what's coming.
17. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by TheLink · 2011-11-20 03:29 · Score: 2
  
  Assuming a modern car, much of the car noise comes from the tyres. Having the stationary/near stationary cars being much quieter makes it easier to hear the fast moving cars - which "hurt more".
  It may even make it easier for the blind to hear echoes from their echolocation clicks:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBv79LKfMt4
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYWpxmcHTOc
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
18. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by beltsbear · 2011-11-20 03:35 · Score: 2
  
  There is no evidence that hybrids are involved in more pedestrian incidents or incidents involving blind pedestrians. Because they are unusual the press reports pedestrian/hybrid incidents and they sensationalize it saying things like 'silent death' etc. There is no study conclusively saying that hybrids and electrics would be safer with more noise. It is a shame that money is being put into making the world noiser instead of into things that could save lives.
19. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by 1u3hr · 2011-11-20 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  I'm surprised that someone hasn't required noisemakers on bicycles for the same reason
  Probably because bicycles are much less likely to kill pedestrians, even if they hit them. Something that cyclists really try to avoid, since they will suffer at least as much in any collision, unlike car drivers who can turn a dozen pedestrians or cyclists into roadkill and just suffer a dented fender.
20. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by hedwards · 2011-11-20 03:55 · Score: 2
  
  Bullshit, you probably can hear them on a side street, but you're not going to hear them coming if you're crossing a busy street. Or at least not with any kind of reliability.
21. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by ilo.v · 2011-11-20 04:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yep. We need pedestrians to adapt to the cars, not the other way around. It's a ROAD. Try opening your fucking eyes...
  I completely agree. In return, your car should stay off the pedestrian paths. Good luck getting anywhere more a few hundred feet in my city without being blocked by a crosswalk. Even with lights and pedestrian signals, you are still going to cross my pedestrian cross walk when I have the green walk light (your right and left turns) You need to go back to preschool and learn how to share.
22. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by ilo.v · 2011-11-20 04:03 · Score: 2
  
  Even with lights and pedestrian signals, you are still going to cross my pedestrian cross walk when I have the green walk light (your right and left turns)
  
  See also: parking lots.
23. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by MightyYar · 2011-11-20 04:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  From the linked study's abstract:
  
  This study found that pedestrian and bicyclist crashes involving both HEVs and ICE vehicles commonly occurred on roadways, in zones with low
  speed limits, during daytime and in clear weather, with higher incidence rates for HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles. A variety of crash factors
  were examined to determine the relative incidence rates of HEVs versus ICE vehicles in a range of crash scenarios. For one group of scenarios,
  those in which a vehicle is slowing or stopping, backing up, or entering or leaving a parking space, a statistically significant effect was found due to
  engine type. The HEV was two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash in these situations than was an ICE vehicle. Vehicle
  maneuvers such as slowing or stopping, backing up, or entering or leaving a parking space, were grouped in one category based on that these
  maneuvers are potentially have occurred at very low speeds where the difference between the sound levels produced by the hybrid versus ICE
  vehicle is the greatest. In future analysis with a larger sample size, it would be ideal to investigate each of these maneuvers individually.
  Incidence rate of pedestrian crashes in scenarios when vehicles make a turn was significantly higher for HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles.
  There was no statistically significant difference in incidence rate of pedestrian crashes involving HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles when both
  type of vehicles were going straight.
  My interpretation is that when the cars are going straight ahead there is enough noise (tire, wind?) such that pedestrians don't get whacked - but when a car is creeping along, like a turn or parking maneuver, pedestrians can't always hear them. I don't think a car making some noise when at low speed would be a terrible contribution to noise pollution. It doesn't have to be the "BEEP BEEP BEEP" that trucks make when backing up.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
24. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by MightyYar · 2011-11-20 04:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You have it completely wrong. The linked study showed that pedestrians are not injured when cars are going straight ahead. The injuries occurred when cars are parking, turning, and making other low-speed passes through pedestrian areas. In all likelihood, it is just as much the driver not paying attention as it is the pedestrian.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
25. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by jfengel · 2011-11-20 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A bicycle moves 15 MPH, not 60 MPH.
  A bicycle + rider weighs 200 pounds, not 2,000 pounds.
  A bicycle rider will be seriously injured by a collision with a pedestrian. A driver won't, and isn't looking as closely for them, especially when they're not expecting them.
26. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by oursland · 2011-11-20 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So your solution to the problem that "people don't look before crossing the road" is that they'll have to look at a device before crossing a road?
27. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-11-20 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  > smug hybrid drivers
  Congratulations. You watched that South Park episode that mentioned hybrids and San Francisco.
  Now, if you actually *LIVED* here, blah blah assumptions.
  I DO live here. Well, I live in Santa Rosa (I used to live in Marin), and I worked in San Francisco until a couple months ago. And to add yet another twist to this riveting story, I drive a Camry Hybrid... except I only bought it because I wrecked my F-150 and needed a more economical vehicle than another truck... and I got a great deal on it. I absolutely agree that cyclists are the fucking worst. I've intentionally avoided downtown SF during critical mass because I don't WANT to learn what it's like to deal with that bullshit. Luckily, my drive took me straight up Park Presidio and 19th and I never encountered cyclists on those dreaded days... traffic was a little worse though.
  All that being said, hybrid drivers are still pretty high on the holier-than-thou scale. I find that they tend to be more oblivious and stuck in their own happy little world than intentionally screwing with you like the cyclists.
28. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by AmiMoJo · 2011-11-20 07:45 · Score: 2
  
  they want the car to emit internal combustion engine sounds
  If you had bothered to check you would know that the sounds being considered are mostly not petrol engine noises. Nissan's EVs emit a "swooshing" sound, one that minimises noise pollution but still gives you plenty of warning that the car is approaching. The driver doesn't hear it, and in fact they had to add deflectors to cut down on noise from the wing mirrors pushing air aside. It only projects in front of the car.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
weight and safety by alphatel · 2011-11-20 01:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

IIHS also found SUVs to be safer due to weight advantage. This study only looks at crashes and neglects the fact that lighter vehicles tend to stop faster and have better turn radius, which helps to prevent them from getting into accidents in the first place.

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
1. Re:weight and safety by SuricouRaven · 2011-11-20 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I confronted an SUV driver online about this once. He explained that he was well aware that in an accident, the SUV was the most dangerous car for occupents of the other vehicle, and that in choosing to drive one for safety he was willingly endangering others for his own protection. He went on to brand me a socialist and claim that it was his duty to protect his own family, even if that meant endangering others to whome he owed no loyalty.
  
  I hope that if he does have a car accident, the *other* driver thought exactly the same way.
2. Re:weight and safety by drolli · 2011-11-20 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In that logic, to protect myself, is it ok to blow SUVs off the road using anti-vehicle weapons?
3. Re:weight and safety by Deus.1.01 · 2011-11-20 02:13 · Score: 2
  
  TOW's should be an mandatory accessory for compacts to even up the odds.
  
  --
  My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
4. Re:weight and safety by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-20 02:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That confrontation is an awesome account of pretty much everything that's wrong with the US right now--the "I've got mine, so screw you!" attitude. Of course, it must be peppered in with incorrect usages of the word "socialism" because it just helps the concerted campaign to demonize the term while simultaneously never using it correctly. I'm sure the person you were debating with had his on-board entertainment system permanently fixed to Fox News too.
5. Re:weight and safety by Alomex · 2011-11-20 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  it was his duty to protect his own family,
  then why is he driving a car whose chances of rolling over are orders of magnitude higher than a regular sedan?
6. Re:weight and safety by Brucelet · 2011-11-20 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, when it comes to talk radio in the US, it doesn't need to be associated with Fox to be overly right-leaning. It just needs to not be NPR.
7. Re:weight and safety by frdmfghtr · 2011-11-20 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  it was his duty to protect his own family,
  then why is he driving a car whose chances of rolling over are orders of magnitude higher than a regular sedan?
  To play Devil's Advocate, there is a rational reason for doing so.
  There is an elevated risk of rollover with an SUV, which I can mitigate as a driver by changing my driving style, and driving more defensively. A SUV helps me drive defensively by increasing visibility around me. Those are factors that I, as a driver, can control. However, I can't control what other drivers will do or the type of vehicle that will hit mine in an accident. Therefore, to mitigate that risk, I'll drive a larger vehicle that will provide more protection in an accident. Two problems are solved here.
  To go the opposite, way, driving a smaller car to manage the rollover risk decreases my ability to drive defensively (lower visibility) and decreases my chances of survival in a collision. One problem is solved, and another made potentially worse.
  
  --
  Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
8. Re:weight and safety by Alomex · 2011-11-20 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To play Devil's Advocate, there is a rational reason for doing so.
  I think you give the "bigger-is-safer" brainwashed drivers out there too much credit. I drive a sedan and a SUV and I can tell that the visibility thing is mostly a myth: you can't see past a minivan on either. This might have been true at some point,when big cars were few and far between but in this day and age SUVs give very little actual increased visibility. What people think is increased visibility really only means being able to stare down the normal size sedan right next to you.
  As well, there are common traffic situations where visibility doesn't really help yet size hurts. Say a car suddenly cuts into your lane. You either swerve and rollover, or step on the breaks, and guess what, because of your increased mass you cannot stop in time and run into the car in front of you. This is yet another way in which driving a larger car increases the chances of injury.
  The safest car is neither the biggest nor the smallest. It's one in which the engineers right-sized the brakes to the mass of the car, given it a responsive car suspension (hint: most large SUV were built on pickup-truck platforms), has good factory installed tires (ford explorer any one?), put a proper cage around the passenger compartment and don't burst into flames upon impact.
  Where is size in all of that?
9. Re:weight and safety by wagnerrp · 2011-11-20 04:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  As well, there are common traffic situations where visibility doesn't really help yet size hurts. Say a car suddenly cuts into your lane. You either swerve and rollover, or step on the breaks, and guess what, because of your increased mass you cannot stop in time and run into the car in front of you. This is yet another way in which driving a larger car increases the chances of injury.
  You missed one. You step on the gas to clip their rear quarter as they come over, destabilizing them, and putting them into the wall. After all, just because you're driving slow in the left lane doesn't give someone the right to pass you.
The heavier car wins by Hentes · 2011-11-20 01:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Heavy cars are safer for the ones sitting in them. But most crashes involve two vehicles, and the lighter one will get the majority of the damage. A 'weight arms race' is not safety.
1. Re:The heavier car wins by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-20 03:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Hence in the Libertarian world, everybody drives larger and larger tanks, and shoots first, just in case.
2. Re:The heavier car wins by bzipitidoo · 2011-11-20 04:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Depends on how you define winning.
  A few years ago, I was in an accident in which another driver ran a red light, right in front of me. This was not someone trying to beat the light, this was a young, inexperienced driver's total failure to see the signal. I t-boned him. It was lucky for them that I drive a small, light car, and was going a bit under the posted speed limit of 55 mph. I was bruised badly enough that it took 3 months to fully heal. But I didn't need medical treatment. My elderly and frailer passengers didn't fare as well, with one broken ankle and some cuts that needed stitches.
  If my preference for small, light, fuel efficient cars saved lives that day, I count that a big win.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
3. Re:The heavier car wins by bzipitidoo · 2011-11-20 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  Blame it on Texas politics, particularly Governor Perry's ambition to privatize all our highways. If you want to know, it is TX state highway 121, near Dallas. The intersection is a major street with the "service road" of the tollway, which replaced an existing state highway. Normally, a tollway has to be an all new road. Can't just convert an existing major public road to private like that, so they weaseled around the pesky laws against the taking of public property by providing 3 lane service roads on each side, and labeling that with the old state highway designation. This is no wandering, twisting side road, this is a major state highway, that's why the high speed limits.
  They also neglected the timing of the lights, and why not? There is a powerful private interest that would prefer that people take the tollway, and is quite happy to let a trip on the old road be as awkward and tricky as they can get away with. Can't have anyone wasting money studying and adjusting the timing of these lights. There is another private interest that wants to collect ticket revenue from the red light cameras that city was persuaded to install. Safety is secondary to profits. Anyone turning left off the service road after waiting for the green, and passing under the tollway usually encounters a red light at the opposite service road, which is not what people expect. When a light has just turned green, you don't expect the light just around the corner to be red. Since that accident, several times I've seen oblivious drivers run that light.
  As another example of what these businesses do, there is an interchange where the new toll road road bypasses a city while the old road (now designated "business 121") continues in. The westbound exit is a straightforward fork in the service road. Bear right to take the old route, and left to stay on the new service road. But the eastbound entrance forces drivers on to the tollway, where they get charged a toll of course. Eastbound even used to send drivers onto the eastbound service road, for free, before that little revenue boosting change was made. Now to legally avoid the toll in the eastbound direction, have to turn right and leave the business route before it reaches the tollway, taking a street which interchanges with the tollway a few exits before the business road intersects, and turn left there. The equivalent interchange on the other side of the bypassed city has no such trick to it. Then there is the street that was cut off from the eastbound direction when the tollway was built, because it would cost too much money to add an interchange there. Drivers who used to turn left there must now go 1 mile west to a u-turn, and then of course another 1 mile east to get back to where the intersection used to be. There is no other route at present, but they are working on this problem-- only 5 years after creating it.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Some Pedestrians Aren't Heling Themselves... by damn_registrars · 2011-11-20 01:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

A lot of pedestrians are walking around listening to their music at full-blast and have no chance of hearing the car coming anyways. The fault does not belong to the car in that situation.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Some Pedestrians Aren't Heling Themselves... by Rude+Turnip · 2011-11-20 02:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Whenever I run over a pedestrian, I quickly run out of the car and throw an iPod on the body.
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Only car-sounds are allowed? by The+Creator · 2011-11-20 02:02 · Score: 2

Crazy frog is close enough right?

--

FRA: STFU GTFO
Many cars have engines that are very quiet... by Assmasher · 2011-11-20 02:05 · Score: 3, Informative

...for example - unless my father is really stepping on it, his Subaru is silent of engine noise from more than 10 feet away. You can hear his tires and the airflow over the body when he's farther away - but not the engine. Hell, I have a friend whose Lexus I can't tell is running or not unless I put my hand on the hood.
This whole "silent cars are killers" thing seems a little ridiculous. If this was a chronic issue, we'd already be suffering an ever growing deluge of pedestrian casualties in the ERs of the world since there are so many quiet combustion powered cars.

--
Loading...
1. Re:Many cars have engines that are very quiet... by sribe · 2011-11-20 02:18 · Score: 2
  
  This whole "silent cars are killers" thing seems a little ridiculous. If this was a chronic issue, we'd already be suffering an ever growing deluge of pedestrian casualties in the ERs of the world since there are so many quiet combustion powered cars.
  I used to cycle a lot (100-200 miles a week, minimum), and I first noticed this problem in the early 90s! I think it was the Toyota Camry that was first quiet enough that at residential street speeds I could not hear it coming...
Re:Look both ways.... by realityimpaired · 2011-11-20 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Dangerous to pedestrians? Come on. I don't have a hybrid, and I don't worry about not hearing them, because I actually listened when I was taught to look both ways before crossing!
That's easier to do when you're not visually impaired or blind. When your usable visual range is about 3 feet beyond which everything is a blur, you can get around in your daily life without a helper animal, but if you can't hear a car coming and can't see it more than 3 feet away.... this is why crosswalks have audible signals in cities. Stick to the crosswalk, right? What if you live in the suburbs and there aren't any crosswalks?
Misleading by slasho81 · 2011-11-20 02:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

If hybrid cars are safer because they're heavier, it's misleading saying that hybrid is safer. It should be said that heavier is safer.
Re:Yay! We can download engine-tones! by Smidge204 · 2011-11-20 02:11 · Score: 2

The vehicles from the Jetsons were technically cars, right?
=Smidge=
Easy fix by Nidi62 · 2011-11-20 02:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Just put a baseball card in the wheel. Problem solved. Plus, it makes it sound like a motorcycle!

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Walk ... *DONT* Walk *DONT* Walk ... by fsckmnky · 2011-11-20 02:34 · Score: 2

Welcome to Roy Battys world. If the spinners don't get you, time will.
I call BS on this ... by garry_g · 2011-11-20 02:37 · Score: 2

First of all, weight does not equal safety. There's enough examples out there that show that the structure of the car is the main deciding factor as to how safe a car is for the passengers.
As for less injured, sure, if you have a hybrid that accelerates less quickly (due to weight and energy-saving driving habits), odds are it's slower in a crash, thus endangering the passengers less. In contrast, I would dare to bet that - everything else identical - the same car with the additional weight will have a longer breaking distance (causing higher risk for getting in an accident), and when crashing at the same speed, it will equal higher damage in both cars involved ... it's hard to beat physics ...
Re:Look both ways.... by zach_the_lizard · 2011-11-20 02:37 · Score: 2

If you're in the suburbs and there are no crosswalks or sidewalks you may just want to not walk anywhere.

--
SSC
answer is separation, not noise pollution by bzipitidoo · 2011-11-20 03:50 · Score: 2

It's a dumb problem (ok, pun intended), and a dumb answer to it. If pedestrians didn't have to cross streets, this wouldn't be a problem. Why not design neighborhoods so pedestrians don't have to cross so many streets, instead of solving it by making the noise pollution problem worse?
I'd like to see cities use the 3rd dimension more. Have all buildings be at least 3 stories, and close enough to be connected with walkways. Pedestrians could navigate the entire city above street level. Could also have tunnels, which might be better for places with rough weather. Could add a 4th story, putting bike routes on a level of their own.
Of course cost is a big reason why we don't see much of that. But in the US at least, there's also a stigma against walking, this notion that the only reason someone would walk is because they're too poor, too much of a loser to maintain a car.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:look both ways by swalve · 2011-11-20 05:53 · Score: 2

That's why you aren't supposed to pass on the right. The bicyclist was in the wrong. Chicago has these bike lanes between the parked cars and the moving cars, and they terrify me as a driver. You just don't have good enough sightlines out of a car on the right to be able to see a tiny bike zipping in and out of traffic.
Re:Safer? by The+Jynx · 2011-11-21 02:27 · Score: 2

Until the batteries catch fire.
Yeah - batteries catching fire after a crash is serious problem! I'm glad my petrol car doesn't have a large amount of flammable liquid on board that could catch fire after a crash...