Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hybrids Safer In Crashes — Except For Pedestrians

Posted by timothy on 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."

20 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Hybrid Pedestrians? by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

    So if your a hybrid pedestrian you are more likely to be injured?

  2. mahna-mahna by bazorg · · Score: 5, Funny

    If electric cars get customisable running sounds, I'll want the mahna-mahna song.

    1. Re:mahna-mahna by realityimpaired · · 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....

    2. Re:mahna-mahna by Bengie · · 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?

    3. Re:mahna-mahna by robot256 · · 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.

    4. Re:mahna-mahna by PCM2 · · 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!
  3. This annoys the hell out of me ... by Snard · · 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 mikael_j · · 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
    2. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by lochnessie · · 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.

    3. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by smellotron · · 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.

    5. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by ilo.v · · 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.

    6. Re:This annoys the hell out of me ... by MightyYar · · 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.
  4. Re:weight and safety by SuricouRaven · · 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.

  5. Re:weight and safety by drolli · · Score: 5, Funny

    In that logic, to protect myself, is it ok to blow SUVs off the road using anti-vehicle weapons?

  6. Misleading by slasho81 · · 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.

  7. Re:weight and safety by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Re:Some Pedestrians Aren't Heling Themselves... by Rude+Turnip · · 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!!!
  9. Re:weight and safety by Alomex · · 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?

  10. Re:weight and safety by Alomex · · 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?