
Drivers are killing pedestrians at highest rate in almost 30 years - applecrazy
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/23/20927512/traffic-death-crash-statistics-nhtsa-us-2018
======
charliesharding
This is a sensational story based off of a shallow if not deliberate
misreading of statistics. They point to an increase in raw number of deaths
and say that the rate is increasing - completely leaving out population
adjustments like density and raw numbers increasing. The only rate discussion
is in a graph that shows % inside vehicle fatalities vs % outside vehicle
fatalities. With cars becoming safer of course the % of outside vehicle
fatalities will rise since the human body isn't becoming more resilient to car
crashes at the same rate.

Also they didn't do any looking into the circumstances of death, as mentioned
by throwGuardian - I suspect cell phone related incidents are on the rise.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Guess you missed the ones where cities are higher impacted and rural areas
went down and that most of these are caused by SUVs because drivers of SUVs
are terrible people and have a lead foot leading to more head injuries because
of the height of their vehicle. It's pretty clear that the people at highest
risk are pedestrians in cities that allow SUVs. The solution should be to ban
SUVs in cities, since they are responsible for most of the deaths would cause
a dramatic drop in pedestrians dying.

edit: oh and a ton of people hit had alcohol in their system.

~~~
bobthepanda
Less crude than banning SUVs would be requiring vehicles to pass pedestrian
safety standards in addition to vehicle occupant safety standards in a crash.

IIRC in the US we only really test safety for people inside the car, not
outside.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Well yeah but that would require giving up SUVs and trucks altogether and
bring calls of socialism because Europe already does that.

------
bearcobra
Some of the factors for this increase seem to be:

    
    
      - Explosion in the sales of Crossovers/SUVs/Trucks
      - Smartphone usage among pedestrians
      - More people living in cities
      - More people using bike-shares & scooters
      - Deterioration of public transit resulting in more drivers
      - Increase in ride sharing resulting in more drivers
    

The crossover/SUV/Truck sales is the most interesting to me. I wonder if that
will self-perpetuate, since the presence of larger vehicles seem to make other
drivers feel less safe, which make them want larger vehicles, which makes the
remaining sedan owners feel less safe....

~~~
NikolaNovak
I fear the answer is yes.

I have absolutely failed to convince anybody that they don't need an SUV.
Doesn't matter. They _want_ an SUV. Not a hatchback of same practicality but
better turning/braking; not a Minivan of comparable bulk and price but hugely
increased practicality (for a large-family north-american suburb lifestyle;
everything is relative:) - a large heavy SUV with tiny brakes is what they
want.

(And when I say "They", that includes my wife and now we have one too :-< )

I have tried to convince with equation of "chance of being in accident
multiplied by chance of dying in an accident", with the idea that you can work
on either of the variables to decrease the total; and indicated that _maaaybe_
in SUV you are safer if you crash, but with a smaller more nimble better
visibility car you are less likely to crash. This makes no progress - most
people's attitude is "When I crash", not "If I crash".

~~~
briandear
> smaller more nimble better visibility car

Small cars don’t necessarily have better visibility. I have far better
visibility in my Q7 than I did in my Audi A3.

And a smaller car doesn’t do much to help against an 18 wheeler or UPS truck.
If I am in a crash in a Civic, I am more likely to die than a crash in a Jeep
Cherokee

Smaller cars are not safer, because physics.

An SUV built after 2012 (that’s when mandatory stability control arrived) is
safer than a car. The idea that being nimble keeps you safer is silly. Most
accidents don’t give you enough notice before they’re about to happen. Also, I
would argue my turbo Q7 is far more nimble than the Prius.

The Hyundai Accent is the most dangerous car to be in, based on fatality
rates. The Jeep Cherokee has zero fatalities from 2012-2015.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2017/07/06/deathtr...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2017/07/06/deathtraps-
and-life-savers-cars-registering-the-most-and-least-fatalities/)

------
christophilus
Recently, a local kid got hit by an angry driver. The kid was on a sidewalk,
and the driver was swerving (up onto the sidewalk) to get around a slower car.

I really think that the test to get a license should include some kind of
screen for impatience, irritability, and aggression. I imagine we could come
up with a reasonable way of screening out people who are prone to such
behavior.

~~~
nkrisc
I think that such a blatant and intentional disregard for safety such as what
you described should probably immediately disqualify someone from a license
for at least five years, even if they killed no one. Driving is a privilege,
not a right.

~~~
briandear
I agree completely. The FAA can and does suspend pilot licenses for far less.

------
pwinnski
We are collectively spending a lot of resources pursuing self-driving, when we
should be spending those resource making mass-transit more viable. Fewer miles
driven means fewer fatalities, both of drivers and pedestrians.

~~~
benjohnson
Small and economical self-driving electric pods could be mass-transit

~~~
bjourne
Do they have to be self-driving? Because if you skip that requirement, e-bikes
fit the bill. :) There are also electric velomobiles that are very pod like.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CURGm-
BcaaM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CURGm-BcaaM) Main problem seem to be
not protective enough hull so you risk being run over by texting drivers.

~~~
marcosdumay
Does the bike appear on demand at your place and disappear from your concern
after you take another transport?

Self driving pods are a huge gain over the status quo.

------
Johnny555
The headline says "Drivers are killing pedestrians at the highest rate in..."
but there's no actual rate of pedestrian death stats in the article, there's
an absolute increase, but that's not a rate -- what's the rate per pedestrian
trips or pedestrian-miles? (cities are trying to become more walkable/bikable,
so pedestrian trips may be increasing)

~~~
autokad
yes it is a rate, from the article: "The number of pedestrians killed — 6,283,
an increase of 3.4 percent from the previous year".

It may not be the number you are looking for, but it is by definition a rate.
It would be interesting to know what rate per pedestrian trips or pedestrian-
miles are, but that data would be very hard to get across the entire US.

~~~
marcosdumay
It's not the rate of drivers that kill pedestrians, as the title claims.

Even accidents/cars would satisfy the title. Those numbers you quote are just
meaningless and should be ignored.

------
throwGuardian
Also, pedestrians are walking without caution (staring at their phones) at the
highest rate in history.

Yes, drivers should be accountable for pedestrian safety, but no law can
absolve the common sense personal accountability of looking before leaping,
ahem crossing

~~~
Johnny555
It's interesting to watch this video of San Francisco's Market street from
1906:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q5Nur642BU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q5Nur642BU)

Cars travel at walking pace, and cars, streetcars, horses, etc all coexist --
pedestrians seem to cross the street at will, not following any signals or
staying in crosswalks.

I think the reason this chaotic system works (aside from the lower speeds) is
because street users _expect_ the chaos, no one relies on a traffic signal to
tell them when it's safe to cross, they know that they have to pay attention
or they'll be run over (or will run over someone else).

~~~
matthewfelgate
Sorry but that is completely wrong. The rate of injuries and deaths on the
roads were far worse in 1906 than today.

------
roerjo
Is this not a normal increase, with regards to population growth and the
increased focus on personal health (more joggers/cyclists), during that time
frame?

------
jakeogh
I saw someone run a red by a local university (probably because they were
looking at their lap), and only about half of the people in the intersection
appeared to take notice. The rest were looking down at their hands... while
starting to cross the street. Fortunatly it was only a few seconds after the
light changed.

~~~
chadcmulligan
even walking down the street as a pedestrian is becoming a nightmare - dodging
mobile phone zombies

------
matthewfelgate
All new cars should be mandated to have Collision Avoidance Systems as
standard. This would reduce pedestrian deaths over time.

[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Collision_avoidance_system](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Collision_avoidance_system)

------
quotha
People drive too damn fast - - and they idle their engines like mofos!

Pardon my french but this reckless behavior kills innocent people

~~~
WhompingWindows
Idling engines is super inefficient. It irks me to no end that we have cars
sitting around just idling so their driver can listen to a tiny radio or
charge their phone. Meanwhile, their engine is at low RPM's polluting their
local air and whoever happens to walk by.

Can't wait for EVs to be widespread so lazy humans have a power source for
their lazy car-sitting behaviors.

~~~
virmundi
There isn’t enough lithium to make batteries to replace the US fleet, let
alone the rest of the world. ICE will be here for a while. That’s not to
mention the carbon and pollution output of creating new evs.

~~~
WhompingWindows
This is just incorrect, lithium is not the limiting factor for EV adoption.
Currently, much bigger are cobalt supply, manufacturing capacity, and the un-
priced externalities of carbon pollution. If you freed up those 3 factors,
batteries would scale up ridiculously quickly, though yes admittedly in 2019
we can not simultaneously replace 300+ million cars instantly.

