Key Ideas:
Heavier vehicles are safer for their occupants but more dangerous for others: The weight of a vehicle is a critical factor in car crashes, with heavier vehicles causing more fatalities in other cars, pedestrians, and cyclists.
The heaviest vehicles kill more people than they save: Analysis of crash data shows that for every life saved by the heaviest 1% of SUVs and trucks, more than a dozen lives are lost in other vehicles.
Weight advantages have changed little over time: Despite improvements in safety features, the weight advantage of heavier vehicles has remained relatively constant, with heavier vehicles still causing more fatalities in lighter vehicles.
Carmakers prioritize consumer preferences over safety: Manufacturers are producing increasingly heavier vehicles, driven by consumer demand for larger, more powerful cars, despite the safety risks to others.
Regulators are ill-equipped to address the issue: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rating system focuses on occupant safety, not the safety of other road users, and tax policies subsidize heavier vehicles.
Public awareness and concern are growing: Surveys show increasing concern about the size and safety of SUVs and pickup trucks, with researchers and policymakers starting to take notice.
Electrification may exacerbate the problem: The shift towards electric vehicles, which tend to be heavier than their internal-combustion equivalents, may increase the weight of vehicles on the road, further amplifying the safety risks.
Cars damage infrastructure in proportion to the fourth power of axle load. Not only are people in big cars killing people in little cars, they're also HEAVILY subsidized by the people they kill.
We do it different in Europe: pay disproportionate by engine displacement. My father's car has 10x the taxes as my mother's car just because the engine is 1.6 times larger (2.5 liters, nothing outrageous). At the same time my mother pays for that car quite close to what I pay for each of my bikes that are 8-10 times lighter and have way smaller engines (300cc and 600cc).
> Key Ideas: Heavier vehicles are safer for their occupants but more dangerous for others: The weight of a vehicle is a critical factor in car crashes, with heavier vehicles causing more fatalities in other cars, pedestrians, and cyclists.
I'm actually curious how much of this danger is primarily to pedestrians and cyclists. On the margins, I'd expect in a crash a 6000lb vehicle with modern safety equipment to be safer than a 3000lb vehicle with modern safety equipment, but folks have crashed modern sports cars at triple-digit speeds and (literally) walked away.
For a pedestrian or cyclist, though, getting hit by a large truck or SUV is a different story, primarily because the shape and frontal area are so much larger, and the collision rates are higher because visibility and vehicle control are much worse than smaller cars.
I'm also curious how much of the perceived safety benefit of larger cars is offset by the reduced ability to control the vehicle - in other words, I'm curious what the per-capita crash rates are in SUVs compared to normal cars.
I think a lot of this is details lost in the stats. Every car is heavier due to safety standards. A 2024 Civic is bigger than a 1994 Accord.
The pickups are less safe for all stakeholders and are a dominant category. They have poor safety features, handle poorly and have comically bad visibility.
That plus the abandonment of speed enforcement drives death. 2000lb or 8000lb car, if you get hit at 45mph, you’re dead. Velocity is exponentially more important than mass.
>For a pedestrian or cyclist, though, getting hit by a large truck or SUV is a different story, primarily because the shape and frontal area are so much larger,
Especially if they have raised it, which seems very common in places like Florida.
Honestly, I don't think the weight of the car matters too much in an accident with a bicycle or pedestrian. I was hit a few times by cars at low speed (10-20 km/h) while riding my motorcycle and the weight of the car did not matter, when I was rear ended if the car was 20% (300 kg) lighter it would still be 4 times the mass of (me + bike), so the impact would be similar. A car versus a pedestrian is almost identical if the car is 1000 kg or 2000 kg.
> Regulators are ill-equipped to address the issue: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rating system focuses on occupant safety, not the safety of other road users, and tax policies subsidize heavier vehicles.
Ill-equipped, or asleep at the wheel? NHTSA could extend their rating system to incorporate the safety of people outside the tested vehicle, but have failed to.
Who is the target audience? Insurance companies already have the statistics. Buyers care about occupant safety and would largely ignore a pedestrian safety rating.
If you tried to force it into a combined rating you'd probably make the problem worse because then people would know that large vehicles are being punished in safety ratings and refuse to buy small vehicles even more than they do now because they can't distinguish whether a good safety rating is from occupant or pedestrian safety.
Another thing when it comes to large heavy vehicles being more dangerous, is that our current guard rail design has become something that is increasingly likely to kill you. There’s a channel dedicated to the subject due to the creators personal tragedy with them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrR81g1ZkRQ
> The weight of a vehicle is a critical factor in car crashes, with heavier vehicles causing more fatalities in other cars, pedestrians, and cyclists.
In a high speed collision between two cars I can see how a weight difference could greatly increase the danger in the lighter vehicle.
In a collision between a car and a pedestrian I don't see how weight could make much of a difference.
Yes, I know that if car A weighs 50% more than car B then at a given speed A will have 1.5 times as much momentum and 2.5 times as much kinetic energy as car B, but when there is a large mass difference between the thing doing the hitting (the car in this case) and the thing being hit (a pedestrian) momentum and kinetic energy don't really matter.
Think of it this way. A large freight train moving at 1 km/hr will have way more momentum and kinetic energy than a Ford F-150 moving at 80 km/hr, but getting hit by the freight train probably wouldn't seriously hurt you (unless you happened to fall and it ran over you) whereas an 80 km/hr F-150 would very likely kill you on impact.
From what I've read the problem with these vehicles in pedestrian collisions is with the shape of the front of them. They tend to have high, fairly vertical, front ends which can sweep you up so you are rapidly accelerated to the velocity of that car. Damage would be similar to what you'd get if you fell at the velocity of the car onto a rigid surface. Cars with lower, most slanted, front ends toss you onto the hood and over the car, which is much less likely to kill you.
> Carmakers prioritize consumer preferences over safety: Manufacturers are producing increasingly heavier vehicles, driven by consumer demand for larger, more powerful cars, despite the safety risks to others.
That is prioritizing safety - of the very customers themselves, whose preferences very much do include safety! Sounds like the market functioning exactly as designed. And sounds like we need regulation here.
Is a near ideal example of why free markets can lead to a worse overall result, yeah. Everyone wants to be individually safer, this is all a reasonable trajectory brought on by incremental steps in that direction.
We desperately need regulation. The market won't turn itself around, it'll just ensure the ones that are helping are killed the quickest.
Accident where two car ram into each other, where the weight is useful, are the minority, the vast majority is a single vehicle hitting a stationary obstacle.
US cars high clearance (and I don't want to be inflammatory, but poor average driver skills) do not help them stay on the road. I'm not sure safety is increased overall Tbf.
All of this. Plus the exhaust gasses and tire wear pollutants causing early deaths. The noise (bigger) cars make disrupting quiet places like parks and porches, balconies, bedrooms causing stress. The waste of used cars, often being transported to third world countries.
Cars kill in so many ways, especially big cars.
Is this a tragedy of the commons, or am I misapplying this term? At an individual level it makes complete sense to put your family into the safest car possible - your thoughts are with you and your family, not the strangers around you.
Personal automobile ownership is the source of more tragedies of the commons than anything else I can think of. The only personally incurred negative externality that comes to mind at the moment would be the decreased likelihood of having a healthy lifestyle based on decreased need to walk anywhere.
You still increase death risk of your children simple by sitting them in car. Car accidents are leading cause of death of children in wealth countries.
> Regulators are ill-equipped to address the issue: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rating system focuses on occupant safety, not the safety of other road users
Not a big enough deal. Pedestrian airbags are a thing that have been invented, but are scarecely on cars or trucks. Same with external cameras for better visibility. Lots of dragging feet from the industry.
This is my concern as well, it becomes a weapons race towards the most idiot-sized vehicle possible, since a reasonably sized vehicle will put you at a survival disadvantage.
I live in Denmark, where this problem is yet very much in its infancy, but it's a clear trend. I hope regulation catches up. Some kind of bounding-box volume and weight restriction would be nice.
There is weight restriction, 3500 kg albeit that is too much already. I would go just with strict limit on energy consumption, fuel specific one. Effectively stop too large EVs too.
What about the internal organs of people in big cars? IIRC, a long time ago, after a serious collision, paramedics were at first puzzled as to why the seemingly unharmed person behind the wheel was dead. Later it turned out that their internal organs had been ripped out of their arteries because big cars have/have much worse impact zones than smaller cars.
You have that story confused or backwards. Occasionally vehicle crash victims will suffer such internal injuries, mainly the elderly who already have weak blood vessels. But big cars don't have worse crumple zones, rather the opposite.
Despite how large vehicles are getting, people don't seem to want to have other passengers in them. Single-occupant vehicles account for something like 75% of daily commuters. Between safety concerns, sedentary lifestyles, road congestion, and the loneliness epidemic, you'd think there would be a push to reduce that number.
"Heavier vehicles are safer for their occupants.."
Only if the other vehicle is smaller/lighter. SUVs were relatively uncommon when this perception of safety was established. Its now just something people like to tell themselves as justification for buying an even bigger car.
Part of the problem is that carmakers refuse to sell small cars. If you don’t believe me try to buy a small car at a car dealership in America.
Consumers are angry about rising costs, particularly for automobiles, and having a choice to buy an affordable vehicle could be surprisingly popular.
For instance I think electric vehicle adoption is stalled because there aren’t many people who can afford a $105k pickup truck with limited range while towing (e.g. you might really need a big-ass vehicle if you trailer your horse to Ocala, FL every year, but no way you are going to make your animals sit through 20-30 charging stops). A $20k electric with (say) a 60 mile range would get me to and from work and able to do shopping and would be a great second or third car for many households.
All it takes is asking BYD what they need to enter the market.
You’re not wrong. But only because Democrats are terrible at messaging (and seem allergic to getting better at it). “We’ll get you needlessly dead for our own power” isn’t exactly a popular policy position if someone is willing to call it what it is.
> The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rating system focuses on occupant safety, not the safety of other road users, and tax policies subsidize heavier vehicles.
Sociopathic. Regulations and safety standards should be updated to consider both occupants' and others' safety.
The auto manufacturers won't like this, because they are cheap and greedy.
Yeah, there is. It's called everyone having an automated driving system like FSD. The NHTSA is too concerned with me taking my eyes off the road for 2 seconds while FSD is enabled versus getting manufacturers to actually implement this stuff.
Why can I take my eyes off the road with FSD off and not with it on? They should mandate driver monitoring in every car when you're not driving with an autonomous system. As a motorcycle rider also, I'm telling you that everyone is literally on their phone when driving. I can see it all because I sit higher than everyone else. That's what the NHTSA should focus on.
And this kind of thinking is how we end up with a society shown in the move Idiocracy. While you and your loved ones might survive at the cost of other more considerate people BUT the human race will become slightly dumber.
Sounds like it's safest for me and my family to physically prevent you from doing that.
See how deranged this line of escalation is? How sick in the soul I would have to be to choose to harm your family to increase the safety of mine? Can you see what kind of world you're building when you advocate this?
The comment ignores the discussion points around broader public safety, comments in a fashion criticized by the points made, and makes no effort to address any issue.
I think it's worth flagging, but also worth noting the issues in case it wasn't intentional.
Basic arguments for hypocrisy about actual care about environment. Trend of making cars bigger and "safer" proofs, that consumers and car manufacturers dont care about fuel consumption and increasing pollution.
You must drive a smaller car so others around you are safer. Just like how you have to vaccinated to protect others. Its part of the social contract that you signed, duh.
I hate sounding like a broken record but my belief is that car makers are more excited about XXXXL cars in American than car buyers are. The media is consistently complicit in covering this up, sounding like the brainwashed soldiers in The Manchurian Candidate
It's not to say that we don't like big cars because we do, but walk into a car dealership looking for a small car and they will tell you they are out of stock of new ones of the model you want because the factory washed out in a flood but then they have 100 SUVs in a row unsold that nobody wants to buy made in the same factory. Your only choice is a used return that somebody sold back to them yesterday afternoon.
Go into a dealership looking for an S car and they will try to sell you an L, go in looking for an M and get an XL and so forth. If you drive out with a $25,000 car when you could could of driven out with a $50,000 car they perceive it as a $25,000 loss! No wonder mainstream car brands can't sell electrics.
Ford has no compact hatchback or sedan in the U.S., only the Brazilian built EcoSport. They killed all their cars in favour of CUVs and SUVs. Chevrolet no longer has the Sonic, having nixed those in 2022. Honda no longer has the Fit as of two years ago. Mitsubishi no longer sells the Mirage as of last month. Dodge hasn't had anything since the Dart died in 2016. The Jeep Renegade's gone as of October of last year. Hyundai had the Veloster, but those are all sold as top trim Veloster Turbo Premiums or Ns even when they were being sold. The current Hyundai Ioniq 5 is more of a mid-size and is also expensive for the size. Kia has the Forte, but it's dragging out a slow death this year. Toyota has the Yaris and Prius C, but the Yaris has grown quite large, and the Prius C is quite high priced. Nissan killed the Versa Note in 2022, so you can't get those either.
It's all been replaced with "compact" CUVs that have the exterior dimensions of a mid-size hatchback.
I have heard people lamenting the loss of small trucks for 20 years. There has never been another one as small or as light as a Ford Ranger or Toyota RN Pickup from the 90s. Rangers stopped being made and the Tacoma that replaced the Pickup got larger every model year until it was bigger and heavier than the original Tundra. It really is ridiculous because people love the utility of those smaller, more efficient old trucks. (More efficient relative to their contemporaries, at the very least. Other efficiency improvements would have come to them as well, if they still existed as a category.) Not everyone wants a land barge.
Hyundai has Elantra with its 45+ MPG (with a regular ICE), distinctive exterior, advanced safety features (at least in Limited trim), and above average manufacturer warranty.
Some of us actively hate big cars for daily use and are angered at the "SUV" (usually neither sport nor utility) unithink forced on us, and are frustrated how hard it is to find anything different.
I want basically an electric Miata for around town, can't get one.
I also want an actual utility vehicle with a long, solid, roof rack to haul a canoe or sheet of plywood. SUV roof racks are usually token, if at all. A plain old "station wagon" that's not 6 feet tall would be just fine but they don't make those any more. I settle for an Outback but it's not ideal.
They make all of the cars you want except for the electric Miata which would sell in such low quantities that it would have to be priced higher than the Taycan to be viable. Nobody's spending $180k on a Mazda.
You just don't want them.
I have a Fiat Spider for fun, and a Volvo V60 wagon for utility. My wife is 5'3" and is taller, barely, than the V60.
The Spider is dead and the Miata is dying because global sales have tanked and Mazda's only selling 6-8,000 per year in the US.
The V60 is dying because almost everyone who says they want a station wagon is lying, either outright or to themselves, and they buy a compact SUV instead. Commenters will shout in all caps on the internet that NOBODY MAKES A STATION WAGON ANYMORE, walk onto a Volvo lot, right past the V60 and drive off in an XC60.
I imagine the A4 Allroad (also a station wagon that doesn't exist!) is also on life support.
And before you go on about price, Mazda, Honda, and Toyota all sold inexpensive wagons in the US until past the point that it became financially negligent for them to do so anymore.
Nobody wanted them.
Consumers weren't tricked, brainwashed, hoodwinked, scammed, or flabbergasted-- customers did not want them so they didn't buy them so manufacturers stopped selling them-- in the US at least, you can still buy inexpensive wagons, with manual transmissions, all over the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, EVs in the United States are prioritized for range now and range is a function of battery size, with a corresponding penalty of cost and weight.
There are still a few EVs models available in the US that are relatively light compared to the mainstream models, and most are going to be old/used models.
e.g. Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt, Fiat 500E, BMW i3, Volkswagen eGolf.
None of the above will be in the low 2000 lbs curb weight territory that is part of the Miata driving feel, but they are the closest you can practically find.
Your comment shows how bad car culture is. You think you're the enlightened one, but you want an electric sports car for getting "around town"? People should be walking or cycling around town. Cars are actively harmful to towns. Cars have led to generations of people who don't realise they are capable of walking further than a few steps between car and building. A kind of learned helplessness. When you step outside of car culture it's really sad to see.
Honestly, Toyota hilux. I'm not a car guy and the utility vehicle I use is not mine and wouldn't be available in the US (it's a 4.5m3, Peugeot I think?), but I've seen Hiluxes everywhere I went, and no matter how old they were, no matter how much miles, dent, missing pieces, they always seems to work. South America, East Africa, Australia but also over Europe, Hilux seems to be a very, very solid light truck, used as one. You should still check reviews, I'm not a car guy, but to me it's the most 'trucky' a light truck can be (unless you want a 2/3 seater).
As folks elsewhere have noted, CAFE standards make "light" trucks substantially more profitable than other cars, and so yes, car makers have pushed them aggressively, including with strong marketing campaigns for the last 20 years or so.
All of the arguments from car manufacturers that they're just "answering consumer demand" ignores the point that they manufactured that demand. Change the tax structures and incentives, make trucks as expensive for the manufacturer as they are for society, and you'll see a renaissance of small cars, advertising extolling the virtues of small cars, and a societal shift towards small cars.
CAFE has two problems. The first, as you've mentioned, is the suspect bifurcation of the standards between regular cars and "light trucks".
The second problem is that the footprint-based formulas used within a category do not reflect the practical utility of the vehicles and let larger cars off easier.
A high-roof compact car like the Honda Fit can comfortably carry 5 people and opens up quite well for transporting a lot of stuff. Because it's small and light, it gets great gas mileage especially on the highway. Yet it's penalized by CAFE because it has a small footprint and so is expected to get unrealistically high fuel economy.
Whereas, a larger sedan like the Honda Civic can also carry 5 people (with some more amenities) but has a paltry trunk that can't be used to transport much more than grocery bags. Even as a hatchback, the roof is a lot lower than in the Fit, so it can transport larger items like furniture, but only if they're flat. Yet it scores better on CAFE because its larger footprint allows it to have more realistic fuel economy.
Anecdotally I'm having trouble finding certain small cars in stock (e.g. crown platinum) and suspect there is some self-interest in the dealership to explains this.
I think car-buyers are often under an illusion that an suv is "more car" when actually it's exact same components and just a larger frame. They'd much prefer to sell you the high-margin product and pocket the difference.
Just googled that car and apprently it’s nearly 5 meters long, longer than a BMW 3 Series, it’s funny that’s considered a small car over there because that’d be considered a big one over here (not even mid-sized).
Over here: small is anything from a Smart to a Renault Twingo/Ford Fiesta/VW Polo.
Even worse, many times SUVs are built on the same chassis as cars. Honda builds both the HR-V and CR-V on the Civic chassis, the Toyota RAV-4 is a Corolla underneath, and the Ford Escape is built on the Focus. This means many mid-sized SUVs are just tall cars.
Subaru Impreza and Crosstrek are a good example of that. Same engine, same electronics, same everything except a slightly differently shaped shell on the outside. Even the interior volume is practically the same!
The media has a sick tendency to attribute to individual choice situations that are clearly caused by powerful people benefiting from other people's misfortunes. For example, young workers cannot afford houses, becomes "generation XYZ doesn't WANT to buy homes". Workers cannot find good paying jobs becomes "people don't WANT to work anymore"; and so much BS like that we see everyday in our media.
Let's not even talk about the fact that car prices are bordering on a national scam. They will list a certain model at price X, but that is only the price of the base configuration that is never on stock. Add to this all the fees that are practically impossible to escape, and car prices are always 50% or more higher than advertised.
It's an arms race too, I'm in the market for a car now and would prefer something compact for city parking, but given that every _other_ car on the road these days seems to be an enormous SUV, I'm looking at probably at least a crossover so I won't constantly feel like I'm about to get steamrolled by a 4Runner or F150
It clearly is. As the article makes out, the tax code and regulation favours large vehicles. Gas is cheap. Acting alone, there are few reasons to buy a smaller car if you can afford a bigger one. This is exactly the market “working” and why regulation is necessary to change it.
1. Lawmakers put an import tax on trucks, and (perhaps not entirely intentionally) made emission standards for SUVs lower than those for cars.
2. US automakers were getting their ass kicked by foreign imports that were much better made in the car segment, but not in the SUV and truck segment.
3. US automakers decided to heavily promote trucks and SUVs, the segments they were most competitive in. You know, pay to make sure all the characters in that TV show are driving SUVs and whatnot.
4. Lawmakers decided to maintain the state of affairs from 1 because they like US automakers.
> walk into a car dealership looking for a small car and they will tell you they are out of stock of new ones of the model you want because the factory washed out in a flood
Anecdata - We had to buy a car last year to replace our old, but failing car. This matches the experience we had. We were ok with used, so that’s what we ended up with. If you’re on a tight budget, that’s where you’ll end up. From what we read and from what dealers said at the time, car manufacturers hadn’t recovered from COVID supply chain issues. And that is why there were so few small cars. We just accepted that as reality, but parent comment’s explanation would also make sense.
Relatedly, it’s infuriating that American manufacturers are only interested in developing expensive, large, luxury EVs. We slapped a 100% tariff on cheap Chinese EVs… but our domestic companies refuse to develop a $20,000 compact EV!
The cost of new cars in the US is insane. As is the protectionism of the industry. Give me cheap Japanese/Korean cars plzkthx.
The whole idea behind tariffs on Chinese products is that cheap prices will NOT be tolerated. The US is stuck with expensive cars for the foreseeable future.
Arguing from the perspective of maximizing benefit to the producer/seller instead of the public at large speaks to a deep social epidemic. What would you do differently if you owned a cigarette factory? What if you owned Boeing?
All prices of all components are listed, thus I have no reason to hire salesmen. You pick the components as if you are building a PC. There is a huge demand for this, and the savings from fewer middlemen can go elsewhere.
Of course there are several laws and policies on national and statewide levels enshrining the current anti-consumer model because it "creates jobs".
This is a regulatory incentive problem, plain and simple:
1. CAFE standards use different rules for cars and light trucks. It’s a protectionist move that strongly pushes manufacturers to find ways to get CUV’s on the road instead of hatch backs and sedans.
2. And CAFE uses a “footprint formula” that relaxes standards for larger vehicles.
3. Compound that with a side impact test that started at 3,015 lbs (high) and then was amplified by the (private) IIHS test raising their sled weight (4,200 lbs?) to reflect average fleet weight, which turns into an arms race.
In the end, people respond to incentives, and we get the cars we regulated for.
Easy fix: If you want less of something, tax it. The race to ever bigger vehicles has many costs, from road wear to (now we know) human lives.
You pay an annual registration fee for your vehicle. Make that fee go up dramatically for heavier vehicles. If you pay, say, $100 for a car under a ton, make it $1k for up to two tons, $10k for 3 tons, etc..
Cool, do what lots of places do and tax based on emissions.
It wont penalise EVs while also encouraging people and makers to produce less ridiculous cars. You dont need a 5.3l V8 which does 16 miles to the Gallon to sit in freeway traffic.
They know how to avoid this, because heavy autos are considered utility vehicles. They'll claim this is bad for the economy because small companies need access to utility vehicles.
This could simply be avoided by introducing a similar model to how it is handled over here in europe, with different vehicle classes and weight limits, a higher weight class requires a more advanced drivers license. Certain utlilty vehicles 3.5t and over can't be driven here without a D class license, which costs extra, requires extra training and the tax and fee structure for these vehicles is drastically different.
Usually, these heavier vehicles also pay higher toll fees on toll roads like in France, Spain, Austria, Italy, etc.
In Austria higher engine power vehicles also cost more on a monthly basis, while registration is a 150€ one time fee, monthly insurance and tax can be around 150€ for a 200hp ice vehicle, even just a Ford Fiesta.
I am so tired of the comments where “tax it more” is the only solution to problems. I think we should tax posters who suggest this. Then we’d have less of those comments. Win win!
Germany has a ratio of 3.9 deaths per 100,000 people, while America's ratio is 12.4 per 100,000—essentially 4x higher. And they have the autobahn. Not like they are driving slower.
As someone who regularly drives on German highways, including the Autobahn, I may ad my two cents. While German drivers are often praised for their discipline, the reality I've observed, especially in unlimited speed sections of the Autobahn, can be quite different.
Many drivers there seem to focus primarily on their perceived right to drive as fast as they want, often creating dangerous situations for others who may be able to or want to drive as fast and thus often not have time to react. I've witnessed numerous close calls and risky maneuvers that don't align with the idealized view of German driving discipline.
That said, the significant difference in road fatality rates between Germany and the US suggests there are indeed factors contributing to safer roads in Germany. However, from my experience, it's not simply due to more careful drivers across the board. Other elements like road design, vehicle safety standards, strict enforcement of traffic laws, and comprehensive driver education systems likely play crucial roles, see the pathway to a german drivers license which includes about 9 hours of practice training with a driving instructor.
Rather than looking abroad for examples of driver behavior, it might be more productive for the US to focus on improving road safety through comprehensive measures. This could include enhancing driver education, implementing stricter enforcement of existing traffic laws, and investing in safer road infrastructure.
The goal should be to create a system that encourages and facilitates safer driving for everyone, regardless of individual driver attitudes. While there's certainly room for improvement in American driving habits, the solution likely lies in systemic changes rather than simply emulating perceived behaviors from other countries.
I agree they have a considerate and disciplined driving culture, but on the other hand parts of the autobahn are without any speed limitations which increase accidents ("Freie Fahrt für freie Bürger").
It’s funny, because my very anecdotal experience is very different.
I’ve been to the US and Germany only once. In Berlin I didn’t drive, but saw the weirdest thing multiple times: when the traffic lights turned green sometimes the drivers of the cars up front would just go flat out, tyre screching and all, only to stop at the next traffic light 100 meters away. Really odd.
On the other hand I had to drive many kilometers (sorry, miles) in the US and thought everyone was well behaved, didn’t experience any tailgating, reckless driving etc.
Americans drive more, so if you want to compare the safety of the two systems it is better to look at deaths per vehicle-km. Germany has 4.2 deaths per billion vehicle-km. The United States has 6.9.
But driving is inherently dangerous, that's the whole point. America shouldn't be let off the hook for partaking in more of a dangerous activity, as if that makes it less dangerous. If Americans don't want to die in cars they should drive less. (Trains would help.)
Per capita passenger mileage is 2x lower in Germany vs US[1]; it looks like this accounts for just ~half of the difference - and there are other factors responsible for increased mortality.
As impractical as it may be, I think the only answer is to limit the size of vehicles, either through taxation or an outright ban. Larger vehicles are worse for pretty much everything and many of the costs are externalized.
I don't care about your ideology. Tax works as a solution to deter behavior you don't want and raise revenue which can be spent on good things that make society function.
1) always has been 2) ask them, they’ll tell you the rational explanation that from their perspective it’s irresponsible to not be the heaviest car on the road
Tires today contain a large amount of plastics. So what you are breathing while walking next to a road with a bunch of Teslas driving down it is basically a cloud of microplastics.
It's worse than regular microplastics. It's 6PPD which is N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, a lethal non-plastic amine.
Moreover, this chemical has been accumulating in the environment, and making its way into food, so we're not just breathing it, but eating it too. Refer to DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1384506
One thing that surprised me is that when the article talks about "big cars", I had initially assumed they meant the ubiquitous family crossover SUVs (RAV4 / CRV and the like) that have more or less completely replaced the family sedans. However the curb weight of those vehicles is more or less the same as sedans (all hovering around 3K lbs). What they actually meant is essentially just heavy duty pickup trucks, which are closer to 5K lbs.
Readit News
The heaviest vehicles kill more people than they save: Analysis of crash data shows that for every life saved by the heaviest 1% of SUVs and trucks, more than a dozen lives are lost in other vehicles.
Weight advantages have changed little over time: Despite improvements in safety features, the weight advantage of heavier vehicles has remained relatively constant, with heavier vehicles still causing more fatalities in lighter vehicles.
Carmakers prioritize consumer preferences over safety: Manufacturers are producing increasingly heavier vehicles, driven by consumer demand for larger, more powerful cars, despite the safety risks to others.
Regulators are ill-equipped to address the issue: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rating system focuses on occupant safety, not the safety of other road users, and tax policies subsidize heavier vehicles.
Public awareness and concern are growing: Surveys show increasing concern about the size and safety of SUVs and pickup trucks, with researchers and policymakers starting to take notice.
Electrification may exacerbate the problem: The shift towards electric vehicles, which tend to be heavier than their internal-combustion equivalents, may increase the weight of vehicles on the road, further amplifying the safety risks.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Cars, even big ones, are negligible compared to the fourth power of bus weight.
I'm actually curious how much of this danger is primarily to pedestrians and cyclists. On the margins, I'd expect in a crash a 6000lb vehicle with modern safety equipment to be safer than a 3000lb vehicle with modern safety equipment, but folks have crashed modern sports cars at triple-digit speeds and (literally) walked away.
For a pedestrian or cyclist, though, getting hit by a large truck or SUV is a different story, primarily because the shape and frontal area are so much larger, and the collision rates are higher because visibility and vehicle control are much worse than smaller cars.
I'm also curious how much of the perceived safety benefit of larger cars is offset by the reduced ability to control the vehicle - in other words, I'm curious what the per-capita crash rates are in SUVs compared to normal cars.
The pickups are less safe for all stakeholders and are a dominant category. They have poor safety features, handle poorly and have comically bad visibility.
That plus the abandonment of speed enforcement drives death. 2000lb or 8000lb car, if you get hit at 45mph, you’re dead. Velocity is exponentially more important than mass.
Especially if they have raised it, which seems very common in places like Florida.
Ill-equipped, or asleep at the wheel? NHTSA could extend their rating system to incorporate the safety of people outside the tested vehicle, but have failed to.
If you tried to force it into a combined rating you'd probably make the problem worse because then people would know that large vehicles are being punished in safety ratings and refuse to buy small vehicles even more than they do now because they can't distinguish whether a good safety rating is from occupant or pedestrian safety.
In a high speed collision between two cars I can see how a weight difference could greatly increase the danger in the lighter vehicle.
In a collision between a car and a pedestrian I don't see how weight could make much of a difference.
Yes, I know that if car A weighs 50% more than car B then at a given speed A will have 1.5 times as much momentum and 2.5 times as much kinetic energy as car B, but when there is a large mass difference between the thing doing the hitting (the car in this case) and the thing being hit (a pedestrian) momentum and kinetic energy don't really matter.
Think of it this way. A large freight train moving at 1 km/hr will have way more momentum and kinetic energy than a Ford F-150 moving at 80 km/hr, but getting hit by the freight train probably wouldn't seriously hurt you (unless you happened to fall and it ran over you) whereas an 80 km/hr F-150 would very likely kill you on impact.
From what I've read the problem with these vehicles in pedestrian collisions is with the shape of the front of them. They tend to have high, fairly vertical, front ends which can sweep you up so you are rapidly accelerated to the velocity of that car. Damage would be similar to what you'd get if you fell at the velocity of the car onto a rigid surface. Cars with lower, most slanted, front ends toss you onto the hood and over the car, which is much less likely to kill you.
That is prioritizing safety - of the very customers themselves, whose preferences very much do include safety! Sounds like the market functioning exactly as designed. And sounds like we need regulation here.
We desperately need regulation. The market won't turn itself around, it'll just ensure the ones that are helping are killed the quickest.
US cars high clearance (and I don't want to be inflammatory, but poor average driver skills) do not help them stay on the road. I'm not sure safety is increased overall Tbf.
In the US.
In Europe pedestrian crash safety is a BIG deal.
I live in Denmark, where this problem is yet very much in its infancy, but it's a clear trend. I hope regulation catches up. Some kind of bounding-box volume and weight restriction would be nice.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/commuting/guidance/...
Only if the other vehicle is smaller/lighter. SUVs were relatively uncommon when this perception of safety was established. Its now just something people like to tell themselves as justification for buying an even bigger car.
Part of the problem is that carmakers refuse to sell small cars. If you don’t believe me try to buy a small car at a car dealership in America.
Consumers are angry about rising costs, particularly for automobiles, and having a choice to buy an affordable vehicle could be surprisingly popular.
For instance I think electric vehicle adoption is stalled because there aren’t many people who can afford a $105k pickup truck with limited range while towing (e.g. you might really need a big-ass vehicle if you trailer your horse to Ocala, FL every year, but no way you are going to make your animals sit through 20-30 charging stops). A $20k electric with (say) a 60 mile range would get me to and from work and able to do shopping and would be a great second or third car for many households.
All it takes is asking BYD what they need to enter the market.
Interesting post. Can I ask you/somebody to expand a bit on the quote above please?
Sociopathic. Regulations and safety standards should be updated to consider both occupants' and others' safety.
The auto manufacturers won't like this, because they are cheap and greedy.
Why can I take my eyes off the road with FSD off and not with it on? They should mandate driver monitoring in every car when you're not driving with an autonomous system. As a motorcycle rider also, I'm telling you that everyone is literally on their phone when driving. I can see it all because I sit higher than everyone else. That's what the NHTSA should focus on.
Dead Comment
c.f. The Onion in 2020: https://theonion.com/conscientious-suv-shopper-just-wants-so...
See how deranged this line of escalation is? How sick in the soul I would have to be to choose to harm your family to increase the safety of mine? Can you see what kind of world you're building when you advocate this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Or do you not allow your kids outside either, because you bought a big house with a small yard because that is optimally safe?
I think it's worth flagging, but also worth noting the issues in case it wasn't intentional.
It's not to say that we don't like big cars because we do, but walk into a car dealership looking for a small car and they will tell you they are out of stock of new ones of the model you want because the factory washed out in a flood but then they have 100 SUVs in a row unsold that nobody wants to buy made in the same factory. Your only choice is a used return that somebody sold back to them yesterday afternoon.
Go into a dealership looking for an S car and they will try to sell you an L, go in looking for an M and get an XL and so forth. If you drive out with a $25,000 car when you could could of driven out with a $50,000 car they perceive it as a $25,000 loss! No wonder mainstream car brands can't sell electrics.
Ford has no compact hatchback or sedan in the U.S., only the Brazilian built EcoSport. They killed all their cars in favour of CUVs and SUVs. Chevrolet no longer has the Sonic, having nixed those in 2022. Honda no longer has the Fit as of two years ago. Mitsubishi no longer sells the Mirage as of last month. Dodge hasn't had anything since the Dart died in 2016. The Jeep Renegade's gone as of October of last year. Hyundai had the Veloster, but those are all sold as top trim Veloster Turbo Premiums or Ns even when they were being sold. The current Hyundai Ioniq 5 is more of a mid-size and is also expensive for the size. Kia has the Forte, but it's dragging out a slow death this year. Toyota has the Yaris and Prius C, but the Yaris has grown quite large, and the Prius C is quite high priced. Nissan killed the Versa Note in 2022, so you can't get those either.
It's all been replaced with "compact" CUVs that have the exterior dimensions of a mid-size hatchback.
https://www.ford.com/cars/fusion/
The "Explore All Sedan Vehicles" button links to the "Ford SUVs" section.
Have I got some bad news for you... It seems the EcoSport is also dead ( https://www.ford.com/suvs-crossovers/ecosport/ )
Hatchback, universal, minivan, suvs are much more practical.
They still sell one car -- the Mustang.
I want basically an electric Miata for around town, can't get one.
I also want an actual utility vehicle with a long, solid, roof rack to haul a canoe or sheet of plywood. SUV roof racks are usually token, if at all. A plain old "station wagon" that's not 6 feet tall would be just fine but they don't make those any more. I settle for an Outback but it's not ideal.
So neither of my two usecases are served at all.
You just don't want them.
I have a Fiat Spider for fun, and a Volvo V60 wagon for utility. My wife is 5'3" and is taller, barely, than the V60.
The Spider is dead and the Miata is dying because global sales have tanked and Mazda's only selling 6-8,000 per year in the US.
The V60 is dying because almost everyone who says they want a station wagon is lying, either outright or to themselves, and they buy a compact SUV instead. Commenters will shout in all caps on the internet that NOBODY MAKES A STATION WAGON ANYMORE, walk onto a Volvo lot, right past the V60 and drive off in an XC60.
I imagine the A4 Allroad (also a station wagon that doesn't exist!) is also on life support.
And before you go on about price, Mazda, Honda, and Toyota all sold inexpensive wagons in the US until past the point that it became financially negligent for them to do so anymore.
Nobody wanted them.
Consumers weren't tricked, brainwashed, hoodwinked, scammed, or flabbergasted-- customers did not want them so they didn't buy them so manufacturers stopped selling them-- in the US at least, you can still buy inexpensive wagons, with manual transmissions, all over the rest of the world.
There are still a few EVs models available in the US that are relatively light compared to the mainstream models, and most are going to be old/used models.
e.g. Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt, Fiat 500E, BMW i3, Volkswagen eGolf.
None of the above will be in the low 2000 lbs curb weight territory that is part of the Miata driving feel, but they are the closest you can practically find.
All of the arguments from car manufacturers that they're just "answering consumer demand" ignores the point that they manufactured that demand. Change the tax structures and incentives, make trucks as expensive for the manufacturer as they are for society, and you'll see a renaissance of small cars, advertising extolling the virtues of small cars, and a societal shift towards small cars.
The second problem is that the footprint-based formulas used within a category do not reflect the practical utility of the vehicles and let larger cars off easier.
A high-roof compact car like the Honda Fit can comfortably carry 5 people and opens up quite well for transporting a lot of stuff. Because it's small and light, it gets great gas mileage especially on the highway. Yet it's penalized by CAFE because it has a small footprint and so is expected to get unrealistically high fuel economy.
Whereas, a larger sedan like the Honda Civic can also carry 5 people (with some more amenities) but has a paltry trunk that can't be used to transport much more than grocery bags. Even as a hatchback, the roof is a lot lower than in the Fit, so it can transport larger items like furniture, but only if they're flat. Yet it scores better on CAFE because its larger footprint allows it to have more realistic fuel economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
I think car-buyers are often under an illusion that an suv is "more car" when actually it's exact same components and just a larger frame. They'd much prefer to sell you the high-margin product and pocket the difference.
The big thing to me is that I drive a 10+ year old station wagon, and I seem to have more cargo space than many of these MUCH larger vehicles.
I only have two kids. I have room for the dog. I put the bikes on the roof.
What would a SUV do for me?
An extra couple inches of ground clearance.
Increased towing capacity.
Rarely needed those.
Over here: small is anything from a Smart to a Renault Twingo/Ford Fiesta/VW Polo.
Medium: VW Golf, Ford Focus.
Large: anything bigger than medium.
The obvious answer to the entire scenario. There's no reason to go looking for hidden reasons: it's in plain sight.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
1. Lawmakers put an import tax on trucks, and (perhaps not entirely intentionally) made emission standards for SUVs lower than those for cars.
2. US automakers were getting their ass kicked by foreign imports that were much better made in the car segment, but not in the SUV and truck segment.
3. US automakers decided to heavily promote trucks and SUVs, the segments they were most competitive in. You know, pay to make sure all the characters in that TV show are driving SUVs and whatnot.
4. Lawmakers decided to maintain the state of affairs from 1 because they like US automakers.
That's widely known, and for a very long time already.
Are you making this up?
Post-COVID especially car dealers will make up all sorts of nonsense. Try to buy a base Civic or Corolla. They’ll literally run off and hide.
Relatedly, it’s infuriating that American manufacturers are only interested in developing expensive, large, luxury EVs. We slapped a 100% tariff on cheap Chinese EVs… but our domestic companies refuse to develop a $20,000 compact EV!
The cost of new cars in the US is insane. As is the protectionism of the industry. Give me cheap Japanese/Korean cars plzkthx.
Of course there are several laws and policies on national and statewide levels enshrining the current anti-consumer model because it "creates jobs".
The mere idea of having to negotiate prices like in an flea market is disturbing and disgusting to me.
I want to be treated fairly and as well as the next guy.
Fixed & open construtor prices and warranties, online customisation and ordering should be the only norm.
1. CAFE standards use different rules for cars and light trucks. It’s a protectionist move that strongly pushes manufacturers to find ways to get CUV’s on the road instead of hatch backs and sedans. 2. And CAFE uses a “footprint formula” that relaxes standards for larger vehicles. 3. Compound that with a side impact test that started at 3,015 lbs (high) and then was amplified by the (private) IIHS test raising their sled weight (4,200 lbs?) to reflect average fleet weight, which turns into an arms race.
In the end, people respond to incentives, and we get the cars we regulated for.
You pay an annual registration fee for your vehicle. Make that fee go up dramatically for heavier vehicles. If you pay, say, $100 for a car under a ton, make it $1k for up to two tons, $10k for 3 tons, etc..
It wont penalise EVs while also encouraging people and makers to produce less ridiculous cars. You dont need a 5.3l V8 which does 16 miles to the Gallon to sit in freeway traffic.
Usually, these heavier vehicles also pay higher toll fees on toll roads like in France, Spain, Austria, Italy, etc. In Austria higher engine power vehicles also cost more on a monthly basis, while registration is a 150€ one time fee, monthly insurance and tax can be around 150€ for a 200hp ice vehicle, even just a Ford Fiesta.
Many drivers there seem to focus primarily on their perceived right to drive as fast as they want, often creating dangerous situations for others who may be able to or want to drive as fast and thus often not have time to react. I've witnessed numerous close calls and risky maneuvers that don't align with the idealized view of German driving discipline.
That said, the significant difference in road fatality rates between Germany and the US suggests there are indeed factors contributing to safer roads in Germany. However, from my experience, it's not simply due to more careful drivers across the board. Other elements like road design, vehicle safety standards, strict enforcement of traffic laws, and comprehensive driver education systems likely play crucial roles, see the pathway to a german drivers license which includes about 9 hours of practice training with a driving instructor.
Rather than looking abroad for examples of driver behavior, it might be more productive for the US to focus on improving road safety through comprehensive measures. This could include enhancing driver education, implementing stricter enforcement of existing traffic laws, and investing in safer road infrastructure.
The goal should be to create a system that encourages and facilitates safer driving for everyone, regardless of individual driver attitudes. While there's certainly room for improvement in American driving habits, the solution likely lies in systemic changes rather than simply emulating perceived behaviors from other countries.
Broken down by state, I’m sure there are states that are safer than Germany.
I’ve been to the US and Germany only once. In Berlin I didn’t drive, but saw the weirdest thing multiple times: when the traffic lights turned green sometimes the drivers of the cars up front would just go flat out, tyre screching and all, only to stop at the next traffic light 100 meters away. Really odd.
On the other hand I had to drive many kilometers (sorry, miles) in the US and thought everyone was well behaved, didn’t experience any tailgating, reckless driving etc.
[1]: https://frontiergroup.org/resources/fact-file-americans-driv...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Moreover, this chemical has been accumulating in the environment, and making its way into food, so we're not just breathing it, but eating it too. Refer to DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1384506
Yep. To the 3rd or 4th power, depending on where exactly you measure it.