IIHS Sharply Criticizes Automakers over Front-End Designs in New Report

[silvrsvt]

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45837841/iihs-tall-vehicle-dangerous-pedestrians/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1-_vOK11GpAkkiA9Daz9_pnPL3szvr-_7G0vTK2qJhVQAd1_Gj9dMuPtI

 

So basically the IIHS is now going to dictate how vehicles need to be styled

 

[Deanh]

14 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45837841/iihs-tall-vehicle-dangerous-pedestrians/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1-_vOK11GpAkkiA9Daz9_pnPL3szvr-_7G0vTK2qJhVQAd1_Gj9dMuPtI

 

So basically the IIHS is now going to dictate how vehicles need to be styled

 

I thought the upright grills were a response to previous IIHS demands?...no?...or was that just height...

[Chrisgb]

18 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45837841/iihs-tall-vehicle-dangerous-pedestrians/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1-_vOK11GpAkkiA9Daz9_pnPL3szvr-_7G0vTK2qJhVQAd1_Gj9dMuPtI

 

So basically the IIHS is now going to dictate how vehicles need to be styled

 

The article didn't state how many pedestrian fatalities were Jaywalking, or how many crossed against a light. People are pretty good about yielding to pedestrians, in general. If you are crossing a road at a crosswalk you are a pedestrian with the right of way. Anywhere else and you are a target.

In the 19th century, the railroads came up with a solution for dumb animals that interfered with their right of way:

 

[akirby]

4 hours ago, Chrisgb said:

The article didn't state how many pedestrian fatalities were Jaywalking, or how many crossed against a light. People are pretty good about yielding to pedestrians, in general. If you are crossing a road at a crosswalk you are a pedestrian with the right of way. Anywhere else and you are a target.

 

It irritates the crap out of me when the news reports a pedestrian vs car and implies the driver was at fault especially if it’s a hit and run.  Hit and run is obviously wrong but most of these are the pedestrian’s fault.

[rperez817]

52 minutes ago, akirby said:

Hit and run is obviously wrong but most of these are the pedestrian’s fault.

 

Hit and run involving a pedestrian is always the driver's fault.

[rperez817]

Details from IIHS. Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians (iihs.org)

 

[akirby]

14 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Hit and run involving a pedestrian is always the driver's fault.

Wrong.  Leaving the scene is a crime but if a pedestrian walks in front of your vehicle at night wearing dark clothes outside of a crosswalk then it’s not the driver’s fault.

[rperez817]

20 minutes ago, akirby said:

Leaving the scene is a crime but if a pedestrian walks in front of your vehicle at night wearing dark clothes outside of a crosswalk then it’s not the driver’s fault.

 

In other words, hit and run involving a pedestrian is the driver's fault as mentioned earlier. What the pedestrian was wearing or where he or she was walking is irrelevant to the driver's culpability.

[akirby]

16 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

In other words, hit and run involving a pedestrian is the driver's fault as mentioned earlier. What the pedestrian was wearing or where he or she was walking is irrelevant to the driver's culpability.

The driver is not at fault for hitting the pedestrian.  Leaving the scene is a separate crime.  

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

It irritates the crap out of me when the news reports a pedestrian vs car and implies the driver was at fault especially if it’s a hit and run.  Hit and run is obviously wrong but most of these are the pedestrian’s fault.

It's dumb, but I guess they basically expect car drivers to be perfect, and let pedestrians do whatever the hell they want. I drive through our neighborhood with my foot hovering over the brake at all times, because I've had little kids just ride their bikes right in front of me, or run across the street.

 

I'm not a parent, so I guess I don't have a ton of room to judge. But when I see parents who just let their three year play alone near the edge of the street unsupervised, I generally feel like they don't care about their kids. The HOA kicked my cousin out of their neighborhood because their four year old daughter was roaming the street, jumping out at cars to try and scare the drivers. If the drivers hit her, they would be at fault, it makes no sense considering the drivers are doing nothing wrong. 

 

I was driving downtown recently in Salt Lake, and this woman just starts going across the crosswalk in front of me as we're driving through the intersection at 40 mph. It looked like she was distracted by her phone and wasn't paying attention. It just seems like pedestrians have no accountability or awareness these days. People expect drivers to take charge in every situation. 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

Details from IIHS. Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians (iihs.org)

 

This is really going to hurt the form factor of upcoming fullsize trucks and SUVs. Not only are these tall, blunt front ends terrible for areo, they're also less safe in collisions. But transitioning to low, oddly angled front ends is going to look terrible on something like a super duty. Just a losing situation all around. 

[rperez817]

49 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

This is really going to hurt the form factor of upcoming fullsize trucks and SUVs. Not only are these tall, blunt front ends terrible for areo, they're also less safe in collisions. But transitioning to low, oddly angled front ends is going to look terrible on something like a super duty. Just a losing situation all around. 

 

Good points DeluxeStang. Since automakers who market full size pickup trucks and SUVs focus on the emotional appeal, status, and image associated with those vehicles, regulations that require improved protection for pedestrians will present a challenge.

 

Consumer Reports wrote about this back in 2021.

Safety advocates say that truck designers could lower hoods or reduce weight, but automakers are reluctant to do so because pickups are a major source of profit. Industry analysts say that offering bigger trucks with imposing front ends has been a factor in a winning sales strategy.

"Trucks could look less tough, but you don't want to be the one to make your truck look soft," says Tyson Jominy, vice president for data and analytics at J.D. Power. He estimates that an automaker might make four to five times more money on a pickup than a sedan, partly because manufacturing a truck is simpler and because buyers will pay more for a pickup. "You can charge a lot for the capability, for the image."

Automakers are also selling a lifestyle, says Angie Schmitt, founder and principal at 3MPH Planning and Consulting, a firm focused on pedestrian safety. She points to ads with trucks at construction sites, hauling massive trailers, and racing over sand dunes. "They're not hiding the fact that they're marketing these trucks as being really macho and a display of masculinity or prowess," she says. "That's a big part of the marketing, and I think that it works."

Trucks with luxurious amenities and prices north of $60,000 can also be status symbols. "They're absolutely not typically a choice for the average American car buyer," says Bernard Swiecki, director of research at the Center for Automotive Research. He estimates that the typical pickup buyer's median household income is $60,000 a year higher than the average American household's income.

Edited November 15, 2023 by rperez817

[rperez817]

9 hours ago, Chrisgb said:

The article didn't state how many pedestrian fatalities were Jaywalking

 

Angie Schmitt (the pedestrian safety expert quoted by Consumer Reports as noted in the previous post) did research on the impact of jaywalking enforcement on safety outcomes for pedestrians. Here is a summary of Schmitt's findings, which were presented to the California State Assembly’s Transportation Committee. Thanks to this research, California wisely decriminalized jaywalking as of January 1, 2023.  Our Testimony Before the California State Assembly - 3MPH Planning and Consulting

 

Quote

We know that jaywalking enforcement is not effective at reducing pedestrian crashes. Experts who I interviewed for my book, told me there is no evidence that jaywalking enforcement improves safety outcomes and that most more conscientious cities have moved away from that approach. 

The safest nations in the world for walking — Scandinavian countries primarily — have no equivalent infraction. 

In order to address the pedestrian safety crisis in the U.S. we need to move away from punitive measures directed at vulnerable individuals to creating a system that protects them.

Edited November 15, 2023 by rperez817

[akirby]

All that means is enforcement doesn’t stop jaywalkers.  So basically they gave up and decided to make cars safer instead.  To hell with personal accountability.  You don’t just fall into the street by accident.

[Rick73]

Sadly,, enforcement doesn’t stop speeding either.  Much of safety gains are due to safer cars and roads.

 

Won’t autonomous vehicles essentially eliminate accidents?  Seems collisions with pedestrians would be one of the easiest to avoid or reduce significantly, making this front end design a non issue before too long.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

44 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Sadly,, enforcement doesn’t stop speeding either.  Much of safety gains are due to safer cars and roads.

 

Won’t autonomous vehicles essentially eliminate accidents?  Seems collisions with pedestrians would be one of the easiest to avoid or reduce significantly, making this front end design a non issue before too long.

 

Autonomous vehicles are a pipe dream for general use. Too many variables at play and to solve them would cost TRILLONS of dollars between research and upgrading roads...then add in losing privacy because you'd basically give up your right to be anonymous since most likely one of the solutions (to make it easier/cheaper) would require your person to carry a tracking device that would be able to help warn a vehicle your in the middle of the road walking, just as an example. 

 

I'm all for making things safer, but we are entering the point of diminishing returns that cause disruptions to other things that it really doesn't need to be affected. We are removing any risk management and removing any responsibility on the person due to the greater good, which is a lose-lose to civilization in general.

 

AFAIK, the IIHS has no legal way of enforcing its findings-its more or less shaming companies into doing something else under the guise of safety. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Studies going back to the 60s have proven that vehicles with low sloping front ends cause less injuries and deaths of pedestrians and cyclists in collisions. But many Americans buy the exact opposite design- A high blunt truck or SUV to reverse virtue signal how tough they are and let every body know they're not an immigrant, person of color, or poor (even if they are). Throw in distracted, drugged and drunk driving, and people who think they can drive safer faster in a truck and no wonder we needlessly kill a couple thousand pedestrians and cyclists a year.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Sadly,, enforcement doesn’t stop speeding either.  Much of safety gains are due to safer cars and roads.

 

Won’t autonomous vehicles essentially eliminate accidents?  Seems collisions with pedestrians would be one of the easiest to avoid or reduce significantly, making this front end design a non issue before too long.

Driving 5-10 mph over the limit is perfectly safe outside of school or work zones.  Accidents are caused by reckless or careless driving, following too closely and just not paying attention.

 

As for autonomous vehicles eliminating pedestrian collisions- not if the person darts out in front of the vehicle at the last minute.  And a lot of cars today already have automatic braking - same as the autonomous vehicle would use.  

[Rick73]

19 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Autonomous vehicles are a pipe dream for general use.

I was thinking more of a watered down version like automated emergency braking.  Obviously if a pedestrian suddenly steps in front of a car moving fast it won’t be able to stop anyway.  
 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a44067783/automated-emergency-braking-could-be-required-2028/

[Rick73]

9 minutes ago, akirby said:

Driving 5-10 mph over the limit is perfectly safe outside of school or work zones.  Accidents are caused by reckless or careless driving, following too closely and just not paying attention.

 

As for autonomous vehicles eliminating pedestrian collisions- not if the person darts out in front of the vehicle at the last minute.  And a lot of cars today already have automatic braking - same as the autonomous vehicle would use.  

Agree, responded at same time.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

I was thinking more of a watered down version like automated emergency braking.  Obviously if a pedestrian suddenly steps in front of a car moving fast it won’t be able to stop anyway.  
 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a44067783/automated-emergency-braking-could-be-required-2028/

 

I have my doubts about it, my Bronco has a form of AEB and it doesn't seem to kick in unless I'm tailgating someone through a light LOL

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

You don’t just fall into the street by accident.

 

That's correct, urban transportation design and planning in 20th century and into the 21st deliberately favored automobiles, thereby endangering other street users especially pedestrians. In fact, jaywalking regulations specifically were introduced in the U.S. nearly a century ago at the behest of the automotive industry, as California Assemblyman Phil Ting described.

Jaywalking laws were enacted in the 1930s by the then-emerging auto industry, which saw the number of deadly car accidents skyrocket in the prior decade and wanted to shift the blame from drivers to pedestrians. Over the years, street designs primarily considered the needs of drivers, failing to account for people who are not in cars.

 

Many locales have adopted a "complete streets" design philosophy that does a much better job accounting for street users who are not in cars and trucks, resulting in a dramatic reduction of pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Below is a simple example in Seattle (Rainier Avenue).

 

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Won’t autonomous vehicles essentially eliminate accidents?  

 

Yes, that's one of the chief advantages of autonomous vehicles. Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (Ford Motor Company is a member of that organization) had a panel discussion a few weeks ago on how "advanced vehicle technologies" including ADAS and AV can improve pedestrian safety. PAVE Virtual Panel: “How Advanced Vehicle Technologies Can Improve Pedestrian Safety” – Full Recording | PAVE Campaign

 

1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Studies going back to the 60s have proven that vehicles with low sloping front ends cause less injuries and deaths of pedestrians and cyclists in collisions. But many Americans buy the exact opposite design- A high blunt truck or SUV to reverse virtue signal how tough they are and let every body know they're not an immigrant, person of color, or poor (even if they are). Throw in distracted, drugged and drunk driving, and people who think they can drive safer faster in a truck and no wonder we needlessly kill a couple thousand pedestrians and cyclists a year.

 

Very well said GearheadGrrrl. The IIHS research paper referenced in the original post mentioned several of the more recent studies in that regard. The association between passenger-vehicle front-end profiles and pedestrian injury severity in motor vehicle crashes (iihs.org)

research that examined pedestrian crash data or hospital records found that light truck vehicles (LTV),  including sports utility vehicles (SUVs), pickups, and passenger vans, were associated with higher risk of severe or fatal injuries to pedestrians in motor vehicle crashes when compared with cars (Ballesteros et al. 2004, Lefler and Gabler 2004, Roudsari et al. 2004, Longhitano et al. 2005, Paulozzi 2005, Roudsari et al. 2005, Monfort and Mueller 2020, Edwards and Leonard 2022)

[Chrisgb]

11 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Hit and run involving a pedestrian is always the driver's fault.

10-4. It's the "and run" that puts you at fault, regardless of what the pedestrian did or didn't do.

[Chrisgb]

19 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

That's correct, urban transportation design and planning in 20th century and into the 21st deliberately favored automobiles, thereby endangering other street users especially pedestrians. In fact, jaywalking regulations specifically were introduced in the U.S. nearly a century ago at the behest of the automotive industry, as California Assemblyman Phil Ting described.

 

 

Many locales have adopted a "complete streets" design philosophy that does a much better job accounting for street users who are not in cars and trucks, resulting in a dramatic reduction of pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Below is a simple example in Seattle (Rainier Avenue).

 

 

Yes, that's one of the chief advantages of autonomous vehicles. Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (Ford Motor Company is a member of that organization) had a panel discussion a few weeks ago on how "advanced vehicle technologies" including ADAS and AV can improve pedestrian safety. PAVE Virtual Panel: “How Advanced Vehicle Technologies Can Improve Pedestrian Safety” – Full Recording | PAVE Campaign

 

 

Very well said GearheadGrrrl. The IIHS research paper referenced in the original post mentioned several of the more recent studies in that regard. The association between passenger-vehicle front-end profiles and pedestrian injury severity in motor vehicle crashes (iihs.org)

 

 

A pedestrian is less likely to be injured or killed by a Super Duty if crossing at a crosswalk, than one a jaywalking or crossing against a traffic signal by a Ford GT.

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

Driving 5-10 mph over the limit is perfectly safe outside of school or work zones.

 

IIHS' long-term study of a 5 mph increase in speed limits found increases in fatality rates both on freeways and other types of roads. As a corollary to that, driving 5-10 mph over the limit is anything but "perfectly safe". Speed (iihs.org)

 

During 1993-2017, a 5 mph increase in the maximum state speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in fatality rates on interstates and freeways and a 3 percent increase on other roads (Farmer, 2019). In total, there were an estimated 37,000 more traffic fatalities during these years than would have been expected if maximum speed limits in 1993 had remained in place. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1,900 additional deaths.

The effect of speed limits on crashes and injuries isn’t limited to freeways.  A 2023 IIHS study found that the risk of crashes with fatal, serious or evident injuries in Seattle dropped between 11 and 20 percent on arterial roads when the city lowered its default speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph on arterial roads (Hu & Cicchino, 2023).