Cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20086798

During 2013–2017, casualty rates per 100 million miles were 5.16 (95% CI 4.92 to 5.42) for E- HE vehicles and 2.40 (95%CI 2.38 to 2.41) for ICE vehicles, indicating that collisions were twice as likely (RR 2.15; 95% CI 2.05 to 2.26) with E-HE vehicles. Poisson regression found no evidence that E-HE vehicles were more dangerous in rural environments (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11); but strong evidence that E-HE vehicles were three times more dangerous than ICE vehicles in urban environments (RR 2.97; 95% CI 2.41 to 3.7). Sensitivity analyses of missing data support main findings.

  • “Pedestrian safety on the road to net zero: cross-sectional study of collisions with electric and hybrid-electric cars in Great Britain”. Phil J Edwards, Siobhan Moore, Craig Higgins. 2024-05-21. J Epidemiol Community Health.
  • [PDF] (archive)
  • KalciferOPEnglish
    134·
    5 months ago

    I don’t quite understand what’s misleading in my title, given that quote. Would you mind elaborating?

    • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
      43·
      5 months ago

      They are responding to what they think the title is implying instead of what is says.

    • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.eeEnglish
      99·
      5 months ago

      Your title implies says that people are more likely to be hit by an EV than an ICE. That is factually incorrect as there are more ICE cars on the road

      • KalciferOPEnglish
        192·
        5 months ago

        Your title says that people are more likely to be hit by an EV than an ICE.

        No it doesn’t. It says that EVs and H-EVs are more likely to hit a pedestrian than ICEs. That doesn’t necessitate that more people are hit by EVs than ICEs. A reason for this potentially being that there are more ICE vehicles than EVs and H-EVs.