Also bigger vehicles result in more dangerous pedestrian impacts isn’t the first point you were making and isn’t the point being discussed here.
Answer the question, where did you get the info about accidents being at an all time high? Where did you get the info that it’s at an all time high in proportion to mileage covered, number of cars on the road and increase in population?
You said it’s at an all time high for “both” gross number and in proportion, you must be able to provide a source if you’re so confident, right?
You have me confused for someone else. Lemmy is a big place with multiple users, someone else said that it’s both.
But sure, here you go:
Pedestrian fatalities are correlated with two major factors: speed and vehicle size. In North America, streets are designed to make driving easier and faster: lanes are made wider, and obstacles are removed to reduce visual clutter. This results in everything in NA looking flat and being spread out.
Vehicle sizes are goibg up because of the “size wars”: the EPA made limits on fuel emissions barring vehicle size, so auto manufacturers decided to make larger vehicles to get around the limitations. Consumers wanted bigger, “safer” vehicles to make it more likely to survive a crash, so there’s become an arms race for vehicle size. As these vehicles get bigger, pedestrians become harder to see, and if a pedestrian is hit, the grill is so high, the pedesteian will be thrown under the vehicle as opposed to over it.
As North America grows, we expand into suburbs, which are residential only, requiring residents to commute into the city to get groceries or go to work. More driving means more km driven.
And if you want my sources, here are a few to get you started:
I just linked you 6 articles and a peer reviewed paper on the subject, but if you’re still not going to believe me, I’m not going to spoonfeed you. This is my last reply to your motonormative idiocy.
None of them adjust the numbers for proportions and a bunch of articles are about vehicle size and lane width and its impact on speed, which isn’t what I’m asking about.
7837 in 1981 (which is more than the number you shared), there was much less cars on the road, average annual mileage was lower, total population was nearly a third less at the time, so no, it’s not at an all time high (these are your words) even the gross number isn’t.
Adjusted for population it’s 11 244 deaths in 1981, pretty far from current numbers am I right?
They’re also half of the vehicles sold though…
Also bigger vehicles result in more dangerous pedestrian impacts isn’t the first point you were making and isn’t the point being discussed here.
Answer the question, where did you get the info about accidents being at an all time high? Where did you get the info that it’s at an all time high in proportion to mileage covered, number of cars on the road and increase in population?
You said it’s at an all time high for “both” gross number and in proportion, you must be able to provide a source if you’re so confident, right?
https://lemmy.ml/comment/11316810
You have me confused for someone else. Lemmy is a big place with multiple users, someone else said that it’s both.
But sure, here you go:
Pedestrian fatalities are correlated with two major factors: speed and vehicle size. In North America, streets are designed to make driving easier and faster: lanes are made wider, and obstacles are removed to reduce visual clutter. This results in everything in NA looking flat and being spread out.
Vehicle sizes are goibg up because of the “size wars”: the EPA made limits on fuel emissions barring vehicle size, so auto manufacturers decided to make larger vehicles to get around the limitations. Consumers wanted bigger, “safer” vehicles to make it more likely to survive a crash, so there’s become an arms race for vehicle size. As these vehicles get bigger, pedestrians become harder to see, and if a pedestrian is hit, the grill is so high, the pedesteian will be thrown under the vehicle as opposed to over it.
As North America grows, we expand into suburbs, which are residential only, requiring residents to commute into the city to get groceries or go to work. More driving means more km driven.
And if you want my sources, here are a few to get you started:
Pedestrian deaths all-time high - https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deaths-high-traffic-car
And https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7317a1.htm
Vehicle size: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/more-and-more-american-pedestrians-are-dying-because-larger-vehicles-incorporating-data-safety-regulations-can-help
And https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-safety.html
And https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33147075/
Lane width and speeding correlation: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/review_lane_width_and_speed_parsons.pdf
And https://narrowlanes.americanhealth.jhu.edu/report/JHU-2023-Narrowing-Travel-Lanes-Report.pdf
I hope these provide the answers you’re looking for.
deleted by creator
Numbers
Proportions
Source
Without adjustment based on proportions this means nothing.
Did you know that there’s more car related deaths now than there ever was in the 1800s? 😱
Yeah, because there were no cars on the road.
I just linked you 6 articles and a peer reviewed paper on the subject, but if you’re still not going to believe me, I’m not going to spoonfeed you. This is my last reply to your motonormative idiocy.
None of them adjust the numbers for proportions and a bunch of articles are about vehicle size and lane width and its impact on speed, which isn’t what I’m asking about.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813458
7837 in 1981 (which is more than the number you shared), there was much less cars on the road, average annual mileage was lower, total population was nearly a third less at the time, so no, it’s not at an all time high (these are your words) even the gross number isn’t.
Adjusted for population it’s 11 244 deaths in 1981, pretty far from current numbers am I right?
Try.
Harder.