Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths, study finds
Higher, more vertical vehicle hoods on modern SUVs and pickup trucks are linked to increased pedestrian deaths and reduced visibility, especially of children and people directly in front of the vehicle. Commenters connect this trend to design choices, loopholes in U.S. fuel-efficiency and emissions rules, and decades of marketing that push ever-larger “light trucks” as safe, aspirational family vehicles despite the external risks they create. Many argue that only regulatory changes—such as visibility standards, hood-height limits, weight-based licensing or taxes, and better street design—will curb the arms race toward larger, more dangerous vehicles.
Vehicle design, visibility, and “direct vision”
- Agricultural tractors have trended toward better sightlines and sloped hoods for precision work; commenters contrast this with modern trucks/SUVs whose styling and crash standards reduce visibility.
- Older cars, minivans, and many vans are praised for low beltlines, big windows, and better direct vision versus modern “tank-slit” designs and thick pillars.
- Some cities (e.g., London) use “Direct Vision Standards” for heavy vehicles; a few commenters hope for similar rules for trucks in cities.
- Many note that high hoods and bulky A‑pillars make it hard to see children or pedestrians near the front corners. Forward cameras and sensors help but are seen as partial, tech-heavy band-aids.
Why trucks/SUVs got so big
- Strong focus on US-specific incentives: “light truck” loopholes in CAFE/emissions rules, the 25% “chicken tax” on imported trucks, and looser standards for trucks vs sedans.
- Automakers are said to have pushed SUVs/trucks via marketing because they are more profitable, then reduced sedan/wagon offerings, leaving buyers with fewer small options.
- Some argue regulation “forced” size growth; others counter that industry lobbying shaped those regulations, so blaming “the government” alone is misleading.
Status, comfort, and perceived safety
- Many commenters say SUVs and trucks function as status and identity signals (“ruggedness,” wealth, masculinity), but also as “safety theater” for anxious parents.
- Others emphasize legitimate advantages: easier ingress/egress for older or injured people, child-seat handling, snow/rough access roads, and perceived crash safety versus other large vehicles.
- Several point out the arms-race dynamic: people upsize to protect themselves from everyone else’s big vehicles.
Pedestrian risk, blame, and urban context
- Multiple comments highlight driveway/backover deaths, front blind zones that can hide groups of children, and difficulty judging pedestrians when windows are heavily tinted.
- There’s debate over responsibility: some stress driver duty when operating “heavy equipment”; others cite data on intoxicated/jaywalking pedestrians and poor road design (e.g., pedestrians forced onto high-speed roads).
- European-style narrow streets, traffic calming, and walkable cities are contrasted with wide, high-speed US arterials and car-dependent suburbs.
Regulation ideas and disagreements
- Proposed measures include: hood/bumper height limits; forward-visibility standards; weight-/size-based taxes or tolls; special licenses for “hazardous” heavy vehicles; higher insurance minimums; and stricter headlight and tint rules.
- Skeptics worry about overreach, stigma toward sedan drivers, or ignoring genuine work uses and harsh-climate needs.
- Many see change as unlikely in the US due to political resistance, industry influence, and cultural attachment to large vehicles.
On the study itself
- Some mock the need for a study (“obvious result”); others defend it for quantifying risk, informing regulation, and countering denial or misinformation.
- There is mention that existing bumper-height rules were originally set for different safety goals and may now conflict with pedestrian protection.