> This is allowed because when we evaluate cars for safety, we exclusively look at safety of the driver/passengers, not someone getting hit.

This is not true at all. Pedestrian Safety Requirements are why most modern cars tend to look the same from the front these days:

https://www.hotcars.com/why-pedestrian-safety-ruining-car-de...

https://www.treehugger.com/why-all-modern-cars-look-alike-48...

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15118822/taking-the-h...

Looks like these are talking about hood standards on three-box vehicles/sedans, which don't apply to trucks or SUVs[0] (most of the American market, these days).

[0] https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-419.pdf https://one.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/bumper/index.htm...

It is your position that Pedestrian Safety Requirements have caused an unprecedented rise in both the weight (with the obvious increase in kinetic energy) and size, particularly height of new cars?

My position is stated in the first two lines of my comment. Automobiles definitely do have to meet increasingly more stringent regulations for pedestrian safety. I work with several people who have industry experience.

The second problem is it becomes an arms race. If I’m in a normal height car and get hit by the monster trucks out there today, I am more exposed. So I buy a big monster truck, to be safe.

I currently drive a car that is a little over four feet tall. I regularly pull up to intersections and try to turn corners where my roofline is below the bottom of the windows of the megatrucks next to me. So yes, the arms race is real, and my next car will be taller and bigger.

I think it's fair to tax bigger cars higher. They take up more road space, they take up more parking space. Should pay more by % of oversize.

And the car's inmates are also getting bigger.

> This is allowed because when we evaluate cars for safety, we exclusively look at safety of the driver/passengers, not someone getting hit.

At least in Europe, pedestrian safety is part of the assessment:

https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...

A simple Google search for "vehicle safety testing for pedestrian accidents" pulls up quite a few manufacturer safety testing videos.

This isn’t even close to true. Front end crash compatibility for example has been a thing for decades.

From the HN guidelines: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

It would be useful if you explained how or why there's a problem with OP's post.

Not at all. The eu has pedestrian safety standards that must be met as well as passenger safety. In those countries Tesla and Mercedes, to name a few, have active pedestrian safety devices in the hood that change the angle of the hood just before a pedestrian strike to minimize injury. They remove those safety devices in North American markets where there isn’t testing. Do you really need a peer reviewed study to tell you that getting hit by a truck in the chest/head is going to be more dangerous than getting struck by a small sedan in the legs?

If you do, Euro NCAP has them.

Certainly seems plausible as a hypothesis, would be interesting to look at the fatality data by make.

The insurance companies should have this data and I would be interesting to FOIA it if it’s not public