The gp was simply stating that being struck by a truck is more lethal than a car due to their flat, tall fronts. They weren't, by my reading, insinuating that trucks are more likely to hit people. That is indeed, in my opinion, a function of operator error all things equal.

The GP said also, " The high hoods make for poor visibility around the front." to which your parent responded.

Yup, this is also why the Cybertruck (probably) won't be road legal in Europe. Too many sharp edges that would seriously hurt a pedestrian on collision.

Also no side mirrors. It's kind of a joke how poorly defined it is with people seriously expecting it this year.

You don't necessarily need mirrors when you have reliable (probably ASIL-B, maybe ASIL-D) cameras systems that recreate that view inside the vehicle, although I'm not that well versed with European laws.

They could also just add mirrors as has long been standard between concept and production motorcycles. (Example [0][1])

[0] https://2yrh403fk8vd1hz9ro2n46dd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-... [1] https://i2.wp.com/www.asphaltandrubber.com/wp-content/upload...

News articles[0] vs. anecdote

[0]https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investig...

This article states that forward blind spots account for 30-60 pedestrian fatalities each year. Rear blind spots are 5-10x deadlier. I would prioritize backup cameras.

Back up cameras are now standard 18MY onwards. New vehicles are required backup cameras.

Totally agree with you. Now, would you prefer being hit by a Ford F-150 or Fiat 500 (same speed)?

>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.

people being distracted isn't a new feature; people being given distractions in the cabin is.

I'm not sure exactly what your argument is, to be quite frank.

Are you insinuating that less visibility isn't hindering the ability to drive safely?

There are additional devices commonplace in vehicles to make up for the lack of visibility -- pedestrian detection/auto-braking/switching cameras for example -- but surely a car would be safer to both pedestrians and the passengers if it had those types of features along with increased visibility..

>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.

As a former auto mechanic, maybe i'm over-exposed.. but :

1) car interior design changes yearly, and it's usually to sate consumer desires rather than for safety/usability/efficiency.

2) mechanical failures aren't rare. mechanical failures that may end in injury or loss-of-life aren't rare, either.

The DoD has done tons of usability studies with regards to UI/UX. If auto manufacturers wanted a safe/repeatable/efficient environment then the interiors would probably share a lot of features with fighter jets; tactile buttons, audio cues, correct information density, etc.

They don't look anything like this -- this is a clue to the consumer that there are different priorities in mind at the manufactures' HQ, namely lately ICE (in-car entertainment, not internal combustion engine; sorry for possible confusion) and technological glitz like RGB lighting.

Second this. Even in the most bike- or pedestrian-friendly neighborhood of Minneapolis, all of the near miss experiences I’ve had have been because of driver inattentiveness. Is there some tautology here—with truck drivers and pedestrians frequenting disjoint geographies? Certainly.

Good that the car has DMS then :)