The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

WA state recently passed a law about e-bikes/e-motorcycles to deal with the issue of younger teens on these kinda moped-style e-bikes going very fast around town (and often riding quite recklessly).

The law is reasonable, but it strikes me what a double standard there is for biking vs driving. For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders.

Meanwhile, everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people, but we do basically nothing. Even on the off chance that we passed a law about them, existing vehicles would certainly be grandfathered in, we would never outright ban current vehicles/motorists. If we banned existing SUVs and trucks, millions of people would be screaming bloody murder about their right to drive pedestrian-killing cars.

In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1]

It is a massive problem that receives a disproportionate amount of attention.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...

The problem is that other countries have seen nearly identical trends in vehicle market share trending towards larger vehicles and have seen sustained declines in pedestrian fatalities. John Burn-Murdoch went deep on this in the FT a couple of years ago (archive link at bottom).

> Most of the explanations commonly put forward for why US roads remain so deadly focus on broad structural factors such as vehicle size or time spent on the road, but a review of the evidence suggests this may be mistaken. Last year’s improvement is a case in point. Two reasons often cited as key causes of poor US performance both worsened: the total number of miles driven by Americans increased, and US cars continued to grow larger. Yet fatal collisions still declined.

> Adding to the evidence that this is not a dominant factor, car sizes in Canada, Australia and New Zealand have traced similar paths to the US without resulting in a spike in fatalities.

> Another theory is that the rise of homelessness in the US may be pushing pedestrian deaths higher. A recent study found that there had indeed been a marked rise in traffic-related deaths among the homeless, but this, too, can only explain a small portion of the overall rise.

> Instead, an underrated factor seems to be not American cars but American drivers [...] The determining factor seems to be different attitudes to safety, with Americans twice as likely as Canadians or Europeans to say they find it acceptable to use a phone while driving.

https://archive.is/Lggyg#30%

Data shows that introduction of iPhones in 2007 is a better explanation for the increase in pedestrian deaths than heavier trucks and SUVs: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ubbfrv/oc... (All the credit for this analysis goes to the reddit user, I’m just summarizing.)

Trucks and SUVs have been getting heavier consistently since 1980 while pedestrian deaths consistently decreased from 1980 to 2009. Truck sizes went up much more from 1980 to 2009 than from 2009 to present. But pedestrian deaths dropped almost in half from 1980 to 2009.

The NYT study on which this article is based acknowledges that pedestrian deaths dropped in half from 1980 to 2009, but then does nothing with this information.

>“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”

Am I crazy? The article itself points out that only 10% of the increase would have been 'saved' if cars had remained the same size. This goes directly against the title no?

There's certainly more than one reason, my gut would point to more smart phone use both by drivers and even by pedestrians themselves.

I wonder if one day using a smart phone while driving will have the same stigma as a DUI (and similar punishment). I struggle to argue it shouldn't, its sometimes a little crazy to think about that if the person in the other lane gets distracted on their phone, I might be involved in a head on collision at 60+mph.

I have long held that larger vehicles should have higher licensing requirements purely based on stats. We see it in the stats that large vehicles are disproportionately dangerous to other vehicles and people so licensing should catch up. We have motorcycle licenses, why don't we have SUV licenses? Similarly, the penalties and limits should be higher. BAC should be lower. Fines higher. Etc etc. You want to drive a big vehicle, fine, pay for it and do what is needed to protect other people from your choices. I shouldn't have to pay for your decisions. This is a fundamental principle that big vehicle drivers conveniently ignore when they believe 'their freedom' trumps my right to life.

So this is only one of the reasons, and a relatively small one:

“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”

It is worth reading the interactive Times article. Amazing piece of work https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/21/us/trucks-suv...

People spend a lot of time on Trucks, but I don't see why SUVs get a pass. Every single car is an SUV now. They're higher up, heavier, and have a higher beltline all so that drivers can "feel safer."

The Grille Trend that Kills 509 People per Year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU video discussed previously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584166

These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo

The original designer wanted the truck to feel like you were driving a fist, punching through the air. So we are killing people so that the driver can have an aggressive aesthetic. And the design has spread like a contagious meme, even BMWs have it now.

Weird that this article did not mention the Chicken Tax [1] and the differences in CAFE standards and safety standards applicable to passenger vehicles and light trucks/trucks. Basically, the latter were more profitable for automakers, so they shifted toward selling SUVs that qualified as light trucks. This was a crucial step in the arms race toward larger/higher vehicles.

While I don't disagree with what the article says, it is surprising that they have completely missed these aspects of causality, which have been well-known and discussed by policymakers for decades.

1: https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/jlpp/2024/11/25/t...

Super relevant: Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? by Douglas Husak

One of my favorite philosophy papers. The author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility of SUVs, they are immoral - imposing needless harm on others. It's also ironic that on average, there is no net safety benefit to those who drive them -- because of higher rollover risks!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447

2009 coincides with the invention of the smartphone. I've lost count of how many times I've nearly been run over because people are staring at their phones while driving.

The attribution to larger vehicles while ignoring smartphones seems misplaced.

A major aspect of this are side effects of "safety-first" obsession over the occupants of the vehicles themselves.

Mandatory airbags in the A-pillars is probably the single biggest killer out of everything. The blind spots are massive compared to cars before these regulations. I've seen some models where it seems bad on purpose. Why don't federal regulators want the drivers of these gigantic vehicles to be able to see where the hell they are going?

The article keeps mentioning "unintended consequences" but I'm not convinced these are. Trying to come across as scary (perhaps because you are yourself scared) seems to be the whole point. "Get out of my way, look at how little I care about your safety, look at the size of this thing." The article mentions machismo but I don't think that quite covers the (profitable) pathology here.

Weird question that popped into my mind (not a judgement on this), but is there a similar jump in prosecutions for vehicular manslaughter or are these "whoopsie'd" away?

Seeing today's distracted drivers, driving their mini armored troop carriers around in parking lots, makes me wonder what happens when someone "didn't see the person" and runs them over.

Edit (after some research): "Philadelphia review found only about 16% of drivers who killed vulnerable road users were charged; 30% were closed with no charges, and 46% had no data provided."

So that's a bit concerning but I'm not sure what I'd want if I or a loved one were personally on the end of "making the mistake" vs being a victim of a mistake.

Sitting in a modern pickup is worse than a school bus for visibility. You cannot see in front of the truck at all. Real blue collar work seems to mostly have moved to work vans like the sprinter which have much better visibility, much more friendly height for storing, can still tow, etc.

Pickups are 1000% pointless now

I was in US three times for work events. Every single time I would try to walk somewhere and would be forced to navigate around pickup trucks stopped in the middle of a freaking crosswalk. Sometimes those cars were so large that I could stand right in front of it and I’m convinced the driver would not be able to see me. It was by far the worst thing about my time in the US. Like you have so much space, why do you need to block the damn crossing?

I'd like to start or contribute to a philanthropic effort to see the pickup truck and SUV arms race fought somehow. I think the strongest avenue, at least in the USA, would be better litigation and direct criminal responsibility for those that own them and are negligent in their operation (cell-phone use, speeding, illegal lift-kits, etc).

Does anybody know of such a nonprofit or organization that is currently making meaningful progress here that I can contribute to?

I think that in Europe the trend is in the other direction: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_... - e.g. -15% since 2019.

I recently visited Portugal and it was so refreshing not to see huge near monster trucks on the road. Which have a very intimidating vibe to them.

I was like oh look at people can actually function without big trucks, wow! What a surprise!

As I'm sure the commentors here from outside of the U.S. can plainly see - it's going to be a long road to get regulations in place to somehow incentivize smaller vehicles (and that's assuming we ever have a functioning government again). For Americans, a lot of our self-image/worth is tied up in the vehicles we drive. I suppose it's a combination of cultural history (hyper-individualism) and decades of marketing and advertising from auto manufacturers.

We all know how much local PDs like collecting traffic fines, but I wish they would enforce the laws around yielding to pedestrians with the same enthusiasm as speed limits. I walk a lot and pretty much every day someone blows by in front of me while I'm in the crosswalk or takes a right on red into me because they're not looking. It'd be trivial to set up a sting for this sort of driving, just have one plain clothes officer cross back and forth with another cop parked on a side street ready to flash their lights.

There was an excellent documentary on it in France from cash investigations.

Not only it kills more pedestrians, but also when you get an accident with one of the people driving these monstrosity, you get a lot more chance of dying.

So if either you want to be safe, you got to buy an even heavier car.

This is a race to the bottom.

Hopefully with the rise of gas price, people will start to rethink buying SUV.

Seems like they put a lot of time and effort into this article. It's a shame that I cannot read it because it is covered by, "Sale ends soon. $0.50/week for your first six months year. Subscribe!", on my screen.

No mention of CAFE standards? How can you write this article without mentioning the policy that incentivizes larger vehicles?

We've already lost the war on outward visibility. Virtually every bit of our safety regulatory system encourages or demands vehicles that you can't really see out of anymore. Side impact standards and higher door sills all around, curtain airbags, etc. Hell, they encourage (more profitable) SUVs because they don't have to be built to passenger car safety standards. And the market's doing the rest.

The only response from the safety industry is more doodads. Auto braking, backup cameras, lane departure warnings, blind spot warning.

Cars going too fast in your neighborhood? Build huge speed bumps you need an SUV to navigate to navigate at any speed over 5mph!

I don't think there's actually any hope for human-driven cars, long-term. The system doesn't want them.

For work, I drive an F-350 diesel with a work-bed full of tools and supplies, and a ladder rack. It's a bit nerve-wracking driving through city side streets, especially with pedestrians. It's 22 feet (6.7m) long. Across the tow mirrors is 8.5 feet (2.6m). It probably weighs 4 tons. Yet people happily choose to drive bigger vehicles as commuter cars!

Wasn't there a case of a F-150 running over a Lamborghini in a parking lot a few weeks ago, because the driver of the pickup couldn't see the supercar?

Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them.

On a number of occasions I have nearly hit people who I simply could not see crossing in my Volvo XC90 due to these pillars. I've been driving for nearly 30 years in the US and UK and have never felt anything like it.

[edit: for future readers, please note that I am not saying it would be legal or correct to hit these people.

I am saying precisely that the A pillars on the XC90 are dangerous as they introduce blind spots that I've never experienced before. We test drove the vehicle, and they weren't apparent during that test drive. I am now responsible for them.

Down in this thread you will read some responses that seem confused about that point. No, it is not legal to run people over in the road. You will be at fault. No, that doesn't make it smart to jump into the road until it's clear that the traffic has yielded you your lawful right of way. IAAL]

No problem with big SUVs ...

Just cap their top speed at 40 mph, use thin A pillars to better protect pedestrians and make them ugly as hell.

But make damn sure they comfortably transport the family to the soccer game, yes...

Beyond just being dangerous, it's also incredibly frustrating to go down to my local grocery store and 50% of the stalls have these massive trucks and SUVs sticking out over the sidewalk / into the through-road / taking up literally the entire width of the stall. It boggles me that people buy these things and then use them for puttering around town 99% of the time.

Blah. It's a regulation problem. Allow powerful trucks to be small again and they will. Perverse incentives are a bitch.

Vehicles accelerate a LOT faster on average than years ago, EVs and Turbo Engines...

They also drink a lot more fuel and contributing for co2 emissions. Thank you Americans for destroying Earth

  “Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not 
   have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over 
   the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents
   about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”

I believe that as self-driving cars become more ubiquitous, these deaths (and other traffic-related deaths) will decrease. I was driving on a 4 lane road at 5 in the morning and all of a sudden my Tesla model 3 slams on its brakes, missing a deer that jumped across the road by ~2 feet. Its path was completely perpendicular to the road and I couldn't see it until a few seconds after my car started braking.

Imagine a future when a much larger proportion of drivers have 360 degree vision with no blind spots, infinitesimally small reaction times and a human failsafe in the driver seat.

The headline is wildly incorrect. Large vehicles are only responsible for about a 7.5% increase. Odd they aren't talking about the bigger issues at play and chose to mislead us.

“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”

"According to the report, pedestrian deaths have not only increased by 75% since 2009, but the fatalities have been correlated with the hazards presented by the physical heft, height, and blind spots inherent to today’s big trucks and SUVs."

I've always hated trucks for all of these reasons. Thanks for doing the science to help me explain why, NYT.

While their conclusion is probably correct, I would have liked to seen the number of fatalities normalized by population, miles driven, number of pedestrian increase, speed limit change etc

Self driving cars can’t come soon enough. Can’t believe there is debate between Waymo tesla and others while completely missing a goal.

These are the epitome of individualism. It's a Fuck you I'm safe. They're even designed to look like fists. Here is a quote from General Motors truck designer Karan Moorjani:

“I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”

... we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer."

The design of these things is deliberately antisocial. The huge hood is not even needed since it's possible to stand inside the mostly empty engine bays of these things as FortNine showed: https://youtu.be/YpuX-5E7xoU?t=431

But it's not just the hood heights wrong with modern vehicles. Multiple design trends are hostile to other road users and reduce safety equality if you will.

- Headlight hues are white and blinding

- Headlight positioning has increased with the hood height which tends to blind people.

- The pillars in vehicles are really thick and raked which is safer for the occupants but also means visibility is reduced. Great, so now people in bigger, newer, safer vehicles are more likely to hit pedestrians and people in older, smaller vehicles.

- Windows are more tinted and often smaller meaning vehicles are opaque walls now which hinders visibility and communication at intersections.

All of the problems (high hood, bad visibility downwards) are fixed by sports cars and especially mid-engined and rear-engined sports cars. Plus, the brake distance is much lower.

i really enjoyed the interactive elements / visualization in this post.

There needs to be tax incentives to put truck trailers on rail cars.

> The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs...

safety stilts.

I hate everything about modern vehicles. Built cheaply, yet cost a fortune. Are filled with laggy infotainment computers that requires subscriptions and replace reliable and easy to locate climate controls. They are the size of tanks despite having a smaller bed size than a Japanese kei car. The list goes on and on.

I don't know the answer to this, and I don't know how to find it. The stats seem to mirror Bird and cohort uptake. Are these datapoints muddied with escooter death and injury?

I drive a 2004 truck, it's not as big as the newer trucks but it's still pretty big. My 2004 truck also has 0 sensors on it and no cameras. If I were driving a newer truck, I believe pedestrians would be safer because of the added safety sensors and cameras.