The size of things.

So I looked through the podcast and I will disagree with it.

I've seen people get off the bus dart into traffic almost get hit, then stop, flip the driver off,scream at them and then when they're done dart across the other 3 lanes of traffic because they don't want to wait.

I almost hit a guy in the middle of the road;  I was coming out of a parking lot, I looked left no cars, looked right as I was rolling into the street, then when I looked back to the right there he was 3 feet in front of my car. He'd seen me rolling out of the lot but decided he could beat me or that I would simple stop. When I told he was 30ft from the crosswalk he told me to go F myself.  

I almost backed over a lady 3 months ago at the gas station; I started to back up and she decided she could run behind the car before I backed up to the point where she was.

This attitude that many pedestrians have is pervasive. If the local police would take the effort they put into crosswalk stings and start fining J-walkers it'd be a lot more effective.

calteg said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I'll say it again. 

If a person is going to step out in front of a speeding car, they are not the victim. The poor soul that mashes them flat is the victim. My kids figured it out when they were barely old enough to walk because I busted their asses when they ran out in the street or parking lot without looking. 

You are trying to solve the problem from the wrong direction. Trying to save the idiots after they are hit is backward. A better use of resources would be to teach people to look both ways before stepping out into a road with 4000 pound machines running down it. Right of way is pretty useless after the car smashes into you. I don't know about most people but I'm much more interested in being alive instead of demanding my right of way or insisting people drive cars that won't kill me. Interestingly enough, I don't step out in front of cars and consequently haven't ever been hit by one. 

You eloquently explained why I believe bicycles should be riding on sidewalks and not car lanes.

Say that after I pass you walking on the sidewalk while I'm at my normal cruising speed - which is about 20 mph.  This is the same reason I avoid "bike paths" like the plague. If they only had bikes on them, they would be great. But they don't. You have walkers and joggers - usually with ear buds - not paying attention to where they're walking or whoever else is on the path. So even if you're riding at a sedate pace of 10 or 12 mph (I seriously struggle to ride that slow) you're still traveling at 3-4x walking speed. Berk "bike paths"... 

What irks me the most is a cyclist on the wrong side of the road. Those are typically what we in the cycling world call "DUI riders". They are riding because they have to, not because they want to, and by nature don't understand the rules of the road and how they apply to cyclists as well as cars.  Thus you have an unregulated (throttle controlled; no pedaling required; not speed limited) e-bike on the wrong side of the road, ripping up the shoulder with no lights at 30+ MPH. 

As someone who rides over a thousand miles each year on the road, I will agree that most car/cyclists altercations are the fault of both parties. It's also why I generally road ride alone. Because I am quite strict with how I ride in traffic and that has kept me alive on the narrow, shoulder-less roads of SE PA. While I've been coal-rolled more than a few times, I've never been intentionally hit like Pete described. 

As far as pedestrians are concerned, I pretty much expect them to do dumb things and plan for it. Even if the driver is totally not at fault, it will still be a crap-ton of aggravation. Aggravation I'd rather not deal with and isn't worth not waiting a few seconds for a pedestrian to cross in front of me.  I do my best to avoid being in that much of a hurry and if I am in a hurry it's my own fault for not leaving earlier. 

In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :

Say that after I pass you walking on the sidewalk while I'm at my normal cruising speed - which is about 20 mph.  This is the same reason I avoid "bike paths" like the plague. If they only had bikes on them, they would be great. But they don't. You have walkers and joggers - usually with ear buds - not paying attention to where they're walking or whoever else is on the path. So even if you're riding at a sedate pace of 10 or 12 mph (I seriously struggle to ride that slow) you're still traveling at 3-4x walking speed. Berk "bike paths"... 

What irks me the most is a cyclist on the wrong side of the road. Those are typically what we in the cycling world call "DUI riders". They are riding because they have to, not because they want to, and by nature don't understand the rules of the road and how they apply to cyclists as well as cars.  Thus you have an unregulated (throttle controlled; no pedaling required; not speed limited) e-bike on the wrong side of the road, ripping up the shoulder with no lights at 30+ MPH. 

As someone who rides over a thousand miles each year on the road, I will agree that most car/cyclists altercations are the fault of both parties. It's also why I generally road ride alone. Because I am quite strict with how I ride in traffic and that has kept me alive on the narrow, shoulder-less roads of SE PA. While I've been coal-rolled more than a few times, I've never been intentionally hit like Pete described. 

As far as pedestrians are concerned, I pretty much expect them to do dumb things and plan for it. Even if the driver is totally not at fault, it will still be a crap-ton of aggravation. Aggravation I'd rather not deal with and isn't worth not waiting a few seconds for a pedestrian to cross in front of me.  I do my best to avoid being in that much of a hurry and if I am in a hurry it's my own fault for not leaving earlier. 
 

I'd agree with you if a car/cyclist collision and a cyclist/pedestrian collision were equal. But they are not. There is a huge difference between both. Plus the interaction between a cyclist and pedestrian is much easier than car/pedestrian. As a cyclist, I can talk to pedestrians, my speed is closer, and visibility/maneuverability is much better on a bike. I love cycling. But despite what the rules say, the road is really not a place for bicycles. I wish it were, but the cosequences when something goes wrong is just not worth it in my opinion. Which is the same reason why I don't own a motorcycle, as appealing as it may be. And why most of my cycling is on a mountain bike off on trails where there are few people and no cars. I do like to ride around town occasionally, and my kids ride around town, so I need to teach them how to do so safely. I don't give a flip about the rules, I ride wherever is safest for the situation. I try to patch together residential neiborhoods or bike trails to avoid busy streets. I ride in the road in residential areas, but switch to sidewalks along busy/high speed streets, especially if the shoulder is narrow and no bike lane. If one side of a busy street is safer than the other, I'll be that DUI rider and chose the safer side. I also have zero expectations of right of way and approach all drivers and pedestrians like I'm invisible. One of the main reasons that I don't like cycling "correctly" is that it's too stressful to be much fun. I have a large number of great back roads near me. I rode them a few times, but the constant stress and close calls with mirrors whizzing by inches away sapped all of the fun out of it. 

The argument that pedestrian deaths are cause by pedestrians being idiots is an interesting one. True to a degree, no doubt, but I think we can all agree that drivers can also be idiots. I had trouble tracking down a consistent stat but I see reports of 5M+ car accidents a year in the US and I expect that's believable. It stands to reason that I can be a pedestrian, generally following the rules, and get hit by a driver who is at fault. We recently had a cyclist struck and killed by a driver just down the street from me in this manner. And while these figures from the IIHS are relatively small I don't think there's any disputing that bigger cars are more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists

"In the Michigan crashes, SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, 3 out of 10 crashes with SUVs (30 percent) resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with 5 out of 22 for cars (23 percent). At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian (100 percent), compared with 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars (54 percent). Below 20 miles per hour there was little difference between the outcomes, with pedestrians struck by either vehicle type tending to sustain minor injuries."

So if you're driving a larger vehicle, and you have an accident, and that accident involves me out on a run, I'm more likely to be killed. The good news is I don't have to run anymore but my Mother is going to be pissed. Maybe even my wife, too. 

Safety aside I'm surprised no one has really brought up the environmental impact. This line from the guardian is a bit click-baity 

"Almost 2,000 times more particle pollution is produced by tyre wear than is pumped out of the exhausts of modern cars, tests have shown."
The point remains, however. More tire wear is less good for the environment. Seems pretty logical. Now, I don't know how much faster an f150 goes through tires than a honda fit but I would imagine it's quite a bit. Not great.

Which brings me to my next point. EVs aren't going away. EVs are heavy. Bigger EVs are really heavy. The adoption of really big really heavy EVs is going to cause more tire wear, more pollution, and a way bigger impact to mine the materials batteries needed to move something like a 7,000lbs Rivian vs a 3,600lbs Bolt. So big SUVs now, and in the future, are going to be less environmentally friendly than smaller vehicles even with similar efficiency. 

There's a time and place for big vehicles, maybe you need to tow a track car, maybe you need a pickup truck to deliver mulch every single day, I don't know and who the heck am I to tell you what to do? But it feels like if we all had a bit of introspection and drove a civic to work and simply rented a giant truck to do yard work once a year we, as a society, would be in a better place.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk

As to the pedestrian/driver fault argument, I believe that a huge percentage of collisions requires two people to make a mistake.  No doubt someone will be legally at fault, but the victim often could have avoided the problem with some situational awareness.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

I want to agree with you, and statistically this may be true, but we have an awful lot of guard rails around here that get crashed into. Ditto single cars making their way into ditches, but that's often limited to inclement weather like, rain, bright sunshine, a light breeze, etc. My wife was rear ended by a truck while stopped in traffic a few weeks ago. Were she on a motorcycle she would be dead. I was rear ended while stopped at an intersection 3 or 4 years ago. I'm just saying this arms race to have the biggest vehicle on the road for "safety" doesn't actually seem to benefit anyone save for vehicle manufacturers who can charge more

I think the correct answer is that a lot of people in general are idiots. Idiots driving cars and idiot pedestrians. If you get hit by a car, it really doesn't make much difference to you who's fault it was if you are dead. Maybe they reward those who had right of way in the afterlife, but I doubt it. I've seen plenty of idiots walking out into traffic just expecting it to stop with no plan if it doesn't. That's a bad idea if the world was full if excellent drivers. But since we know that a bunch drivers are also idiots, why would anyone rely on others for their safety, rules or not? Once you step foot into the road, you need to assume responsibility for yourself. If I'm at a crosswalk, I don't just bolt out into the street when the walk signal turns on. I make sure everyone is stopped, make sure anyone making a right on red sees me, and that anyone approaching the intersection is stopping.  

In reply to mikeonabikesmith :

Locally 75% of pedestrian deaths are the pedestrians fault. Of that 75% the majority are on six lane roads that are 45 mph. 

At 45 mph it doesn't matter whether the vehicle is a Mac truck or a Mini........that person is going to die.

The size of the vehicle may be a contributing factor but it's not the main issue.

If you want to cut down on pedestrian fatalities get people to understand they don't magically have the right of way 100% of the time.

I did my career with the fire department and I worked enough auto-ped calls to make this generalization.

Low slung car, the pedestrian goes up and over the top of the hood etc..

Higher vehicle, the pedestrian goes underneath the vehicle.

Generally, the up and over scenario has a better chance of delivering the FD a viable patient when we arrive on scene. The down and under scenario  is most often a body recovery situation. 

I'd rather see you bounce up and bang over the top of a little car than beneath a pickup truck. You might get off with femur and pelvic injuries rather than being turned into human pudding.

The train-vs-pedestrian call is a whole 'nother ball of wax entirely.... That one is always pudding.

Funny related story. Years ago I was on a family cruise to Mexico. One of the stops was in Puerto Vallarta. Across the street from the cruise ship terminal was a Walmart. Since we had three small kids, a restock opportunity at Walmart mid cruise couldn't be passed up. The road we needed to cross was very wide, 10 lanes plus medians. The traffic signal had an animated figure walking when it was time to cross. A large group starts to cross the street. About half way across, the locals started jogging, while the tourists fell behind. The animated walk signal guy picked up the pace. Cars started revving their engines, and the now the locals were running. I looked up at the walk signal- and the little guy broke into a full on sprint! The tourists got the idea and bolted the rest of the way across, while drivers continued to rev their engines. Once their light turned green, they didn't berkeley around. If you were still in the street, it was your job to get out of their way. It was one of the funniest and most unexpected things I've seen. Here is the signal.. 

my truck looks like an s10 compared to a new f350

In reply to Dusterbd13-michael :

Admittedly, the drop on it makes it shorter than the CR-V, but I still get the point.  Once you get to "full-size truck" size, a few inches of height or width can still make a big visual difference.  For me, driving in my non-trucks, I think the higher bed heights and higher hoodlines/beltlines have a disproportionate effect on visibility out on the road, versus any higher overall height.  It's hard to find data on that kind of thing, though.  Overall height is easy to find, bed floor height can usually be found with a bit of digging, but liftover height on the bed and beltline height, not as easy to find.

My truck is only dropped 2 inches. And on taller tires. So realistically only an inch or so. 

Its seriously that much shorter. The 350 may have been a 4x4. Not sure. My 2wd 19 ram work truck sits similarly though. 

Its freaking ludicrous how much smaller my old full size is compared. 

Dusterbd13-michael said:

 The 350 may have been a 4x4. Not sure.

I had a suspicion, so I went down a quick little rabbit hole to confirm.

All new Super Duty's of XLT trim and up are 4x4. The only 2wd Super Duty that can be had is the lowest, XL trim level.

In reply to Dusterbd13-michael :

Looking at your picture again kind of shows my visibility concern.  Your truck and the F350 appear to have about similar greenhouse size.  All the height gain is at the beltline.  Can't really see through metal.