Study: Giant Pickups and SUVs More Dangerous to Pedestrians, Obviously

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

A recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has claimed that large, blunt-nosed pickups and SUVs pose a greater risk to pedestrians than other vehicle types. It’s quite possibly the most obvious outcome to any study we’ve ever seen and it seems to crop up every few years even though the vehicles in question just keep getting bigger and squarer.


Maybe the IIHS just thought we needed to hear it again, but this is a discussion that’s been ever since people started designing vehicles with pedestrian safety in mind. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) didn’t seem overly preoccupied with the topic when it was established by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1966, the matter was at the forefront of discussions by the 1980s.


Though one didn’t need a degree in physics to understand that taller vehicles with flat fronts were more likely to run over someone than see them rolling over the hood. Crash data accumulated through the 1970s supported this, simultaneously offering additional insights, and it wasn’t long before you saw the government beginning to mandate designs that took pedestrian safety into consideration.


This is why pop-up headlights completely vanished in the early 2000s. But regulators had decades of data suggesting flat-faced trucks probably weren’t doing jaywalkers any favors either and they weren’t banned. I started bringing up the matter in 2018, citing relevant studies dating back to 2004, to hypothesize that increased roadway fatalities might have something to do with modern vehicle designs. However, the premise that disparities in mass might play a role in car accidents predated me by at least a couple generations.


The IIHS covered the pedestrian angle specifically in 2020, concluding that SUVs and pickups might (you’ll never believe this) pose a greater risk to pedestrians. It followed up in 2022 with a report about how larger vehicles often hit pedestrians while turning. We now appear to be revisiting the original premise.


From the IIHS:


Whatever their nose shape, pickups, SUVs and vans with a hood height greater than 40 inches are about 45 percent more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than cars and other vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less and a sloping profile, an IIHS study of nearly 18,000 pedestrian crashes found. However, among vehicles with hood heights between 30 and 40 inches, a blunt, or more vertical, front end increases the risk to pedestrians.
“Some of today’s vehicles are pretty intimidating when you’re passing in front of them in a crosswalk,” IIHS President David Harkey said. “These results tell us our instincts are correct: More aggressive-looking vehicles can indeed do more harm.”
Pedestrian crash deaths have risen 80 percent since hitting their low in 2009. Nearly 7,400 walkers — more than 20 people a day — lost their lives in 2021 after being struck by a vehicle. While speeding and poorly designed infrastructure have helped fuel the increase, many safety advocates have also drawn a connection to the growing portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet made up of pickups and SUVs.
Over the past 30 years, the average U.S. passenger vehicle has gotten about 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller and 1,000 pounds heavier. Many vehicles are more than 40 inches tall at the leading edge of the hood. On some large pickups, the hoods are almost at eye level for many adults.


Why does it always feel like government regulators (e.g. NHTSA) and nonprofits hoping to influence the industry (e.g. IIHS) are a few years behind the curve? Despite the IIHS having obvious ties to the insurance industry, it has done excellent work in terms of improving crash safety standards and addressing things like headlight glare in recent years. But certain vehicle types posing a bigger danger to foot traffic is old ground, something we’ve all been discussing for at least a couple of decades.


“Manufacturers can make vehicles less dangerous to pedestrians by lowering the front end of the hood and angling the grille and hood to create a sloped profile,” said IIHS Senior Research Transportation Engineer Wen Hu, the lead author of the study. “There’s no functional benefit to these massive, blocky fronts.”


The above reads like someone who has just been exposed to automobiles and has zero experience with the industry. Ground clearance is extremely important to those who intend on taking vehicles off road or happen to live in an area where the country has completely given up on road maintenance. Large trucks are also one of the hottest vehicle trends and the industry has absolutely leaned into this because it offers automakers an opportunity to skirt emissions regulations and better margins on every vehicle sold.


Flat-faced SUVs and pickups also look excellent in comparison to the indistinguishable mass of crossovers that have managed to proliferate our roads. Think about the best-looking SUVs or trucks (new or used) you’ve considered buying. Did any of them have rounded fronts and the same ground clearance as a traditional sedan?


Probably not.


Still, the IIHS study is pretty comprehensive and chock-full of data points to help make its case. You’re encouraged to give it a read if you want the finer details and all the statistics. But the summary is that taller vehicles lead to more severe injuries higher on the body than something built to ride a little closer to the ground. The IIHS is clearly trying to attribute changes in vehicle design and American consumer preferences shifting toward large, blocky vehicles to the 80 percent increase in fatalities. It’s undoubtedly correct in that assertion, even if some of us are betting distracted driving has played an even bigger role.


But it is also setting the stage for regulations that will spoil loads of vehicle designs, nobody really wants, and probably could have been implemented thirty years ago. Based on the IIHS report, vehicles with hoods more than 40 inches off the ground at the leading edge and a grille sloped at an angle of 65 degrees (or less) were 45 percent more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities than vehicles with a similar slope and hood heights of 30 inches or less.


That’s basically every full-sized and HD pickup truck that currently exists, creating a big problem for the industry and any regulators eager to see what could be done. My guess is that this study will make the rounds and we’ll get another one a few years later saying the same thing.

[Images: IIHS]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
10 of 87 comments
  • Ajla Ajla on Nov 16, 2023

    The issue I have with blaming vehicle design is this chart. US pedestrian deaths were at their nadir in 2009. Light truck market share was increasing since 1991 and they outsold passenger cars around 2000. Vehicles in general also became much more powerful between 1990 and 2009. But, pedestrian deaths fell during most of this period.

    Then there is a massive increase from 2014 to 2016 and another massive increase from 2020 to 2022 (not in my picture). I don't think vehicle design or preferences changed enough during those periods to account for it.

    • See 4 previous
    • Ajla Ajla on Nov 19, 2023

      I don't doubt the lab results but the correlation doesn't seem very good. Vehicle size has been increasing for 30 years but fatalities decreased for half that time before shooting up.

      Vehicles with taller and blunter front ends became more popular from 1993-2009 but pedestrian deaths fell to the lowest ever. If going from a GMT900 to K2 caused a big increase in fatalities how did going from a Lumina to Envoy make things safer to pedestrians? What is the hood height of something like a 2005 Explorer? It definitely wasn't under 30 inches.


















  • Stuki Moi Stuki Moi on Nov 17, 2023

    As long as vehicles are licensed products to begin with, it makes no sense not to make a best-effort attempt to align licensing fees/costs with the total cost the vehicle imposes on the rest of society. Mass and power (and unsprung mass) increases wear/tear on roads. Mass, height, width, shape.. increases risk to others. Height, width, shape, level of opacity (beltline/tint..) imposes visibility costs. Length and width takes up more space. Emissions imposes costs on lungs.... All of which costs are reasonably easy to eyeball. And varies with where the vehicle is used, or if that's too intrusive, where it's being kept. There is no reason, at all, not to use that as a basis for licensing costs, instead of trivially obvious idiocies like the "corporate average" anything that the morons in charge are now wedded to.

    • See 2 previous
    • Jeff Jeff on Nov 18, 2023

      Stuki--When I lived in Texas over 30 years ago the licensing fee was based on the weight of a vehicle but when I lived in Kentucky and now Arizona the fee is based on the blue book value of a vehicle and that blue book value was usually the retail value. The tax based on the value of the vehicle was much higher than the value on the weight even when driving a vehicle with less value because a minimum fee was added as well to the value.


  • FreedMike Not surprisingly, I have some ideas. What Cadillac needs, I think, is a statement. They don’t really have an identity. They’re trying a statement car with the Celestiq, and while that’s the right idea, it has the wrong styling and a really wrong price tag. So, here’s a first step: instead of a sedan, do a huge, fast, capable and ridiculously smooth and quiet electric touring coupe. If you want an example of what I’m thinking of, check out the magnificent Rolls-Royce Spectre. But this Cadillac coupe would be uniquely American, it’d be named “Eldorado,” and it’d be a lot cheaper than the $450,000 Spectre – call it a buck twenty-five, with a range of bespoke options for prospective buyers that would make each one somewhat unique. Make it 220 inches long, on the same platform as the Celestiq, give it retro ‘60s styling (or you could do a ‘50s or ‘70s throwback, I suppose), and at least 700 horsepower, standard. Why electric? It’s the ultimate throwback to ‘60s powertrains: effortlessly fast, smooth, and quiet, but with a ton more horsepower. It’s the perfect drivetrain for a dignified touring coupe. In fact, I’d skip any mention of environmental responsibility in this car’s marketing – sell it on how it drives, period.  How many would they sell? Not many. But the point of the exercise is to do something that will turn heads and show people what this brand can do.  Second step: give the lineup a mix of electric and gas models, and make Cadillac gas engines bespoke to the brand. If they need to use generic GM engine designs, fine – take those engines and massage them thoroughly into something special to Cadillac, with specific tuning and output. No Cadillac should leave the factory with an engine straight out of a Malibu or a four-banger Silverado. Third step: a complete line-wide interior redo. Stop the cheapness that’s all over the current sedans and crossovers. Just stop it. Use the Lyriq as a blueprint – it’s a big improvement over the current crop and a good first step. I’d also say Cadillac has a good blend of screen-controlled and switch-controlled user interfaces; don’t give into the haptic-touch and wall-to-wall screen thing. (On the subject of Caddy interiors – as much as I bag on the Celestiq, check out the interior on that thing. Wow.)Fourth step: Blackwing All The Things – some gas, others electric. And keep the electric/gas mix so buyers have a choice.Fifth step: be patient. That’s not easy, but if they’re doing a brand reset, it’ll take time. 
  • NJRide So if GM was serious about selling this why no updates for so long? Or make something truly unique instead of something that looked like a downmarket Altima?
  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Next