Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians

Have you ever lived somewhere where you can walk to get lunch for example?

I really detest having to get into my car and drive 15 minutes each way (30 minutes round trip) to do any errand.

Anecdotes are anecdotes. The fact is everyone loves their own preferences, because that's what preferences are.

When I lived in the suburbs it took me 28 minutes to drive to the grocery store. When I lived in a city it was a 4 minute bike ride to two different grocery stores.

And that's a very privileged position to take that makes you incredibly reliant on the benevolence of the trillion dollar oil gas, auto and insurance industry that have to pay constant microtransactions to play. It sucks for pretty much everyone else who isn't as privileged or wanting to be a pay pig for the multi-billionaires in comparison to being able to walk, bike and hop on a train.

The car industry has been very very successful with equating driving with freedom though which makes this a hard conversation to have with people.

It can't possibly be a "hard conversation to have" because people disagree with you, huh? It has to be that the car companies brainwashed them?

I see this everywhere on social media. "I have an opinion, my opinion is the right one, and if you disagree with me, you didn't actually come to an independent conclusion, you were just brainwashed or had an emotional response."

Fuck that I love driving, it's one of my favourite hobbies. I can and do drive for hours, 26 hours is about my max.

With my truck I know I can handle anything on the way and be self reliant. I can take lots of water. I can take almost all my tool for any repairs on the road. I can sleep in it. I can traverse off road terrain with the large off road tires. The 4wd can help with icy road conditions. I have a winch to self recover or help others in trouble. The large and bright lights and higher sitting position give good visibility of the road.

These things are popular because they engender self reliance which contributes to practicality and convenience for the driver.

Not everyone has a boring daily commute to a cubicle job in their tiny ev that has 100km range and coming home to put on nature videos while they run on their treadmill. Stop trying to make everyone fit into the same box as you

Both things can be true though. I agree that there's unmet demand in urban centers, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a massive revolt if laws and regulations made the suburban lifestyle much harder or more expensive.

There are places that have torn down highways and deliberately made a hundred million people’s lives so difficult they are compelled to move? In the name of transportation efficiency?

It’s not that you can’t achieve the goal, it’s that you can’t force people into it by making their daily lives worse. Or at least that seems like that would be the least effective political strategy.

You need to think a few more steps ahead. Other politicians will see that political dead body and stop doing that, and might start doing or stopping things that would've improved things if the status quo hadn't been negatively effected.

I'm sure "Truck speed limit 60 [mph]" is fairly common in the USA, so it's easy to see that could be extended to other vehicles larger than cars.

Sounds like a waste of human potential

So do pedestrian fatalities.

1. reducing speed can improve throughput when congestion is happening

2. nobody should be speeding, especially not in a extra large and heavy vehicle

“Mixed use” and “farm” also needs to also die.

Have you ever lived in a rural area?

This makes absolutely no sense at all and flies in the face of all the statistics pointed out in the article.

Lower hood-lines save lives. You don't need a tall crumple zone.

Ridiculous. No jurisdiction requires > 40 inches (100cm) hoodlines.

Crumple zone and soft tissue do not really seem to go together. When a car hits a person, the person _is_ the crumple zone.

On some global-market cars that had previously very low hoods, yes. But it's not why US market SUVs have high hoods.

And where are they more likely to be hit by one? Probably in a denser populated area with heavier traffic. You can’t just wave a magic wand and make all the cars go away.

Regardless, you have to make cities a desirable and affordable place to live for this to work at scale. You can’t just fix it at the transportation infrastructure level.

If I’m looking for affordability, low violent crime, and good schools, I am not looking anywhere in the city where I live. It didn’t used to be this way, but post-covid housing costs are so high that I have to go 40+ minutes out of the city to get those things. If you don’t change that, many people with families are just going to deal with traffic being worse rather than moving into the city.

This used to be feasible where I’m at, but housing prices are too high now. Spending $3k a month on a mortgage isn’t realistic for the vast majority of people.

you can definitely have nice affordable housing near work without making commuting miserable, and that's the only way to get people to not commute

What about industry? Do you want megabuildings like they have in Taiwan, where the company owns the whole building with grocery stores, laundry, apartments, and a factory all in the same building?

How's the air quality in cities where they do that?

Wrong. Most people used to live in rural zones. Suburbs are just an attempt to replicate this. Maybe not the best way of trying that, but the way that was possible after industrialization moved most people to giant cities.

> "a rat cage in a soviet urban project", "nightmare of living on Gotham", "giant, nightmarish big cities"

Your words show a huge amount of bias and are pretty uninformed by actual history.

So did the ones that they were replying to, making it clear that they believed everything about suburbs is bad.

The idea that suburbs are better for families is betrayed by the fact that those suburbs are a pretty recent invention and the fact that housing in cities has much higher demand than suburbs.

There are a LOT of people that have no urge to live in a city. And, in fact, there's a lot of people that live in cities because that's where the jobs they want are (I doubt the same is true of people living in the suburbs).

you seem to live in a very templated suburb

I'm actually on the side of a small mountain, can't see my neighbours through the thick forest around me. It's anything but a templated suburb here.

The town is just a few minutes' drive away, though, with most of the common modern amenities one could want. If I want to go shopping at Costco that's a 30 minute drive away on the freeway to the neighbouring city.

Incidentally, the "cookie cutter" stores are all quite distinguishable. The people around here are all wonderful, so they give each store their own little identity and flair.

You're arguing against urban policies in cities from the point of view of rural areas.

Keep in mind that a "city" can be more rural than most people realize.

For example, the town that's 5 minutes' drive away is legally designated as a city (it's the county seat, in fact) despite the population being just under 40,000 and the surroundings being as rural as it gets. In terms of physical size, I can drive across the entire city in 5 to 10 minutes assuming I don't get stopped by traffic lights.

A neighbouring city in the same county, and I believe it's the second-most populace city in the county, has a population of just over 2,000 and can be driven through in less than a minute. Yes, it's legally designated as a city.

A heavier vehicle is only safer in a crash when crashing into a smaller object. All you're doing is increasing your own safety at the cost of everyone else's.

Yes, and I have no qualms about that fact. We all take steps to better our own place in life, sometimes at the cost of others. I'm doing it to someone, and someone's doing it to me, no big deal.

It's not like bigger and heavier cars are restricted only to the wealthy either, so you can't even argue this is wealth inequality.

huge amounts of money are taken from those cities to fund the suburbs.

Isn't this just a more crude representation of "we live in a society"? In my city I pay a tax that allows people to have child day care despite being childless. I pay a tax that funds local schools despite not attending one and not having a kid. I pay a tax that goes to make agricultural products cheaper. I pay a tax that subsidizes medical care. Would you object to those as well, or are those okay? Additionally, many of the things you've described as subsidizing suburbsalsosubsidize cities. HUD would need to exist even if we lived in dense urban areas. USDA, the US Department of Agriculture, would still need to issue loans to farmers unless you believe that only massive farm operations should exist, and grants still fuel much of city development:https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/hu....

In my view cities, suburbs, and rural areas are an intertwined ecosystem that cannot exist without each other. Try to remove one or expand one too much without the other and bad things happen. This argument that cities subsidize everybody else ignores that cities are largely reliant on goods, services, and workers from outside of said city.

Those laws exist, but if it is a legitimate accident, and the person doesn't have a criminal history otherwise it is very likely that they walk away without any jail time.

How often do those charges get used?

For example:https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/driver-killed-south-la-si...

A driver, allegedly watching youtube, runs over and kills 2 children of 12 and 14 at a crosswalk. But they were only charged with the lesser vehicular manslaughter, not felony vehicular manslaughter.

Studies show that the length of sentence has little impact on criminal behaviour.

Is the purpose of punishment only to deter criminal behavior? How about expressing social condemnation for the committed criminal act, strengthening citizens' trust in the legal order based on the rule of law, increasing awareness of the danger of committing criminal acts and of the fairness of punishment, and enabling the perpetrator to rejoin the society.

60 days of community service means that most people won't think much about driving attentively. To put it very cynically, if I didn't care for people around me, 60 days of community service sounds like an OK forced retreat. However, we shouldn't rely on people's conscience to deter manslaughter, and instead have a dual-pronged approach - appeal to both people's conscience and fear of having to spend time in prison.

Link to studies? That is a bold claim.

If everybody was guaranteed to get 60 days of community service every time they did something that could have killed a pedestrian then the behaviour would drop right off.

This would be fantastic

Studies show that the length of sentence has little impact on criminal behaviour.

Does that study apply to this situation? Vehicular manslaughter is not premeditated. There are cases of drunk speeding drivers getting 10 days for killing someone:https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170126/old-town/ryne-san-h...Drivers would be more careful if they knew of cases where a driver got 15 years in prison for their negligence.

Which has no impact on the punitive revenge seeking approaches of American institutions as a reflection of American citizens demands

Better yet, include pedestrian safety in NHTSA vehicle safety ranking (it was proposed in 2020 apparently)

I think some people do consider it (although possibly from the wrong angle and not very deeply) otherwise you wouldn't see stuff like massively lifted trucks, who's purpose is to look "aggressive" and "scary" to make the person inside feel better about themself.

You're on to something there - apply the penalties to manufacturers.

Doesn't matter how they estimate their chances. What matters is that if the penalty is significantly higher - then insurance will go up and there will be incentive to buy cars safer for pedestrians.

If harsher penalties were adopted only in the case of killing or injuring someone, perhaps not, but if we made fines for all moving violations proportional to vehicle weight, people might suddenly be more thoughtful.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/driver-hit...

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a30607392/group-ride-florida-...

https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/crime/2019/04/16/no-c...

etc etc etc

car is crap in places with poor roads and snow

My FWD Volvo Station wagon would like a word with you

There are (or were) plenty of small cars that did great off road that are no longer sold in the US, if I was looking for a new car and could buy one in the US I'd consider something like the Sizuki IGNIS where it's got 4WD and can hold people comfortably.

but a car is crap in places with poor roads and snow.

That's a false dichotomy. 4x4 cars often do better on poor roads and snow, lower center of gravity is better if you don't need ground clearance, and weight distribution of a pickup isn't great for snow etc. unloaded. Of course this assuming actual roads, not off-road.

The whole 4x4 truck things is even more complicated - good off-road performance and good freeway performance are in many ways at cross purposes.

The real intrinsic value of a pickup is open air bed space (easier access than a van, but less protected), I don't mean they don't do other things well, just that is what the form factor gets you. The way the market developed they have also turned into the vehicle of choice for towing, but that's not intrinsic, just useful. Outside of 5th wheels, I suppose, where you need the platform. That isn't most towing in that size.

The % of light pickups is more a regulatory incentive and marketing phenomena than a reflection of real utility.

Why should any vehicles be treated differently? Surely all should be expected to be safe.

A large 4x4 truck is a menace in a dense city, but a car is crap in places with poor roads and snow. Both are common.

Then forbid trucks where the roads are good and where there is no snow.

You just need to make them look like Iveco Daily, VW Transporter or other similar european dropside trucks, which make more sense for businesses and no one will buy them for their attractiveness.

A large 4x4 truck is a menace in a dense city, but a car is crap in places with poor roads and snow. Both are common.

As someone who grew up in Colorado and now lives in Canada, a large 4x4 truck is a menace on poor roads and snow as well.

Trucks are heavy, with poorly distributed weight, and are harder to control in snow if they have a true (locked center diff) 4x4 system. A Subaru with snow tires is the stereotypical mountain car for a reason. If I have to drive an hour through a blizzard I'll take the car if given the choice

If you need a truck, you need a truck, but there should be much stronger limits on what is CAFE exempt, and what you can use a CAFE exempt vehicle for. Perhaps since the exemption is intended to avoid hurting commercial interests, CAFE exempt vehicles should require a commercial license and insurance.

California already treats every vehicle with a bed as commercial (& thus weight fee), very rare exceptions. Although there are subgroups within that rightfully based on vehicle weight.

In the usa we live in a largely lawless society I don't know who is gonna enforce something like that when we barely go after armed teen carjackers.

This won't work because the people with the greatest need also have the least ability to pay. It would only make sense if you include a measure of how urban the area is.

However, the government screwed up the scaling factor and it basically became impossible to build a small truck

Ford left the third generation Ranger to rot for nearly 15 years because people kept choosing the ever-increasing-in-size F-150. Chevy discontined the S10 back in 2004 in favor of the larger Colorado.

Customer preferences were already clear.

People are stupid, and tastes can be manufactured. There's nothing set in stone in human psychology that Americans need an SUV. People are only buying because the current incentive structures, convoluted and interwoven as they are, converge in SUVs and trucks as the current default.

It's slightly different than that. The light truck sales essentially pay for all of the other regulations the politicians want. They regulate all other vehicles into unprofitability, but avoid destroying the manufacturers by allowing them to make all their money on huge "light" trucks.

If they didn't have this exception, they wouldn't be able to enact all the other regulations without killing the auto industry.

What you said, but I'm considering carrying a rock now. Drivers seem to think I'm disposable for committing the crime of walking somewhere. Middle fingers are only so memorable, but that ding in the paint or a window might help them remember I have the right to not be hit in a crosswalk.

I walk far far far more than I drive. My wife and I share one car and she almost always has it. I walk and pick my kids up from school every day and to stores, etc.

All this to say: I don’t mind waiting for traffic to pass and I find your aggressive style to be distasteful, dangerous and annoying. That said, I will still stop for you 10 feet away and smile as I think of terrible words in my head.

I'm sure this works in some places, but if you try this somewhere like Philadelphia or New York (or indeed most of the USA) you'd be "asserting yourself" from the hospital.

Absolutely, where I live pedestrians have right of way at all intersections, which includes some pretty busy wide roads the drivers think they own. When I'm crossing I don't stop at the curb and wait for it to clear, I'll enter the first safe lane, usually the parking lane.

Sometimes I'll do a big exaggerated step showing drivers that I do not intended to stop, unless they choose to kill me. I won't actually step into a lane when a driver might not have seen me so I feel safe doing it, but it breaks drivers expectations that they own the road.

I leave just enough time to not be hit by the vehicle

We need laws (and enforcement) that make it so that taking risks with pedestrian safety can be ticketed (or other consequences).

I've had experiences recently (in TX) of people forcing my action to avoid being hit. Had someone essentially play "chicken" with me where they were actively accelerating through a crosswalk timing it just so that we do not intersect. (but they were increasing velocity in such a way that if my trajectory were to change, such as tripping, stooping to pick up something I dropped etc, I'd be hit hard).

And many will say "Call the police" but the fact is in a large number of metros (including Austin and others in Texas), the police do not respond to much if anything. A lack of enforcement and consequences (on behalf of the perpetrator) is equivalent to a lack of laws entirely.

Your job as a driver is to see me. I'll go ahead and start crossing with enough time to stop if you keep ignoring me, and one of two things will happen: either you'll see me and brake, or you won't see me and I will stop, but it'll be clear to all involved that what just happened is wrong. This way, you know you're being an inattentive dick by not seeing me in time, and I'll stay safe and alive.

These kinds of handy one-liners and behaviour patterns are a big part of the problem. I shouldn't have to make eye contact with you, relying on you being semi-awake and not having illegal levels of windshield tint. Screw that, pay attention.

Literally what I was told in driving school, and as a kid in school before.

Practically yes, in the sense that not getting run over is a high priority. However, we should repeat that it is the drivers’ responsibility to be alert. That pedestrians have to take this sort of measure is a general failure on the part of our driving culture.

That doesn't work anymore. Due to steeply sloped windshields and tinted windows, a pedestrian usually will only see a reflection of the bright sky, not the driver.

This is difficult sometimes due to the extreme window tints many people have, especially in warmer climates.

Buddy if the gun situation around here didn’t convey America’s stance on child safety I don’t know what will.

Sweden actually has driving tests that test the participants though.

We're Free(TM) here. Autonomous roaming kinder will get you a visit from Child Protective Services.

Major dense metros with viable transit are more immune to this, middle schoolers aren't unheard of but ridesharing probably has raised the threat level.

In much of the US it is expected that kids will be driven everywhere. Walking is often dangerous.

It's disturbing.

Whatever you do, stay off the sidewalk.

Yes! If I can not use traffic light I will do that. Because green traffic light is just a signal and not ten feet thick concrete wall.

They call that "dead right" - when you had the right of way, and you're still dead. I don't really feel that kind of need to assert my right...

Seriously. That's how I've always described it. I drive a large vehicle. You will lose. Get out of the way. Use common sense and move. I like that. I'm going to put that on my car: "Yield To Gross Tonnage". Good shit.

That's a good one. See also: "'He had his turn signal on' won't look good on your tombstone."

Learned this one from an old biker: The Right of Weight will always win.

if only we could hunt

And the majority of them have been hunted to near extinction, in some cases not even because they're particularly dangerous, just because it's fun to shoot things. One person indeed stands no chance against such a beast, but that's why it's always a group of several people that takes the job on, and they come armed, and with a plan, and they don't stop until it's dead.

People are very good at this, possibly too good, which I assume is why there are laws against doing this to drivers.

Last I heard this is illegal -- yet here in SoCal it's pretty much fallen into the "unenforced" bin, along with unmuffled exhausts.

Slowing down traffic via traffic calming does wonders for pedestrian safety. When cars are moving slowly, drivers have more opportunity to notice pedestrians and crashes are less likely to cause serious injury or to be fatal.

One other option there is to add raised crosswalks or a raised intersection, depending on the situation. That physically slows down cars as they enter the space where pedestrians may be.

Bollards, intersection daylighting, narrower streets, leading crossibg signals, raised cross walks, no right on red, fewer unrestricted left turns. Just a handful of things that can be done to make drivers drive in a safer manner without explicit coercion.

I was pretty hopeful when Musk started talking about car tunnels.

Electic minivan costs over 100k, while tesla model y around 40…

Because it makes them look uncool. See how Mazda discontinued the 5 for a bunch of CUVs that fit less stuff in the same footprint. Somehow a lifted compact car with slats for windows is cooler to the average person.

Nope.

My SUV has the capability of hauling all the people and their stuff I regularly have to while ALSO towing a fully loaded horse or stock trailer.

I skip the missing pickup truck bed by using a trailer (that I can tow with our old car too).

I fully recognize its size and how if I didn't have a farm it would be 100% unnecessary.

More people at more weight for many minivans. My vehicle is the size I need for my needs. I don't need to hold 8. Why do I want to add another 1,000lbs to lug around. Your answer is worse for the environment than an SUV.

Sienna/Odyssey/Pacifica/Sedona cover this segment.

Exactly. This exact combo used to be captured by a trailer.

I don’t know why, North America just doesn’t “do” trailers. It’s pervasive—many vehicles that are rated to tow a pretty reasonable amount in other countries (UK, Australia) say not to tow with them in Canada and the US.

My wife’s car is rated to tow 1,650 lbs unbraked… in Australia.

In North America, it’s rated “No.”.

Everyone here thinks towing == big truck, and I can see why they would think that. When I moved to an acreage everyone (including my wife) told me it was time to sell the “fun” car and buy a truck.

Instead I spent $500 on a 5x10 utility trailer.

I regularly tow that 5x10 utility trailer… with a Subaru WRX sports sedan. The thing weighs 3,300 lbs, has something like 280HP and 260ftlb peak torque, massive brake rotors, etc. At a 10% tongue weight, I can hit nearly 3000lbs on the rear end.

It accelerates and brakes like there isn’t even anything there. The only time I noticed any real difference was when I had ~2500lbs on there between the trailer and some concrete patio blocks. I had to downshift from 6th to 5th going up a steep incline to maintain a bit over 60mph.

I can fit a full 4x8 sheet of plywood or a stack of 8’ lumber in there without it hanging out the back (unlike most trucks). My car gets notoriously bad mileage, yet I still get better fuel economy towing the trailer than my wife’s crossover does carrying two adults. And when I’m done I take the trailer off and get sedan fuel economy.

Oh, and it can very comfortably carry four adults while doing this (five if someone wants to cuddle up in that middle seat). Rear seat will fit three car seats at once if your life has taken that sort of turn.

In the _very_ rare situation that that’s not enough… I can go rent something.

I have way more respect for people that can at least admit “I’m going to pay a $40k premium and burn twice as much gas because I want to.” rather than try to justify it as “I need to haul something twice a year and U-Haul doesn’t exist.” or “Yeah, but I need it for the snow.”. (That’s a whole separate rant, but snow tires people. I’ve used my car to pull Jeeps out of the ditch because they thought 4wd + mudding tires was a good winter setup.)

That went a little off the rails but… yes, trailers are the answer you’re looking for.

Even then, SUVs and pickup trucks are poor choices for off-roading, due to being extremely heavy and having long wheelbases. For driving on dirt roads, they're fine, but then so is a station wagon.

2023 saw more than 70% of the lower 48 states covered in snow. If you include Alaska, the largest state, it’ll increase a bit more.

updates for like 5/6 years

But its cracked by Pegasus and Apple cannot stop them.

Updates where your data is being sent to the Apple homebase isnt a pro-consumer feature. Maybe Apple really is trying to stop Pegasus, but as a consumer, merely trying doesn't count. (Maybe it does if you are trying to rationalize your Veblen Good)

I don't like companies that fool people into thinking they buy Status.

That sounds like the morally and ethically correct stance to take. They continue to look poor, but vein as well.

Several friends and colleagues in Denmark have avoided driving in North America because the available cars were so huge.

A colleague and I cancelled a rental for a work trip (took taxies instead) as the only vehicle they had was some huge pickup, which neither of us were willing to drive.

I think it's far more common for Europeans to be put off from driving huge American vehicles than attracted to it.

If you want a violent contrast, cycling is out there. Most cars feel like submarines after riding a bike.

Emerging markets actually have newer roads in comparison to developed markets.

Emerging markets don't buy small cars as a conscientious environmental decision, they buy them because it fits their budget. Small cars cost less than large cars to buy and run.

Agree with you there. The proposed solution? All lane freeway tollshttps://www.ktvu.com/news/renewed-push-for-all-lane-freeway-...

A car’s carbon footprint should also measure the wear and tear it puts on infrastructure. Plus, tire manufacturing is also petrol-rich. Last time I read, Model 3s go through tires very quickly. If that’s the case, EVs aren’t always the best solution.

My humble Prius sips gas, aerodynamically cuts through wind, and is overall lightweight but a giant Lucid Air, Tesla Model X, or Rivian is considered ‘greener.’ It’s hip to look like you’re saving the world but really, it’s greenwashing.

I’ve driven compact cars all my life. Uneven pavement, potholes, dried/crusted/rocky asphalt affects my car more than someone with a larger sedan.

If that’s the case, heavy SUVs and heavy EVs should be taxed for causing heavier damages to roads.

EVs bypass the gas tax so I guess there’s that to look into.

If you don't have driving abilities you can get a state ID card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU

Interesting intersection that had this problem (now fixed).

His impact will be essentially zero if he's a responsible defensive driver. I've had a license for 30+ years, have driven millions of miles, and have never, not once, been at fault in an accident.

Parent comment embodies the spirit of "me first" almost perfectly, even though it is disguised as some sort of self preservation hack.

There is a whole bunch of factors that make the the risk of someone crashing into me is much higher than me crashing into them. The first one being that I spend more hours riding my ebike than driving my truck. And before the ebike, I was riding a motorcycle a lot, technically putting myself in a whole shitload of danger.

So overall, I have probably contributed less risk to drivers around me over my hours commuting then they have to me.

This would reduce the gas mileage negating whatever tax savings there were as well as increase maintenance. This would also damage the roads less.

A lot of bridge tolls are by axle count, so there's pressure not to increase those.

What if it was something like crash safety testing, where an outcome (forces on a crash test dummy) is mandated rather than a specific design? You could have something like a visibility requirement (for instance, driver can see the pavement three feet ahead of their front bumper) and then car companies could figure out how to comply with this (lower the height of the vehicle, make a larger windshield, etc).

Ultimately, does it make any difference?

If the 7000lb monster SUV drives over you at 65mph, you're dead.

But if an old 1800lb Honda Civic drives over you at 35mph, you're still dead.

KE = 1/2 mv^2 is the relevant one here.

also these kinds of wheel modifications/styles which essentially turn them into meat grinders

https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/8rjfu4/wheel_spikes...

They picked 2009 because its the minima in the very graph you posted.

F150 is the best selling vehicle in the USA, you have to learn to walk before you run. It's a foot in the door. I think a lot of people of very high green bent don't realize you can't force people in a democracy to do things they don't want. If you go too fast then they will rebel and you get someone like Trump elected who will set it back 20 years.

Not really if the car park is full and other vehicles are obscuring your view. At least being back in you can see a bit better. It's a danger in any type of vehicle.

It's like horses and mountain bikes on shared tracks, they can hear dirt bikes or snowmobiles coming so have plenty of time to move out of the way.

Hmmm hearing impaired definitely at an unfair disadvantage there.

It's not hard to not hit children. If you lose sight of them get on the picks.