Oversized trucks and SUVs targeted in the US by new safety proposal

[zohaibahd]

In context: Cars continue to grow bigger even as household sizes have shrunk in the US. Low-slung station wagons and sedans are all but extinct as automakers double down on larger, taller vehicles; SUVs and pickups have swelled from just over half of new sales in 2013 to a staggering four out of every five new cars sold today. Ford, which kicked off automotive mobility with the Model T, doesn't even offer a sedan in its US lineup anymore.

While bigger cars are inherently safer for passengers, they pose a massive risk to pedestrians. Taking this into account, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) introduced a new proposal that could put the brakes on the bigger-is-better craze. For the first time ever, they want to make automakers design cars with "pedestrian protection" in mind, as spelled out in a 280-page rulebook.

The proposal would add head-to-hood impact testing to NHTSA's huge book of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Manufacturers would have to prove their cars can survive colliding with adult- and kid-sized crash test dummies, without causing massive head trauma. If they can't cut it, well, the car would have to be redesigned.

"This proposed rule will ensure that vehicles will be designed to protect those inside and outside from serious injury or death. We will continue to work to make our roads safer for everyone and help protect vulnerable road users," said Sophie Shulman, NHTSA's Deputy Administrator.

NHTSA says these changes would save up to 67 lives annually, which may sound like a small number, considering the sheer number of annual pedestrian deaths in the US. Despite so many driver-assist and self-driving technologies making it into cars in recent years, fatalities spiked 57% from 2013 to 2022, hitting over 7,500 per year. 88% of those were single pedestrian-vehicle incidents.

The culprit is, of course, vehicular gigantism. Between 2013 and 2023, the average vehicle's dimensions grew by 12% in length and over 17% in width, according to the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. Automakers have been answering the demand for larger trucks and SUVs, but pedestrian safety has been just an afterthought.

Research indicates the potential for pedestrian deaths skyrockets as hoods get taller and front ends get stubbier. Vehicles with hood heights over 40 inches and steep front slopes were 44% more likely to kill pedestrians they hit. However, carmakers have mostly turned a deaf ear to these issues since SUVs sell for significantly higher prices despite being just a little pricier to manufacture than small cars.

If approved, NHTSA's updated standards could put some desperately needed guardrails on the vehicular upsize race. For the first time, authorities are addressing the root cause instead of just the symptoms.

Permalink to story:

Oversized trucks and SUVs targeted in the US by new safety proposal

 

[yRaz]

The problem is that fuel efficiency is linked to the gross vehicle weight rating. In order to be able to sell a truck that can do truck things, manufactures are forced to make them massive. The popularity of Kei trucks in the US is evidence of the fact that people don't want or even need trucks this large. If you look at a 90s f250, they are smaller than the f150s of today.

I'm all for increasing fuel efficiency standards, but the economy needs work trucks to get work done. Not everyone wants or needs a massive f250 for the work they're doing. People don't need massive trucks to do landscaping or haul tools around. Fuel and emissions standards have killed the small trucks of the 80s and 90s.

At a certain point, it just comes down to how much energy you need to move something from point A to B. There is a minimum for that, it's why electric trucks lose massive amounts of range when towing. However, to meet fuel efficiency standards, tthey can't put bigger engine in a small chassis. This creates a problem where the amount of fuel to move from A to B is actually increased because inorder to make a platform capable of doing work, they have to make the trucks heavier.

The other ironic part is that they said small trucks don't meet satefy standards. So now we ended up with larger trucks that are more dangerous than the smaller trucks.

EDIT: and just to make a final point on vehicle size, people aren't going to buy a vehicle SMALLER than what they need. There is real demand for midsized SUVs and trucks, but when you price them closer to the big models people are going to go with the mentality of "well, the bigger one is only a few percent more expensive". And since they're almost always financed people usually only see it as an extra $50-100/m

 

[Neatfeatguy]

I liked my 2005 Mazda 3 hatch back. Had more room to hold stuff, especially if the dogs needed to be taken some where and it wasn't big and bulky. Only setback was it only offered FWD which can be problematic in the winter. The other problem with it was that the body sat about 8 inches off the ground and during heavy snowfall that means the car is going nowhere because you just get hung up on the snow. AWD started to become more available over the years in the Mazda coupes so they should handle better in the winter compared to any FWD model.

I know when I went to my CX5 I liked the fact it is AWD. However, in my SUV I still feel like I'm in a small vehicle compared to all the new models that keep coming out and it does concern me when I see these trucks and SUVs that have bumpers that come up past the hood of my car.

 

[VitalyT]

So Americans keep growing in waist, and need more room. What's new?

 

[Uncle Al]

A big part of the problem is the US not allowing so many smaller cars into the country for sale. Just look at all the smaller cars in Japan and other Asian countries. You allow their sale and you would see an entirely new dynamic in this country and the big car makers forced to compete at the same size and price ....

 

[Crabjuice]

The problem is that fuel efficiency is linked to the gross vehicle weight rating. In order to be able to sell a truck that can do truck things, manufactures are forced to make them massive. The popularity of Kei trucks in the US is evidence of the fact that people don't want or even need trucks this large. If you look at a 90s f250, they are smaller than the f150s of today.

I'm all for increasing fuel efficiency standards, but the economy needs work trucks to get work done. Not everyone wants or needs a massive f250 for the work they're doing. People don't need massive trucks to do landscaping or haul tools around. Fuel and emissions standards have killed the small trucks of the 80s and 90s.

At a certain point, it just comes down to how much energy you need to move something from point A to B. There is a minimum for that, it's why electric trucks lose massive amounts of range when towing. However, to meet fuel efficiency standards, tthey can't put bigger engine in a small chassis. This creates a problem where the amount of fuel to move from A to B is actually increased because inorder to make a platform capable of doing work, they have to make the trucks heavier.

The other ironic part is that they said small trucks don't meet satefy standards. So now we ended up with larger trucks that are more dangerous than the smaller trucks.

EDIT: and just to make a final point on vehicle size, people aren't going to buy a vehicle SMALLER than what they need. There is real demand for midsized SUVs and trucks, but when you price them closer to the big models people are going to go with the mentality of "well, the bigger one is only a few percent more expensive". And since they're almost always financed people usually only see it as an extra $50-100/m

100% agree!! I miss those smaller pick-ups!

 

[opckieran]

I’m tired of contending with increasingly gigantic pavement princesses whose drivers are barely competent enough to pilot them. It’s mind-blowing that insurance companies don’t treat them as significantly larger liabilities with commensurately higher premiums. The fact that it also takes more materials to make these larger vehicles surely isn’t helping drive prices down either (nor are the increasing emission and safety standards imposed by the government).

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

I’m tired of contending with increasingly gigantic pavement princesses whose drivers are barely competent enough to pilot them. It’s mind-blowing that insurance companies don’t treat them as significantly larger liabilities with commensurately higher premiums. The fact that it also takes more materials to make these larger vehicles surely isn’t helping drive prices down either (nor are the increasing emission and safety standards imposed by the government).

Insurance companies have run the numbers on these large vehicles, and whatever extra danger they pose to people outside the car gets largely negated by the fact that the occupants of these larger vehicles end being less likely to be severely injured in crashes, so the cost of insuring them is not much different in the long run.

As for manufacturing, large vehicles are only a little more expensive to build than small ones; raw material cost make only a small difference compared to the R&D and factory setup costs, which are the same no matter what the size of the car is. Steel is only like $700 a ton, for example. That's one reason why auto companies love these large trucks & SUVs, since people are willing to pay $10k+ more for a vehicle that maybe costs ~$2k more to make.

 

[opckieran]

Insurance companies have run the numbers on these large vehicles, and whatever extra danger they pose to people outside the car gets largely negated by the fact that the occupants of these larger vehicles end being less likely to be severely injured in crashes, so the cost of insuring them is not much different in the long run.

As for manufacturing, large vehicles are only a little more expensive to build than small ones; raw material cost make only a small difference compared to the R&D and factory setup costs, which are the same no matter what the size of the car is. Steel is only like $700 a ton, for example. That's one reason why auto companies love these large trucks & SUVs, since people are willing to pay $10k+ more for a vehicle that maybe costs ~$2k more to make.

Regardless of what insurance companies’ underwriters and statisticians say, it’s the state insurance commissioners who ultimately have the final say in what should be insured (in terms of liability limits, insurance products and optional riders, as well as what should be penalized and flat-out forbidden in terms of what/who should be insured), and who also have a large amount of sway in terms of how much those components should cost.


The sad truth is, wrongful death settlements tend to be cheaper for insurance companies to pay out than a lifetime of medical expenditures including but not limited to expensive hospital stays, emergency surgeries, physical therapy, medications, medical equipment such as wheelchairs, prosthetics, and let’s not forget emotional damage or quality of life impacts either. Those payouts can easily cost an order of magnitude more than a wrongful death (let’s also remember that policy limits can and are regularly easily overridden by a judge or jury as long as there is a decent lawyer in play).


And it’s not just materials, it’s shipping and handling, the space requirements both in transit and in use, the increased weight causing accelerated wear on our infrastructure, you name it. You could probably fit 4 Camrys on the same truck space that could take 2 Suburbans.


(Insert mandatory ad-hominem attack here)

 

[toooooot]

Is it just me, or it seems just an attempt to force people to drive smaller cars?
Your car does not pass the test, you cannot buy it.
But no worries, customers get these more expensive vehicles that passed the test
because they cost more, therefore the manufacturer simply included additional work in the price.
Go ahead, keep driving a large car, if you have money, of course.

 

[kiwigraeme]

They are going to need all the safety features you can stuff into them,
Can you see the 3 year old just in front, no
Actual Truck drivers are mostly hyperaware of their, dangers , low visibility around the truck and trailer, needed to go wide at corners etc

Many cities in USA are huge grids with lights , but on suburban streets really annoying a dump truck SUV parked close to corner as can't see oncoming traffic.
Same for that turning circle I mentioned when stopped and needing to turn especially if they want to U turn they park wide, so you turning the other way can't even see oncoming straight going traffic, till they move off or you again poke your nose way out

Those vehicles wouldn't even survive in some old european cities , too wide for narrow streets , can't fit into a parking space

As pointed out above the consequences of not well thought out rules.
One simple way is charge them more road usage charges, Trucks do more damage to the roads

Maybe few american readers here have had a small car - yank tanks and all Chevy impalas with huge fins ands and soft suspension . But maybe had a motorbike. Those bikes and small cars had their own freedoms, Zippy quick, great visibility . 6 foot plus high monstrosities are stupid for city/town living, I get why people buy them, plus they are great on family road trips .
Probably the only knee work some Americans get climbing into one. What's funny when visiting Moab , Joshua tree, out of way places all the adventurous outdoor types were more likely to Subaru outback or what ever it was called

 

[Theinsanegamer]

The problem is that fuel efficiency is linked to the gross vehicle weight rating. In order to be able to sell a truck that can do truck things, manufactures are forced to make them massive. The popularity of Kei trucks in the US is evidence of the fact that people don't want or even need trucks this large. If you look at a 90s f250, they are smaller than the f150s of today.

I'm all for increasing fuel efficiency standards, but the economy needs work trucks to get work done. Not everyone wants or needs a massive f250 for the work they're doing. People don't need massive trucks to do landscaping or haul tools around. Fuel and emissions standards have killed the small trucks of the 80s and 90s.

At a certain point, it just comes down to how much energy you need to move something from point A to B. There is a minimum for that, it's why electric trucks lose massive amounts of range when towing. However, to meet fuel efficiency standards, tthey can't put bigger engine in a small chassis. This creates a problem where the amount of fuel to move from A to B is actually increased because inorder to make a platform capable of doing work, they have to make the trucks heavier.

The other ironic part is that they said small trucks don't meet satefy standards. So now we ended up with larger trucks that are more dangerous than the smaller trucks.

EDIT: and just to make a final point on vehicle size, people aren't going to buy a vehicle SMALLER than what they need. There is real demand for midsized SUVs and trucks, but when you price them closer to the big models people are going to go with the mentality of "well, the bigger one is only a few percent more expensive". And since they're almost always financed people usually only see it as an extra $50-100/m

As the owner of a 91 F-250 and a 2018 F-150, no, they were not smaller. Stop the cap.

Both are 80" wide, and both are within 4" of each other for the same bed/cab config. Only the new one is taller. Thats it.

This misinformation needs to die.

Is it just me, or it seems just an attempt to force people to drive smaller cars?
Your car does not pass the test, you cannot sell it.
But no worries, customers get these more expensive vehicles that passed the test
because they cost more, therefore the manufacturer simply included additional work in the price.
Go ahead, keep driving a large car, if you have money, of course.

It's just the government reacting to their own incompetence. They destroyed the small truck chasing ridiculous "efficiency and emission" rules that said a 4 banger ranger was bad but a V10 f-250 was fine, and now are stuck with everyone driving boats. Rather then fix that they now want to make it even harder to make the boats, because working for the consumer? Common sense? What are those?

A big part of the problem is the US not allowing so many smaller cars into the country for sale. Just look at all the smaller cars in Japan and other Asian countries. You allow their sale and you would see an entirely new dynamic in this country and the big car makers forced to compete at the same size and price ....

Aside from protectionism, america is such a sue happy state that those small cars would never work. They dont pass safety regs and unlike motorcycles, the government and people in general seem unwilling to accept that driving cars is inherently a dangerous activity, and sometimes bad things will happen. Nope, cars need to be fluffy so you can slam into a wall at 90 MPH and be just fine.

Hence all the giant cars.

 

[Gars]

Bigger is not always better, most the times its the opposite

 

[Endymio]

Next up: the NHTSA requires airplane manufacturers to redesign jet engines so that humans have a 50% or better chance of survival upon being sucked into one.

 

[p51d007]

A big part of the problem is the US not allowing so many smaller cars into the country for sale. Just look at all the smaller cars in Japan and other Asian countries. You allow their sale and you would see an entirely new dynamic in this country and the big car makers forced to compete at the same size and price ....

The last time that happened was in the 70's when the "oil crisis" came around. Gas in the U.S. went from around 20-25 cents to around 75 cents to a dollar a gallon. Muscle cars started to disappear, regular cars with a trunk long enough to fit a few kids sneaking into a drive in movie theater (I promise I never did that! wink wink), and Japan started importing small calls with better gas mileage. Most were junk but people bought them.

 

[scavengerspc]

Personally, I won't be truly happy until American highways are filled with these:

 

[Nictron]

Man, to me this is *****ic, the question should be why do pedestrians get hit?

1) Pedestrians under influence
2) Driver distraction
3) Response latency of the driver or vehicle

None of these are mentioned at all.

 

[mailpup]

Man, to me this is *****ic, the question should be why do pedestrians get hit?

1) Pedestrians under influence
2) Driver distraction
3) Response latency of the driver or vehicle

None of these are mentioned at all.

4) Pedestrians fail to look out for vehicles while crossing the street. So simple, yet effective.

It might not solve the problem completely but it would help a lot.

 

[yRaz]

As the owner of a 91 F-250 and a 2018 F-150, no, they were not smaller. Stop the cap.

Both are 80" wide, and both are within 4" of each other for the same bed/cab config. Only the new one is taller. Thats it.

This misinformation needs to die.

The new f150s are bigger than the old 90s ford's. I have a 98 f250 with the 6.8 in it. The f150s have bigger wheels, are taller and the spacing between top of the wheels and the wheel wells. maybe it's because so many new f150s come with "packages" that include a lift AND larger wheels, but it feels like the hood of these new small trucks come close to the roof of old work trucks.

If you look at the first generation of f150s that didn't share the same platform with the "super duty" platform, they were significantly smaller. Before Ford separated the platform, the only real difference between the f150 and the f250/350/ was the springs for carrying capacity.

And dont even get me started on how ****ing useless anything under an 8ft bed is. It's a TRUCK. The reason that 8foot is such a standard size for materials is that real trucks, ie, work trucks, were expected to have 8ft beds for decades. Now it's hard to reach over the sidewall of the beds to get stuff out towards the front. I'm well over 6'with my boots on and I usually have to climb up on the tire to get things out of the bed instead of just reaching over.

Modern trucks are miserable to work out of.

 

[passingposeidon]

The problem is that fuel efficiency is linked to the gross vehicle weight rating. In order to be able to sell a truck that can do truck things, manufactures are forced to make them massive. The popularity of Kei trucks in the US is evidence of the fact that people don't want or even need trucks this large. If you look at a 90s f250, they are smaller than the f150s of today.

I'm all for increasing fuel efficiency standards, but the economy needs work trucks to get work done. Not everyone wants or needs a massive f250 for the work they're doing. People don't need massive trucks to do landscaping or haul tools around. Fuel and emissions standards have killed the small trucks of the 80s and 90s.

At a certain point, it just comes down to how much energy you need to move something from point A to B. There is a minimum for that, it's why electric trucks lose massive amounts of range when towing. However, to meet fuel efficiency standards, tthey can't put bigger engine in a small chassis. This creates a problem where the amount of fuel to move from A to B is actually increased because inorder to make a platform capable of doing work, they have to make the trucks heavier.

The other ironic part is that they said small trucks don't meet satefy standards. So now we ended up with larger trucks that are more dangerous than the smaller trucks.

EDIT: and just to make a final point on vehicle size, people aren't going to buy a vehicle SMALLER than what they need. There is real demand for midsized SUVs and trucks, but when you price them closer to the big models people are going to go with the mentality of "well, the bigger one is only a few percent more expensive". And since they're almost always financed people usually only see it as an extra $50-100/m

Sounds like the guidelines need a rewrite, to clean this mess up. Manufacturers should be rewarded for making smaller vehicles more powerful (better power to weight), rather than having to increase weight arbitrarily in order to hit certain goals.

 

[passingposeidon]

Man, to me this is *****ic, the question should be why do pedestrians get hit?

1) Pedestrians under influence
2) Driver distraction
3) Response latency of the driver or vehicle

None of these are mentioned at all.

Those things are all beyond the scope of these guidelines which are about vehicle design. I don't see how its pathetic at all, that there are multiple approaches to solving a problem. That's just how the world works. And you don't use the existence of one problem, as an excuse to not talk about another contributing factor. As a society we can do more than one thing at once.

 

[Endymio]

Sounds like the guidelines need a rewrite, to clean this mess up.

A textbook example of unintended side effects in government market intervention ... and even more reason for incompetent federal bureaucrats to stop trying to dictate design policies to engineers.

you don't use the existence of one problem, as an excuse to not talk about another contributing factor.

OK, let's talk 'contributing factors'. Research has confirmed that the rise of EV sales will increase pedestrian deaths far more than the "69 lives saved" through this initiative. EVs are heavier and more massive. But more importantly, they lack the engine noise of ICE vehicles, which means they're less likely to be noticed by pedestrians. Should we ban EVs? Or -- possibly worse -- attach loud noisemakers to them, so they create as much or more noise pollution as ICE vehicles?

The point here is basic physics. You can't design a vehicle to "safely" strike a pedestrian at high speeds. The problem should be addressed directly: why are pedestrians in the path of traffic in the first place? And how do we reduce that?

 

[mbk34]

Why do Americans actually favour trucks? they seem like a ridiculous mode of transport. I can understand it if you're wildly overweight but then would you be fit enough to put anything in the back? Do drivers ever put stuff in the back? I could see justification if you live on a ranch at the end of an unpaved road in Alaska but I'm guessing most don't. Is it some strange way of trying to prove virility?

 

[Endymio]

Why do Americans actually favour trucks? they seem like a ridiculous mode of transport ... Is it some strange way of trying to prove virility?

Admittedly when you live in a 50 sq. meter European apartment with a "yard" the size of three postage stamps, a truck may not seem too useful, but when you have a 7,000 sq. foot home on 6 acres, the situation is a bit different.

Having grown up in the former USSR, I remember once trying to carry a replacement kitchen cabinet through the subway system. A truck is the third of my three vehicles, but -- remembering that experience -- I intend to keep it, thanks.

 

[yRaz]

Why do Americans actually favour trucks? they seem like a ridiculous mode of transport. I can understand it if you're wildly overweight but then would you be fit enough to put anything in the back? Do drivers ever put stuff in the back? I could see justification if you live on a ranch at the end of an unpaved road in Alaska but I'm guessing most don't. Is it some strange way of trying to prove virility?

For a long time, as in starting early in consumers being able to afford vehicles, roads were bad and trucks were better on those roads. The trucks design gave them better clearance and traction on unpaved roads. Since the US is so large, many people who were buying a vehicle needed a truck and a car would be useless. This is no longer the case, but the ideology was passed down to future generations. This is ESSPECIALLY true in "country" settings. As Europe's adoption was delayed a bit, by the time cars hit the mass market the roads were better and cars were more capable. So the truck good car bad ideology never hit the rest of the world the same way that it hit the US.

My 2004 honda CRV is more capable than a truck was at the dawn of mass market automobiles but people don't think that way