The cause was easy enough to identify: Data parsed by Kuhls and her colleagues showed that drivers were speeding more, on highways and on surface streets, and plowing through intersections with an alarming frequency. Conversely, seatbelt use was down, resulting in thousands of injuries to unrestrained drivers and passengers. After a decade of steady decline, intoxicated-driving arrests had rebounded to near historic highs.

… The relationship between car size and injury rates is still being studied, but early research on the American appetite for horizon-blotting machinery points in precisely the direction you’d expect: The bigger the vehicle, the less visibility it affords, and the more destruction it can wreak.

  • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You don’t need to make the cars bigger to meet fuel economy requirements; it’s a decision by vehicle makers to make them bigger rather than take advantage of the more efficient engine designs available to produce a vehicle which uses less fuel.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s partly that, but the other aspect is the absurd “light truck” exemption where SUVs and pickup trucks have less stringent emissions standards. So there is less incentive to go the downsizing route, and instead make bigger and bigger cars because if you’re a car company, you make more money per vehicle this way.

    • Steve
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s kind of the other way of saying the same thing.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, it’s about fleet distribution, and classification.