The average USA pedestrian fatality rate from 1994-1999 was 5,335/year. Hybrid electric vehicles first showed up in 2000 and looking at 2001-2006, the average rate has been 4,813/year. Nationwide there has been a significant increase in hybrid electric vehicles but the pedestrian fatality averages are lower. In 2006 there were 4,784 pedestrian fatalities. Anyone looking at cause and effect would wonder why hybrids have not caused more pedestrian fatalities.

In California, a state with a large percentage of hybrids, the numbers have been and remain modest for 2002-2006. Only California bicyclists have suffered a significant increase in 2006 but that could be simply people trying to save gas forgetting that on a bicycle they are invisible to traffic.

Hybrid owners tend to be more interested in saving fuel and often drive at slower speeds. If you check various car forums, you can easily find gas-only drivers complaining about "slow Prius" or other hybrid drivers. Speed kills and especially around pedestrians.

Hybrid drivers noticed early on that their cars are often not heard and take extra care in parking lots and places with pedestrians. Putting a noise maker on hybrids encourages the same complacency of today's noisy car drivers who drive as if their engine noise means they have the right-of-way and pedestrians should get out of the way. This simply returns us to the 5,300 pedestrian fatalities per year of the 1990s or today's louder car drivers who assume they will be heard and pedestrians should get out of the way.

There is a serious problem of too many pedestrian and bicyclist accidents per year. But to think 'sound alone' will solve the problem aborts a serious analysis and effective solutions. The last sound you may hear is the faux engine noise of a hybrid driver who believes you will get out of their way . . . like the noisy car drivers of today.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

Bob,

Is there any data on how many accidents involve hybrid vehicles and how many of those involve pedestrians? I would venture to bet that the % involving pedestrians is less than 1% if there even are any.

I could see them wanting to install the device that generates the signal for the blind, as it doesn't make any noise that can be heard with the "naked" ear. It's kind of funny that a politician would actually ask for more "pollution" since they want the vehicles to make noise which is in essence noise pollution.

Hi Dan,

I've started with:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

This database also supports directed queries by state and many other conditions.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

I'm not sure your argument holds up. The fact that there were more pedestrian deaths prior to the introduction of hybrids does not address whether or not hybrids are inherently more dangerous.

First off, pedestrian fatalities may not be the best measure. If we want to use a statistic, we should limit the comparisons to vehicles that are available in both hybrid and gas-only. They have been redesigning SUVs to have a lower impact on children over the last decade what was a significant cause of fatalities previously.

Second, as you pointed out, current hybrid drivers are, well, a different breed. They may very well be safer, but as hybrids become cheaper and more common, we'll start to see a more diverse group driving. At that point, if hybrids do have a more inherent level of danger, it could be a serious problem.

Hi,

I've had a chance to check more of the statistics and found that about half of the pedestrians were legally drunk. Also, about 3/4ths happened not at the intersections. The more I look at the data, including the California data, the less I'm seeing of a 'sound' solved health hazard. The data is different for bicyclists but they are a much smaller portion of the accidents and sound plays a much smaller role in their safety.

If the data isn't there, it is time to step back and look at the real problem. The data says 'faux sound' is a false solution. The blind will still be hit by vehicles regardless of how much noise is generated . . . AS THEY ARE ALREADY TODAY!

So let's do a simple price-performance tradeoff by asking the question:

• Should the money spent on sound announcing traffic lights be better used putting sound making devices on hybrids?

When you have to choose between two solutions, which improves safety most?

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

I don't know about elsewhere, but most pedestrian accidents here happen because of pedestrian error...aka jaywalking, ignoring crossing signs, etc. It seems like we should be enforcing existing laws before creating new ones.

It could very well be that there are many more pedestrian accidents due to hybrids in EV mode while the pedestrian death rate falls dramatically. I would expect most pedestrian hits at typical EV speeds (under 20 miles per hour, and not the max possible 42? miles per hour) to not result in death, even if severe injuries are incurred.

Note that I am against adding noisemakers to EV running vehicles, unless a proven connection can be shown that this would make a real, substantial enhancement to pedestrian safety. The death rate decrease just doesn't demonstrate any conclusive connection.

-- Alan

Honestly, I'd like to see proof of one accident involving a hybrid in EV and the blind, or heck, even a hybrid in EV and a pedestrian before any options for "belling the cat" are put on the table.

First 4WD Hypermiler

Have you read the FEH FAQ?

Live in Michigan? Let it be known in Michigan Roll Call

Read My Automotive Blog at Rich Rambles

If a database were available showing the color of all vehicles on the road, the color of all vehicles striking and either injuring or killing pedestrians, and an assessment of whether the driver or the pedestrian was at fault, we could crunch the numbers and deduce that drivers of X colored vehicles kill more pedestrians on a per capita basis. However, I don't see where that proves that X colored vehicles or the drivers of X colored vehicles are somehow more dangerous for pedestrians. And, no one has yet presented evidence even remotely suggesting that pedestrian fatalities from hybrids are rising, or even present, anywhere, ever. It's probably happened, if only once, but fatal lightning strikes also happen.

Pedestrian fatalities are indicative of several factors. The statistics, analysis and countermeasures presented in these links are quite illuminating.

http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm
http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/p...shanalysis.cfm
http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/t...fm?codename=1a

I'm with you Chris and Bob.
People are so quick to blame technology that they do not understand. The sad fact, in the area where I live, it's pedestrians not paying attention, running out into the street, jaywalking, etc. that are the cause of most of the pedestrian vs. vehicle accidents. I can't recall the last time I heard about a blind person being hit crossing the street; if ever. We don't need new regulations; we need society as a whole to pay attention to the ones we have.
Jill