Cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20086798

During 2013–2017, casualty rates per 100 million miles were 5.16 (95% CI 4.92 to 5.42) for E- HE vehicles and 2.40 (95%CI 2.38 to 2.41) for ICE vehicles, indicating that collisions were twice as likely (RR 2.15; 95% CI 2.05 to 2.26) with E-HE vehicles. Poisson regression found no evidence that E-HE vehicles were more dangerous in rural environments (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11); but strong evidence that E-HE vehicles were three times more dangerous than ICE vehicles in urban environments (RR 2.97; 95% CI 2.41 to 3.7). Sensitivity analyses of missing data support main findings.

  • “Pedestrian safety on the road to net zero: cross-sectional study of collisions with electric and hybrid-electric cars in Great Britain”. Phil J Edwards, Siobhan Moore, Craig Higgins. 2024-05-21. J Epidemiol Community Health.
  • [PDF] (archive)
  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
    21·
    1 month ago

    Damn that is a huge effect size… I am shocked, especially given safety features that now exist on newer cars (unless they normalized for car age).

    • Windex007@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      I’m not shocked at all. I’ve almost been hit like 3 times in parking lots by silent EVs.

      As a pedestrian, I was certainly unaware at how much I relied on my hearing to generate my situational awareness around cars. Each time, the driver wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary, either.

      Honestly, as the pedestrian in this scenario, I’d rather the vehicle cue me on where it is and what it’s doing than give the driver another sensor to ignore. Give me as the pedestrian some tools to work with. Let me be involved.

      It doesn’t have to be as loud as a big diesel truck. A ford focus is fine.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      21·
      1 month ago

      especially given safety features that now exist on newer cars

      Do note that the dataset that they used is from 2013-2017.