- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
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).
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.
Do note that the dataset that they used is from 2013-2017.
Interesting. When did they start adding noise to low speed EVs? I wonder how this analysis would look for newer vehicles.