You're 5x more likely to kill a pedestrian in an urban area than a rural one, and 2x as likely to do so after 6:00pm.
The relative risk of being killed by a light truck compared to a car is only 1.45 (i.e. 45% greater) and is 0.96 for a heavy truck (in other words less likely than being killed by a car). Buses have a relative risk of 7.97.
So living in a city and driving at night is custom-designed to kill pedestrians and selfish to do so. Encouraging public transit is even worse.
Or you could just, you know, not turn this into a giant moral argument.
You're 5x more likely to kill someone in an urban area because more people live there (in fact, well above 5x more, so...)
> being killed by a light truck compared to a car is only 1.45 (i.e. 45% greater)
"Only"? "You're 50% more likely to die if a light truck hits you than a car, that's "only" a bit more!"
> and is 0.96 for a heavy truck ... buses have a relative risk of 7.97
People tend to bounce off of heavy trucks, for better or worse. Buses are 1) significantly different in design than most heavy trucks, and 2) for obvious reasons, operate in very heavy pedestrian environments.
Just to clarify, he asked for a downside of trucks, I said they're far more likely to kill pedestrians and bikers than normal-sized cars in the event the driver hits someone (which is true). And the next logical step is "we should all live in the farmland and not leave the house at night"?
I think there's a difference between "One drawback is higher pedestrian fatality rates" and "They're basically custom-designed to kill pedestrians and bikers".
