If we're talking about low speed collisions, 80kg human, does the weight of the vehicle really have that much of an impact?

I'd have thought the bigger advantage of the EVs is that they're more recent so designed to meet more recent impact requirements.

I suspect even at very low speeds unexpectedly being rapidly thrown on to a hard surface with or without edges (eg gutters) could cause significant injury.

I imagine a bit like being tackled out of the blue by a forward from the Welsh front row.

One aspect I think the study didn't consider was whether drivers (more particularly owners) of (H)EV were significantly different from ICEV drivers in any number of safety relevant factors eg age, experience etc.

I would conjecture EV owners (perhaps excluding Tesla owners ;) would be more safety conscious and attentive drivers. If that were true it would imply that the EVs considering the vehicle alone were actually slightly more dangerous than ICEVs. Perhaps HEVs combine the worst of ICEV drivers with the failings of EVs ?

The stats for HEVs do show a higher casualty rate (normalized to travelled distance) than EVs or ICEVs.

"I would conjecture EV owners (perhaps excluding Tesla owners ;) would be more safety conscious and attentive drivers."

I'd say not - IME (as someone living on the outskirts of a major metropolitan area) between all the minicab drivers that've switched to EVs over the years, along with the growing number of drivers who seem to have opted for EVs in order to get something with even more acceleration performance than any ICE vehicle they'd be able to afford, and are then only too happy to make full use of said performance when out on the roads regardless of whether the conditions are really suitable for doing so, I'd say EVs are at best merely on a par with ICE in terms of driver ability/sensibility.

Agreed - watching an electric 4WD SUV cross an intersection with full torque from stopped, to dangerously dash between traffic on the main road, makes you immediately realise why there are so many potholes in that spot. The traction control might avoid ejecting the tarmac directly into the windscreen of the car behind, but it still breaks off with the force of acceleration of the massive EV.

I'd agree that EV drivers won't be 'safer' or more attentive, but for a slightly different reason. (Note: This also applies to ICE car drivers where the same features are fitted).

The new 'safety' tech is making drivers lazy. So drivers rely on the tech to avoid collisions, rather than using MK1 eyeball and that organic processor they're supposed to posses (called a brain).

The brake assist (which is quite relevant to this topic) is a classic example: Having found problems with it suffering from false positives, I found most older drivers had experience the same, but some, mostly younger, claimed it 'brilliant' because they didn't have to worry or pay as much attention: The system just did the hard work for them. They seemed unaware of, or simply didn't care about, false positives. As long as it didn't return a false negative (failed to engage when it should have). I've not experienced the negative because I don't rely on the brake assist. However, I know someone who did have that particular failure and hit another vehicle (no, neither was a Tesla - they were both ICE's). Had said driver been paying attention and responsive in their control of their vehicle, that collision could have been avoided. Thankfully no one was hurt (other than emotionally) and no cyclist or pedestrian involved, but this is the one case where I've known the driver of the vehicle involved. Yes, there's 'stories' of others - but they're stories and may or may not be accurate or true.

However, these systems only makes things 'safer' if the system works as intended. If it fails: That's when bad things happen 'cause the driver isn't paying attention and instead is reliant on the system working correctly.

> The new 'safety' tech is making drivers lazy.

This is called risk compensation. Regardless, the net result is an increase in safety (less deaths / serious injury).

The reality is that driving is not something that humans excel at.

Again: It's relying on tech to work as intended.

How often does tech fail?

That's the problem. Sure, it's a safety net if the driver fails to notice/react to a hazard, but my point is that an increasing number of drivers are just relying on the tech to do the work for them rather than paying attention, so to them there is no safety net. For me, having been brought up with 'dumb' cars, where I had sole responsibility for control of the vehicle, I just got into the habit of retaining that control and so these systems are just a backup. And so far (touch wood) I've not needed them to do anything. Hence being aware of how often they get it wrong - due to false positives.

So while you say humans don't excel at driving: My argument is more than tech isn't as good as humans in interpreting events around it, so is okay for routine driving where things are predictable, but it's not so good for handling exceptions. That doesn't mean it won't work, just that it's a bad idea to rely on it entirely. Hence we should be paying attention while driving and not being reliant on tech. I don't mind the tech: I'm just not about to rely on it.

> How often does tech fail?

A lot less often than humans. In fact, that is the point that you go on to make in your post ("okay for routine driving where things are predictable, but it's not so good for handling exceptions").

> Hence we should be paying attention while driving

Absolutely!

> and not being reliant on tech

I know what you mean (it can fail – exceedingly rare – or not cover the entire operational envelope – quite common) but I would word it differently: you *do* want to rely on technology, e.g., to reduce workload, improve detection and reaction times, better spatial awareness, allow you to take on a more supervisory role, etc.; but you do want to be cognisant of the limits of that technology so as not to misuse it.

> My argument is more than tech isn't as good as humans in interpreting events around it

It's getting there at an impressive pace. If you're in the US or in the continent, I'd suggest that you try to book a ride on a Tesla with FSD 14 (demo ride as pax in France, Germany, Italy), if only out of curiosity.

PS: I'm also pre-ABS, assisted steering, etc. and have driven or been in control of anything from a bicycle to 4WD to emergency vehicles to lorries to nearly 60 tons of Blagnac's best, but I can't compete against a sufficiently advanced computer.

"If we're talking about low speed collisions, 80kg human, does the weight of the vehicle really have that much of an impact?"

Hell yes: The larger the mass at a given velocity, the more momentum of the vehicle impacting that 80kg human, meaning more force transference resulting in greater risk of injury.

It's basic physics.

Currently EV's are 40%-50% greater mass than their ICE counterpart, so that's 40%-50% more momentum, so that's a marked increase in risk. That is why there's more reliance on the newer safety systems such as break assist: If it works as intended, it should reduce the incidents of impact. However, where there is an impact, the greater mass involved means a more severe impact/injury. General design of the vehicle also plays a part in this, but mass is most certainly a major factor including when breaking.

We're trying to prevent breaking regardless of vehicle. Hence the need for the good brakes!

Brake assist (and similar) helps not only with reducing the number of impacts, but also speed at impact. That fraction of a second of extra braking can have a very large effect on severity.

Ideally, I wish the study compared EVs with ICEs-with-recent-safety-features, rather than EVs with ICEs general.

"Hell yes: The larger the mass at a given velocity, the more momentum of the vehicle impacting that 80kg human, meaning more force transference resulting in greater risk of injury."

Not convinced that's true when one object is already an order of magnitude more massive than the other.

The force required to accelerate a pedestrian from zero to, say, twenty miles an hour doesn't depend on the mass of the vehicle. And so long as that vehicle's speed isn't materially affected by the impact of the pedestrian, which is probably isn't, then it's mass isn't relevant.

Is my "it probably isn't" reasonable?

Assume an elastic collision between vehicle of mass 1000kg travelling at 9m/s (20 mph) and a stationary pedestrian of mass 100kg (i.e. only one order of magnitude difference) which then ends up on the bonnet, travelling with the vehicle.

(Remember: cows are spherical)

The speed of the combined product will be:

KE to start: .5*1000*9^2=40.5kJ

Speed: sqrt(40500/(.5*1100))=8.6 m/s or 19.2mph

If the vehicle mass was doubled then we end up with 8.8 m/s or 19.7mph

The difference in force required to accelerate a 100kg pedestrian to 19.2 or 19.7 mph is tiny.

The shape of the front of the vehicle, and therefore the distance over which that acceleration can take place is the primary factor in determining the acceleration and therefore the forces involved.

This is where theoretical physics meets practical physics. You would think that the 50% increase in weight would be a marked increase in risk, but the amount of practical force transferred from the 2000kg car to the 80kg human at low speeds isn't significantly different than the amount of force from the 1000kg car. Neither is going to slow it down before taking the human off their feet and becoming part of the moving mass. The only thing that makes a difference in the scenario is the effective braking force on the vehicles.

On a low-speed impact, most of the injuries are not caused by the impact with the vehicle, but the body's impact with the ground once the vehicle has stopped. At that point, the weight of the vehicle, whether it is a bicycle or a locomotive, no longer has any influence - only the weight of the human.

Yes, it is basic physics. But the result (as I see John Robson has pointed out) isn't what you expected. By your reasoning, we could (say) tap a marble with a car and have it shoot off like a bullet. Make the object smaller, and we can speed it up arbitrarily.

Coincidentally, I was recently reading Randall Munroe's book What if? , in which he mentions seeing a comment from a medical examiner about such injuries. Apparently, most people are not killed by the impact. Instead, it breaks their legs, they go over the hood and hit the windscreen with their heads, usually "starring" the windscreen. Then they go flying off the car and hit the pavement, and then are killed by head injuries when they land.

John Robson wrote "...assume an elastic collision", but then did the analysis (correctly) for an inelastic collision. From the ME's comment above, it sounds as if the momentum transfer is incomplete; the pedestrian doesn't wind up going as fast as the car. If the car is coming in at, say, 22 km/hour, and the pedestrian has a mass 10% that of the car, the result is not that the pedestrian stays on the hood with car and pedestrian going 20 km/hour. More likely, the car proceeds at about (say) 21 km/hour and the pedestrian follows at a lesser speed.

For an elastic collision, the result (for Mcar >> Mpedestrian, true whether the car is ten or a hundred times more massive than the unfortunate pedestrian) would be that the pedestrian would be thrown forward at twice the speed of the car. Perhaps if you wore a rubber suit, you could manage that.

they go flying off the car and hit the pavement, and then are killed by head injuries when they land.

How long until the government makes helmets mandatory for pedestrians...

Don't hold your breath. We already know that many vehicle occupants as well as pedestrians are killed by head injuries that a helmet would mitigate. However, I don't see any pedestrians wearing helmets, including myself, even though I was wearing motorcycle helmets and seat belts several years before they became mandatory. I wasn't alone.

I have thought about wearing a helmet when walking, but it's unappealing. I guess I'd accept it if it was mandated.

It depends: most cars are so much heavier than meatware that simple collisions are probably the same. Remember the "cattle bars" that we fitted as standard for a while on some early SUVs? These along were likely to cause severe injury because the impact was concentrated on a small area. But it's what happens immediately after impact that matters more: the chances of head or spinal injury either due to the bodywork or things like kerbs are bodies are flung around faster than reflexes.

But in vehicle-vehicle collisions SUVs, in all their awful forms, have effectively started an arms race as their mass is so much more than a normal car as to make severe injury almost inevitable.

> does the weight of the vehicle really have that much of an impact?

F = ma

So what mass are you looking at?

The mass being accelerated is the mass of the pedestrian, not the vehicle.

> So what mass are you looking at?

The car's, which is what determines its kinetic energy.

F = ma is simply how that kinetic energy will be transferred from one object to the other (the car will also receive kinetic energy relative to the mass of the pedestrian, which should be absorbed by airbags / crumple zones / active bonnet / etc.)

That will absolutely mow you down!!!

In addition, it will probably cross reference your face with your X account, and if you said anything against Elon..... Splat!!!

" if you said anything against Elon "

Oh Dear ! And in these parts Teslarati are endemic.

I suppose in the interest of self preservation I oughtn't say anything derogatory about that ketamine addled elephant tw@t… but hell you only live once.

I wonder if any research has been done into optimal AVAS sound effects. I still can't understand why the sound for mine in EV mode is a cross between a worn wheel bearing and a dragging brake pad.

Backup beepers that is using white noise is proven to be better for ascertain the distance and direction of the sound. Maybe something like it for all EV:s?

> Maybe something like it for all EV:s?

Tesla use white noise when moving forward slowly. Backing up it's the UFO sound.

I love the concept that you could have an EV recreate the noise of an ICE car. I’d go for squeaking fan belt, maybe with a touch of that desperate “aargh, I’m about to stall!” knocking when the revs are too low.

Wind down the window and make revving noises, like you think it's the 80s and you have a "new" thirty third hand Ford Escort...

> I love the concept that you could have an EV recreate the noise of an ICE car

The crazy thing is that ICE cars do exactly that. Synthetic engine sounds are actually a thing in cars that already have an actual engine.

In some countries it seems to be a bit of a fashion to "rev" those up inside tunnels, God knows why.

Personally, I would quite like a "Citroën 2CV" mode.

Knowing someone who is technically blind (Very poor eyesight so while they can 'see', it's far from perfect): The concern was EV's were too quite to alert vision impaired to their approach so any sound that stands out is a blessing.

Now, ICE's have been getting quieter, meaning it's harder to hear them approach. Not quite as bad as an EV without the AVAS, but it's getting worse. With new ICE's fading out soon: That removed that trend, but it does still mean that vision impaired are reliant on an artificial system to alert them to the approach of a slow moving EV, when that system can, in at least some instances, be turned off.

I'm not blind, but I've had two near misses in car parks. With an ICE vehicule, the running engine warns you beforehand that there might be a car moving soon, while EVs and hybrids give you absolutely no warning at all before starting to move out of their parking spots

Downvotes? I guess someone didn't like the near miss part and would prefer that I'd been ran over?

In a car park it's almost impossible to know which car's engine you're hearing. Newly-illuminated running or reversing lights are a better indicator.

> Newly-illuminated running or reversing lights are a better indicator.

As is looking inside the car (also in case someone decides to throw the door open) and under it (pedestrians, kids, animals potentially about to cross).

Same applies, whether driving or walking.

It is true that people, whether actually or metaphorically blind, tend to be less aware of EV approaching at low speed, but my theory is that this is only a phase. People will eventually learn to recognise the subtler sounds of an engineless conveyance¹ and, at the same time, newer cars from technologically advanced manufacturers are really not fond of running people over and will try to stop you from doing so, which is why the Mafia don't like them.

¹ The survivors will, anyway.

Haven't tyres been getting noisier as compensation? They have where I live.

Would you want [1]the waltons horn sound?

[1] https://youtu.be/N5Mts-lB_Ew?si=BFN-kcRh7l1ybbDF&t=18

AVAS ought to sound like the Jetsons car. Any other sound is inappropriate.

electric vehicles are also more likely to have better safety technologies than most internal combustion engine vehicles on the road today, which help them to evade crashes or limit impact, the authors argue.

What would theae "safety technologies" be which putatively "help them to evade crashes"?

Do they have an AI overseer which yanks the steering wheel and/or applies the brakes to avoid a pedestrian?

"Do they have an AI overseer which yanks the steering wheel and/or applies the brakes to avoid a pedestrian?"

If it is a tesla.... in a fashion yes

What would theae "safety technologies" be which putatively "help them to evade crashes"?

Not exclusively EVs. Modern cars in general seem to have obstacle detection which can warn or apply brakes. They are triggered by all sorts of things: wall or hedge across the road when approaching the stop line of a T junction, oncoming traffic in the opposite lane, crossing traffic at a roundabout or nothing obvious whatsoever.

My experience (in an ICE) includes: Heavy rain, wind (particularly if there's blown debris), cars turning left in next lane over (UK), a car pulling out in front of me without ensuring there was sufficient gap... those I can see, I've normally adjusted for in ample time, but the rain was my first experience of Brake Assist applying, and the wind was baffling at first until I realised it was the leaves / debris being blown around. The cars... I'd seen and adjusted got but the break assist insisted it knew better and hit the panic button.

The alarm is a pain on the motorway: That's where you are likely to encounter people changing lanes without sufficient gap. But again: An attentive driver will be adjusting to handle all of that: We don't actually need the 'safety' system distracting us or messing us about.

> Do they have an AI overseer which yanks the steering wheel and/or applies the brakes to avoid a pedestrian?

Correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deWN8SZF7N8

The above was two generations ago, current system is way more advanced.

Plenty of videos on YouTube but usually with no assurance as to the level of automation active or whether it was a vehicle or human intervention, that's why I chose the specific video above. As of a few days ago though, dashcam videos have started embedding car telemetry so when you watch recent videos you'll be able to tell who / what was controlling the car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6wAWEFNkAk&t=582

I've certainly noticed that countryside wildlife - think pheasants, crows, pigeons etc - is much more likely to give me a close call in my leccy wagon than I ever had in my old Passat.

Perhaps your leccy wagon could be fitted with shotgun sound effects (frequency compensated for vehicle's air speed [Doppler effect].)

I am sure Purdey could do a bespoke accessory for the luxury car market. ;)

An old clagged out banger with worn rings and off timing, regularly backfiring would have the same effect, I imagine.

We navigate by sight and sound.

It's why deaf people have to take extra care when crossing roads.

Electric car engines/motors are fundamentally quiter.

Artificially making them louder is just road safety.

There's a hire bike scheme in London - Lime - that makes their bikes emit a clacking sound when they're ridden.

Given that bike couriers (usually food/restaurant deliveries) often ride like nutjobs on pavements, it's essental.

It is obvious, but it still pays to check supposedly obvious things.

The Lime bikes only click when 'hijacked' to ride without paying.

Couriers don't ride Lime, they have fat bikes with oversized batteries and speed-limitation system disabled, which makes them illegal on UK puvlic roads but nothing is done about it.

https://regmedia.co.uk/2025/12/09/shutterstock_pedestrianaccident.jpg

Who cares about smartphone zombies! Carmageddon them!

As for the rest of the people: If they don't use their eyes, like I see in way too many dashcam videos with LOUD combustion engine cars and truck which are stepping on the gas, there is nothing you can do.

The point of the article is right: No difference, dumb people are dumb people, no matter which car kills them. Pain is the only teacher here.

And if they are, that's evolution in action.

Darwinian evolution?!?

As in, candidate for the Darwin Awards!