Why are EVs really so dangerous for pedestrians?

What you don’t know can run you over

Last week, the media reported on yet another study showing that electric vehicles (EVs) are involved in collisions with pedestrians at twice the rate of regular vehicles. Yet again, the undeniable fact that EVs are so quiet was cited as the reason. Research studies and journalists alike have been reporting on how treacherous EVs are since the early years of the century. Sales of EVs have been dropping continuously due to their higher cost and often lower reliability — in addition to worries about exploding batteries. But when car experts compare EVs to ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles, it’s none of these concerns that they express.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent non-profit institution which conducts research into vehicle crashes via research evaluation and education. It was founded by insurance associations representing 80 percent of the auto insurance market. The IIHS has been testing electric vehicles for over a decade — here’s what they have to say about EVs:

When we first started testing electric vehicles in 2011, the question referred to fire risk. When damaged, lithium-ion batteries ignite, the fires can be extremely hard to put out. As a result, we have special procedures for EV testing, including monitoring the battery’s voltage and temperature and asking our local fire department to be on site.

Fifty-five EV crash tests and zero fires later, I’m still worried about these batteries, but for a more mundane reason than their potential to burst into flames. My biggest concern is how heavy they are and what all that extra vehicle weight means for the safety of people on the road, specifically occupants of lighter vehicles as well as pedestrians and bicyclists [emphasis added].

A study conducted by the University of California back in 2011 estimated that for every 1,000-pound increase in vehicle weight, the chance of a fatality occurring in the event of a collision rises by almost 50 percent. There are countries that require a driver to acquire a truck driver’s license before driving a car weighing over 9,000 pounds. Is there more they could do to protect everyone not in that super-heavy electric vehicle in the event that an accident occurs?

Quick to start, slow to stop?

Turn back the clock to the 1970s and cars were pretty heavy too, averaging around 4,000 pounds. Since then, almost everything has become lighter as technology progressed. EVs are an exception, and many modern-day EVs weigh well over 6,000 pounds. The new GMC Hummer EV weighs a whopping 9,500 pounds.

Semi-trailers, of course, are much heavier, and no one sensible is suggesting that they should be kept off the roads for that reason. However, semi-trailers have many wheels, while EVs have just four. That means less braking power per ton even if the power of the brakes were equal. However, that power isn’t always equal.

… it’s not clear that all EVs have braking performances that match their additional mass. If the extra weight leads to longer stopping distances, that will likely lead to an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths, which already have been on the rise in recent years.

The following chart shows a sample of electric vehicles and their ICE equivalents, comparing them on braking distance:

Moreover, the Hummer EV can go from 0 to 60 in just 3 seconds; in fact, the ability to gather speed fast is common to EVs. It’s safe to assume that at least some of those who invest in that kind of power will enjoy using it. Research has consistently shown that people driving cars with greater horsepower are more likely to exceed speed limits, and that younger people are more likely to buy EVs than older consumers. A combination of a massively heavy vehicle, a powerful engine, and a young and relatively inexperienced driver is already bad enough. For that, you need excellent brakes. Do EVs have them?

Does saving fuel translate to saving lives?

One of the advantages of driving an EV is its fuel-saving aspect. Forget the fact that electricity is also fuel and is made from other types of (polluting) fuel. EVs' so-called “clean energy” is little more than a gimmick for which destitute and desperate people in the developing world are paying a stiff price. Here we’re referring to a specific property of EVs, namely regenerative braking.

As the name suggests, regenerative braking is a process that involves regenerating the battery power expended, using the braking process.  When a driver of an EV lifts his foot from the accelerator, the battery stops sending power to motor the car and instead, channels the kinetic energy (the car's forward motion) back to the battery where it's stored for the future. The car slows down and eventually stops. If you have a clear stretch of road ahead but the traffic light just turned red, then all you have to do, in many EVs, is take your foot off the accelerator pedal and the regenerative braking kicks in automatically, slowing you down to a halt.

This is why driving an EV is sometimes referred to as one-pedal driving. Although EVs do have regular hydraulic brakes, they require use of a separate button or other control, and it’s obviously more cost-effective not to use them unless absolutely necessary. Regular brakes wear down and eventually need to be replaced, while using regenerative braking actually replenishes fuel. But there’s a snag:

... Potentially less stopping power: While regenerative braking performs just fine in most braking situations where you gradually come to a stop, it may not provide the same level of stopping force that conventional brakes do. This means hybrid and EV drivers may have to press harder on the brakes to achieve the same effectiveness.

Furthermore, drivers who become accustomed to using regenerative braking may become unaccustomed to hydraulic (or friction) braking. That split-second response to a child dashing out into the street involves more conscious thought and effort when it means a hand motion near the steering wheel or a foot motion that is infrequently executed. 

Less friction with the road, more friction with pedestrians

Higher rates of collisions for EVs relate to urban driving conditions, unsurprisingly. The vast majority of articles discussing this phenomenon explain it as being the consequence of EVs being so quiet. What with all the background noise in city streets, the theory goes, people simply don’t hear an EV approaching.

While this may well be true, and even the main factor, it is not the sole factor. Silence is not just a nice by-product of the experience of driving an electric vehicle. It’s actually one of the reasons why people enjoy driving them. Therefore, EV manufacturers endeavor to provide that silent, gliding feeling and to prevent anything from marring it.

Anything — such as the noise made due to the friction of the tires on the road.

The problem is that the friction of tires on the road is important, for a number of reasons, not least for swift and effective braking.

As one article describes,

EV enthusiasts adore the serene silence that electric vehicles offer. Unfortunately, the absence of engine noise can seemingly amplify the sound of tires rolling on the road, disrupting the tranquility of the ride … To counteract this, tire manufacturers minimize road noise by incorporating acoustic dampers or foam within EV tires. However, while these noise-reducing materials contribute to a quieter ride, they might also make the tires stiffer [and EV tires are meant to be stiffer in general, due to their higher air pressure]. Striving for silence could potentially impact the tire’s traction capabilities by preventing the material from gripping the road as well... [emphasis added]

According to the CR Auto Test Center, several hybrid vehicles have a “significantly longer braking distance” than that of their ICE counterparts, due (among other factors such as those mentioned above) to their “low-rolling-resistance tires.”

The requirements for a good EV tire can be at odds with one another. You want low rolling resistance to maximize range, but need traction in order to enjoy the performance of your zero-RPM torque. You want to buffer the sound of the tires on the road, but also ensure longevity.

You really can't have it all

In fact, EVs are a mass of contradictions. 

You want to be “environmentally-friendly,” but your EV battery is made using rare metals dug out of African soil by poor Congolese kids whose water supply is now polluted. And when those rare metals run out, no one knows how to replace them.

You want to save money on fuel, but for many buyers it will take years for your investment in an EV to balance out the savings on fuel, and if your battery dies in the meantime, you may never break even.

You want a nice, smooth, uneventful drive, but if you have to stop suddenly, it might not be as seamless as it should be.

You want to protect the planet, but not at the expense of the humans inhabiting it (let’s hope).

Isn’t there anything that can be done?

Are there electronic ways to overcome all these issues?

Most decision-makers operate according to the belief that more technology equals better. EVs are undoubtedly more advanced in many ways, but they bring with them a whole new set of problems that have yet to be solved. For the most part, efforts to solve them revolve around yet more technology and taking people out of the equation as far as possible. Computers do everything better, right?

Accordingly, in 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced that nearly all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. will be required to have AEB (automatic emergency braking) systems installed by 2029. While many cars already have an automatic braking system, the new regulations will require the system to be able to stop the car without touching the vehicle in front at speeds of up to 50 mph, and avoid a crash even if the driver doesn't brake hard enough when driving at speeds of up to 62mph.

Their claim is that this will “save at least 360 lives annually and prevent at least 24,000 injuries.”

Automatic features in cars are enthusiastically welcomed by some while reviled by others. If automatic braking was proven to save lives, it would be hard to make a case for allowing drivers to opt out on the grounds that they enjoy the experience of controlling their vehicle too much to sacrifice it for the greater good.

However, the jury appears still to be out on AEB, for a number of reasons (unrelated to the joy of driving). Just a few years ago, the AAA released a report which presented depressing findings on AEB pedestrian detection systems:

• If an adult was encountered crossing the road in daylight with the test vehicle traveling at 20 mph, a collision with the pedestrian was avoided only 40 percent of the time.
• If the test vehicles came across a child darting into traffic from in between two cars, with the test vehicle traveling at 20 mph, a collision occurred 89 percent of the time; at 30 mph, none of the test vehicles avoided a collision…
• The pedestrian detection systems proved to be ineffective when encountering an adult crossing the road at night.

Consumer Reports concludes that,

It’s important to remember that AEB isn’t foolproof and that today’s AEB systems can’t prevent all collisions. Even high-speed AEV systems can only slow a car down in some cases, mitigating a crash rather than preventing it.

Blind cars and cars with minds of their own

Furthermore, any electronic system is only as good as the data it is fed, and if the data are incomplete or missing, the system fails:

And studies show that AEB with pedestrian detection can’t always see pedestrians and cyclists at night or in turns. “It’s important to remember these systems are using cameras and sensors that can get dirty, blinded by sunlight, or obscured in the rain,” [one auto expert stresses].

“Never rely on these systems to work perfectly, and always stay vigilant” [emphasis added].

The problem here is that urging drivers to “stay vigilant” while simultaneously giving them a tool that is supposed to override their decision-making process is often contradictory. Do automatic systems automatically make drivers less vigilant?

There have also been well-documented cases in which the AEB kicked in for no apparent reason, often causing drivers to panic. One report relates to a car whose AEB system decided to make an automatic stop on a railroad crossing, which so traumatized the driver that she got rid of the car.

Not all problems can be saved by the bell

Sometimes, it's the low-tech solutions which work best. Perhaps that's why articles focusing on the downsides of EVs cite almost exclusively their noiselessness, as if that were the critical problem.

This problem is also the easiest to fix, as anyone knows after being startled by a clanging bell in a city center, only to look up and see an electric train heading their way.

The other issues with EVs — inadequate brakes, pollution farmed out to the developing world, hidden costs, tremendously heavy and therefore dangerous loads — are far more intractable.

Many drivers of ICE vehicles are also frustrated at paying heavy taxes on gasoline to cover the costs of road repairs, while far heavier and more destructive EVs avoid paying this tax even though they are probably causing much more damage to roads. This has led some to propose taxing drivers per mile driven, rather than taxing their choice of fuel.

At the end of the day, many consumers are making choices based on their own self-interest, regardless of the consequences of those around them, as one comment on an auto website noted: