We require noisy EVs for safety, but let’s stop the real killers: SUVs & gas
Much has been made of the supposed danger to pedestrians from quiet electric cars, to the point where the government now requires noisemakers on each EV model. But if we really want to save pedestrians, and everyone else, we need to target the actual culprits: big, pedestrian-killing SUVs and trucks, and the associated pollution they create.
The noisemaker rule has finally gone into effect, after being tweaked and pushed back over the course of several years. This has resulted in noisier EVs, each with its own noise (some worse than others), in the name of pedestrian safety.
NHTSA’s rule was based on a DOT analysis that showed hybrid vehicles to be 17% more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash, when accounting for situational factors and vehicle age, though this analysis only included hybrid vehicles up through the 2011 model year. The law mandating the DOT to study and propose a rule for this dates back to 2010, when only a handful of electric cars were on the road in the US.
When implementing the noisemaker rule, NHTSA estimated these noisemakers will save 32 lives over the lifecycle of a single model year’s fleet. The rule requires noisemakers for EVs and hybrids when operating under 19 mph, the safest speeds for pedestrians. It does not require noisemakers or minimum decibel levels for gas-powered vehicles, even if those vehicles are equipped with engine stop/start or other technologies, which make the engine quieter or silent in certain situations, e.g., when slowing down and approaching an intersection, a place pedestrians are likely to be.
And as of February of this year, NHTSA has even opened an investigation into whether every electric vehicle since 1997 should be retrofitted, at some cost and difficulty, in order to comply retroactively with the noisemaker rule, in a way that virtually no other vehicle regulation has ever been implemented. The petition itself acknowledges there is no data yet showing relative danger from EVs that are not equipped with noisemakers.
What’s really deadly to pedestrians? SUVs
But there’s another common vehicle type that is 45% more likely to kill pedestrians: “light trucks,” a classification that includes SUVs and pickup trucks. Though “light” might be an odd word to apply, given that today’s SUVs are as large as literal tanks.
Light trucks are more deadly to pedestrians because they are larger and have higher hoods, resulting in decreased pedestrian visibility for drivers (with pedestrians obscured behind hoods, or behind other vehicles that are taller than the pedestrians or cyclists on the other side of them) and more deadly pedestrian impacts.
Cars are required to have bumpers designed for pedestrian safety, but light trucks have a different set of requirements. This leads to light trucks impacting pedestrians higher on the body, which causes more injury to the torso and head than the legs, resulting in deadlier collisions when a light truck is involved.
So not only are they more likely to hit pedestrians, but more deadly when they do.
And in fact, pedestrian death rates have skyrocketed in the US recently, up around 50% in the last decade, reaching the highest point in 40 years. Not coincidentally, SUV sales rates have increased in the same time frame. More deadly vehicles on the road have resulted in more pedestrian death, with the growth in SUVs responsible for killing at least a thousand pedestrians as of 2019 – which is a lot more than 32. Pedestrian deaths continued to rise sharply after 2019, so that number is surely significantly higher now.
The rise of SUVs is not solely a matter of consumer preference. Automakers use light truck exemptions to get out of emissions and safety rules and make more money, and actively push consumers toward these vehicles (even though barely anyone uses them for their intended purpose). How can Americans buy wagons, or city cars, or hatchbacks, when everything on the dealer lot is an SUV?
But running over people isn’t the only way that SUVs are dangerous; the pollution they make is orders of magnitude worse.
Noise itself is deadly
The DOT’s analysis of EV pedestrian safety explicitly did not consider environmental noise as a confounding factor to its research.
In a world choked with noise pollution from combustion engine vehicles, it stands to reason that quieter vehicles would be harder to hear. But if the world were not choked with noise pollution, those quieter vehicles would no longer be too quiet, they would be the norm. In a quieter world, EVs aren’t “harder to hear” once the sounds they make are no longer masked by the pathetic belching of combustion engines. Lower noise levels is a benefit of EVs, not a downside.
Noise itself is incredibly deadly to pedestrians – or rather, to everyone. Noise, mostly from cars but also from other combustion engines (airplanes, small off-road engines, etc.), greatly increases the rate of heart attacks in noisy areas, negatively affects the health of hundreds of millions of Americans, and is responsible for 12,000 premature deaths per year across Europe. Some research shows noise pollution to be just about as deadly as vehicle crashes overall.
The government even knows this to be the case, and has for some time, as it established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control through Congressional acts in the 1970s. This office was intended to study and regulate environmental noise in the US, but was – in a phrase that should be common to people who study social ills – defunded by Reagan in the ’80s.
So since noise is deadly, and since noise itself contributes to the problem the NHTSA wants to solve (by making it harder to hear quieter cars), then why don’t we work on making less noise instead of more?
And then, there’s air pollution
And finally, air pollution is deadlier than all of the above. And air pollution overwhelmingly comes from combustion engines.
Outdoor air pollution kills over 4 million people globally per year (including 100-200K in the US) and shortens global lifespans by two years. The health and environmental costs of fossil fuels add up to $5.3 trillion globally per year.
Much of this pollution and fossil fuel use comes from gasoline-powered vehicles, with larger vehicles like SUVs consuming more fuel and emitting more pollution than smaller vehicles (and tremendously more than zero-emission EVs). Vehicle pollution results in 4 million new cases of childhood asthma per year, sentencing these children to a lifetime of health issues.
Which brings up the point that this pollution is often not killing the people who emit it. Not only are children harmed for a lifetime by this despite not having contributed to this pollution, but environmental damage is disproportionately felt by the poor and is disproportionately emitted by the affluent.
This disparity was recently pointed out by the LA Times, in an article which Tesla CEO Elon Musk criticized despite his company being one of the solutions to this problem (perhaps someone could remind him that he’s still CEO of Tesla?). We already have studies showing that more EVs means cleaner air (with each EV bringing ~$10K in societal health benefits), and we know that more gas cars means dirtier air – and more deaths.
So if you want to reduce deaths, I’ve got a proposal
We know that:
- Big cars kill more pedestrians by running them over.
- Noisy cars kill more people by increasing stress, and also cover up the noises made by cars that operate at a more appropriate volume.
- Big, noisy combustion engines kill a whole lot of people by choking them to death with pollution.
Which means these noisemakers aren’t the most effective solution to the problem they are meant to solve. More effective solutions involve doing something about noise, and about air pollution, and about big pedestrian-murdering vehicles.
This also means that EVs aren’t the only answer. While a Hummer EV, the least-efficient EV, uses about as much energy as a Toyota Prius, one of the most-efficient gas-powered vehicles, the Hummer EV also takes up more space and causes more pedestrian danger. The trend toward SUVs threatens to eliminate emissions reductions from electrification, and while electric SUVs are still vastly efficient than any gas car, they are less efficient than smaller electric cars.
If we truly want to make the world safer for pedestrians, there are a lot of things that we can do outside of noisemakers. A discordant symphony of clown-car sound effects at every intersection isn’t going to be the big change that makes the world more walkable or cyclable.
To do that, we should put cars (or transit) on the road that don’t hog as much space, that don’t obscure pedestrians and cyclists from the view of other drivers, that don’t make the world too loud to think straight, that don’t choke everyone with stinky exhaust. These steps will give people more confidence to use their legs to make use of these more efficient, healthier, cheaper transportation methods – once these myriad benefits are no longer overshadowed by the problem of huge land yachts increasingly trying to murder them.
So here’s a modest proposal for society: If every EV needs a noisemaker for the safety gains mentioned above, then we should also take every “light truck” off the road for even more safety. If we’re thinking about making the EV rule retroactive to 1997, then we can make the much more effective SUV rule retroactive to 1997 as well. Do the latter, and you can have the former.
And if you won’t, then it’s not really about safety, is it?
Featured photo by Charles Edward Miller
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
It’s finally happening. After years of promises, missed timelines dating back to the “Autonomy Day” in 2019, and endless iterations of “Full Self-Driving” (FSD), a Tesla vehicle has been spotted driving on public roads in Austin without anyone in the driver’s seat or a safety monitor in the passenger seat.
Elon Musk has confirmed that Robotaxi testing has officially commenced. This is undeniably a step forward for the company’s autonomy ambitions.
But it is also a terrifying leap of faith, given the complete lack of safety data proving the system is ready for this.
The sighting, captured over the weekend by locals in Austin, shows what appears to be a specially outfitted Model Y, presumably a testbed for the upcoming dedicated Robotaxi platform, navigating city streets. The steering wheel is turning, the car is moving, and the driver’s seat and front passenger seat are empty:
Following the online buzz surrounding the sighting, Elon Musk took to X to confirm the obvious:
“Testing is underway with no occupant in the car.”
In isolation, this is exciting news. It suggests Tesla has reached an internal confidence level in their latest FSD builds for Robotaxi (not in consumer vehicles) where they feel comfortable pulling the human monitor.
It’s the tangible progress toward the driverless future many Tesla owners bought into years ago.
However, there’s still a lot of room for concerns.
Tesla has, to date, never released comprehensive, verifiable data proving that its FSD system is safer than a human driver. We get anecdotal evidence, curated video clips, and high-level statistics about “miles driven,” but not the granular disengagement data that competitors like Waymo provide to regulators and the public.
In fact, the data we do have, based on incident reports submitted to the NHTSA under their Standing General Order regarding ADS and ADAS systems, paints a worrying picture.
The data pointed to Tesla’s Robotaxi pilot in Austin having a crash every ~62,000 miles, significantly higher than the human average, despite a safety monitor inside the car that should have prevented further crashes.
CEO Elon Musk said last week that he expects Tesla’s Robotaxi service in Austin will be without a safety monitor within three weeks.
Electrek’s Take
Think about that for a second. The current fleet requires human intervention to avoid crashes. We know this. If human interventions are currently preventing accidents, common sense dictates that removing the human without a massive, documented improvement in the system’s base capability will lead to more incidents.
Tesla seems to be skipping the “prove it’s safe” phase and jumping straight to the “deploy it” phase.
I want Tesla to succeed here. A functional, scalable Robotaxi network would be a civilization-level improvement in transport. Seeing a driverless Tesla on public roads might feel like a visceral milestone, proof that the technology is advancing.
But “advancing” is not the same as “safe.”
I have serious concerns about the fact that Tesla has consistently avoided releasing verifiable, valuable data on the safety of FSD or its Robotaxi pilot program.
We have to try ourselves to match Tesla’s sparse release of Robotaxi mileage to the limited crash data reported to NHTSA. And that doesn’t look very good for Tesla.
So far, and even with this sighting, the Robotaxi program in Austin seems more of a marketing effort than the true first step toward scaling a driverless ride-hailing service. It looks like an effort to manufacture a win while Waymo rapidly scales its commercial driverless system.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The Cat 793 XE Early Learner battery-electric haul trucks deliver all the performance of its diesel-powered siblings without the noise, vibrations, and harmful emissions – and now, they’re being put to the test at BHP’s iron ore mine in Australia.
Part of a collaborative effort between BHP and Rio Tinto to help decarbonize BHP’s Jimblebar iron ore mine in the Pilbara, these 240-ton Cat 793 XE Early Learner electric haul trucks represent a major step toward a more sustainable future in mining, designed to deliver zero exhaust emissions while maintaining productivity and performance.
“Powering up our first battery-electric haul trucks in the Pilbara is an important step forward on the mining industry’s road to decarbonization,” says BHP Western Australia Iron Ore Asset president, Tim Day. “Replacing diesel isn’t just about changing energy sources, it’s about reimagining how we operate and creating the technologies, infrastructure, and supply chains to transform mining operations. These trials will help us understand how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together: the battery technologies, generation and charging infrastructure, power management, as well as the supply chains to potentially deliver this at scale.”
Like the two trucks deployed at Newmont’s Cripple Creek and Victor mine in Teller County, CO last year, this phase of Caterpillar’s Early Learner program will see the company attempt to integrate multiple electrified trucks at a single site with remote operators, validating the integration of a battery electric fleet with CAT’s existing autonomous and fleet management systems.
Decarbonisation of Pilbara iron ore operations will rely on technology advancements and breakthroughs in research and development, which is why BHP and Rio Tinto are working closely with Caterpillar to accelerate their fleets’ transition to electric power.
That, and the fact that they’re watching global mining giants Fortescue slash hundreds of millions of dollars from their operating costs by switching to electric, and (presumably) want to get in on that action sooner than later.
Despite the urgency, however, they need to get it right or risk huge disruptions that will eat up any projected efficiency gains. “A significant shift like this demands a strong commitment to research and development, coupled with collaboration across the industry,” adds Day. “This is going to take time to get right, which is why trials like this one with Rio Tinto and Caterpillar are so critical.”
Caterpillar 793 XE Early Learner
The big Caterpillar haul truck is powered by a 564 kWh lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery pack that sends electrons to a 480 kW (645 hp) electric motor that kicks out an undisclosed amount of torque – but which is more than capable of hauling 250 tons of truck and payload at the same 38 mph to speed as its 2,650 hp diesel-powered bretheren.
The best part: in the right conditions, a heavily-loaded haul truck can rely on regenerative braking to keep it topped off, enabling ’round-the-clock operation without the need to stop and charge – a trick diesel trucks absolutely cannot match.
SOURCE | IMAGES: Caterpillar, via Heavy Equipment Guide.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
A few weeks ago, we talked about some real-world numbers shared by Redditors who added a rooftop solar system to their homes. Not to be outdone, Electrek readers took to the comments to share their own real-world solar numbers. Here are some of the best!
That original post, which you can read here, was inspired by a Reddit user going by DontBuyBitcoin who shared a screenshot on r/Solar indicating that their newly-installed ~11.5 kW system produced over 1,700 kWh of electricity in October. “Pretty surprised by the production of the system I got,” writes DontBuyBitcoin. “11.48KW. I cant wait to see what JUNE-AUGUST [2026] going to look like 😍 I wish SolarEdge will make their app better looking with more functionality.”
Other Redditors were quick to share in the enthusiasm, but our Electrek readers weren’t going to be outdone, and shared their own results in the comments section.
I’ve got a 49 panel, 16.5 kW system just outside Austin, TX, and while it’s expensive ($320/mo), I produce much more power than I use each month. But with 2 EVs, a hot tub, and air conditioning in a Texas summer, I’m not mad I have all this. On a current sunny day, I’m producing about 65 kWh. I top out around 107 kWh on a long but somehow not hot day.l in late spring or early fall (whatever that means in Texas).
Another reader, Craig Morrow, had a much smaller system at “just” 6.5 kW compared to David’s 16.5 kW deal, but still put up some highly respectable numbers.
My 6.5 kw PV generates from 16 kwh/day (winter) to 38 kwh/day (late spring). Between the efficiency of my house and my consumption habits, my usage averages 5-6 kwh per day. Went all-in on passive and active solar when I built the house ten years ago, an investment which has long since paid for itself with no heating or utility bills, plus having battery storage means no worries about power outages when the grid goes down. A great feeling to be energy independent!
Craig had the top comment with twenty upvotes, but he wasn’t the only reader to see some big efficiency gains with home solar. Several of you posted about the cost of your system, and when you’d begin to see an ROI with the savings you were seeing.
My ROI on a $42k system ($30k with the IRA tax credit) was calculated to be 15 years assuming a 4% yearly rate increase. Without the tax credit it would likely be 20+ years. It makes no sense financially. Interestingly, Europeans pay a lot less for similar size systems. Why is that?
Another commenter, Leonard Bates, was also seeing great returns – but took things a step further by doing some extra math to compare the cost of fueling up his car with gas vs. topping it off with electrons generated by his home solar system.
It is hard for the average Joe to understand electricity production numbers, so I have reduced our experience into dollars. We have a 8.8 kWh rooftop system and two EVs that (other than a few vacation trips a year) are charged at home. We are retired, so we can charge during the day. Bottom line, we saved over $4,000 by not buying gasoline last year (drove ~41,000 miles). Electric bills, with the load of the EVs, is basically a breakeven. The system cost us about $22,000, so a breakeven on the system of about six years and then free electricity for another 20, until the panels need to be replace. Plus we are “energy independent” for our cars. If there is turmoil in the Middle East, it doesn’t affect our pocket books.
Leonard’s math reminds me of landscaper Colin Ash, who has been operating Ash Landscaping for over 30 years and recently traded his diesel excavator in for an electric JCB mini excavator he powers exclusively with solar panels mounted on his carport. “I’m a long-time electric vehicle driver and run my cars on solar energy generated from solar panels on the roof of the car port at my home,” explains Ash. “Adding the new JCB 8008E CTS was a perfect next step and I can plug it in next to the car and charge both overnight.”
So, Ash is happy. It seems like you guys are pretty happy, too – even without the home solar tax credit that a lot of you didn’t even know existed in the first place. Here’s hoping a lot more people decide to share their results with home solar, too.
Or, as one of our commenters put it:
If more homeowners share data like this, it’ll help others make informed decisions rather than relying just on sales projections.
Original content from Electrek.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024