Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Pedestrian Deaths in Car Crashes Are Rising

      Highest amount since 2009

    In 2009, the U.S. saw its lowest number of pedestrian deaths. But since then, that number has increased by 46 percent as pedestrian crashes have become more frequent and deadlier. Why is that?

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a study today investigating the possible reasons. One key indicator is the number of crashes involving SUVs. According to IIHS data, between 2009 and 2016, fatal single-vehicle crashes involving SUVs rose 81 percent - the largest increase of any vehicle segment. Aside from the growing popularity of SUVs and crossovers, the tall body height and larger footprint mean in a pedestrian crash, the vehicle is hitting a person's chest or head.

    SUVs weren't the only metric to see an increase. IIHS reports that urban environments, arterial roads, nighttime, and non-intersection crashes have seen large increases.

    Can anything be done to help reduce pedestrian fatalities? According to the IIHS, there is a lot that can be done.

    • Softening the front ends of SUVs
    • Improving pedestrian detection systems and headlights (The latter would be helped if NHTSA can get its act together on updating their headlight regulations)
    • Lower the speed limits
    • Adding more "pedestrian hybrid beacons" - Kind of a sudo-stop light where a pedestrian activates it before crossing. Begins flashing yellow, before transitioning to solid yellow, and then solid double red.

    "Understanding where, when and how these additional pedestrian crashes are happening can point the way to solutions. This analysis tells us that improvements in road design, vehicle design and lighting and speed limit enforcement all have a role to play in addressing the issue," said IIHS President David Harkey.

    Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

     



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    My gut tells me this is not anything new about SUVs, but more of a distracted driving issue. We have clearly those that love to drive and those that care less. On top of the idiots that think driving is a privilege and anyone should be given a drivers license and allowed on the road.

    Lets first start with making the training more intense and focused on quality drivers before blaming the auto.

    • Thanks 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    9 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    There is also the problem with distracted pedestrians...zombies walking around not paying attention their surroundings, futzing with their phones...

    Very true, sadly not sure how one could better train people walking to not Zombie in front of a moving auto because their smartphone is so much more important than paying attention to where one walks. :metal:

    zombies grindhouse GIF

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    14 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    There is also the problem with distracted pedestrians...zombies walking around not paying attention their surroundings, futzing with their phones...

    Yes, my first thought was pedestrians crossing streets while texting or looking at their phone.  Distracted drivers don't help either. 

    Putting automatic braking on cars would help reduce pedestrian and vehicle collisions, but I read a little while ago, that Volvo, Tesla and Mercedes are the only 3 brands that have it or make it standard on over 50% of their models, Tesla and Mercedes have it standard on every car.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Speaking of using technology, I did see a demo of someone using augmented reality goggles w/ head mounted 360 degree cameras, so they could see around themselves walking along with threats like other pedestrians and traffic highlighted on a projected screen, and distance to them, audible and visible warnings when they got close to the other objects..

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    just gonna add night joggers and such. sometimes its more the pedestrian being visible before having to swerve/slam on the brakes. ;)

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    20 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Speaking of using technology, I did see a demo of someone using augmented reality goggles w/ head mounted 360 degree cameras, so they could see around themselves walking along with threats like other pedestrians and traffic highlighted on a projected screen, and distance to them, audible and visible warnings when they got close to the other objects..

    Might as well just remove our head and add a Fly style of robot head with 360 view. :P 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 minutes ago, loki said:

    just gonna add night joggers and such. sometimes its more the pedestrian being visible before having to swerve/slam on the brakes. ;)

    Yeah, I almost backed into a jogger in black at end of my driveway once at 5am...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Yeah, I almost backed into a jogger in black at end of my driveway once at 5am...

    i nearly hit one a few months ago on a road barely lit and no side walk... admittedly i was also a tad distracted.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I nearly was run over by a Pruis today, but I was paying attention and she wasn't.... she was also running a red light. 

     

    What an insulting way to go that would be....

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    9 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I nearly was run over by a Pruis today, but I was paying attention and she wasn't.... she was also running a red light. 

     

    What an insulting way to go that would be....

    helping the earth, one human at a time....?   j/k

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    24 minutes ago, Sal Collaziano said:

    Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. 

    Wish the 1st and 3rd ones would just die.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    30 minutes ago, Sal Collaziano said:

    Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. 

    and Twitter, Cheers & Gears, Amazon, eBay, etc..

    • Haha 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    58 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    and Twitter, Cheers & Gears, Amazon, eBay, etc..

    Guess we should also include LinkedIn. :P 

    Guess we need people catchers now on every auto. 🙄

    See the source image

    Or a sweeper to sweep the peeps away:

    See the source image

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    Wish the 1st and 3rd ones would just die.

    He means that those are the causes for pedestrian incidents...   though I'm not sure who is more guilty of using them when they shouldn't be... pedestrians or drivers. 

    • Thanks 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    The last generation Cadillac SRX had the right idea of putting a cow catcher on the front.

    2013-cadillac-srx-side_cssrx133.jpg

    Have to say I like this body style over the XT5. Wish they had just designed the interior space better.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Have to say I like this body style over the XT5. Wish they had just designed the interior space better.

    It was meant to play in the compact class.  They drive fantastic... much more car-like than a normal crossover.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    27 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    He means that those are the causes for pedestrian incidents...   though I'm not sure who is more guilty of using them when they shouldn't be... pedestrians or drivers. 

    While pedestrians should be aware of their surroundings - it is more of the driver's responsibility than it is the pedestrian's. It is the pedestrian who has the right of way. You never see a driver sue a pedestrian for damage to his/her car after hitting somebody. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    29 minutes ago, Sal Collaziano said:

    While pedestrians should be aware of their surroundings - it is more of the driver's responsibility than it is the pedestrian's. It is the pedestrian who has the right of way. You never see a driver sue a pedestrian for damage to his/her car after hitting somebody. 

    Absolutely, the person who nearly hit me yesterday was running a red light.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think that is so dependent on the scenario you can't say it's all drivers' fault or all pedestrians' faults. 

    For instance, that autonomous Uber driver(or whatever company) that hit a lady.. The lady apparently came out of nowhere where there wasn't time to react even if an aware human was behind the wheel could have done anything. Then in Drew's case, the driver wasn't paying attention at all. I don't know what the split is but I feel like it's 95% because of phones for both parties. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    47 minutes ago, Sal Collaziano said:

    While pedestrians should be aware of their surroundings - it is more of the driver's responsibility than it is the pedestrian's. It is the pedestrian who has the right of way. You never see a driver sue a pedestrian for damage to his/her car after hitting somebody. 

    Would have to disagree with you, it is BOTH persons responsibility. Today, there are many people who ignore the signals and just walk out into the crosswalks. 

    Lucky for me, Seattle has so many cameras that they record 24/7 the cross walks and who has the right of way. If someone walked out in front of me when I have a green light, I will expect them to pay for any damages / repairs.

    We have already had these issues in the city with not just pedestrians but also bike riders who jump up on the sidewalk out of the bike lane to cross and then hit cars.

    Here I would sue a pedestrian or bike rider if they hit me by going against the lights when I had the Green. Hold everyone equally responsible.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    28 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    I think that is so dependent on the scenario you can't say it's all drivers' fault or all pedestrians' faults. 

    For instance, that autonomous Uber driver(or whatever company) that hit a lady.. The lady apparently came out of nowhere where there wasn't time to react even if an aware human was behind the wheel could have done anything. Then in Drew's case, the driver wasn't paying attention at all. I don't know what the split is but I feel like it's 95% because of phones for both parties. 

    Sorry to hear about you almost getting hit! I agree, it's probably 95% because of everyone being on phones... How the world has changed...

    21 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Would have to disagree with you, it is BOTH persons responsibility. Today, there are many people who ignore the signals and just walk out into the crosswalks. 

    Lucky for me, Seattle has so many cameras that they record 24/7 the cross walks and who has the right of way. If someone walked out in front of me when I have a green light, I will expect them to pay for any damages / repairs.

    We have already had these issues in the city with not just pedestrians but also bike riders who jump up on the sidewalk out of the bike lane to cross and then hit cars.

    Here I would sue a pedestrian or bike rider if they hit me by going against the lights when I had the Green. Hold everyone equally responsible.

    I agree with you that it is both the responsibility of the driver and the pedestrian to be aware of their surroundings - but by law - the person walking (and I believe riding a bike) always has the right of way at the end of that day. Perhaps that's changed since I originally learned that...

    When all is said and done, people driving need to pay attention to the road. Being on Facebook at the same time as driving - you might as well have a car racing video game displaying on your windshield with your vehicle's steering wheel working for both real drive and the game - simultaneously...

    Edited by Sal Collaziano
    • Thanks 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 minutes ago, Sal Collaziano said:

    I agree with you that it is both the responsibility of the driver and the pedestrian to be aware of their surroundings - but by law - the person walking (and I believe riding a bike) always has the right of way at the end of that day. Perhaps that's changed since I originally learned that...

    Nope, that is still the law.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Isn't it dependent on the situation? A pedestrian can't sprint across any road at any time and expect to be able to go after the driver who hits them. If there is a crosswalk light and you walk through while it is red that is a ticket for the pedestrian and I would assume if they got hit they couldn't go after the driver(unless it was something weird where it was clearly intentional and no effort to stop or avoid). 

    • Thanks 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Isn't it dependent on the situation? A pedestrian can't sprint across any road at any time and expect to be able to go after the driver who hits them. If there is a crosswalk light and you walk through while it is red that is a ticket for the pedestrian and I would assume if they got hit they couldn't go after the driver(unless it was something weird where it was clearly intentional and no effort to stop or avoid). 

    Pedestrian/bike in a crosswalk and a green light = having right of way.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yes. I think we all know that part of it. 

    If those were the only people getting killed this would be an easy discussion because it would be 100% of the cars' faults. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Yes. I think we all know that part of it. 

    If those were the only people getting killed this would be an easy discussion because it would be 100% of the cars' faults. 

    outside of that, you are right it does get murky.... still, as a driver, you are supposed to be in control of your forward motion at all times.  If someone jaywalks outside of a crosswalk and they get hit, the burden is on the driver to show extraordinary circumstances. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ykX

    Posted (edited)

    19 hours ago, dfelt said:

    My gut tells me this is not anything new about SUVs, but more of a distracted driving issue. We have clearly those that love to drive and those that care less. On top of the idiots that think driving is a privilege and anyone should be given a drivers license and allowed on the road.

    Lets first start with making the training more intense and focused on quality drivers before blaming the auto.

    People now as distracted as ever, people always driving bad and not paying attention.

    I think it is simple physics and statistics issue: much more cars in general on the road and substantially higher percentage of these cars are bigger, heavier and  taller SUVs/CUVs.

    I do agree though that pedestrians became much more distracted due to the smartphones.

    Edited by ykX
    • Thanks 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

    Isn't it dependent on the situation? A pedestrian can't sprint across any road at any time and expect to be able to go after the driver who hits them. If there is a crosswalk light and you walk through while it is red that is a ticket for the pedestrian and I would assume if they got hit they couldn't go after the driver(unless it was something weird where it was clearly intentional and no effort to stop or avoid). 

    Here in Seattle, I know pedestrians and bike riders are tickets if they go against the red and are held accountable for breaking that law no different than a driver in a car. 

    Yes Peds and Bikes have the right of way over a car if they have the green but to go against the road laws they are just as at fault so I agree that it does depend on the situation.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In downtown STL it's actually illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. They have to ride on the streets and obey all traffic laws. 

    It is not the same in my small town of 10,000 people 😂

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

    In downtown STL it's actually illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. They have to ride on the streets and obey all traffic laws. 

    It is not the same in my small town of 10,000 people 😂

    I so wish that was enforced here. Seattle says it is illegal if the street has a bike lane and yet with all the stupid bike share companies here, they have bikes all over the sidewalks and so tourists and locals ride everywhere causing all kinds of problems.
    Guess it is the same everywhere. 😵

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 5/9/2018 at 1:35 PM, dfelt said:

    I so wish that was enforced here. Seattle says it is illegal if the street has a bike lane and yet with all the stupid bike share companies here, they have bikes all over the sidewalks and so tourists and locals ride everywhere causing all kinds of problems.
    Guess it is the same everywhere. 😵

    In downtown Cleveland on several streets there are bike lanes that double as the valet parking drop off lanes for hotels and restaurants, hilarity ensues at certain times, I'm sure...

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is why automatic pedestrian detection is going to become standard across the board.  Even if it isn't legislated, the industry is driving there already.  Toyota already having it standard across nearly its entire lineup, Mazda makes it a cheap $600 option, HondaSense is standard on Accord and a $1000 option on any CVT equipped Civic or Fit. Standard on EX and higher CRV trims....
     

    It's going to take the same adoption path that airbags took... even if it isn't mandated, the safety scores will be weighted on having the feature or not and no manufacturer will want to be below 5 star ratings. 

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    That sucks for most enthusiasts who pay attention and don't want to even pay $600 for something like that, let alone even more. If they're packaging it into the starting price it might not look like we're paying for it, but we are. 

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    11 hours ago, ccap41 said:

    That sucks for most enthusiasts who pay attention and don't want to even pay $600 for something like that, let alone even more. If they're packaging it into the starting price it might not look like we're paying for it, but we are. 

    While true, even the best and most attentive drivers can't avoid every incident.  I do pay attention while driving, but I don't mind the car being able to take countermeasures if needed especially since it can react faster than I can.

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      There has been a prevailing thought about the likes of Uber and Lyft that once they switch from human drivers to self-driving vehicles, they would stand to see a significant reduction in overall operating costs. This possibly means consumers could see these services as an alternative to owning a vehicle. But a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disputes that claim.
      Researchers Ashley Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez examined the San Francisco market on the per-mile cost of an automated taxi service to owning a vehicle. They found an automated taxi would range between $1.58 and $6.01 per mile, while the conventional vehicle would be at $0.72 per mile.
      "When we started going into this work, we found there's a lot of hand-waving. There was a notion that 'All we have to do is remove the driver, assume a reduction in insurance, and there's our great number.' We said, 'Let's hold it up to scrutiny.' It didn't hold up," explained Nunes to Automotive News.
      The massive disparity gap isn't due to ownership or maintenance, rather a fundamental issue about the taxi market in general. Nunes said taxi operators drive too many miles without a paying customer - hence their higher costs. In San Francisco, the MIT researchers found a 52 percent utilization rate for ride-hailing. Even if they were able to reach 100 percent utilization, Nunes said they would still be "unable to provide a fare that's comparable to car ownership."
      "Their approach with the investment folks has been, 'Trust us, we'll figure this out and it'll be this great utopia where everyone is jumping from an Uber to a scooter to an air taxi.The future may well be all those things. But you need to demonstrate you can offer the service at a price point that consumers are willing and able to pay. Thus far, they are unable to do so," said Nunes.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      There has been a prevailing thought about the likes of Uber and Lyft that once they switch from human drivers to self-driving vehicles, they would stand to see a significant reduction in overall operating costs. This possibly means consumers could see these services as an alternative to owning a vehicle. But a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disputes that claim.
      Researchers Ashley Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez examined the San Francisco market on the per-mile cost of an automated taxi service to owning a vehicle. They found an automated taxi would range between $1.58 and $6.01 per mile, while the conventional vehicle would be at $0.72 per mile.
      "When we started going into this work, we found there's a lot of hand-waving. There was a notion that 'All we have to do is remove the driver, assume a reduction in insurance, and there's our great number.' We said, 'Let's hold it up to scrutiny.' It didn't hold up," explained Nunes to Automotive News.
      The massive disparity gap isn't due to ownership or maintenance, rather a fundamental issue about the taxi market in general. Nunes said taxi operators drive too many miles without a paying customer - hence their higher costs. In San Francisco, the MIT researchers found a 52 percent utilization rate for ride-hailing. Even if they were able to reach 100 percent utilization, Nunes said they would still be "unable to provide a fare that's comparable to car ownership."
      "Their approach with the investment folks has been, 'Trust us, we'll figure this out and it'll be this great utopia where everyone is jumping from an Uber to a scooter to an air taxi.The future may well be all those things. But you need to demonstrate you can offer the service at a price point that consumers are willing and able to pay. Thus far, they are unable to do so," said Nunes.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      Developing autonomous vehicles in sunny, dry locales like Phoenix, Arizona has proven to be difficult due to numerous variables such as traffic and human behavior. But an upcoming study from Michigan State University reveals that autonomous technologies still have a number of hurdles as testing begins in areas with changing conditions.
      Automotive News had the chance to speak with Hayder Radha, an MSU professor of electrical and computer engineering who oversaw the upcoming study. The findings reveal that the algorithms that are used to distill the various bits of information coming from the cameras and radar/lidar sensors have issues when it lightly rains.
      "When we run these algorithms, we see very noticeable, tangible degradation in detection. Even low-intensity rain can really create some serious problems, and as you increase the intensity, the performance of what we consider state-of-the-art mechanisms can almost become paralyzed," said Radha.
      "Once you throw in a few drops of rain, they get confused. It's like putting eyedrops in your eye and expecting to see right away."
      Researchers looked at various parameters in their study, including the size of the raindrops and the effect of wind. Using a scale that ranged from a clear day to a major downpour, the study revealed that algorithms failed to detect as much "as 20 percent of objects when the rain intensity was 10 percent of the worst-case scenario." This increased to 40 percent when the intensity of the rain increased to 30 percent.
      Other weather-related issues that were revealed in MSU's study,
      The high-resolution maps that autonomous systems to determine their location may need to be updated due to the changing seasons. "You can imagine in environments where there are a lot of leaves on trees or on shrubs close to the road, they are an essential part of the map. So summer and winter are completely different. When they fall down in winter, you have nothing to work with. So that tells you that for this technology to be robust, it needs to be developed in different conditions than you see only in Arizona and Silicon Valley," explained Radha. Cold temperatures play havoc with lidar sensors. The study reveals that the amount of "poor-quality or irrelevant returns from lidar sensors" increased as if the temperature was at 10 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Some of these issues can be addressed by getting more information from radar and lidar as engineers develop various ways to use them to classify objects. But Radha explains the big improvements will come when self-driving tech is tested in other locations such as Michigan and Pittsburgh to name a couple.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      Developing autonomous vehicles in sunny, dry locales like Phoenix, Arizona has proven to be difficult due to numerous variables such as traffic and human behavior. But an upcoming study from Michigan State University reveals that autonomous technologies still have a number of hurdles as testing begins in areas with changing conditions.
      Automotive News had the chance to speak with Hayder Radha, an MSU professor of electrical and computer engineering who oversaw the upcoming study. The findings reveal that the algorithms that are used to distill the various bits of information coming from the cameras and radar/lidar sensors have issues when it lightly rains.
      "When we run these algorithms, we see very noticeable, tangible degradation in detection. Even low-intensity rain can really create some serious problems, and as you increase the intensity, the performance of what we consider state-of-the-art mechanisms can almost become paralyzed," said Radha.
      "Once you throw in a few drops of rain, they get confused. It's like putting eyedrops in your eye and expecting to see right away."
      Researchers looked at various parameters in their study, including the size of the raindrops and the effect of wind. Using a scale that ranged from a clear day to a major downpour, the study revealed that algorithms failed to detect as much "as 20 percent of objects when the rain intensity was 10 percent of the worst-case scenario." This increased to 40 percent when the intensity of the rain increased to 30 percent.
      Other weather-related issues that were revealed in MSU's study,
      The high-resolution maps that autonomous systems to determine their location may need to be updated due to the changing seasons. "You can imagine in environments where there are a lot of leaves on trees or on shrubs close to the road, they are an essential part of the map. So summer and winter are completely different. When they fall down in winter, you have nothing to work with. So that tells you that for this technology to be robust, it needs to be developed in different conditions than you see only in Arizona and Silicon Valley," explained Radha. Cold temperatures play havoc with lidar sensors. The study reveals that the amount of "poor-quality or irrelevant returns from lidar sensors" increased as if the temperature was at 10 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Some of these issues can be addressed by getting more information from radar and lidar as engineers develop various ways to use them to classify objects. But Radha explains the big improvements will come when self-driving tech is tested in other locations such as Michigan and Pittsburgh to name a couple.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Most buyers don't tend to think of resale value until it comes time to sell their vehicle. But which models keep their value and which ones don't? iSeeCars.com recently published a study that looked into more than 4.3 million new and used car sales to determine which models lowest and highest loss in value after a five-year time frame.
      What vehicles had the lowest depreciation? According to iSeeCars, that would be SUVs and trucks. Taking the number one spot was the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited with an average depreciation rate of 27.3 percent. One only car, the Subaru Impreza would make the list - ninth place with a 42.3 percent average depreciation rate. On the opposite end, the Nissan Leaf has the highest depreciation at 71.7 percent. The rest of the list is made up mostly by luxury vehicles like the BMW 7-Series and Mercedes-Benz S-Class.
      "While the average new vehicle loses 50.2 percent of its value after five years, there are vehicles that retain more of their value and depreciate less than average. For consumers who buy new vehicles and sell them around the five-year mark, choosing a model that retains the most value is a smart economic decision,” said iSeeCars CEO Phong Ly.
      Some other findings from iSeeCars.com study,
      Toyota Prius c and Prius owners are sitting pretty as they are the lowest depreciating hybrid models in iSeeCars' analysis - 51.5 and 54.1 percent respectively.  The BMW X5 and X3 lose a fair amount of their value over the course of five years - 65.6 and 64 percent. For sports cars, the lowest depreciation models are the Subaru Impreza WRX (35.9 percent), Volkswagen Golf R (43.3 percent), and Chevrolet Corvette (44.6 percent). Source: iSeeCars.com

      View full article
  • Posts

  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. regfootball
      regfootball
      (52 years old)
    2. swgforthefence
      swgforthefence
      (62 years old)
    3. trevormac98
      trevormac98
      (37 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...