By on February 28, 2019

2016 GMC Yukon SLT Premium Edition, Image: GM

We’ve already told you that, while traffic fatalities dropped in 2017, pedestrians deaths showed the opposite trend. Now, preliminary data from 2018 suggests pedestrians deaths rose to their highest point since 1990 last year, and one group claims high-riding crossovers and SUVs are a big part of the problem.

How big? According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs rose 50 percent in the past five years. 

Drawing its data from State Highway Safety Offices, the GHSA claims the estimated 6,227 pedestrian fatalities in 2018 represents a 4 percent increase from 2017. Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows the same type of fatality rose 35 percent from 2008 to 2017, with motorist and motorcyclist deaths down 6 percent in the same time frame.

Are SUVs, crossovers, and pickups solely to blame for the carnage? Absolutely not. As the average age of an American vehicle is 11 years, there’s still plenty of vehicles with trunks, new and old, piloting the country’s roadways. And passenger cars still represent the largest share (42 percent) of vehicles involved in a fatal pedestrian collision (2,279 in 2017, versus an SUV figure of 1,079). Still, the balance is tilting more heavily towards light trucks as the years progress, and with good reason.

In 2013, 50.1 percent of new vehicles sold in the U.S. were light trucks. Five years later, the take rate was 68.2 percent. The diverging trends in pedestrian and motorist deaths can be attributed to that fact that, as vehicles get safer for occupants, human beings haven’t grown more resilient to 4,000-pound vehicle impacts. And the taller the vehicle, the more likely a struck pedestrian will die.

Combined, the number of single-vehicle pedestrian fatalities linked to pickups, crossovers, and SUVs in 2017 (2,023) nearly reaches that of cars.

2016 Honda Pilot Elite

While the 50 percent increase in light truck-related pedestrian deaths looks bad, during the same five-year span pedestrian fatalities caused by passenger cars rose 30 percent. Hardly blameless in the rise in fatalities.

So what’s to blame for the rise in deaths? Vehicle type is one factor, but an increase in the total number of miles driven doesn’t help, nor does the population boom in major urban centers. That’s where people are moving, and that’s where an increasing number of vehicles exist. NHTSA data shows a steep increase in the number of urban vehicle miles driven in the past decade, with a corresponding decrease in rural miles.

Motorists are increasingly hitting more pedestrians at night, with the 45 percent increase in deaths during dark hours standing in stark contrast to the 11 percent daylight increase seen between 2008 and 2017. Some 75 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur at night. As for location, 72 percent of pedestrian deaths took place between intersections, away from marked crossings and signals.

While alcohol impairment as a factor in vehicle collisions dropped to its lowest point since (at least) 1982 in 2017, booze remains a big factor in pedestrians deaths. Some 17 percent of drivers involved in a pedestrian fatality were above the legal blood alcohol limit, while, on average, legally drunk pedestrians made up 32 percent of 2017’s fatalities. Victims in age groups ranging from 21 to 54 are most likely to be impaired, with no group in that range falling below 40 percent.

These numbers do not include drug impairment, which would only skew the overall impaired numbers higher (to what degree is hard to say). The most common drug associated with pedestrian deaths is methamphetamine.

Nearly half — 46 percent — of pedestrian deaths in the first half of 2018 came from five states: California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, and Georgia. Together, they punch above their weight in terms of pedestrian deaths, as they contain only 33 percent of the country’s population. The state with the highest fatality rate is New Mexico, with 3.53 pedestrian deaths per 100,000 residents in 2017.

While distracted driving and walking did not factor into the GHSA’s report, no one would argue that it’s an issue on the decline. Dealing with that problem won’t be an easy fix, either. Nor will fixing the state of America’s roads. Adding mid-block crossing signals, improving both street and vehicle lighting, and numerous other infrastructure enhancements would help bring the number of deaths lower, but that takes time, money, and conviction on the part of city and state lawmakers.

Mandating automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection would probably help to some degree, but it won’t do anything for the legions of older vehicles plying our roads. Plus, as we saw in early IIHS testing, these systems are certainly not all made equal.

[Image: General Motors, Honda]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

77 Comments on “As Pedestrian Deaths Spike, Safety Group Puts the Spotlight on SUVs...”


  • avatar
    Heino

    No mention of distracted pedestrians using earphones and staring at their screens.

    • 0 avatar
      DEVILLE88

      Well said, you took the words right out of my mouth. there are morons walking the streets(and driving). To not point that out only reduces the freedom of those of us who enjoy driving. Vehicle types? what are they idiots?? it’s a combo of driver and pedestrians. Although i will say that there are people with no business driving a hulk like a Suburban, but this is what you get when you have cuv and suv fantasies.

    • 0 avatar
      FerrariLaFerrariFace

      You can’t fix stupid.
      So we’re gonna make those SUVs twice as expensive trying to protect the stupid instead.

  • avatar
    jatz

    OK, everybody back to sedans. Little sedans.

    This is a fun game. Getting into sedans is like Twister!

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    Makes sense. Maybe the Democrats can include their elimination in the Green New Deal?

    • 0 avatar
      thatoneguy247

      I don’t agree with the Green New Deal, but I would go to a news or politics site to say it. I’m not sure what part of this article on pedestrian traffic fatalities elicited your thoughts of partisanship and punditry, but I feel like TTAC would be better without it.

  • avatar
    make_light

    I was struck by an early 00s Jetta two years ago, and miraculously only suffered minor injuries. The car was travelling about 40mph, but struck me in the shin. It haunts me to think what would have happened if an SUV hit me.

    And no, I wasn’t texting while crossing the street.

  • avatar
    jeoff

    Don’t think that infotainment screens help with distracted driving either. You can deal with buttons and dials without taking your eyes off the road—a touchscreen (with sub-screens), not-so-much.

    • 0 avatar
      bufguy

      Very good point…I own a 1981 VW Scirocco and a 2018 VW Golf Alltrack. I am so much more attentive DRIVING the Scirocco. No power steering, no screens, no info-tainment, standard shift. The Golf has an excellent intuitive system yet it still is a distraction

      • 0 avatar
        glennmercer

        To your point, I remember talking to a Daimler exec in the 1980s, who was aghast that Mercedes would have to put cup holders into their cars for Americans. He thought juggling hot coffee while driving was a very unsafe distraction.

        • 0 avatar
          rpn453

          I could probably change his mind with a single 10 hour drive on a quiet prairie highway.

          • 0 avatar
            glennmercer

            Spot on. Spilling coffee on yourself on a crowded urban highway might very well cause a swerve into nearby traffic… but hours on an empty highway without coffee might very well lead to dozing off and launching into the nearest ravine! Damn trade-offs!

        • 0 avatar
          Gedrven

          Something similar for BMW. As late as 1995 (E34) they sold a $50k car with no cupholders, but two cigar lighters and three ashtrays. Some perverse logic that a bottle of water is more dangerous to handle in a car than burning embers.

          • 0 avatar
            glennmercer

            I did not know that, thanks for the additional info!

            Three ashtrays…. wow, the world has changed…

  • avatar
    jeoff

    Deaths from passenger cars—which are a decreasing proportion of transport—is up 30%, while deaths from SUVs—growing porportion of transport is up 50%—doesn’t make me think the problem is with transport type, but other things that have increased—distractions while driving (some actually built-in as car “features”)—and distractions while pedestrianing. Visibility outside of all vehicles has gotten worse, as well. And, in cities there are a greater variety of pedestrians and pseudo-pedestrians to look out for—walkers, runners, bikers, scooters, powered skateboards—it is a lot to look out for—especially when many of the bikes, boarders and scooters just make up their own rules—and don’t wear helmets.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    The obvious solution is for the government to encourage, through tax incentives, the purchase of low vehicles. I’d really appreciate a few thousand toward the purchase of a Miata, Cayman or Alfa 4C.

  • avatar
    glennmercer

    Also, pot use may have an influence on this: “The seven states (Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Washington) and DC that legalized recreational use of marijuana since 2012 reported a collective 16.4% yoy rise in pedestrian fatalities, whereas all other states reported a collective 5.8% yoy decrease in pedestrian fatalities.” From the Financial Times, citing the GHSA report!

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    …Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows the same type of fatality rose 35 percent from 2008 to 2017, with motorist and motorcyclist deaths down 6 percent in the same time frame…

    Hmmmm…

    The iPhone G2 was launched on January 7, 2007. Within 18 months the market was flooded with the iPhone and alternatives and it has only grown from there.

    I think I see the problem – and it isn’t SUVs, and it isn’t just distracted drivers.

  • avatar
    SunnyvaleCA

    Here’s a theory…

    Discerning pedestrians from their surroundings accurately and quickly is a critical driving skill.

    After hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, maybe humans’ brains are wired to discern other humans in the environment when all the heads are at the same level. Specifically, your brain is hardwired to look for other people’s head positioned at the same elevation as your own head.

    If this is the case, the high seating position of a light truck would cause the driver’s head to be at a higher level than pedestrians’ heads, thus thwarting the evolutionary (and automatic) people-finding function.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      I’m six feet, two inches tall. I walk a lot, often in crowded environments. I run over short people incredibly infrequently, even when I’m in Baja, Mexico doing my best Gulliver impersonation.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      In case Sunnyvale can’t recognize the wisdom of my words, allow me to point out that the Yukon Denali, one of the larger SUVs, is 74.4 inches high, just like me. A person driving it is likely to have their eyes at the same height as the average pedestrian. Oh well. A person driving a 54 inch high car is well positioned to look a goat in the eye.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        SUVs driving is one thing, but pedestrian visibility as they start crossing a road, is a lot lower when all the cars parked along, and driving on, roads, are Peterbilts rather than Miatas.

        Doubly so, visibility for those still driving Miatas.

        In civilized traffic populations, cars are low and wide, hence visible to the sides of pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles. While pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles are narrow and tall, hence visible above cars. IOW, visibility of anyone, by anyone, is unimpeded.

        Things don’t work quite as well in idiotopias, where cars are 12 feet tall, and all pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists insist on carrying a 12×12 foot billboard on their back, to make themselves feel bigger and tougher.

  • avatar

    The article says: “Some 75 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur at night. As for location, 72 percent of pedestrian deaths took place between intersections, away from marked crossings and signals.” Earlier NHTSA data said 60+% of pedestrian fatalities had these issues.

    Also note that as cities encourage more people to walk – including to and from transit stops – the rate of exposures to pedestrian accidents goes up proportionally.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      How about legislation where a car accident with a pedestrian away from a crosswalk, is always the fault of the pedestrian? Almost every time I’m driving in the city, someone pops up from behind a van or box truck looking down at their phone, completely clueless. Why should the vehicle driver bare any responsibility in this case? We have really devolved as a species if people no longer retain the simple skill that’s supposed to be ingrained in children, “Look both ways before crossing the street!”

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Laws like this generally exist (jaywalking laws). Of course arguing that with a LEO is another angle. Living in the land of invisible pedestrians in head-to-toe black who treat crosswalks as a suggestion, I installed dashcams in the motor pool. Cameras don’t lie and at least in Washington state, RCW is very clear on when/where/how pedestrians can enter the roadway.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    This is what happens when society blames drivers no matter who is actually at fault. We could fix all this by telling people that nobody is responsible for their safety but themselves. If they get hit by a car on a road, they are going to have been hit by a car on a road. I hope they have good medical insurance, or have accepted the lord as their savior. If a pedestrian gets hit on a sidewalk or a crosswalk, or a bicyclist gets hit in a bike lane, that is entirely different. if you’re wandering into traffic staring at your phone, you should be on the hook for the results. Anyone who says otherwise is as responsible for the spike in pedestrian deaths as the smartphone is.

    • 0 avatar
      retrocrank

      so you’re willing to live without external assurances of safety, such as public health/sanitation, vaccines, food/meat/restaurant inspections, safety regulations in schools, safety lights on school busses, gun purchase regulations, licensing of health professionals, building codes, etc………..?

      Society doesn’t blame the drivers and that’s the problem. You go wrap yourself in a steel-clad device 20x the weight of the average Murkin and equipped with an engine giving superhuman strength and you want equal standing with pedestrians? That sounds exceptionally selfish to me. If your 5 year old gets trounced by the 14 year old idiot bully on the school ground, no matter who provoked the fight, I doubt very much you’re going to tell your 5 year old to watch out for his own safety…..

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        So in your world pedestrians should walk around in the middle of traffic with zero fear of the consequences? What Todd said is common sense. (Something that’s lacking way to much in modern society.) If a car runs over a pedestrian on the sidewalk, clearly it was the fault of the driver, because the car ended up where it’s not supposed to be. If the pedestrian is in the street, where he doesn’t belong, how do you want society to save him?

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “If a car runs over a pedestrian on the sidewalk, clearly it was the fault of the driver, because the car ended up where it’s not supposed to be. If the pedestrian is in the street, where he doesn’t belong, how do you want society to save him?”

          That depends. Was the pedestrian in a marked crosswalk or jaywalking?

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        What chemicals should I imbibe before attempting to wade into your reasoning? I’ll try my best employing only caffeine.

        I’m willing to live without any of the things you mentioned. I’ve done so before in other countries, and I suspect I’ll do it again here, when I look at the brain-rot that our public schools have produced.

        Society does blame drivers. That’s why we’re reading an article about SUVs instead of about imbeciles who walk or run into traffic.

        People are people, whether they are in Priuses or riding recumbent bicycles. People deserve equal standing. You are responsible for your actions, not those of someone else.

        If my 5 year old provokes a fight with a 14 year old, chances are he is either armed with the tools he needs to succeed, or I should go home and punch his momma square in the mouth, because there would be no way he could have come from my loins. If you can’t even tell your 5 year old to watch out for his own safety, then you are making me deeply despair for humanity. I used to walk around Manhattan with my niece when she was no more than five years old. You’d better believe I explained to her about the importance of her being ever vigilant, particularly when approaching a street.

        • 0 avatar
          glennmercer

          Completely irrelevantly:

          1. why are multiple Priuses not Prii?

          2. and why do people call more than one Nissan Leaf…Leafs?

        • 0 avatar
          retrocrank

          Well, I can’t help you with your temper. Nor your willingness to assume you can control risks beyond your ken.

          I have not argued that anybody has no responsibility for their own safety. And to somebody else’s comment, no sane person wants to suffer being hit by a car so only idiots are going to put themselves in the way of moving traffic. Non-idiots are not going to take risks around cars no matter what the legal liability. Broken bones trump Right.

          But pedestrians don’t have a monopoly on idiocy; drivers are just as likely to be idiots, if not moreso due to Red Mist.

          Non-idiots aren’t the problem. This entire discussion surrounds what to do with automobile/pedestrian idiocy. It is, in my experience, more likely that drivers will be assumed to be the non-idiot (except maybe in God’s Waiting Room states) and the pedestrian the idiot, without much regard to the Truth.

          But that truth/reality is irrelevant. We’re still dealing with an idiot vs. idiot situation, and I’m arguing that the driver has an unfair advantage in this battle and therefore accepts the responsibility for the results.

      • 0 avatar
        DEVILLE88

        You trust vacines??? I find it hard to trust the biggest most wealthiest drug lords on the planet. Not to metion the stick with the snake on it.

      • 0 avatar
        Gedrven

        Good point, that you can’t expect equality between one person wearing street clothes and another wearing those plus a couple tons of steel. The subtlety is that on one level, the two aren’t equal – in their physical capabilities and mutual danger – but on another level, they are: both have (presumably) the same senses, awareness, and agency/free will (or lack thereof, depending on your views). Both are equally responsible for following mutually beneficial rules of the road. Both should be held to equal standards of common sense, albeit implemented differently.

        • 0 avatar
          retrocrank

          In principle I could agree however that’s not the history of this country since FDR. We have increasingly institutionalized (on a gov’t level) the notion that the competant and successful owe the incompetant and infirm protection from further misfortune. Not my intention with this to start a debate about politics or philosophy, I’m just pointing out that in so many other spheres our nation gladly puts the clamps on the more able to serve the less able. That creates expectations, and at the root of my point re: fault is consistency with those expectations.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      The general rule should be that pedestrians look for and yield to cars before walking into a street and drivers look for and yield to pedestrians before crossing sidewalks or leaving the road. Who yields for whom at intersection crosswalks is set by traffic signals and right-of-way.

    • 0 avatar
      Gedrven

      + A million, and well said at that.

  • avatar
    retrocrank

    There are many explanations for these data, none are complementary to the idea of Homo sapiens.

    I propose that the only effective solution is, with the exception of limited access highways, any automobile/pedestrian (or cyclist) contact is automatically the fault of the automobile driver. I use “automobile” to mean any motorized vehicle capable of reaching the speed limit on the road in question.

    No further laws would be needed as the insurance companies and ATLA will quickly make driving untenable especially for those drivers who maim, kill or repetively strike non-driving humans.

    And no, I have no sympathy for drivers who have somebody just walk out in front of them. We were all told in DE that we are to be in control of our vehicles at all times. When driving, be attentive to the task, scan the horizon, be prepared for idiots, and make sure you know which pedal is which. I know that’s asking maybe too much of about 95% of the population, but the problem isn’t my “ask.”

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      Your thinking is the primary reason these deaths are on the rise. Pedestrians need to look out for themselves. Nobody who cares about their safety should tell them any differently.

      • 0 avatar
        retrocrank

        Your kind of “argument” makes me deeply despair for humanity.

        • 0 avatar
          jatz

          “makes me deeply despair for humanity”

          We’re old; that’s our job.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          What’s funny is that your lack of an “argument” really makes me really despair for humanity. Looking both ways when crossing the street is a pretty basic principle. If you don’t adhere to that, it’s on you.

        • 0 avatar
          EGSE

          Retrocrank, pardon me sir but you are deluded. It is FAR easier for a 200 lb person traveling at 3 mph to stop/change direction than a 4000 lb vehicle doing 25 or 35 or 50 mph. It’s simple physics which some folks either don’t understand or they just dick-headedly decide the law says it’s OK to walk into a high-energy encounter.

          I ran EMS for a decade and saw what happens when a pedestrian mixes it up with a car or truck and every eff-ing time they lose. And lose badly. Moron thinking is at play when anyone older than a child steps out into the road and believes they can do it with impunity. Your crazy idea to put it all on the drivers shoulders doesn’t attack the problem where it is; that thinking will prevent us in actually reducing pedestrian death/injuries in the most effective way which *should* be the goal. I hope to hell what you posit as the solution never sees the light of day. People like me got really tired of zipping people into bags because they refused to take responsibility for their own survival.

          • 0 avatar
            retrocrank

            So…….. you’re arguing that the physics of a car removes responsibility for control in an emergency from the driver……?

          • 0 avatar
            EGSE

            Not at all. A pedestrian should take responsibility for their own well-being. A driver should also have situational awareness and act accordingly but their control over circumstances is not unlimited. People on foot can be very poor at time/speed/distance estimations when viewing oncoming traffic. The Dunning-Kruger Effect says that those who are the worst at something often believe they’re the best at it. Get that wrong when doing a mental calculation about an approaching car and it ends badly. A walking person can stop in one or two feet, a car doing 35 mph is traveling at 51 feet per second. Add in reaction time and tire adhesion and it can exceed 100 feet before coming to a complete stop.

            In most U.S. cities the pedestrian is considered to have the right-of-way. I tested it one time; a cop in a cruiser leaned on the horn and yelled at me to watch what I was doing. And he was right. All the laws on the books give the pedestrian zero protection in an encounter with a moving object with thousands of foot/pounds of force.

            What I’m saying is if the goal is to reduce pedestrian injury/death the greatest gains will be made by acknowledging the physical realities of speed and mass. A moving vehicle isn’t as agile as a person on foot that’s paying attention to their surroundings.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        You remind me of one of those old Disney driving safety cartoons, featuring Goofy. The one about the way the driver reacts to pedestrians and the pedestrian reacts to drivers–even when they’re the same person.

    • 0 avatar
      jatz

      “And no, I have no sympathy for drivers who have somebody just walk out in front of them.”

      That only means you haven’t been one yet.

      • 0 avatar
        retrocrank

        You are in error.

        • 0 avatar
          jatz

          Explain, please.

          Mine was a jogger who darted out at night from behind shrubs taller than she was just as I had cleared both directions and began to pull out from a side street onto a main avenue.

          My slow speed and her last second instincts and general fitness allowed her to merely bounce lightly off my right fender front, do a Clay Matthews spin and continue running across and out of my path.

          Damned lucky for both of us and I’d bet she’ll never again let her headphones make her that oblivious to her environment.

          • 0 avatar
            retrocrank

            I’ve lived in a not-so-great neighborhood in Houston where intoxicated numbskulls wander like loose cows on the streets, and I’ve lived in the most rural areas of Murka where people on foot just don’t expect to see a car. I’ve had to slow down, stop, take evasive action, etc… many times. I stick to the notion that Drivers have a Responsibility to be sure they can control where their automobile is going as dictated by the immutable laws of physics.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      I doubt there’s a recidivism problem when it comes to striking pedestrians. It won’t happen to most drivers in their lifetime, and it’s even rarer that it will happen more than once.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Wow! A next door neighbor, so to speak.

  • avatar
    0Gravity

    Phones are the problem. Both with pedestrians and drivers of all types of vehicles

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    It’s that “bigger is better” mindset, combined with mandated safety requirements of higher shoulder lines and severely-reduced visibility in so many vehicles. Heck, the hoods of some of these vehicles are so high that the driver would never see that ball bouncing out from between two cars to know to stop for the kid almost guaranteed to follow it. The fun thing is, those hood lines have no practical need to be so high. Just look how tall and square the hood on that GMC in the photo above rides. There is literally no reason, outside of “bigger is better” for that hood to be so tall or so square.

  • avatar
    DEVILLE88

    You trust vacines??? I find it hard to trust the biggest most wealthiest drug lords on the planet. Not to metion the stick with the snake on it.

  • avatar
    James Charles

    Eating hash browns.

  • avatar
    George B

    Conservation of momentum always works out heavily in favor of the vehicle independent of the size of the vehicle. With either a Fiat 500 or a Cadillac Escalade, the pedestrian is going to lose. What matters is the pedestrian not stepping out in front of the car.

    • 0 avatar
      retrocrank

      George and EGSB—no arguments with physics…my argument is that it is irresponsible to hurtle about with MxV orders of magnitude greater than pedestrians (even fat Murkin pedestrians) — and the idiots aren’t required to wear flashing lights nor are restrained. So no driver can know for sure who will be an idiot pedestrian and ignore their own safety. That’s true for smart attentive drivers like you all, and it’s certainly more true for the idiot drivers of which there is an abundance. In general, The Law is meant for the masses not the bright and attentive. Thus my stance. You have to drive like you’re on a stage rally without pace notes. Ready for anything. You probably do and so a liability law is a PIA, like so many other laws and regulations. But for the average bearer of a DL this might be one more factor to get them to wake up and pay attention. It’s not so much about the pedestrians as it is requiring that drivers WTFU and drive attentively.

      • 0 avatar
        Gedrven

        Driving in the motorist equivalent of Condition Yellow is correct, but your proposed Law is reasonable only in spirit, not interpreted literally as actually being ready for anything. It’s impossible to be ready for that which is impossible physically, namely driving a car at more than a crawl and stopping with zero advance warning.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    It doesn’t help that government planning is pushing people to walk and bike everywhere when the last 30 years people have been used to driving anything over half a mile away.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • NormSV650: “While Americans can’t seem to get enough of the mid-size pickups from Japanese automakers, they...
  • DenverMike: I’m sure it looks good from behind. I know there’s a sexist remark there, but it’s...
  • mopar4wd: Yep
  • mopar4wd: My FIL has a 2009 Tundra. It is durable as hell. He tows heavy with it alot and generally not a easy on it,...
  • ajla: I think this thing will sell a lot of Tacomas.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber