WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military has conduced another strike against a boat accused of smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Thursday, immediately killing two people and leaving six survivors amid an ongoing campaign against alleged traffickers in Latin America.

The latest attack — which now number at more than 60 — brings the number of people who have been killed in boat strikes by the U.S. military to more than 210 people since the Trump administration began targeting those it calls “narcoterrorists” in early September.

It is unclear if the survivors of this strike were rescued. In this case, and the strike on June 16 that left two survivors, U.S. Central Command said that they notified the U.S. Coast Guard. The US Coast Guard said they suspended their search for survivors for the June 16 strike a day later with “no signs of survivors or debris” but had no comment on the current strike.

As with most of the military’s statements on strikes in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, U.S. Southern Command said it targeted the alleged drug traffickers along known smuggling routes. The military did not provide evidence that the vessel was ferrying drugs.

A black and white video posted on X showed a boat speeding through the water before being struck by a visible projectile and then bursting into flames.

President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America and has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and fatal overdoses claiming American lives. But his administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing “narcoterrorists.”

Critics of the strikes have questioned the overall legality as well as their effectiveness. Part of the argument has been that the fentanyl behind many fatal U.S. drug overdoses is typically trafficked over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India.

On Thursday, U.S. lawmakers demanded that the Pentagon release “unedited video” of the very first strike that the military conducted after reports emerged that the U.S. chose to conduct a follow-up strike on survivors of its initial attack.

Two men on the boat initially survived the attack that killed nine others, and they were clinging to the wreckage when the vessel was struck again, killing them. The White House confirmed the follow-up strike, insisting it was done “in self-defense” to ensure the boat was destroyed and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.

But some legal scholars said a second strike killing survivors would have been illegal under any circumstance, armed conflict or not.

The Pentagon’s watchdog said in May that it planned to look into whether the U.S. military followed an established targeting framework when carrying out the strikes. However, the evaluation is focused specifically on what’s known as the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle and not on the legality of the strikes, the inspector general’s office said.

For decades, American roads were steadily getting safer for pedestrians. But around 2009, the trend reversed. Since then, the number of pedestrians killed each year has risen by about 75 percent.

The surge in pedestrian deaths has baffled researchers. Most other wealthy countries haven’t seen similar increases, suggesting that possible culprits like smartphones don’t tell the whole story.

Other likely causes of deadly crashes, such as drunken and distracted driving, have attracted immense attention from the public and policymakers. But the trend toward ever-larger vehicles has received much less scrutiny, even after federal researchers in 2022 cautioned regulators that it was endangering pedestrians.

After analyzing federal and industry records, including never-before-examined data on vehicle dimensions, we found that the rise of large pickups and S.U.V.s is an important factor.

Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century. That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.

There are two reasons bigger vehicles are deadlier: They have taller hoods. And they tend to have larger blind zones.

“We see a lot of devastating collisions even at lower speeds because the pedestrian gets punted forward,” said Shawn Harrington, whose company, Forensic Rock, conducted crash tests for us. “Before the driver knows what’s happened, the pedestrian’s head is under the wheel.”

More vehicles than ever have hoods that exceed the average American’s center of gravity, which is generally around the belly button.

The hood of an average passenger vehicle today is about three feet high. Anyone shorter than 5-foot-6 — about half of American adults — would frequently be rammed to the pavement. So would most children.

Not only are the high hoods on larger vehicles more lethal, but their bulkier frames can also block drivers’ views of pedestrians.

To analyze how these blind zones have changed, we used a three-dimensional scanner to compare sightlines in four of the most common pickups today — the Chevrolet Silverado, Ford F-150, GMC Sierra and Toyota Tacoma — with their counterparts from the 1990s or early 2000s.

The Silverado’s blind zones have nearly doubled.

The Sierra’s and the Tacoma’s grew by about 60 percent.

The smallest increase was the F-150’s. Its blind zones grew by about 25 percent.

Our overall findings match what we found in court records and heard from dozens of experts who reconstruct crashes for police and lawyers.

One morning last year, Charlene McAlister, 76, set out for work at a child care center in Colorado Springs. “See you tonight,” she called to her daughter as she left their home.

As Ms. McAlister was crossing the street, a Ram 1500 TRX — a pickup marketed for its off-road capabilities and fierce-looking design — was turning left.

Ms. McAlister was not quite five feet tall. The pickup’s hood was at least four feet high. It hit her, throwing her to the pavement.

The driver later said he hadn’t seen Ms. McAlister, according to court records. They show that the truck’s large hood and side mirrors may have impeded his view.

When Ms. McAlister’s daughter, Serena, arrived at the scene, she saw her mother’s hedgehog-themed backpack and red purse in the road, spattered with blood. Emergency workers had draped a white sheet over her body.

The size of vehicles is far from the only reason that more pedestrians are dying, according to independent experts and industry officials.

“While vehicle safety is critical, blaming larger vehicles for pedestrian deaths overlooks systemic issues” including the design of roads, said Mike Levine, a spokesman for Ford.

Automakers say that new technology designed to detect and avoid pedestrians — including systems that automatically apply the brakes — would dramatically improve safety. For example, Bill Grotz, a spokesman for General Motors, pointed to a recent study that found that G.M. vehicles with so-called front pedestrian braking reduced the frequency of injuries by 35 percent.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is pinning its hopes on automated collision-avoidance systems. Such technologies “are actively reducing the occurrence of these crashes and fundamentally shifting the risk landscape,” said Sean Rushton, an agency spokesman. “We view these technologies as the cornerstone of future mitigation strategies.”

But many experts say that technology is not a perfect substitute for drivers being able to view their surroundings directly. And tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which studies ways to make driving less dangerous, have shown that many large vehicles’ automatic braking systems do not consistently prevent collisions.

The owner’s manuals for some of the most popular vehicles caution that safety technology can fail in a variety of common situations: in bad weather; at high speeds; if there are shadows on the road or its surface is uneven; or if a pedestrian is running, pushing a stroller, not standing upright or the size of a small child.

‘King of the Road’

Today’s S.U.V.s and pickups promise more: more seats, more space, more safety, more power, more domination, more prestige.

And, for automakers, more money.

They are the source of virtually all of the U.S. auto industry’s profits, said Mark Wakefield, an industry expert at the consulting firm AlixPartners. For nearly a decade, Ford and G.M. have said in their annual reports that their earnings depend on larger S.U.V.s and pickups.

The cost of making bigger vehicles is usually not much higher than it is for cars, because they are often built in automakers’ most efficient factories and the extra raw materials are relatively cheap.

Yet customers are willing to pay much more for them. The average sticker price for a full-size pickup is $70,000, double that of a sedan, according to Cox Automotive. (Some people pay more to soup up their trucks with “lift kits” that raise their suspensions.)

It is no coincidence that automakers have dramatically scaled back their production of sedans and other passenger cars in the United States. Ford, for example, went from selling more than a million in 2017 to fewer than 100,000 five years later.

What used to be utilitarian vehicles for construction workers are now marketed to the American masses, with messages tailored to specific audiences.

One common pitch centers on machismo. Automakers trumpet how some of their trucks have an “aggressive appearance” or a “piercing glare.”

Other approaches emphasize the perceived safety of being the biggest vehicle around. “You’re the king of the road,” said Frank Hanley, a director at the automotive research firm JD Power.

At Ford, Nicole Gayney’s job was to identify specific social and psychological groups to target.

One was men who hoped to be seen as the neighborhood’s hero, keeping everyone safe, said Dr. Gayney, who left Ford in 2022. Another group was women who viewed a roomy S.U.V. as a way to be the community’s caregiver, taking the soccer team out for ice cream.

“We’re kind of in this American mind-set that bigger is better,” she said.

An Unintended Consequence

In 2009, after a spate of fatal incidents in which drivers were crushed in rollovers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration required roofs to be strong enough to support three times the weight of a vehicle. Many automakers responded by installing thicker A-pillars.

James Forbes, who was a longtime engineering manager at Ford, said that after the company began installing the fatter A-pillars, he and his colleagues noticed that they were reducing drivers’ visibility.

The drivers were safer, but pedestrians were in greater peril. “We were very much biasing safety toward the owner of the vehicle,” Mr. Forbes said.

Those potential dangers began attracting attention, with articles in the Detroit Free Press and Consumer Reports.

By 2022, the lack of visibility in large vehicles had become a concern for researchers at the Transportation Department’s Volpe Center, whose mission is to identify and address problems in the transportation system.

That November, the researchers met with leaders at the department and N.H.T.S.A. They delivered a stark message: Large vehicles, with their big blind zones, were increasingly deadly. They were killing hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists every year and injuring thousands more, the researchers estimated, according to attendees and meeting materials we reviewed.

The researchers hoped that their warning would spur regulators to consider how to address the problem.

But a senior N.H.T.S.A. official disputed the data and argued that new pedestrian-sensing technologies were already improving safety.

“There was just zero acknowledgement of the problem,” said Angie Byrne, a former Volpe Center employee who was involved with the research and attended the meeting.

The meeting ended with no plan for action.

The Closed Casket

The U.S. government has paid scant attention to how the size of vehicles affects the safety of pedestrians.

Federal regulators don’t collect much data about the heights of vehicles’ hoods. But we found one service that does: Expert AutoStats.

Our analysis shows a radical change in the makeup of American vehicles over the past two decades.

Not only have many drivers abandoned traditional cars in favor of S.U.V.s and pickups. But millions have flocked to vehicles with hoods that are more than 50 inches tall — like the Ford F-250 and Chevrolet Silverado 2500 — whose ranks have increased more than five-fold since 2002.

To understand how a vehicle’s size affects a crash’s lethality, we built a statistical model. Our goal was to estimate how many fewer pedestrians, if any, would have died in a world in which vehicles had remained roughly the same size since 2002.

We started with a federal database that contains a nationally representative sample of crashes reported to the police from 2016 to 2024. We narrowed that down to those involving a single vehicle and a single pedestrian. And we added the data on hood heights, which wasn’t included in the federal database.

Our model then analyzed the degree to which different factors — such as hood height, weather conditions, time of day and whether alcohol was involved — affected whether pedestrians died.

Crashes are complex events, and the data we fed into our model doesn’t capture everything about each incident. And, of course, there is no way to definitively say what would have happened in an alternate reality where vehicles had not continued to grow larger.

But based on the best available data, the model reached a sobering estimate: The shift toward vehicles with higher hoods caused about 3,000 deaths from 2016 to 2024.

The estimate is conservative in many ways.

For example, it doesn’t include collisions that occur in places like parking lots, driveways or private roads, which are not part of the federal database. Hundreds of pedestrians a year are estimated to die in such crashes, a number that has been increasing.

Only in the past several years have researchers started exploring whether and how larger vehicles threaten pedestrians.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, for example, found last year that vehicles with larger blind zones were substantially more likely to hit pedestrians when turning left.

One evening in October 2016, Margaret Lacey, a 57-year-old nurse, was taking her dog for a walk in Jefferson County, Colo.

She was in a crosswalk as Ernest Martinez, a 50-year-old construction manager, was turning left in his Ford Excursion. He later said he hadn’t seen Ms. Lacey until his S.U.V. was nearly upon her. His view had been blocked by the A-pillar, a crash reconstructionist found.

He slammed the brakes, but he still hit her.

The hood of his 2002 Excursion — large for its time but common by today’s standards — was nearly four feet tall. It came up to Ms. Lacey’s chest. The impact sent her flying. Her head smashed into the pavement.

Mr. Martinez leapt out of his vehicle and knelt by her side. “I prayed with her,” he said in an interview. “I just held her hand and watched her go.” Her dog also died.

When Ms. Lacey’s sister, Betty, learned of her death, she flew to the United States from Ireland. She wanted an open casket, following her family tradition. But her sister’s head was grievously misshapen. “The only part that looked like Margaret was her hands,” Betty said.

The coffin was closed. Her funeral was held at a Catholic chapel in Denver, and Mr. Martinez was among the mourners. “May God bless you all, and I pray that you all will find peace,” he wrote in the condolence book.

“I’m sorry.”