Headline fail: an EV being more likely to hit a pedestrian than gas chariot is not the same thing as a pedestrian being more likely to be hit by an EV than by a gas chariot.
I understand your complaint, but the problem is far deeper:
Article fails to mention (and to account for the fact) that EVs still represent an only tiny fraction of all motor vehicles on the road. Hence: The vast majority of 4-wheeled vehicles involved in collisions with pedestrians are hydrocarbon-fueled, and the vast majority of pedestrians struck by 4-wheeled vehicles are struck by hydrocarbon-fueled ones.
The truth is: If a pedestrian is struck by a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, EVs will be overrepresented by a factor of four (i.e., "three times more). So, if they account for only, say, 4% of all vehicles on the road, a whopping 16% of the motor vehicles striking pedestrians will be EVs.
Thus, you are still overwhelmingly more likely to be struck by a hydrocarbon-fueled vehicle.
That is the point that the article should have made - but failed to clearly make.
Regards,
As the number of EVs increase and ICEs decrease, both of these statements eventually will be true.