Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 278 posts

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#21

Post by wefarrell »

mc32 wrote: post #19
yboris wrote: post #14

Exactly on topic: a philosophy paper " Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? " by Douglas Husak. Author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility with other vehicles (and pedestrians), SUV driving is immoral - imposing an oversized amount of harm to others with no proportional safety for self. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447

There are three trends: bigger mass, larger sizes and taller vehicles. Which one of the above is the most consequential? I'm guessing height. at 2500 or 5000 lbs, neither is going to be pleasant when you bang in to it. size maybe there is more surface area to get hit by, but that's unlikely to be significant. mass does influence stopping distance though, so that could be, but at the same time we now have large disc b…

I got into a head on collision with an SUV that came off two wheels while rounding a curve and crossed the yellow divider right into my little car. In that case it was definitely the height that did us in.

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#22

Post by ars »

yboris wrote: post #14

Exactly on topic: a philosophy paper " Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? " by Douglas Husak. Author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility with other vehicles (and pedestrians), SUV driving is immoral - imposing an oversized amount of harm to others with no proportional safety for self. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447

Let's say we magically got rid of all SUV's. Then Douglas would find the next largest car and say the same thing.

You need to have some kind of line that distinguishes moral from immoral, if you can't do that, then your calculation is risk based, not morality.

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#23

Post by kube-system »

phlipski wrote: post #12

I wonder if insurance rates have been adjusted to reflect this. I would assume that being "at fault" for a crash with a fatality would result in a hefty insurance payout....

Yes, but pedestrian fatalities are relatively uncommon compared to other insurance losses, and in the US the insurance companies liability is typically capped at a fairly low level.

Long story short is that insurance companies price everything in — that’s how insurance works - rates are based upon actual losses and payouts.

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#24

Post by powerhour »

phlipski wrote: post #12

I wonder if insurance rates have been adjusted to reflect this. I would assume that being "at fault" for a crash with a fatality would result in a hefty insurance payout....

Mandatory minimum insurance limits sure haven't. They've gone up in some states but are still woefully low.

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#25

Post by Drunk_Engineer »

powerhour wrote: post #24
phlipski wrote: post #12

I wonder if insurance rates have been adjusted to reflect this. I would assume that being "at fault" for a crash with a fatality would result in a hefty insurance payout....

Mandatory minimum insurance limits sure haven't. They've gone up in some states but are still woefully low.

In California, drivers are only required to have $15,000 liability insurance.

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#26

Post by ajuc »

mc32 wrote: post #19
yboris wrote: post #14

Exactly on topic: a philosophy paper " Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? " by Douglas Husak. Author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility with other vehicles (and pedestrians), SUV driving is immoral - imposing an oversized amount of harm to others with no proportional safety for self. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447

There are three trends: bigger mass, larger sizes and taller vehicles. Which one of the above is the most consequential? I'm guessing height. at 2500 or 5000 lbs, neither is going to be pleasant when you bang in to it. size maybe there is more surface area to get hit by, but that's unlikely to be significant. mass does influence stopping distance though, so that could be, but at the same time we now have large disc b…

E=mV^2/2

60 km/h car will kill you either way, 1 km/h car won't kill you either way, but somewhere in between there's a velocity range where a SUV will kill you and a compact car won't - simply because of the mass difference. I'd argue it's the velocity range in which a lot of collisions happen (especially in city traffic).

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#27

Post by kube-system »

Drunk_Engineer wrote: post #25
powerhour wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandatory minimum insurance limits sure haven't. They've gone up in some states but are still woefully low.

In California, drivers are only required to have $15,000 liability insurance.

And 17% of them just drive around with no insurance at all.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/uninsured-motor...

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#28

Post by donw »

yboris wrote: post #14

Exactly on topic: a philosophy paper " Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? " by Douglas Husak. Author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility with other vehicles (and pedestrians), SUV driving is immoral - imposing an oversized amount of harm to others with no proportional safety for self. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447

The big problem -- pun intended -- is that vehicles are de facto required by law to be huge.

Imagine if we had cars that were built like cars from the 80s -- smaller, lightweight, tons of visibility, minimal equipment -- but with modern engine technology and a few of the electronics that don't add much weight, but add a ton of functionality (like 360-degree cameras).

I'll take the road noise, less interior comfort, and all the rest, just for a basic... car.

I'd love to have a modern reboot 80s compact pickup that wasn't a bloated mess like the new Ford Ranger.

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#29

Post by rdtwo »

ars wrote: post #22
yboris wrote: post #14

Exactly on topic: a philosophy paper " Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? " by Douglas Husak. Author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility with other vehicles (and pedestrians), SUV driving is immoral - imposing an oversized amount of harm to others with no proportional safety for self. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447

Let's say we magically got rid of all SUV's. Then Douglas would find the next largest car and say the same thing. You need to have some kind of line that distinguishes moral from immoral, if you can't do that, then your calculation is risk based, not morality.

SUV problem is mostly a grill size problem. They are designed to be aggressive and kill, you could drop them lower increase visibility and improve pedestrian impact like they do in Europe

Re: Effects of large vehicles on pedestrian and pedal-cyclist injury severity

#30

Post by mc32 »

ajuc wrote: post #26
mc32 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are three trends: bigger mass, larger sizes and taller vehicles. Which one of the above is the most consequential? I'm guessing height. at 2500 or 5000 lbs, neither is going to be pleasant when you bang in to it. size maybe there is more surface area to get hit by, but that's unlikely to be significant. mass does influence stopping distance though, so that could be, but at the same time we now have large disc b…

E=mV^2/2 60 km/h car will kill you either way, 1 km/h car won't kill you either way, but somewhere in between there's a velocity range where a SUV will kill you and a compact car won't - simply because of the mass difference. I'd argue it's the velocity range in which a lot of collisions happen (especially in city traffic).

I think that band where the light car is not lethal is a narrow bad. I could be wrong but I have a feeling it's sitting up high in an SUV/truck that is causing some of this.
Post reply on HN