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

51–60 of 278 posts

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

#51

Post by Ferrotin »

jackvalentine wrote: post #32
donw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

They're not required by law to be huge - they're required by law to be safe, which being larger ends up being a side effect. Sure a 2022 Toyota Corolla is gigantic compared to a 1985 Corolla, but it's nothing compared to a 2022 F150. The best selling 'car' in North America. I know which one I'd prefer to be hit by.

That means yes, they are required by law to be larger.

It was also because a fuel economy rule change.

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

#52

Post by elihu »

jwalton wrote: post #13
elihu wrote: post #7

Something I've wondered about is how do some of the newer vehicle designs fare when it comes to pedestrian safety? Presumably getting hit by a Tesla Cybertruck or Canoo Lifestyle Vehicle would be pretty bad, but are they just as bad as a giant pickup truck? My intuition says yeah, probably. But there might be some nuance, like maybe the Canoo has better-than-average visibility so hitting pedestrians is less likely. I…

They had some like this in 1939: https://youtu.be/LlyEIaRw010

Seems to be manually actuated.

"When the scoop is open the j-walker simply can't get run over; and sometimes that's more than he deserves."

Seems like a product of that weird period of history where streets used to be mainly for people, but they'd been taken over by cars and car companies were out there asserting ownership of the roads and trying to influence public attitudes by, among other things, inventing the crime of jaywalking.

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

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

#53

Post by esoterica »

dvzk wrote: post #46
ramraj07 wrote: post #36

Honestly as an upper middle class or rich American it looks like one of the more dangerous things you could do is probably go out cycling in a road shared by these monster machines. If you crave physical activity so much there’s many other alternatives. When I lived in College Station Texas I had to use a bike (because I was broke) but I stuck to the sidewalks, rules be damned. And even in the sidewalk had to keep an…

It's a different cycling experience to live in an area with 30+ continuous miles of a paved and forested riverside bike trail and 50+ miles of interlaced dirt trails. Cars can barely be a threat consideration most of the time.

That's fine if you're cycling as a hobby, but if you're cycling as a means of transportation you're going to need to take the roads most of the time. Most of the places you are going to are not going to be next to a forest trail.

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

#54

Post by jackvalentine »

Ferrotin wrote: post #51
jackvalentine wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not required by law to be huge - they're required by law to be safe, which being larger ends up being a side effect. Sure a 2022 Toyota Corolla is gigantic compared to a 1985 Corolla, but it's nothing compared to a 2022 F150. The best selling 'car' in North America. I know which one I'd prefer to be hit by.

That means yes, they are required by law to be larger. It was also because a fuel economy rule change.

> That means yes, they are required by law to be larger.

Larger, but not huge as I said. The gigantism of the best selling cars of 2022 isn't because of the law it's because of consumer preference to the detriment of everyone else.

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

#55

Post by jbay808 »

asdff wrote: post #39
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…

Also, shape. Go look at the front end of a car like a ford F150. The hood is flat and sits 4 feet high. Now go look at a more compact car like a prius. The hood is low, and is angled like a wedge smooth into the windshield. When a prius hits you, its liable that you will just roll up and off of it and not get much of the force from the impact as a result. When an F150 hits you with its 4 foot tall wall of a grill str…

Pedestrian visibility is also compromised. My SO is not a tall person. We've tested - she's quite invisible standing in front of these trucks and SUVs, because their front hood is so high and square. A small child would be impossible to see even some meters away. Worse if the driver of the vehicle is not tall.

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

#56

Post by Gigachad »

ocbyc wrote: post #43
rdtwo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They're designed to kill?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some perhaps unconscious trend of buyers picking more aggressive looking cars that are more likely to kill on impact.

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

#57

Post by Temporary_31337 »

Ferrotin wrote: post #51
jackvalentine wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not required by law to be huge - they're required by law to be safe, which being larger ends up being a side effect. Sure a 2022 Toyota Corolla is gigantic compared to a 1985 Corolla, but it's nothing compared to a 2022 F150. The best selling 'car' in North America. I know which one I'd prefer to be hit by.

That means yes, they are required by law to be larger. It was also because a fuel economy rule change.

Have you even seen a Smart car or a Toyota Aigo which has all the required safety parts? So tell us exactly which safety parts are so huge again ?

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

#58

Post by mudita »

analog31 wrote: post #49
emmelaich wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with your speculation. Here's another one. Even WHEN THE DRIVER sees you, some subconsciously ignore you. I'v had people look straight at me, keep driving then looking shocked when they finally realise and hit the brakes. I can only surmise they perceive traffic in terms of threats. When you're in a bigger car, threats are reduced.

There's that famous video of people dancing, where a person in a gorilla suit enters and leaves the action, and at the end, people don't remember seeing the gorilla. I think drivers are creatures of habit, especially in heavy traffic on a familiar route such as their daily work commute. They are not really in complete control of their cars -- certainly if traffic is heavy enough that nobody is following at a safe dis…

You slightly misremembered the invisible gorilla test, a classical study about inattentional blindness.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness#Invi...

Somewhat fittingly "the basic Simons and Chabris study was reused on British television as a public safety advert designed to point out the potential dangers to cyclists caused by inattentional blindness in motorists."

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

#59

Post by Auracle »

I drive a Camaro. I can’t fit an infant seat behind my driver’s side seat, and I sit abnormally closer to the steering wheel than most. Never mind a larger child seat.

Ok, you’re saying - but that’s a Camaro. Well, said Camaro is in repair at the moment and they gave me a loaner. It’s a Chevy Sonic. I also can’t fit the infant seat behind the driver’s side.

To be fair, it’s a subcompact. However, even in my wife’s CX-5 we can barely get our hand between the driver’s seat and the latch for the infant seat to get it out. That’s after moving the seat up further than my wife prefers. I’ll be shopping for a new vehicle soon and I can definitely see how people with families instantly jump to SUVs, vans, and to some extent trucks.

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

#60

Post by s1artibartfast »

DangitBobby wrote: post #33
ars wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Minimizing harm by not maximizing self interest is a moral decision. It's not defined by the ability to make it binary.

How low is low enough? Don't drive? Don't bike? Don't eat?

For that matter, is it immoral for a pedestrian walk down the street because they have some low probability of harming an SUV driver when they splatter off the front end?

Post reply on HN