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

81–90 of 278 posts

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

#81

Post by timellis-smith »

donw wrote: post #28
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, a…

I live in the UK, and the last car I bought was a SEAT Ibiza with a 3 cylinder 1 litre engine. I get 4.5l/100km or 52 mpg on long trips. 98% of the time my engine does under 2500 rpm.

I have absolutely no need of anything bigger and my car has all the comforts I require. I was also able to buy it for cash.

I've never quite understood the desire to own a large car with all its concomitant costs.

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

#82

Post by timellis-smith »

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.

A good estate car will provide much the same room, while providing greater safety to pedestrians and better fuel economy / battery range.

There is little justification in the modern world for driving a SUV.

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

#83

Post by yread »

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…

Higher weight also requires thicker pillars so that the car doesn't smush you when it rolls over leading to worse visibility

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

#84

Post by ramraj07 »

pmontra wrote: post #72
jimbob45 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 This was essentially my strategy too. Bike lanes in the back streets, exclusively sidewalks on the risky streets.

I'm a cyclist and I hate bicycles on sidewalk as much as I would hate cars driving there. They increase risks for pedestrians that have done nothing wrong by walking on a sidewalk. We cyclist must accept our risks and stop offloading them to other people. Furthermore sidewalks have a worse pavement than roads, are full of obstacles (including pedestrians) and are a slower way to get to destination, but that's another…

I guess you’ve never been to a Texan town then. Literally no one is on a sidewalk, and if there’s more than one person in the sidewalk per mile, I’d get off the sidewalk. I suppose you’ve also not seen southern drunk (or even sober but texting) kids in raised trucks driving either.

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

#85

Post by pmontra »

ramraj07 wrote: post #84
pmontra wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a cyclist and I hate bicycles on sidewalk as much as I would hate cars driving there. They increase risks for pedestrians that have done nothing wrong by walking on a sidewalk. We cyclist must accept our risks and stop offloading them to other people. Furthermore sidewalks have a worse pavement than roads, are full of obstacles (including pedestrians) and are a slower way to get to destination, but that's another…

I guess you’ve never been to a Texan town then. Literally no one is on a sidewalk, and if there’s more than one person in the sidewalk per mile, I’d get off the sidewalk. I suppose you’ve also not seen southern drunk (or even sober but texting) kids in raised trucks driving either.

I confess I didn't. My remark is addressed particularly to cyclists of dense cities where we have more people on sidewalks than inside cars (but still a lot of cars.) Unfortunately there are plenty of bicycles on sidewalks.

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

#86

Post by Ma8ee »

vihren wrote: post #34
ajuc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Its the momentum that kills you p=mV, not the kinetic energy. So I would guess that mass ia much more important.

Why would that be? Isn't it the energy spent tearing your body apart that is relevant?

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

#87

Post by tzs »

vihren wrote: post #34
ajuc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Its the momentum that kills you p=mV, not the kinetic energy. So I would guess that mass ia much more important.

A typical locomotive at 1 mph has more momentum than a Ford F-150 at 45 mph, but the latter is far more likely to kill you in collision so it doesn’t look like it is momentum that kills.

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

#88

Post by HailTheGreenOne »

radu_floricica wrote: post #77
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

Vans are nightmare stuff for motorcyclists. Hitting a compact car from most angles means rolling over it. Hitting a van from any angle is instant SPLAT - all potential energy gets instantly converted into damage. We don't have SUVs here (Eastern Europe), but I think they're a closer to vans than to compacts.

What do you mean we don't have SUVs in Eastern Europe? Where would you have to live to think that?

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

#89

Post by stouset »

twelvechairs wrote: post #69
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…

> I stuck to the sidewalks, rules be damned Sidewalks can be the most dangerous place for cycling when cars come out of hidden driveways quickly. Maybe not where you are (perhaps there's good vision with big verges and/or big yards with no front fences), but this approach cant be applied safely in many areas. The real underlying issue of course is a disparity in street design between care for vehicle passenger safety…

I have ridden tens of thousands of miles by bicycle. Perhaps five of those miles in aggregate were on sidewalks.

I have been hit by a car while riding on a sidewalk. It happened while passing a gas station entrance.

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

#90

Post by stouset »

dvzk wrote: post #64
esoterica wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is kind of irritating for a commuter to dismiss competitive and fitness sports as hobbies, but that aside, the aforementioned trail parallels a major highway and it’s used by thousands of cyclists and commuters each day for the majority of their routes. Some toss their bikes onto the lightrail and bus racks at the end to avoid roads.

I don’t think they’re dismissing it, they’re simply saying that’s not an option for most of the cohort of cyclists who ride for utilitarian reasons.
Post reply on HN