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

161–170 of 278 posts

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

#161

Post by pif »

saiya-jin wrote: post #119
Prcmaker wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had an entire Mazda 2 hidden from view in a roundabout, by the A-pillar and associated airbag of a VE commodore. Pedestrians and bicycles required much more effort to see in that car than any other I've ever driven.

A good rule of thumb is, if you are in dense complex traffic, to move your head around a bit when looking out and in the mirrors. Better coverage of dead angle in side mirrors, adding a bit more 3D into perspective. Its sort of defensive driving - expect troubles, idiotic clueless drivers, people having heart attack or just turning head to yelling kid on backseat / nice lady walking nearby. Can't save it all but defi…

No post body was provided.

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

#162

Post by causi »

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).

Don't forget that crashes aren't just an oblivious driver smashing into a pedestrian at full speed. Many, perhaps a majority involve some degree of braking.

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

#163

Post by pif »

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.

You are both wrong, It's the acceleration that kills you.

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

#164

Post by pif »

ajuc wrote: post #112
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…

Smart is smaller than most cars made in 80s, and modern compact/city cars are still reasonably light. It's just that somehow SUVs became fashionable. I can't understand why.

> Smart is smaller than most cars made in 80s

Well, if you compare a car for a couple to a car for a family...

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

#165

Post by gruez »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #153
samatman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to go along with this so long as blame is apportioned where it belongs: with the Federal government of the United States. My case is that manufacturing vehicles is a public good. We can talk about restoring city centers to human beings and I'll agree with you all day, but if you want to make the case that motor vehicles, cars included, are themselves immoral, we don't share enough values to have a product…

I don't agree that consumers are strictly limited by price. It's been the norm to finance vehicles with loans for a while now. So much that dealerships make more on financing than they do on selling cars in some cases. As profit in the industry has grown, so too has the amount of available credit. We now see 7 year loans on vehicles becoming more common.

>I don't agree that consumers are strictly limited by price. It's been the norm to finance vehicles with loans for a while now.

The monthly payments are dictated by the purchase price and interest rate. Guess who controls the interest rates?

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

#166

Post by pif »

Gigachad wrote: post #56
ocbyc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I choose my Jeep Renegade for the interior space.

And I drive in order to reach my destination, in peace and relaxed, not to impact anybody, and certainly not to kill.

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

#167

Post by pif »

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…

> Imagine if we had cars that were built like cars from the 80s ...

I'd happily but such a car for the city, if it was cheap enough to be able to afford a more serious car for long journeys.

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

#168

Post by pif »

timellis-smith wrote: post #82
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.

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.

There's a huge justification: comfort.

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

#169

Post by xyst »

As an American, we need to rethink how the cities are designed. Way too much emphasis on car centric design. An emphasis on car centric transportation means fed government and people want cars to be safer. Larger A-pillars which decrease line of sight. Larger vehicles give people a higher sense of security and safety.

These 2 points make it very safe for the driver and occupants but disregard any safety for pedestrians. Which is consistent with the papers findings.

Anecdotally, I have seen empty nesters and older men/women buy large SUVs and trucks not because of utility but because of the perceived safety a larger vehicle gives them. Even growing up in TX, rich parents would buy their 16 year old child a truck, SUV, or even a god forsaken hummer because it gives them peace of mind.

In my opinion, if cities were re-designed around public transportation and alternative forms of transportation. We would be better off in the long run: decreased auto v pedestrian fatalities, increased air quality, decreased in air pollution related illness/disease, much more efficient use of space (parking lots/garages vs space for human beings), and much more efficient cities in terms of taxing efficiency (decreased dependency on municipal bonds), and decreased and/or stabilized cost of living for everyone

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

#170

Post by sidewndr46 »

gruez wrote: post #165
sidewndr46 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that consumers are strictly limited by price. It's been the norm to finance vehicles with loans for a while now. So much that dealerships make more on financing than they do on selling cars in some cases. As profit in the industry has grown, so too has the amount of available credit. We now see 7 year loans on vehicles becoming more common.

>I don't agree that consumers are strictly limited by price. It's been the norm to finance vehicles with loans for a while now. The monthly payments are dictated by the purchase price and interest rate. Guess who controls the interest rates?

I don't actually know who sets the industry standards for automobile financing.

But the point you're making is missing something: term of the loan. That's the easy way to get the monthly cost down.

Post reply on HN