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

211–220 of 278 posts

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

#211

Post by mitchdoogle »

dont__panic wrote: post #207
Steltek wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American system is broken. Many (Blue) states would happily rein in oil guzzling pickups, SUVs, etc but Federal law prevents that. Another example is states can't require truck trailers to have side barriers to keep small cars and cyclists from going under.

Interestingly, California has essentially put itself in the position of dictating emissions standards for the entire USA because it imposes the strictest requirements, and California is a large enough market that carmakers won't ignore it (but small enough that it's not worth separate SKUs). I wonder what would happen if California, or New York, or a consortium of smaller blue states like New England imposed safety s…

It'd last a couple years then be thrown out by the conservative SCOTUS

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

#212

Post by krnlpnc »

I hope that more Americans will settle on CUVs as family cars.

CUVs are built on car style chassis (as opposed to SUV which are built like trucks) and generally are smaller and more fuel efficient (modern turbo 4 cyl designs are pretty impressive). Yet they retain the vast majority of benefits (roomier, higher, AWD, seating up to 7)

Yes CUVs are bigger than sedans, however for a family they check all the boxes and are in my opinion a vastly better alternative to vans, pickups and large SUVs, all of which often come in v6 and v8 engines.

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

#213

Post by dont__panic »

jbay808 wrote: post #55
asdff wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This also creates a huge problem for visibility around parked cars. Most US cities I've visited allow parking right up to pedestrian crosswalks on corners (yes, I know this is stupid and dangerous, but the street parking lobby is very strong here). When someone parks a massive truck or a huge SUV on the street, pedestrian, cyclists, and even cars trying to cross the street are stuck gambling on a blind spot.

This shouldn't even be a problem; these massive vehicles literally don't fit in street parking spaces, where they're designated with paint or verge on a bike lane.

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

#214

Post by mitchdoogle »

emmelaich wrote: post #6
sonofhans wrote: post #3

> Findings suggest larger vehicles are involved in pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes with more severe injuries that result in higher hospital charges. I've commuted 10s of thousands of miles by bike the last 30 years, mostly in an urban environment. This doesn't surprise me. I can't read the whole article, and the excerpt doesn't offer any data or speculation about the causes of this. So, with some experience, I'll…

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.

I don't think threat assessment is driving people's driving habits. More likely, they didn't actually see you, or if they did, they made an assumption that you were going to wait for them or otherwise not be in their path. That could be because they don't know the laws concerning cycling, or maybe being tired/distracted/inebriated.

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

#215

Post by orangepurple »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #103
egman_ekki wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guessing by the name, perhaps Romania. Maybe they mean large ones like Ford F150? otherwise (Eastern) Europeans love their SUVs for sure, 45% of new vehicles bought in Europe are SUVs.

I think it's more of a sliding scale than a rigid dichotomy. The car we drive might reasonably be described as an SUV, the Seat Tarraco. As a pedestrian or a cyclist I'd take my chances on against it before something like the Chevy Suburban any day of the week.

Getting hit by a Romanian Dacia Sandero is just as bad as getting hit by a Chevy Suburban at the same speed.

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

#216

Post by dont__panic »

bitexploder wrote: post #197
dsq wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once had a Toyota land cruiser start climbing onto the hood of my Hyundai accent because the driver couldn’t see me over the hood of his engine as he driving up out of a parking garage.

As a driver of an oversized vehicle I am always paranoid about driving in the city and almost never do it in my truck. If you walk in front of my truck I literally cannot see you. The tires are almost 4 ft tall and it is easily possible to simple drive over smaller cars. I keep this diesel monstrosity where it belongs, out in nature off roading and buying groceries in my local suburb.

> buying groceries in my local suburb

Ah yes, the natural environment of the 4ft tall tired diesel monstrosity truck.

I understand that you want this vehicle for offroading. But in my opinion it should be treated like a dirt bike or a 4 wheeler: you should have to tow it to the trails. If you live in the wilderness, feel free to drive it right onto dirt roads and trails. But it just shouldn't be allowed at all in a suburban or urban environment. A truck like that cannot possibly fit in the parking space at the grocery store. Not being able to see over the hood is a danger to anyone walking or biking in your suburb, and probably contributes to the fact that nobody walks or bikes in your suburb.

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

#217

Post by ridgered4 »

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…

It occurred to me a few weeks ago that it was kind of nonsensical that there are tons of safety requirements that have added a lot of cost and complexity to a basic car (arguably this is a very good idea) yet you can still ride a motorcycle around legally. I don't know about you but I'd rather drive to work in a 1980 honda civic than a motorcycle, if only to stay out of the rain. But it isn't legal to sell a 1980s style civic anymore.

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

#218

Post by Fradow »

pif wrote: post #171
goethes_kind wrote: post #122

Large personal vehicles should just be banned in cities. People abused the system to such an extent that now it is a matter of infringing on other people's right to personal safety not to mention the unnecessary pollution and traffic congestion. I do not want to discuss the specifics but it would be great if for example cities only allowed KEI cars or a similar concept.

> Large personal vehicles should just be banned in cities. I see your point, but that will only work when small city cars will be cheap enough to let have a "real" car too for non-daily purposes (long journey, huge shopping, out with the family...).

Isn't it already the case?

A brand new C1 is about 12K€. That's not even twice the price of an electrified cargo bike (I saw about 7/8K€ floated around the other day).

And if you go for used, you can get cars in good enough shape for less than 5K€.

Obviously, the additional car will have a much higher running cost than if you went for an electrified cargo bike or stuck to a single car. Forcing people to make that conscious choice would be a pro in my opinion.

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

#219

Post by powerhour »

enragedcacti wrote: post #174
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…

> So they did the obvious thing: imposed increasing taxes on gasoline. I would argue that their hands were somewhat tied because raising the federal gas tax during a recession would have been an extremely unpopular thing to do regardless of the reasoning. Maybe we should expect our representatives to make the right choices anyway but we would probably still punish them for it. The IRA has a similar problem, its all c…

> I would argue that their hands were somewhat tied because raising the federal gas tax during a recession would have been an extremely unpopular thing to do regardless of the reasoning.

Hopefully in the next boom time we'll do the sane thing and finally tie the gas tax to inflation, or at least increase it at the same rate as we do federal wages. Making it a fixed amount of pennies is about the dumbest thing we could have done.

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

#220

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

mitchdoogle wrote: post #211
dont__panic wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, California has essentially put itself in the position of dictating emissions standards for the entire USA because it imposes the strictest requirements, and California is a large enough market that carmakers won't ignore it (but small enough that it's not worth separate SKUs). I wonder what would happen if California, or New York, or a consortium of smaller blue states like New England imposed safety s…

It'd last a couple years then be thrown out by the conservative SCOTUS

Where in the Constitution is vehicle size a protected right?
Post reply on HN