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

Trapped Under Trucks

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 241 posts

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#41

Post by [deleted] »

shakow wrote: post #34
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might see the truck edging out of a driveway and trust that they're going to properly yield right of way and not make themselves an obstacle. By the time I realize "my" mistake, I might not have enough distance to stop.

Without putting blame anywhere and independently of who has the right of way, don't you just have your preservation instinct kicking in telling you that just giving a bit of brakes is not a bad idea, and that the risk/gain ratio of losing 10 seconds of your day vs. getting killed is not worth it?

[deleted]

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#42

Post by praptak »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #19

I remember reading a claim that logistics companies will often tell their drivers to break traffic laws (ostensibly "only when it's not dangerous") and they consider any citations to be a cost of doing business. While I can't really verify that's true, it tracks with behavior I see of truck drivers in tight quarters; it's been trending towards this "I'm turning and I barely care if you're able to stop in time" kind o…

Why would they tell this? Just set incentives. Wink wink, we don't care how you do it but here's the bonus for the speed of delivery.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#43

Post by robgibbons »

shakow wrote: post #34
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might see the truck edging out of a driveway and trust that they're going to properly yield right of way and not make themselves an obstacle. By the time I realize "my" mistake, I might not have enough distance to stop.

Without putting blame anywhere and independently of who has the right of way, don't you just have your preservation instinct kicking in telling you that just giving a bit of brakes is not a bad idea, and that the risk/gain ratio of losing 10 seconds of your day vs. getting killed is not worth it?

In motorcycle safety courses, you're taught to never assume that other drivers can see you, in fact you are encouraged to operate as if you're invisible, and ride accordingly.

Growing up, I was told that it's better to be alive than to be "right" as it pertains to right-of-way. You can either insist on continuing because it's your right, or you can brake early assuming they're going to cut you off.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#44

Post by slt2021 »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #21
CoastalCoder wrote: post #17

There's something I don't understand about this crash in particular: It sounds like Marcos' death is blamed on the actions of the truck driver, as well as the lack of an under-ride bumper. But don't we normally consider drivers responsible for crashing into objects towards which they're travelling? It doesn't sound like a situation where the truck jumped into traffic suddenly from a hidden driveway: > The truck edged…

I might see the truck edging out of a driveway and trust that they're going to properly yield right of way and not make themselves an obstacle. By the time I realize "my" mistake, I might not have enough distance to stop.

Do you want to be right or alive?

Pick one

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#45

Post by toast0 »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #17

There's something I don't understand about this crash in particular: It sounds like Marcos' death is blamed on the actions of the truck driver, as well as the lack of an under-ride bumper. But don't we normally consider drivers responsible for crashing into objects towards which they're travelling? It doesn't sound like a situation where the truck jumped into traffic suddenly from a hidden driveway: > The truck edged…

We don't have enough details from the article to determine fault in this particular collision. I'm not familiar with that particular highway, but there are a lot of US highways where (legal) prevailing speeds are 40 mph or higher and there are driveways from which unprotected left turns are permitted.

I think including details specific collisions is probably a distraction. Regardless of fault, this type of collision happens; and does the estimate of 200 lives / year justify the cost of adding underguards on trailers? (and rightful grumping about poor quality of statistics)

That's separate from a policy to eliminate driveways on highways above a certain speed, or provide separation of directions to eliminate left turns, or a nationwide 25 mph speed limit, or a separate road network only for large trucks, or whatever proposal you have to reduce the speed of collision here.

FWIW: Here's a street view of US-281 where it enters Hidalgo County, and the posted limit is 60 mph: https://www.google.com.mx/maps/@26.0843029,-97.8616537,3a,75...

Again, we don't know where the collision took place, this is just where I happened to look on the highway where it's roughly paralleling the Rio Grande. A speed limit of 60 mph on a well paved, two lane highway through a rural area is consistent with my expectations.

Closer to McAllen, TX, where the article says the deceased works, it's two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane, and a speed limit 55 mph. https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1518933,-98.1911449,3a,75y,2...

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#46

Post by gambiting »

jffry wrote: post #23
jmclnx wrote: post #8

>An investigator with the local police department blamed the collision on the truck driver, who was initially charged with negligent homicide, though charges were eventually dropped I wonder why. Another issue is the size of trucks. The state where I lived: * Truck size was limited, large trucks were only allowed on one Highway. Goods were transferred to smaller Trucks for transport to factories. * Driving trucks on…

How is prohibiting truck transport on Sunday good for other road users? You'd be eliminating 14% of hours in the week, which means a corresponding higher density of trucks on non-Sunday days

Coming from countries where truck transport is not allowed on Sundays - it's great. Means that if you're going with your family somewhere on Sunday it's very quiet on the roads. Also awesome for long distance driving, always plan those for a Sunday and the traffic flows much smoother. As for the idea that it moves the traffic to other days - no it doesn't, because a lot of that traffic wouldn't be driving on Sunday anyway - most businesses are closed on Sundays anyway.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#47

Post by bombcar »

bamfly wrote: post #31
alexpotato wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I watched this last night, and it's always interesting to people in business talk about the cost of saving lives. My favorite example of this is the "children under 2 don't need their own airline seat". The idea was that if you required a separate seat, more people would drive. That in turn would lead to more fatalities as the fatality/mile in cars is so much higher than in planes. I would also point out that if so…

> I would also point out that if someone has purchased life insurance, they have explicitly made a decision about the cost of a life when they choose the amount of insurance they are willing to take on. This doesn't follow. It's not as if you're only allowed to purchase life insurance if it somehow accounts for the entire "cost of your life", whatever that is. I doubt most policies and policy-buyers attempt to achiev…

Most planners would tell you that you that you need insurance to replace your expected income (or the cost of replacing a non-working spouse's childcare). That amount will often be much less than you'd pay not to die.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#49

Post by bombcar »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #20
bombcar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think some of the trucking companies would do it just for publicity, if it was cheap enough. Then again, cars could all come with roll cages and five-point harnesses, and they don't, so there's some limit to safety equipment.

Most modern passenger car passenger cells don't need roll cages because their passenger safety cells are properly engineered, and because crash safety is much more comprehensive, with wheels and suspension components designed to intentionally fail and crumple in a crash so they aren't pushed into the passenger cell. A ton of cars pass Euro-NCAP and IIHS crash and rollover tests with flying colors. Roll cages were a T…

A well-built roll cage should prevent the very issue that is under discussion here (it should shove the truck up or the car down, not decapitate the driver).

But that's clearly not very desirable.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#50

Post by renewiltord »

bombcar wrote: post #9
masklinn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s rather when the industry can keep fighting for 50 years to save pennies over lives, and faces no punishment for it.

You'd think some of the trucking companies would do it just for publicity, if it was cheap enough. Then again, cars could all come with roll cages and five-point harnesses, and they don't, so there's some limit to safety equipment.

What exactly do you do with the publicity? You're a B2B company. I've never heard of someone calling up Safeway and asking if they use SafeGuards Trucking over RideHighOrDie Trucking. Literally zero incentive.
Post reply on HN