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

91–100 of 241 posts

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#91

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #88
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because their child will survive a collision with an SUV? Quieter, sure.

A lot less SUVs in Central and Eastern Europe than in North America. But yes, some of the pressure on limiting truck traffic through rural areas on Sundays (or on some roads in general) came from a large amount of fatal collisions involving trucks passing through, whereas ordinary car drivers drive more cautiously through these villages.

>A lot less SUVs in Central and Eastern Europe than in North America.

Not really the point but thanks. Pretty sure a collision with any 2000lb metal shape isn't going to go well.

>some of the pressure on limiting truck traffic through rural areas on Sundays (or on some roads in general) came from a large amount of fatal collisions involving trucks passing through, whereas ordinary car drivers drive more cautiously through these villages.

If that was the point, then boy was that a terrible solution. Rather than fixing the root cause you have 'fixed' the problem 1/7 days of the week. The other 6/7 days of the week you have drivers coming through so bad at driving they banned driving one day out of the week.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#92

Post by KennyBlanken »

bombcar wrote: post #6
JimtheCoder wrote: post #3

I have always wondered why those trailers with the super low floors are not more popular... They look to be more aerodynamic, they can hold more stuff, and they would prevent the problems presented in the article. Maybe does it have to do with the fact that loading docks are already high, and this would make the loading process more cumbersome? I am not sure...

It's the loading dock. The vast vast majority of trucks are not filled to the brim (and even if they're at their weight limit, they often have "air" in the box). "Lowboys" are mainly used for large construction equipment where they need the extra height. A semi-trailer is a surprisingly cheap piece of equipment. Some trucks that are special purpose use the lower areas (see https://www.mayflower.com for an example; ho…

Retrofitting loading docks to work with lower-floor vehicles would be trivial, not to mention many buildings that could not accept deliveries would be able to.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#93

Post by OfSanguineFire »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #91
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot less SUVs in Central and Eastern Europe than in North America. But yes, some of the pressure on limiting truck traffic through rural areas on Sundays (or on some roads in general) came from a large amount of fatal collisions involving trucks passing through, whereas ordinary car drivers drive more cautiously through these villages.

>A lot less SUVs in Central and Eastern Europe than in North America. Not really the point but thanks. Pretty sure a collision with any 2000lb metal shape isn't going to go well. >some of the pressure on limiting truck traffic through rural areas on Sundays (or on some roads in general) came from a large amount of fatal collisions involving trucks passing through, whereas ordinary car drivers drive more cautiously th…

> Pretty sure a collision with any 2000lb metal shape isn't going to go well.

In spite of that weight, lower speeds plus more awareness from the locals driving cars combine to mean lower risk of fatality.

> Rather than fixing the root cause

What is it to fix the “root cause” according to you? Sometimes the building of a new motorway to take trucks away from those roads, takes years. To build other roads in a village where children can play may not be feasible in the short-term due to surrounding agriculture or marshy ground. If, as you favour, trucks were allowed to run through every day in the meantime, there would be no day of the week children could play so safely outside.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#94

Post by elihu »

JimtheCoder wrote: post #3

I have always wondered why those trailers with the super low floors are not more popular... They look to be more aerodynamic, they can hold more stuff, and they would prevent the problems presented in the article. Maybe does it have to do with the fact that loading docks are already high, and this would make the loading process more cumbersome? I am not sure...

It's probably mostly standardization, I'd guess.

I think a more sensible design would be to have the middle of the trailer low to the ground with a floor hump above the rear wheel well and the front where it hitches on to the truck, but that would make loading and unloading awkward.

One could imagine having a side door instead of or in addition to a back door, and a lower loading dock.

I get that a rectanglar storage compartment is easier to deal with in a lot of ways, but it just seems ridiculous to have a box riding four feet off the ground, with the wheels causing as much atmospheric drag as they possibly can. This seems like a solution you'd arrive at if you think energy is practically free, and wasting energy has no consequence. It also seems unnecessarily top-heavy, in addition to the safety problems mentioned in the article (and the underride guards proposed to mitigate the safety issue would most likely create even more wind resistance).

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#95

Post by [deleted] »

bob_neumann wrote: post #87
elihu wrote: post #77

> "The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, a lobbying outfit representing semitrailer builders, had little desire to make safer rear guards. In correspondence with the department, the TTMA said it would be 'far more practical' to force Volkswagen and other companies making compact cars to produce larger vehicles that were less likely to slip beneath a truck." Of course.

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#96

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

slt2021 wrote: post #44
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.

Do you want to be right or alive? Pick one

Respectfully, this is a tired meme and it needs to die. This is a defeatist attitude that just gets in the way of any progress on improving driving culture. I really would prefer I can just trust the other driver.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#97

Post by duskwuff »

martinpw wrote: post #62
toss1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup I remember my grandfather telling me long before I could drive: "You don't want to be dead right."

"Better to be 3 minutes late in the current life than 30 years early in the next"

Similarly: "He was right, dead right, as he sped along. But he's just as dead as if he were wrong."

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#98

Post by pnw »

mastazi wrote: post #12

> Year after year, federal officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the country’s primary roadway safety agency, ignored credible scientific research and failed to take simple steps to limit the hazards of underride crashes. NHTSA officials don't have time to do that of course, they are too busy denying right to repair in order to "protect" motorists https://youtube.com/watch?v=2nXVljRUnoc As…

NHTSA definitely seems like one of the more dysfunctional agencies. The US headlight standard from 1967 has never been updated to allow modern adaptive headlight designs despite at least two decades of requests from car manufacturers.

Congress finally forced NHTSA to take action in 2021 with a timeline of two years, but they still aren't available because now the NHTSA is dragging their feet on testing. Meanwhile American car companies like Ford sell adaptive headlights overseas but we make do with 1960's technology in the US. I wonder how many lives have been lost in the meantime?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#99

Post by memefrog »

MrFoof wrote: post #13
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.

>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. No roll cages historically was the result of no federal safety belt law. Roll cages are great until an un-belted occupant has their head hit the cage. "Second collision." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impact_(safety) At this point New Hampshire is the last remaining holdout on s…

Nobody is going to hear about someone not wearing a seatbelt dying in an accident and blame it on the manufacturer of the vehicle.
Post reply on HN