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

101–110 of 241 posts

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#101

Post by kelnos »

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]

Assuming you're being serious (god I hope not; how ignorant), no, that's not the problem. Sure, tiny tiny cars are more vulnerable in a crash, but we're talking about normal-size sedans here. Even a smaller SUV probably wouldn't fare so well.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#102

Post by kelnos »

noisy_boy wrote: post #85

> The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates. > They said there’s not enough research to support a government mandate, which would impose huge costs on businesses that operate on thin profit margins. So thin that they can't afford $127 a truck; they are running a no profit charity out of the goodness of their heart and that pittance of an one-time amoun…

Seriously. If they aren't even making $127 of profit on a single haul of an individual truck, this business is just kinda pointlessly unsustainable?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#103

Post by klabb3 »

noisy_boy wrote: post #85

> The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates. > They said there’s not enough research to support a government mandate, which would impose huge costs on businesses that operate on thin profit margins. So thin that they can't afford $127 a truck; they are running a no profit charity out of the goodness of their heart and that pittance of an one-time amoun…

I think the article could have done a better job of portraying the side of the industry. The majority cost is probably fuel efficiency. At the end of the article, they describe a new technical solution which is more light weight, involving a polyester mesh and steel, instead of just steel.

When you think about it, that’s an argument FOR requiring these regulations early, like back in the 70s when the issue was on the table. Because when you DO put safety first, engineering now has a bounded problem that they can improve on quickly (which engineers are particularly good at). So, stupid all-around, and tens of thousands of people died for no good reason.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#104

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

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?

> don't you just have your preservation instinct kicking in

Admittedly, yes; often when I write “I might...” I’m imagining a perspective adjacent to my own. In theory, I’d take my foot off the gas, put it in a lower gear (“manual” automatic), and watch what the guy does (time pending). I doubt I would really not have enough time to stop given how much I pay attention when driving.

Still, it takes two to tango, as it goes. The driver who died presumably could have and should have been paying more attention. They’d be alive today if they’d been paying enough attention to stop. And they’d be alive today if the truck driver had been more responsible. Keep in mind, the truck driver was hardly risking their own life; this was a lack of consideration for the safety of others.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#105

Post by sn41 »

I saw the PBS documentary yesterday. If I am not mistaken, one of the accidents mentioned involved a Chevy Silverado [1]. If so, then the lobbyists are full of it.

On the whole, I don't understand why the objection is there: are bars all that expensive? For comparison, here are Daimler trucks sold in India [2] - side protection is clearly visible. (Admittedly, they are high-end trucks as far as the Indian market is concerned.)

[1] https://youtu.be/1LyaWzOesXk?t=1374

[2] https://trucks.cardekho.com/en/trucks/bharat-benz/2623r

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#107

Post by kelnos »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #96
slt2021 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that's feasible. Human nature just doesn't work that way. I think we could potentially get to a point where we can trust the other drivers more than we can now -- and that alone would be a laudable goal -- but I don't think it's reasonable to expect we'll ever get to a point where it's safe to place 100% trust that another driver on the road will always do the right thing all the time.

So what we're left with is defensive driving. If a giant vehicle starts edging out into the road in front of you, assume that the driver doesn't see you at all, and act accordingly.

Frankly, I don't think it's a tired meme: it is absolutely better to be alive than to be right. And sometimes those actually are your only choices.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#108

Post by Drunk_Engineer »

klabb3 wrote: post #103
noisy_boy wrote: post #85

> The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates. > They said there’s not enough research to support a government mandate, which would impose huge costs on businesses that operate on thin profit margins. So thin that they can't afford $127 a truck; they are running a no profit charity out of the goodness of their heart and that pittance of an one-time amoun…

I think the article could have done a better job of portraying the side of the industry. The majority cost is probably fuel efficiency. At the end of the article, they describe a new technical solution which is more light weight, involving a polyester mesh and steel, instead of just steel. When you think about it, that’s an argument FOR requiring these regulations early, like back in the 70s when the issue was on the…

Closed sideguards actually improve fuel economy due to reduced air drag.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#109

Post by fzeroracer »

cyberax wrote: post #32
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…

[flagged]

> so the resulting effective speed is often barely better than a running speed of an Alzheimer's patient.

What exactly kind of comparison is this?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#110

Post by kelnos »

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…

As a sibling noted, we don't have enough information about the crash to know. Marcos might have believed the truck driver saw him and would stop and wait until he'd passed. He was driving on a highway; many highways in the US -- even those that are not divided and seem pretty smallish -- have speed limits of 50mph and higher. Sure, it's possible that Marcos could have done something to avoid the crash, but that doesn't mean it's his fault.

But I think it really just doesn't matter whose fault it was. Regardless of whether or not the crash itself was preventable, the death was preventable, if these trucking companies would spend a measly $127 per trailer to help protect drivers of normal-sized vehicles. People are fallible. We know this. The entire point of vehicle safety is to acknowledge that people will screw up, and to minimize the injury and loss of life when it happens.

(And I don't find it remotely persuasive that $127 per trailer is a huge burden on their "razor thin" margins. If they're not making more than $127 in profit _per haul_, the entire trucking industry would be unsustainably pointless.)

Post reply on HN