111–120 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not going to defend NHTSA here, but it's a good idea to pass laws like this. NHTSA would likely have been sued if they passed the rule. Having a law really cuts down on the lawsuits.
After reading 5th Risk by Michael Lewis, I updated my thinking about government agencies. Government agencies are often quite limited by law and cannot advocate for effective policies. Lawmakers really should be updating rules much more often in consultation with agency scientists and specialists. I feel like we've gotten used to lawmakers not doing the jobs they are elected to.
I also believe that we should have a Greenhouse Gas Administration, and not rely on the EPA and Clean Air and Water Acts to cover CO2.
> 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 Ame…
What's the method of forcing them to do it, though? Like, if it's not done in two years, what happens?
[flagged]
That's a regulation, and it costs police resources to enforce it. Stop contradicting yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of the NHTSA and vehicle safety regulations broadly is not to litigate who is at fault in an accident and sentence them to death, it is to make traveling on the road by motor vehicle or bicycle or foot as safe as is feasible given costs and available technology and data about the nature of injuries in collisions. Most people most of the time are in control of their vehicles and are paying attention to the…
Sorry, saying mass doesn't matter is a false assertion. A 1000lb trailer will absolutely react differently in this scenario, including getting pushed up and out or yielding/crushing. NHTSA also has to weigh the cost of compliance. Cars also could have stronger A pillars, that way the burden of compliance is placed on the one at higher risk. The article tries to make it a big conspiracy by Big Truck, that bothered me.…
I mean, one of the people who sued uncovered evidence of a literal conspiracy to hide safety-related data, so I'm not sure why the article's framing should bother you.
> Cars also could have stronger A pillars, that way the burden of compliance is placed on the one at higher risk.
That's not a completely unreasonable take, but my position is that the thing that causes the damage -- the trailer -- should be required to be made less lethal.
It's also unclear that A pillars can be made strong enough to survive those situations anyway. And even if they can, the car's crumple zones (which absorb kinetic energy) won't end up getting "used" in this type of crash, so the A pillar will take all the force, stop the car way faster than an impact on crumple zones would, and throw the driver forward much harder than in other types of crashes, possibly still fatally.
This article is intentionally written to sidestep the victim driver's own responsibility. It's hard to underride into a truck if you're driving attentively. That's not to say they are wrong, if the fix is as simple and as cheap as described. I do value the expose of the politics around the non-action, even if TFA has other faults. Mandatory AEB (automatic emergency braking) systems should address it to some degree, a…
(And in this case we don't have enough information to know if the driver could have reasonably avoided the crash, anyway.)
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.
[flagged]
Absolute rubbish.