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

141–150 of 241 posts

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#141

Post by Gordonjcp »

JimtheCoder wrote: post #18
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…

"If you need 3 trailers, time to go back to freight trains." Trains can only run on train tracks. The tracks/train stations don't always go close to where the freight needs to go. It is bordering on impossible to build new rail infrastructure to get freight where it needs to go. It takes a lot longer to ship something on a train than on a truck. Add on the fact that transport in general is getting more expensive, and…

You just have a multimodal container, that you lift off a train car and onto an artic trailer.

This is a solved problem.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#142

Post by klabb3 »

maratbn wrote: post #140
klabb3 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but the article claims they just have a flap without any support, so no improved safety. Having actual sideguards adds weight independent of the aerodynamic issue.

Maybe 1,000 lbs of weight, so instead of 40,000 lbs cargo trailer would be limited to 39,000 lbs, but lots of people would not get decapitated. There is also no reason why states could not allow extra 1,000 lbs of total vehicle weight when trailer is equipped with side-guards.

Absolutely! I pointed this out only to address the arguments from the industry side, as far as I understand them. I’ve seen many debates getting hijacked by “smart” contrarians who are accusing people of misrepresenting the issue.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#143

Post by Gordonjcp »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #72
Schnitz wrote: post #7

Europe has mandatory underride guards for this reason since 20+ years ago.

They're called Mansfield bars in the US, named after the actress Jane Mansfield who died after colliding with a trailer. They're not required federally and not particularly effective as they're generally not inspected or maintained.

It's bonkers that the US named them but don't require them. They're called Mansfield Bars in the UK too, presumably because there isn't really a better or more descriptive name you can give them.

There's probably an "official" name in some dusty Ministry of Transport document like "side protection collision bar" or some such, and TÜV probably calls it something like "Seitenaufprallschutzgerätüberlaufschutzausrüstung" or some damn thing.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#144

Post by Ekaros »

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...

Tires are certain height. You want a flat floor. And you want to maximise the surface area and the volume. As such only sensible option is to build above tires and for the full width. Thus the room in between.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#145

Post by acyou »

Apply this sort of thinking to every facet of modern life, and we will have death by a thousand safety-conscious cuts. This article is based on eliciting an emotional response and by a statistical argument. Of course if we adopt the safety measures then things will be safer. "It's only $XXX. Doesn't that seem like a small amount?" "It's lives we're talking about. Why does money matter?" That's an emotional, illogical argument. Now multiply that amount by all of the areas where safety could be better, and all of a sudden, we start to see why things are the way that they are.

$127 for a heavier rear guard and side guard. What about the change in operating costs from the increased weight and aerodynamic losses?

We could limit all drivers to 30 mph everywhere too. Save lives and gas. Think of the children!

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#146

Post by sofixa »

acyou wrote: post #145

Apply this sort of thinking to every facet of modern life, and we will have death by a thousand safety-conscious cuts. This article is based on eliciting an emotional response and by a statistical argument. Of course if we adopt the safety measures then things will be safer. "It's only $XXX. Doesn't that seem like a small amount?" "It's lives we're talking about. Why does money matter?" That's an emotional, illogical…

Am I understanding correctly that your argument is basically "fuck human lives if there's any barrier to making anything even a tad safer that will save some of them"? Where does your logic stop? What about seat belts, how much do they cost to add to vehicles?? Or airbags? Or any of the other safety features that have already been added? Or to go out of cars, infrastructure design - do you know how much more it costs to make sure that bridge/building won't fall apart? Or how much it costs to have multiple exit points from venues with hundreds of people?

Safety regulations are written in blood, lots of it.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#147

Post by Drunk_Engineer »

maratbn wrote: post #140
klabb3 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but the article claims they just have a flap without any support, so no improved safety. Having actual sideguards adds weight independent of the aerodynamic issue.

Maybe 1,000 lbs of weight, so instead of 40,000 lbs cargo trailer would be limited to 39,000 lbs, but lots of people would not get decapitated. There is also no reason why states could not allow extra 1,000 lbs of total vehicle weight when trailer is equipped with side-guards.

Side underride guards weigh as little as 150 lbs, and have been successfully tested at 40mph speeds.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#148

Post by DougBTX »

acyou wrote: post #145

Apply this sort of thinking to every facet of modern life, and we will have death by a thousand safety-conscious cuts. This article is based on eliciting an emotional response and by a statistical argument. Of course if we adopt the safety measures then things will be safer. "It's only $XXX. Doesn't that seem like a small amount?" "It's lives we're talking about. Why does money matter?" That's an emotional, illogical…

At least the argument for road safety has moved on from “we can’t make roads safe” to “we don’t want to spend our money making roads safe”.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#149

Post by WirelessGigabit »

gambiting wrote: post #46
jffry wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Please no. Sundays in Belgium were awful. Nothing to do.

At least now in the USA I can go do what I want. It's like any other day. I don't need to stuff everything in my Saturday.

And if that means that I'll pass a couple of Semi trucks? No problem. Hell, I'll move out of the way for them. After all, there isn't a single thing in my hands that hasn't been delivered by a truck.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#150

Post by Noumenon72 »

acyou wrote: post #145

Apply this sort of thinking to every facet of modern life, and we will have death by a thousand safety-conscious cuts. This article is based on eliciting an emotional response and by a statistical argument. Of course if we adopt the safety measures then things will be safer. "It's only $XXX. Doesn't that seem like a small amount?" "It's lives we're talking about. Why does money matter?" That's an emotional, illogical…

A statistical life is worth $1-10 million, and this policy costs $127 * 4 million trucks (not counting fuel), so $1.25 million per life the first year and less after that. So it may be a logical argument couched in emotional terms.

Perhaps the trucking companies' position is a negotiating tactic too. I don't see why they should have to pay the entire cost of a solution that benefits society more than themselves; that's what taxes are for.

Post reply on HN