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

161–170 of 241 posts

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#161

Post by midasuni »

Noumenon72 wrote: post #150
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…

Why shouldn’t they pay for the externalities they cause?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#162

Post by rad_gruchalski »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #143
inferiorhuman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

> TÜV probably calls it something like ..

Hinterer Unterfahrschutz

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#163

Post by jamiek88 »

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]

One was a Chevy Silverado that notoriously small itty bitty car.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#165

Post by vanderZwan »

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #149
gambiting wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't get your point. How would a lack of trucks in the weekend negatively affect your Sundays in Belgium exactly?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#166

Post by concordDance »

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 would be immensely surprised if they ended up actually costing $127 in practice. I expect that's very much a best case scenario (lowest bidder estimate for unregulated side guards with no installation costs).

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#167

Post by jillesvangurp »

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…

Make them liable and their insurer will tell them to upgrade their trucks. As soon as you make this about money, the problem goes away. Right now the issue is "oops I did it again" style accidents where everybody just shrugs "what can you do?!" and "that's just the way things work". As soon as people are on the spot for millions in damages, they'll start getting very pro-active about preventing that from happening. And in the business world that means insurers start paying attention because it's them that pay these damages.

That's also what has driven safety changes in passenger cars. Cars have all sorts of technology on board to keep drivers and other traffic participants safe. Liability insurance is not optional so insurers are on the spot when things go badly wrong. So, technology that saves lives saves them money. So, they apply pressure and incentives to make sure vehicle owners buy vehicles where they can get favorable insurance rates.

The reason that so far hasn't happened with trucks is because police and judges go easy on the truckers when bad stuff happens. So they aren't on the spot financially and their insurers aren't either. It's not their problem. Making it their problem is the fix.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#168

Post by leoedin »

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?

I just don't think it's realistic to completely remove risk of other people's actions while driving down a high speed road. You can't slow down to a crawl every time a vehicle is at the side of the road, or turning across your lane from the other side. Yes, you can drive defensively - but at some point if you're driving at 60mph you have to have some level of trust that other people won't pull out suddenly.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#169

Post by Rapzid »

Hundreds! AKA >1 in a million odds each year. Can't spare brain cycles on this. It sounds like someone else is already thinking about it. I believe in them.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#170

Post by abainbridge »

stuaxo wrote: post #164

Other countries do this, I remember when safety measures were introduced in the UK to stop these kind of accidents in the 80s (and maybe 90s).

I think rear underrun protection and sideguards became mandatory in May 1983. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/1576/pdfs/uksi_1982...
Post reply on HN