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

181–190 of 241 posts

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#181

Post by matsemann »

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…

If I were a truck driver, I would go out of my way to avoid becoming a killer. But we see it all the times, they fighting to avoid doing even the bare minimum. They kill people and blame the "blind zone", but refuse to spend a few bucks on upgraded sensors/alerts and camera monitors.

I hope my city bans these kind of vehicles in the city streets. I like London's Direct Vision Standard, only allowing trucks with lowered seating and wide/tall side windows. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i-P20wdrcAQ/maxresdefault.jpg

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#182

Post by hef19898 »

_trampeltier wrote: post #180
Freeaqingme wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are bars all that expensive? From the article: > The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates. I'm inclined to think that 127 USD (even if the side rails were a little bit more expensive because they're larger) is not too expensive for a feature like this. Also, I think that in Europe these rails are already mandatory. At least the rear guard is require…

Yes in Europe all trucks have bars, but I'm not sure if they would hold a car or if they are more for people on bycicles.

Those hold cars. Up to a degree of course.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#183

Post by Freeaqingme »

_trampeltier wrote: post #180
Freeaqingme wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are bars all that expensive? From the article: > The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates. I'm inclined to think that 127 USD (even if the side rails were a little bit more expensive because they're larger) is not too expensive for a feature like this. Also, I think that in Europe these rails are already mandatory. At least the rear guard is require…

Yes in Europe all trucks have bars, but I'm not sure if they would hold a car or if they are more for people on bycicles.

Yep. When they have bars, these bars are precisely meant to stop a car or motor bike from sliding under.

Bicyclists have way less momentum, so sliding under would be less of a risk, I think. They experience plenty of other risks though.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#184

Post by matsemann »

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

Ahh, the old wisdom used to tell the oppressed to shut up and stay docile..

As a cyclist I hear this all the time. A thinly veiled threat, if you ask me. "Stop pointing out things that could've been better with our infrastructure or traffic culture, or I'll run you over".

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#185

Post by hef19898 »

matsemann wrote: post #181
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…

If I were a truck driver, I would go out of my way to avoid becoming a killer. But we see it all the times, they fighting to avoid doing even the bare minimum. They kill people and blame the "blind zone", but refuse to spend a few bucks on upgraded sensors/alerts and camera monitors. I hope my city bans these kind of vehicles in the city streets. I like London's Direct Vision Standard, only allowing trucks with lower…

The drivers have actually nothing to do with any of what you said.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#186

Post by HPsquared »

sn41 wrote: post #106
LordShredda wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be nixon from hell

Don't forget that Nixon established the EPA. So he wasn't entirely anti-regulation. (or maybe there were political pressures, I don't know the details.)

Environmental protection was historically a conservative thing. "Conservation" and all that. Free markets were a left-wing thing in the past. These things aren't set in stone.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#187

Post by bryanrasmussen »

hattmall wrote: post #78
JimtheCoder wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

The answer is more, smaller, trucks / vans. If trucking creates jobs then a great way to create MORE jobs is to have smaller trucks. With smaller loads you lower the element of danger as well as lowering the barrier to entry. Additionally with smaller loads transfer's can be accomplished much more quickly with smaller equipment. Hot shot trucking is already pretty popular and typically works out to be cheaper. The id…

>The answer is more, smaller, trucks / vans.

leading to more resource usage?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#188

Post by esyir »

IOT_Apprentice wrote: post #172
Dalewyn wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even from the perspective of keeping authoritative powers held within the reins of the people, it is better for rules and regulations to be legislated into proper laws by the legislature. Legislatures are voted in by and answer to the people, at least ostensibly. Government agencies don't necessarily answer to the people.

Yet legislators are in the grasp of associations, who want no such legislation to occur and either block it or never allow it to be proposed. They are in the clutches of corporations & oligarchs.

That sounds like the problem to solve then. Otherwise you're just applying a band-aid to an aortic rupture.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#189

Post by kortilla »

katbyte wrote: post #133
JimtheCoder wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Nothing is cheaper or more efficient and green then shipping by rail. We used to have an amazing rail network in NA (eu still does) and we basically have letf it fall into ruin and become a shell of what would constitute a functioning railway. It literally has done everything possible to kill passenger rail and make shipping via rail painful / unreliable. If we had not trucking wouldn’t be the only option and we woul…

The US has a better freight rail system than the EU. It’s why passenger trains suck. We inverted the priorities.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#190

Post by masklinn »

_trampeltier wrote: post #180
Freeaqingme wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are bars all that expensive? From the article: > The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates. I'm inclined to think that 127 USD (even if the side rails were a little bit more expensive because they're larger) is not too expensive for a feature like this. Also, I think that in Europe these rails are already mandatory. At least the rear guard is require…

Yes in Europe all trucks have bars, but I'm not sure if they would hold a car or if they are more for people on bycicles.

They are for cars.

The strength requirements are similar to the US standard (resistance to point loads of 50kN at 1/8th of the horizontal member from the outside, 100kN at the centerline, and 50kN at 355~635mm from the centerline), but the EU has mandated front and side guards (as well as back which the US also mandates) since 1994.

Of note: a 2012 IIHS study indicated that only 15% of collisions between cars and large trucks were rear collisions , 22% are to the side of the truck, and 63 to the front.

Post reply on HN