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

191–200 of 241 posts

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#191

Post by stefan_ »

mastazi wrote: post #12

> 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…

Have you seen US trucks? It's like being transported back 50 years. Not only is NHTSA captured by lobbyists, they have clearly carved out a well isolated competitive island where US truck manufacturers can forever rest on ancient designs.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#192

Post by stefan_ »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #179
fooker wrote: post #139

India has an interesting solution to these issues. Ban large trucks from city roads (including highway sections) during daytime. The large US cities are getting dense enough to start enacting rules from third world countries. No amount of safety regulations will make these issues go away.

Interesting. Isn't this the case everywhere? In European countries there are rules for where and when large trucks and trailers can go; inside cities, plenty of roads have size/weight limits, and outside, many roads allow trailer truck traffic only at night or during weekends.

Lots of US cities also have designated truck routes but no one enforces them and if a truck happens to kill someone on them, they collectively throw up their hands and go "unlucky".

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#193

Post by Symbiote »

Freeaqingme wrote: post #183
_trampeltier wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The side bars can help push a cyclist away from the vehicle if they collide with it while its turning.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#194

Post by AdamN »

massysett wrote: post #64
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…

> But don't we normally consider drivers responsible for crashing into objects towards which they're travelling? No. If you are traveling a highway at posted speed and have a green light, and someone makes a left turn across your path, you’re not responsible if you can’t stop in time. The turning vehicle must yield to all oncoming vehicles close enough to be a hazard. Similarly no, you are not responsible if you hit…

That would probably be no-fault in most US states (meaning both people are at fault). Basically unless you are hard stopped, each driver has some fault in any given accident.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#195

Post by masklinn »

hef19898 wrote: post #185
matsemann wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is not entirely true: owner-operators might be responsible for the front underride guard.

However the March 2019 GAO report notes that

1. There are no front guards available on the market for retrofitting conventional cabs.

2. There are arguments about their necessity, as conventional cabs tend to have lower frame and bumpers, thus partially fulfilling that role

3. Though it would have to be checked on a case-by-case basis and against clear standards, as bumper heights vary (hence a 2010 NTSB recommendation that the NHTSA develop performance standards, amongst various other recommendations around underride.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#196

Post by Symbiote »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #71
cracrecry wrote: post #27

As a European I see this kind of accident as a non issue because we use roundabouts. It is only important in the back of the truck. The main bug is using so many square corners road junctions in the US. Those are super dangerous.

Eh? There are normal turns all over Europe. In fact, my closest near miss was at one in France.

There are also many more roundabouts, and they seem to be especially favoured near factories and at other locations where lorries are especially likely to make turns.

The road mentioned in the article has two lanes in each direction and a speed limit of 75mph (120km/h). The major junctions are fully grade-separated, but there are many flat junctions.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#197

Post by JumpCrisscross »

“During discovery they obtained a seven-page document signed by executives from Utility and 10 other semitrailer companies. The document, drafted in 2004, was a pact struck by the biggest companies in the business, a pledge to work cooperatively — and secretly — to thwart any lawsuits stemming from side and rear underride crashes. The arrangement had been orchestrated by Glen Darbyshire, an attorney for the TTMA, the trade group.

As part of the agreement, the firms would keep crucial safety information confidential. That material — including ‘documents, factual material, mental impressions, interview reports, expert reports, and other information’ — wasn’t to be shared with anyone outside of the circle.”

This…sounds like someone took notes on their criminal conspiracy.

Has any prosecutor said they’re looking at this?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#198

Post by JumpCrisscross »

toast0 wrote: post #55
milkytron wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched this last night, and it's always interesting to people in business talk about the cost of saving lives. There was one point where the reporter was interviewing a guy from the ATA (American Trucking Associations) where the ATA person says that one lost life is too many. And this is very common across so many industries, safety first as they always say. But then as soon as you put a cost associated with savin…

> But then as soon as you put a cost associated with saving a life, the whole idea of safety first goes out the window. In this case, underrides are clearly avoidable and really don't cost that much to prevent. Retrofitted truck solutions are available, cheap, and easy to install. There's a reasonable argument to not even bother with retrofitting. This has been a known issue for decades, just start building it into n…

> eventually the old trailers will age out and/or become uninsurable

How long do trailers last?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#199

Post by andrewaylett »

alexpotato wrote: post #25
milkytron wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched this last night, and it's always interesting to people in business talk about the cost of saving lives. There was one point where the reporter was interviewing a guy from the ATA (American Trucking Associations) where the ATA person says that one lost life is too many. And this is very common across so many industries, safety first as they always say. But then as soon as you put a cost associated with savin…

> I watched this last night, and it's always interesting to people in business talk about the cost of saving lives. My favorite example of this is the "children under 2 don't need their own airline seat". The idea was that if you required a separate seat, more people would drive. That in turn would lead to more fatalities as the fatality/mile in cars is so much higher than in planes. I would also point out that if so…

I have a term decreasing life insurance policy, which means that the amount my estate gets will drop to zero by the end of the policy. It's not the value of my life that it's covering but the value of my mortgage.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#200

Post by mschuster91 »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #167
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. A…

> That's also what has driven safety changes in passenger cars.

No, it's not - at least not in Europe. As long as a vehicle complies to the standards in force when it was built and the type license issued to the manufacturer then, you're not required to retrofit anything to old(er) vehicles. You're still allowed to drive a 70s era car with no seatbelts and only a driver side mirror if you want to do so.

Change got always enforced by lawmakers - for example, people didn't flock to ABS equipped cars for decades, until the car industry agreed to only sell cars with ABS back in 2004. Hell it took until 2006 for an EU mandate for seat belts for rear passengers.

Post reply on HN