Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#11

Post by avalys »

There are many factors driving this:

1. Fuel economy regulations that scale regressively with vehicle size, that incentivize automakers to build and market larger vehicles that are easier to hit regulatory targets.

2. Rollover and crash worthiness regulations that require thicker A-pillars and more robust roof structure.

3. Towing performance. The large pickup manufacturers are in an arms race to beat each other’s power and towing capacity numbers. This requires a large, upright grille to provide adequate cooling for a large engine.

4. Consumer demand. The idea that marketing is telling people what to buy is silly. People are spending $80k+ on massive vehicles because they like them. Simple as that. The industry puts lot of marketing effort behind vehicles that are flops. They can’t make people buy a product they don’t want.

Disclaimer: I own a huge diesel pickup, along with a Tesla Model Y and a Porsche 911. Why? They’re fun! I use the pickup to tow an RV, but it’s also just fun to drive.

I have definitely noticed the visibility problem though. Forget pedestrians, sometimes entire cars are hiding behind the A-pillar! You have to move your head to the side to clear the blind spot safely.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#12

Post by ungreased0675 »

protocolture wrote: post #5

I have 360 degree cameras (at toddler height), auto braking, every conceivable safety mechanism. I really think that once these are implemented, any hatred of large vehicles is just jealousy.

My normal sized car is at a significant disadvantage in a collision with a full-sized SUV. This creates higher injury risk for me and my family.

Larger vehicles also cause more road damage over time, which raises my taxes or reduces the quality of roads I drive on.

For those reasons, I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, to encourage more smaller, lighter vehicles.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#13

Post by bjt »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #3
kelseyfrog wrote: post #2

These are gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men. Taking them away is a direct attack on their masculinity. When we say, "Men are under attack," it refers to things like this. Regardless of any safety claims, for that reason alone, I don't see it as a politically viable issue.

> These are gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men. I think people simply do find SUVs (which I don't like) convenient. Many women, including a huge number of moms, do happen to just love SUVs. Both in the US and in the EU. In the EU SUVs are now approaching 60% of all cars sold (59.25% or so, latest numbers). You don't get such a market share by being mostly cars sold to men needing to "gender-affirm".

"SUV" is too broad a category. A RAV4 is an SUV. It's similarly sized to most of the SUVs I've seen in Europe. And a pedestrian getting hit by one would have a similar experience to getting hit by a sedan. It's nothing like the big Rams, GMCs or F250s with the high front grilles that are becoming more popular while also being far deadlier to pedestrians.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#15

Post by bobbytables1 »

protocolture wrote: post #5

I have 360 degree cameras (at toddler height), auto braking, every conceivable safety mechanism. I really think that once these are implemented, any hatred of large vehicles is just jealousy.

Jealous of what exactly? Sounds like you are trying to justify your needlessly large/heavy vehicle. Plenty of accidents still occur with vehicles that have all those features. And accidents involving large/heavy vehicles are deadlier. It’s not rocket science. On top of that they have other downsides, like increased pollution and road degradation.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#16

Post by aaron695 »

bediger4000 wrote: post #7
kelseyfrog wrote: post #2

These are gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men. Taking them away is a direct attack on their masculinity. When we say, "Men are under attack," it refers to things like this. Regardless of any safety claims, for that reason alone, I don't see it as a politically viable issue.

You're right, I don't know why you're getting down voted. You e got my admiration for being brave enough to write this on HN

[dead]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#17

Post by kelseyfrog »

sublinear wrote: post #9
kelseyfrog wrote: post #2

These are gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men. Taking them away is a direct attack on their masculinity. When we say, "Men are under attack," it refers to things like this. Regardless of any safety claims, for that reason alone, I don't see it as a politically viable issue.

You might be the one saying this right now, but how old is this comment ? I don't think I've ever heard any man ever say that in real life, but even online it's probably been almost a decade since this was memed into the ground.

> I don't think I've ever heard any man ever say that in real life

Um, because men get weird when you point out the gender-affirming actions they do? Try it irl and see what the reactions are. There's a reason the only place free of physical intimidation is where this can be safely said.

Besides, how old is the privacy comment or the "parents should parent" comment we see dragged out on every kid's social media ban? It's almost like the age of the sentiment doesn't have any bearing on its relevancy.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#18

Post by rjrjrjrj »

protocolture wrote: post #5

I have 360 degree cameras (at toddler height), auto braking, every conceivable safety mechanism. I really think that once these are implemented, any hatred of large vehicles is just jealousy.

Doesn't fix braking distance, doesn't fix the increased chance of serious injury if a collision with a pedestrian occurs.
Post reply on HN