The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs • Hacker News Board

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#231

Post by Tangurena2 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

jmward01 wrote: post #113

I have long held that larger vehicles should have higher licensing requirements purely based on stats. We see it in the stats that large vehicles are disproportionately dangerous to other vehicles and people so licensing should catch up. We have motorcycle licenses, why don't we have SUV licenses? Similarly, the penalties and limits should be higher. BAC should be lower. Fines higher. Etc etc. You want to drive a big…

New CDL licensees have to take a rather expensive training course before they can get their class A/B CDL (things with a GVWR of >= 26,000# or school bus). There are some online theory only sites that charge up to $300, but in many (maybe all?) states (mine for sure) you still have to take an accredited behind-the-wheel (plus theory) class that runs $4k-5k. Everyone getting their CDL after Feb 2022 has to take this course.

https://tpr.fmcsa.dot.gov/

https://tpr.fmcsa.dot.gov/content/Resources/ELDT-Applicabili...

> BAC should be lower. Fines higher.

This is already the case.

For sure big trucks don't pay the costs of the damage that they do to road surfaces. Road damage is proportional to the cube of speed and 4th power of axle weight. So an 80,000# semi does 4096 the damage of an 4,000# SUV, both driving the same speed.

Math:

80,000 / 5 = 16,000# per axle 4,000 /2 = 2,000# per axle

(16/2)^4 = 4,096.

Disclaimer: I used to work for my state's version of DMV & Highway Department.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#232

Post by TulliusCicero » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #96

TulliusCicero wrote: post #59

WA state recently passed a law about e-bikes/e-motorcycles to deal with the issue of younger teens on these kinda moped-style e-bikes going very fast around town (and often riding quite recklessly). The law is reasonable, but it strikes me what a double standard there is for biking vs driving. For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those ride…

I don't know the particulars, but if what's going on in WA is like what's going on in my California town, I don't think it's reasonable. I see teens going around on ebikes, and people freak out over them in ways that seem completely inappropriate to the kids scooting around. I think it's mostly a reaction to seeing young people being young people, as far as I can tell. Same thing happens on NextDoor, a few kids hangi…

To be clear, the "e-bikes" in question aren't what you usually think of as e-bikes. Not only do they look different, they're faster and typically don't even require pedaling (and may not have pedals at all). Hence why I said they were kinda like mopeds.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#233

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #218

EA-3167 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is often brought out as though it should engender gasps, but a moment of thought punctures the whole prospect. We need cars and trucks for a variety of purposes, and while I agree that most people don't need a pickup or a Unimog, there are many people and businesses who do. The ability to rapidly travel is a centerpiece of modern life, and has been for quite some time. Mass shootings by contrast are not economic…

Nothing in the article is suggesting that we do not need cars and trucks. It does make a compelling case that specifically large trucks and SUVs are causing preventable deaths. And I certainly find no reason that we need very large trucks or SUVs.

Having any car or truck is a choice. People lived before the automobile. They do provide benefits, just as SUVs and trucks provide benefits. The Amish live without cars, so too could we if we chose to. In fact, the Amish could make the same claim about all automobiles that you make about preventable deaths attributed to larger vehicles.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#234

Post by expedition32 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

I take my 7 year old daughter to learn how to ride a bicycle You take your 7 year old daughter to the gun range

We are not the same.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#235

Post by mothballed » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:46 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #227

ggreer wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn't ban them. It classifies fast e-bikes as motorcycles (which require registration, insurance, and a motorcycle endorsement).[1] This seems reasonable to me. The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology. I do think it would make more sense to simplify (and future-proof) the law to just say, "If it can go >30mph on level ground and has a motor, it's a m…

True, it's not exactly the same situation, but it does ban them for the riders (the teens) who were previously on them. You could make it more analogous by saying that we could enforce stricter regulations on big SUVs and trucks in terms of, say, driver licensing, and you'd still have a huge outcry if we tried that.

It blew my mind the first time I rented a 35' long 26,000 GVWR diesel truck and drove it right onto the interstate. What you can accomplish on a simple US driving license is something special you can't get almost anywhere else in the world unless you count places where bribes work.

The EU cuts you off at like 8,000 lbs.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#236

Post by Karrot_Kream » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:47 PM UTC

hluska wrote: post #105

californical wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normalizing by miles driven will take you to the wrong conclusions. It underestimates the extra deaths directly caused by the fact that we’ve built exurbs farther and farther away from where people work over the last 20-30 years. So maybe deaths per mile would be similar, but we’ve pushed people further and further so they have to drive more miles, increasing the deaths due to poor design. Building society in a way t…

Not at all. Demonstrating that miles driven increases pedestrian deaths would be tremendously useful.

? The correlation is trivially demonstrable. You can probably ask an agent to pull the relevant datasets for a state, run a linear regression, and demonstrate this. It's the entire reason traffic crash statistics in the US are normalized per mile.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#237

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:47 PM UTC

Fricken wrote: post #225

giantg2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, most will ignore your common sense just as they are ignoring the data.

If ignored, it would imply that the sense you're referring to is not a common one.

Yes, the old joke about common sense not being common anymore. But of course it was always meant as a figure of speech to indicate plainly logical items.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#238

Post by expedition32 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:47 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #212

brailsafe wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely this isn't as stupid as an SUV trying to take light rail though right? https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/how... Maybe Seattle is the problem ;)

I remember hearing about that kind of problem in Europe all the time 20 years ago.

I'll never forget that time my mom accidentally drove straight into a tram tunnel. One of the "we can laugh about it now" stories.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#239

Post by throwaway219450 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:47 PM UTC

hackingonempty wrote: post #64

In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1] It is a massive problem that receives a disproportionate amount of attention. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...

The standard of driving in most places I've lived in the US is very low for a developed country. People blow through pedestrian crossings, get-there-itis, crawling through stops, don't use their turn signals, make illegal U-Turns, ignore overtaking conventions. Compare to most countries in Europe where a driving test is a rigorous 45 minutes and you can fail for all sorts of minor stuff. I live in a place with decent pedestrian infrastructure fortunately. I'm more worried about being involved in a random fatal crash when I'm driving than on foot.

Making right-on-red illegal wouldn't be bad either. The number of times I've almost been run over when a car is stopped in the middle/straight lane and blocks line of sight to a right-turning car that doesn't look.

DUIs are at least treated seriously. It's one of the few offenses that will get a visa instantly revoked. Same in Canada I think.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#240

Post by dualvariable » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:49 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #149

Data shows that introduction of iPhones in 2007 is a better explanation for the increase in pedestrian deaths than heavier trucks and SUVs: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ubbfrv/oc... (All the credit for this analysis goes to the reddit user, I’m just summarizing.) Trucks and SUVs have been getting heavier consistently since 1980 while pedestrian deaths consistently decreased from 1980 to 2009. Tr…

Weight of SUVs/Trucks isn't really the right metric to use though.

The proportion of them which have a grill height which impairs visibility of the average height pedestrian would be a "better" metric, except it isn't as easy to cleanly define that.

With me driving in my 2000s Ranger, I can at least see adults walking in front of it just fine, even though it is bigger than a 1980 Toyota pickup.