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

241–250 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#241

Post by EA-3167 »

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.

I believe that you don't need one, and I know that I don't need one, but I think it's a little rich to make that a blanket statement for the species. There are people who have jobs, lives, and live in places unlike your own experiences.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#242

Post by cogman10 »

ggreer wrote: post #166
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…

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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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…

Those sorts of codes do exist already. The problem is that bike manufacturers will put on a "go fast" switch with a "Don't flip this or you'll be breaking the law" note in the manual.

Of course, a lot of people flip that switch because 20mph can feel pretty slow.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#243

Post by dualvariable »

macintux wrote: post #214
dualvariable wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, now do the times when some reckless driver nearly got you killed...

I don't disagree cars are more dangerous. But I can manage to be concerned about two things simultaneously.

I'm way more concerned about getting run over or T-boned by a distracted driver in a huge pickup, and literally nothing is getting done about that.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#244

Post by ErroneousBosh »

unixuser7104 wrote: post #89
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…

How would you react if told you could no longer drive your primary mode of transportation?

Why would that be happening? No-one is preventing people from driving.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#245

Post by mothballed »

nimih wrote: post #99
unixuser7104 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you react if told you could no longer drive your primary mode of transportation?

I agree. We should legalize drunk driving so that no one can be denied their god-given right to drive a car.

~No one in the US is letting their "god given right" be denied. They are driving their car anyway even when the government says they can't.

So to answer the question, they would act in insubordination, and anything harsh enough to stop the insubordination won't be practically implemented.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#246

Post by ErroneousBosh »

echelon wrote: post #186
__float wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways. Ok, and what fraction of investment has it gotten? We've underfunded rail/bike infrastructure for decades, of course money is going to flow on the cheapest route. Roads are cheap because we've subsidized the shit out of them.

Bikes are not going to deliver your packages and food and medical services. They're not going to take you on vacation, haul your gear, or provide shelter. There's a meme that bikes will solve everything and that cars suck, but it's dismissive of the orders of magnitude more value that road infra can and will always provide.

Counterpoint: there are four Blood Transfusion Service motorbikes parked outside the doctor's surgery across the road most days of the week, because cars are no good for delivering urgent and time-sensitive medical supplies.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#247

Post by eigenman »

fullstop wrote: post #177
epistasis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's kids who go around on ebikes in my neighborhood, and it's only a matter of time until one of them is hit. I don't mind kids on bikes, and encourage it. I do, however, encourage them to stop at stop signs and to actually look for traffic at intersections, and that's something that these kids are not doing. To be fair, most cars go too fast in residential areas. I drive like a grandma in them and there's a good…

Cars do go too fast through neighborhoods: one ran into a house and killed someone inside.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/1-person-killed-tesla-a...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#248

Post by verytrivial »

The article keeps mentioning "unintended consequences" but I'm not convinced these are. Trying to come across as scary (perhaps because you are yourself scared) seems to be the whole point. "Get out of my way, look at how little I care about your safety, look at the size of this thing." The article mentions machismo but I don't think that quite covers the (profitable) pathology here.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#249

Post by advisedwang »

srdjanr wrote: post #72

So this is only one of the reasons, and a relatively small one: “Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”

Sometimes safety comes from lots of little adjustments. So perhaps we should see 10% as large, not small.
Post reply on HN