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

271–280 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#271

Post by adolph »

dlcarrier wrote: post #24
adamsb6 wrote: post #8

No mention of CAFE standards? How can you write this article without mentioning the policy that incentivizes larger vehicles?

I'm excited that EVs get to avoid CAFE standards, so we get to have small vehicles again. Even though legacy domestic car manufacturers aren't going to be involved, as they practically wrote the CAFE standards that eliminated small vehicles, and there's bipartisan support to tariff EV imports out of existence, there's still enough market demand for multiple domestic startups.

> I'm excited that EVs get to avoid CAFE standards, so we get to have small vehicles again.

I don't see evidence for EVs stimulating small vehicle production (but it would be awesome if it were the case). The one smaller vehicle bright spot is perhaps Tesla's Cybercab, which is compared to the Honda Civic, which itself has grown very large over the years. In order to get to that size the passenger mass capacity of the Cybercab is roughly 2/3 of the Civic. [0]

0. https://insideevs.com/news/798790/tesla-cybercab-specs/

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#272

Post by jorvi »

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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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

You do realize e-bikes only go 25 km/h? You're confusing them with speed pedelecs. Those go around 50 km/h, although that's still a far cry from scooter speeds, let alone motorbikes.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#273

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

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_...

Mass shootings kill almost no one. They're a red herring. Even with a really stupid, inclusive "3 or more people injured" criterion. If you use that criterion for defining what a mass shooting is, the modal number of people killed is...one.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#274

Post by rpcope1 »

everdrive wrote: post #209
Zigurd wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything with a hood that's so high primarily because it's gender affirming care is paid for with the deaths and injuries of innocents. Regulate the shape of the front end of any vehicle, as I'm sure any honest regulator would.

It's quite sad, the old 1997 F-150 (the first year of the quite-ugly-but-practical "bubble" aesthetic) specifically advertised its low front hood as an intentional measure to improve visibility. And that thing had better visibility than nearly any modern car. It was incredibly despite still being a relatively large truck.

It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks. I understand they were at least marginally less safe in a crash, but I think changes could have been made to get them safer and more efficient without compromising the ease of repair and generally more pleasant driving experience. It's amazing how much more divorced from the road and the outside world a new truck is compared to even the late 00's pre financial crash trucks, especially as any additional utility they provide is unchanged at best, and frankly so far as I can tell grossly net negative (i.e. how many 8 foot beds have you see recently? How many flatbeds have you seen that weren't on obvious fleet trucks? The Suburban is also frankly grossly less utilitarian now).

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#275

Post by bee_rider »

jorvi wrote: post #272
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…

You do realize e-bikes only go 25 km/h? You're confusing them with speed pedelecs. Those go around 50 km/h, although that's still a far cry from scooter speeds, let alone motorbikes.

Are these categories very widely recognized in the e-bike community or in legislation? I’ve never heard of a pedelec (but I’m not well informed).

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#276

Post by saltcured »

epistasis wrote: post #154
infecto wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdote only but the contraptions being sold as “e-bikes” are actually motorcycles. Like all things a few bad apples ruin it for everyone but in what I have seen it’s more than just a few bad apples. From maintained mountain bike trails, to riding at speed on walking paths. They are far more than just some kids being kids. It is ultimately a lack of parenting these days but I don’t believe the new laws coming int…

Your description is not accurate for my state, California, there are clear tiers of ebikes with regulations on when and where they can go, with very clear explanation at purchase, and no weird marketing like you're talking about. I've tried to go buy them, I have experienced the lectures! Perhaps we can let the few bad apples killing lots of people with their massive hood height lead to better regulation of such hood…

I'm in the SF Bay Area and see small kids pre-adolescent or barely adolescent riding e-bikes with insane acceleration and speeds. The kind of performance, that in my youth, would come from a 250cc four-cycle motorcycle or 125cc 2-cycle motocross bike. And they are riding with absolutely no sense of traffic rules nor that they themselves are part of the same traffic. It's a really bad combination.

It doesn't matter what tiers there are when parents are negligently providing their kids with these kinds of "toys". I don't know if they are totally ignorant and think "it's just a bicycle" or if they know exactly what it can do and just can't see that their kid isn't ready for the responsibility.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#277

Post by rpcope1 »

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…

You could start by pushing for RVs (both bus and gooseneck) to have to conform to the same standards as a commercial driver would. That seems like one of the most immediate and obvious places where it seems crazy (IMO) that we allow people to get behind of the wheel of stuff they have no business driving.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#278

Post by sieabahlpark »

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_...

[dead]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#279

Post by ambicapter »

dualvariable wrote: post #202
macintux wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was 3-4 feet from a building corner when someone raced around it on a scooter. Amazing to me the complete lack of both self-preservation and respect for others. On the other hand, kids have always been stupid. We've just given them new, more powerful ways to abuse that lack of awareness.

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

on the sidewalk? Never.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#280

Post by carlosjobim »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #124

>“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.” Am I crazy? The article itself points out that only 10% of the increase would have been 'saved' if cars had remained the same size. This goes directly aga…

This is how modern online influencing works.

10 000 people will see the headline here on HN or somewhere else and form their opinion based on it only.

1000 people will open the article

Out of those, 200 people will understand that the title is completely false relevant to the data.

Out of those 200 people, 150 people will still deny that the title is a lie, down vote, or try to sidetrack, because even a lie has to be supported if it supports their own political agenda.

Post reply on HN