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

301–310 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#301

Post by mschuster91 »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #268
mothballed wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gotta love regulation stifling the living daylights our of your society.

Or: Gotta love regulation keeping our societies alive.

The US averages 14.9/100k traffic fatalities, Europe 6.7 [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#302

Post by boelboel »

rayiner wrote: post #221
pm90 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the issue is distracted drivers, I don’t see how heavier trucks is still not the issue. With lighter vehicles you would likely have a higher chance of surviving.

Yes, but on the whole we got much heavier trucks from 1980 to 2009 while pedestrian deaths went down. There’s also the issue that heavier vehicles are inevitable due to EVs. Our bz4x won’t get tagged as a “big evil truck,” but it’s about the same weight as a base model Ford F150. And heavier than a Toyota Tacoma double cab.

The article acknowledges that rise in vehicle height is only part of it and might explain 10% of the rise. I'm not sure how exactly they measured things but there's no reason things could've gone down while car height simultaneously slowed down the decline.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#303

Post by throw0101d »

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…

> The law doesn't ban them. It classifies […]

The Shifter cycling channel recently polled viewers and came out with a pretty good classification system:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z35F2R7FeE&t=17m20s

"E-bike" is pedal assist only/mostly with max speed of 30kph/20mph (only while pedalling) and throttle cuts out at low speeds (7kph: basically just there to get some inertial); treated as just another bicycle (perhaps limit age to ≥14 yo). Everything else is an "e-moto" with the same rules as mopeds and motorcycles.

Of course enforcement is key: importing, selling, on the road.

Also worth noting that in some places in the EU a automobile Category B also gives you Category AM allowances:

> In some countries, holders of a B driver licence are also entitled (sometimes with special conditions) to ride motorcycles

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_driving_licence#Since...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#304

Post by ajuc »

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…

Id we wanted to do sth similar for SUVs and Trucks it would be a special driving licence required, with additional requirements and more expansive insurance.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#305

Post by ajuc »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #296
baron816 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, probably the right thing to do for large trucks and suvs is to reclassify them so that you need a commercial license to drive them.

[flagged]

What's more comfortable about SUV or a truck than a minivan or combi?

How is a tall hood increasing your family comfort? It only increases your ego.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#306

Post by sparrish »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #187

2009 coincides with the invention of the smartphone. I've lost count of how many times I've nearly been run over because people are staring at their phones while driving. The attribution to larger vehicles while ignoring smartphones seems misplaced.

And I'm sure some of these stats are caused by pedestrians staring at their phones as well.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#307

Post by giantg2 »

jmward01 wrote: post #285
giantg2 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licensing is mostly based vehicle operating characteristics. We already have large vehicle licenses like class B and A for heavy vehicles. Motorcycles have a separate license due to different operating concerns. If you're actually following the stats you will see that vehicle size only accounted for 10% of the increase. You would want to focus on the other 90% to make the biggest difference. And using that logic, you…

- Nobody is asking you to pay for others' decisions (unless we want to go down the rabbit hole of insurance, for which sports cars and high priced electrics are costing all drivers more). Nor is a large vehicle an infringement on anyone's right to life (someone's recklessness could be). Large vehicles increase the risk of death for other people. The article was about pedestrians but the stats are clear about collisio…

"The argument that ownership of these vehicles doesn't infringe on my right to life or have costs to the public as a whole is ridiculous when the stats show clearly the impact."

Really, can you show me ownership of these kills people? You aren't looking at this from a systems thinking perspective but just comparing numbers on the surface. Owning a vehicle isnt killing anyone. It's a tool. If used responsibly, the negative affects are minimized. What you are actually comparing is the irresponsible use of a car vs the irresponsible use of a truck. I would rather address the irresponsible use than the marginal difference in fatalities caused by the two. Can you show the stats you talk about, or are we still on the 7.5% from the article?

"Parking lots and roads are bigger making cities worse."

Source? Lane size and parking space width is pretty standard.

"Pollution in cities is worse impacting my health and my enjoyment of the city I live in."

Source? Gas mileage is lower, but emissions standards are pretty strict for most pollutants. The bigger issue would be large diesel trucks.

"The decision to own a big vehicle like this and drive it around everywhere has direct and major negative impacts on me at multiple levels."

I have yet to hear you provide a direct negative impact to yourself - they're all theoretical or n-order indirect.

Education and testing would be the best approach as it would cover multiple issues and the entire population.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#309

Post by spidercat »

echelon wrote: post #200
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are, and they do.

The bike meme is unrealistic, and you're dismissing all of my arguments. You're ripping up infrastructure for yuppie pickleball. How do you transmit tons of material on bikes? How do people move in the rain or when they're on their period? How do they move multiple small children or being home furniture? What do old and sick people do? Every lane taken away is centuries of economic activity destroyed.

Could you kindly explain to me how being on my period would in any way shape or form affect my ability to ride a bike? I'm all ears.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#310

Post by BrenBarn »

petcat wrote: post #222
topaz0 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You decrease the risk to you but you dramatically increase the risk to other people, especially pedestrians. The total deaths go up.

> You decrease the risk to you Yes, that's the point. No offense to other people, but I'm trying to not die when I drive to the store. Driving a tank with a sun roof is a good way to do that.

Do you also run around firing bullets at random people just in case they might decide to attack you at some undetermined point in the future?
Post reply on HN