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

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#311

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:43 PM UTC

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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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

[deleted]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#312

Post by dualvariable » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:44 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #258

dualvariable wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's any easy to measure metric, the article even shows it. What we need is a "distance from the front of the car a 4' person is visible." metric. Car manufactures should be penalized for poor visibility.

It is doable, but it is harder for the average redditor to compute something reasonable than just looking at GVW.

You should really take into account driver height, pedestrian height and hood slope and length and height.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#313

Post by boelboel » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

octernion wrote: post #173

drnick1 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Building society in a way that we increase deaths due to poor planning, like making driving the only option for the majority of people It's not poor planning, it's what Americans want. Americans, by and large, do not want to live in dense neighborhoods or tiny homes like in many parts of Europe. You get that in places like NYC and quality of life in those places is atrocious.

sometimes i just really enjoy comments that are just so amazingly breathtaking in their stupidity. it's such a treat.

He's right though beside the point about NYC (if it were awful why do people pay for it). Americans love the suburbs, i'd imagine most non Americans would like them .

Americans are just rich enough and lucky with geography to be able to have them.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#314

Post by UtopiaPunk » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

EA-3167 wrote: post #241

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ugh, ok. Most people do not need one.

I'm not sure what the need is for a very tall pickup truck that can also hold a family five? But maybe there is one. Perhaps there is also a need for an excavator that holds a family of five, idk. If a real need is demonstrated, then sure, please do not ban the manufacturing of an excavator that has the necessary hook-ups for modern child carseats simply because I, a commenter on HackerNews, made a statement that was a little too sweeping for the needs of past, present, and future human beings on Earth and across potential settlement across the universe and dimensions beyond.

But most people do not need a very large truck or SUV. Vehicles with hoods closer to the ground and better lines-of-sight are safer for those around them, while having practically no impact on the utility of said vehicles as they drive on roads and highways in the USA.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#315

Post by estebank » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

thegrim33 wrote: post #151

"200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died" Or, put another way, 0.000058% to 0.0001159% of the population.

Or, put another way, 1% of every traffic fatality, or 8% of every pedestrian killed by cars. Those are not a small number being affected by a single variable.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#316

Post by 9cb14c1ec0 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

ElijahLynn wrote: post #250

I recently visited Portugal and it was so refreshing not to see huge near monster trucks on the road. Which have a very intimidating vibe to them. I was like oh look at people can actually function without big trucks, wow! What a surprise!

Very urban perspective. If you are a contractor or farmer in rural America, there is no way to survive without a good sized truck.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#317

Post by timw4mail » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

petcat wrote: post #261

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…

And it doesn't quantify how many other lives have been saved specifically because the accidents involved bigger, sturdier, safer cars/trucks/SUVs. That has to be a significant statistic.

For the bigger vehicle, perhaps, but a smaller vehicle, even if up to modern standards, is less safe due to the larger one.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#318

Post by piker » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them.

On a number of occasions I have nearly hit people who I simply could not see crossing in my Volvo XC90 due to these pillars. I've been driving for nearly 30 years in the US and UK and have never felt anything like it.

[edit: for future readers, please note that I am not saying it would be legal or correct to hit these people.

I am saying precisely that the A pillars on the XC90 are dangerous as they introduce blind spots that I've never experienced before. We test drove the vehicle, and they weren't apparent during that test drive. I am now responsible for them.

Down in this thread you will read some responses that seem confused about that point. No, it is not legal to run people over in the road. You will be at fault. No, that doesn't make it smart to jump into the road until it's clear that the traffic has yielded you your lawful right of way. IAAL]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#319

Post by Symbiote » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #246

echelon wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.