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

331–340 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#331

Post by tinfoilhatter »

ajuc wrote: post #305
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Plenty of minivans also have tall hoods. I assume by combi you're talking about a station wagon, and in that case you're trading cargo capacity and the ability to tow boats / trailers / campers / etc... Ego has nothing to do with it - utility does. You can fit more people and things in a larger vehicle, this isn't rocket science.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#332

Post by UtopiaPunk »

giantg2 wrote: post #233
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.

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.

Is your point that taller trucks and SUVs provide considerable benefits over shorter ones? What are those benefits?

Or do you mean simply that trucks and SUVs, regardless of their height, provide benefits? I don't doubt that and do not mean to imply otherwise.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#333

Post by complex_pi »

bee_rider wrote: post #275
jorvi wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Where I live (western EU) it's simple. If the speed is limited to 25 km/h it's an e-bike. Above it's a speed pedelec and requires registration plate + insurance.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#334

Post by piker »

cjs_ac wrote: post #323
piker wrote: post #318

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 a…

> 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. Those pedestrians do have the right of way; you need to have another look at the Highway Code.

This is such a British response.

Obviously that's what the law says, yes. But if they hop into someone's blind spot, it won't matter to their family much that they were in the right.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#335

Post by bijowo1676 »

Zigurd wrote: post #119
everdrive wrote: post #83

People spend a lot of time on Trucks, but I don't see why SUVs get a pass. Every single car is an SUV now. They're higher up, heavier, and have a higher beltline all so that drivers can "feel safer."

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.

this is part of the subsidy to American car companies.

American Big Three cannot compete with Asian/European cars, so they gave up and erected a regulatory barriers to protect their market:

1. chicken tax 2. Section 179 Deduction - allows writeoff of Vehicles Over 6000 lbs for people non-W2 people (self-employed and small business owners) 3. CAFE footpring and "light truck" loophole and CAFE exemtpions for US trucks

everything designed to protect Big Three's highest margin products at cost of human lives

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#336

Post by solid_fuel »

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 agree about large vehicles, but does an individual state even have the authority to ban a given kind of car from their roads? I suspect that is more under a federal authority than state-by-state.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#337

Post by tinfoilhatter »

rypskar wrote: post #326
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You are looking at it the wrong way. Driving something so large that it would require a commercial license to transport your family around is ridiculous

They don't require commercial licenses though, because they're not large enough to and don't serve a commercial purpose when transporting families / their things. Plenty of families have the need for third-row seating and the ability to haul things around.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#338

Post by Aurornis »

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…

> 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 riders.

This is not true. The law didn't ban anything. It just clarified what's classified as a bike with requirements like "must have pedals" and "you have to pedal it".

There wasn't a ban. Previously there was a gray area where people were taking full on e-motorcycles, which should have been on roads, and trying to ride them in spaces meant for pedal bicycles.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#339

Post by bryanlarsen »

verytrivial wrote: post #255
cogman10 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Dutch seem to just do the sensible thing and have mobile e-bike dynos. If they suspect the bike is not properly regulated, they'll test it and keep it if it fails.

AFAICT, lots of people in the Netherlands also complain about kids on fat tire ebikes that look like motorcycles.

OTOH people in 80's complained about kids on BMX bikes terrorizing the neighborhood, and those things were slow.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#340

Post by tinfoilhatter »

NDlurker wrote: post #324
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Minivans and station wagons are just as good as a Tahoe for transporting a family.

Not if you need to tow a trailer / camper. Maybe there's a reason different kinds of vehicles exist? To fulfill different requirements of their drivers?
Post reply on HN