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

341–350 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#341

Post by cucumber3732842 »

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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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

Back in the 20th century, before electric bikes, when I was but a wee lad the neighborhood Karens screeched until the local PD dropped one of those mobile "your speed is" trailers onto my street for about a month.

It turns out 12yo me could go 29mph on a mountain bike.

30 is too low IMO. Make it 35 or something. 25 is a joke.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#342

Post by nradov »

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.

Sure, until you need to tow a trailer weighing more than about 1500 lbs or drive on a dirt road where the minivan bottoms out. You might not need those capabilities but a lot of families do that stuff every week.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#343

Post by bryanlarsen »

Aurornis wrote: post #338
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…

They weren't full on e-motorcycles, they don't meet the legal requirements for motorcycles. As one example among many, some jurisdictions require a motorcycle have turn signals.

So if they can't be operated as an e-bike and they can't be registered as an e-motorcycle, they've been banned.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#344

Post by groundzeros2015 »

swarnie wrote: post #112
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #94

[flagged]

Do drunk people regularly wonder around in the countryside or is driving massive trucks around population centres common? I'm confused by this question.

Talking about pedestrian deaths implies an image of an upstanding citizen crossing a street and being hit by a car. But the vast majority of deadly accidents are people in a bad mental state wandering into highways.

A quick ChatGPT suggests about half of all these incidents clearly involve alchohol.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#345

Post by CalRobert »

themaninthedark wrote: post #292
everdrive wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can thank the CAFE standards for setting emission limits of small vehicles below what was technically possible, driving manufacturers to the larger sizes.

Well maybe we'll get small cars again because the fine for violating CAFE is now... $0.

https://environmentalhealthsafetybrief.sidley.com/2025/07/08...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#346

Post by groundzeros2015 »

Zigurd wrote: post #133
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #94

[flagged]

And what were they wearing? Did they provoke the drivers? Why didn't they have flashing lights clipped to their belts?

I know you’re not taking this seriously. But yes, wandering on to a freeway at night is provocation.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#347

Post by Aurornis »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #343
Aurornis wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They weren't full on e-motorcycles, they don't meet the legal requirements for motorcycles. As one example among many, some jurisdictions require a motorcycle have turn signals. So if they can't be operated as an e-bike and they can't be registered as an e-motorcycle, they've been banned.

> they've been banned.

No, they're not allowed on public roadways or bike/pedestrian paths. Which I think is fair and good, because they're not designed for either space.

There are a lot of different types of vehicles that aren't allowed on the roads of bike paths, but people still use them recreationally on private property. You can find retrofit kits to add the necessary mirrors and turn signals to many dirt bikes if you want to ride on the road.

If someone wants to ride on a bike path, they should have something that meets the definition of a bike. We've stretched the definition to include reasonable e-assist bikes, but we're not stretching it further to include everything with 2 wheels and a motor.

If someone wants to ride on the roads, they need turn signals and a mirror.

We don't have to allow everyone to ride everything on every public shared space.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#348

Post by bryanlarsen »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #331
ajuc wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which ones? Caravan's, Sienna's, etc all have significantly lower hood heights than a typical 3 row SUV.

They all have sloping hoods. A sloping hood increases visibility and reduces air resistance.

Why does a Kenworth have a sloping hood but F-150's and SUV's don't?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#349

Post by sarchertech »

bootlooped wrote: post #295
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…

I think it does ban them, effectively. There is what some people say is a gray zone (I don't actually think it's that gray) where a device is too fast or powerful to be a legal e-bike, but also doesn't meet the requirements to be a road legal motorcycle. Will Progressive give me motorcycle insurance on my DIY e-bike without a VIN? Will the DVM register it? I don't think so. In most states there is no path to legality…

People get VINs and insurance for DIY vehicles all the time. There are companies that specialize in custom vehicle insurance.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#350

Post by eltrain »

mcntsh wrote: post #327
throwaway219450 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard of driving in most places I've lived in the US is very low for a developed country. People blow through pedestrian crossings, get-there-itis, crawling through stops, don't use their turn signals, make illegal U-Turns, ignore overtaking conventions. Compare to most countries in Europe where a driving test is a rigorous 45 minutes and you can fail for all sorts of minor stuff. I live in a place with decent…

45 minutes? In Germany getting your license takes most people around a year and costs thousands of euros.

I assume he meant the actual final practical test.
Post reply on HN