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

361–370 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#361

Post by treis »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #337
rypskar wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not the issue. The issue is how tall these grills are and to a lesser extent curb weight. You don't need either to have third row seating or the ability to haul things.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#362

Post by gf000 »

giantg2 wrote: post #143
epistasis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths? Isn't that a more relevant question?

"How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths?" I'd ask to see the data since TFA shows only a 7.5% increase due to size. The rest of the 75% increase is due to other factors. Edit: why disagee, is my data wrong?

Is that not a significant enough number in and of itself?! Like it even begs the question, how were they allowed to go onto the roads in the first place, when it's not even a hard to reach consequence.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#364

Post by [deleted] »

BrenBarn wrote: post #310
petcat wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#365

Post by piker »

cjs_ac wrote: post #352
piker wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will matter to you when you’re sentenced, though. Speaking as a fellow immigrant, your attitude is what gives immigrants a bad name worldwide.

Of course it would! That's the whole point.

People shouldn't enter the road until it's clear they've been seen.

I'm not sure what you're missing here guy.

I've said the A bar is a liability because of the blind spot it introduces.

Your response was that the person in the road has the right of way. This is known.

Somehow I give immigrants a bad name because I acknowledge that it is difficult to manage people who assert their right-of-way into blind spots.

It's called a blind spot for a reason. How can one yield to something they by definition don't see?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#366

Post by mikepurvis »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #340
NDlurker wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

But families towed tent trailers back in the 80s behind their sedans and station wagons, too.

Maybe there's a bit of circular reasoning going on here where people bought giant vehicles because they liked the aesthetics and internal roominess, and then the prevalence of giant vehicles opened up the market for larger and heavier towables— rigid body RVs, seadoos, a trailer full of gas dirt bikes, whatever it is.

I also feel like in past times, it was much more common to see a two car household with two very different cars, with one being a hatchback or sedan for getting the family around down and doing grocery runs, and the other a truck or van for those occasional "hauling" requirements. Nowadays I feel like many times it's two big SUVs, just tuned to his and her brand tastes rather than two shared vehicles for different usages. I'd be interested to know if the stats on multi-car households would bear this out.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#367

Post by groundzeros2015 »

lojban wrote: post #42
TacticalCoder wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men. I think people simply do find SUVs (which I don't like) convenient. Many women, including a huge number of moms, do happen to just love SUVs. Both in the US and in the EU. In the EU SUVs are now approaching 60% of all cars sold (59.25% or so, latest numbers). You don't get such a market share by being mostly cars sold to men needing to "gender-affirm".

What are the benefits of an SUV over a minivan though? They seem objectively worse in practically all regards: worse fuel efficiency, worse doors, less cargo space, worse visibility.

I noticed that your home is a little bit bigger than it absolutely needs to be to sustain your life.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#368

Post by bryanlarsen »

Aurornis wrote: post #347
bryanlarsen wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds like a ban to me.

I agree that some of the more egregious big motor e-bikes should be banned, but whenever you shift the requirements like this you're going to be taking away somebody's only means of getting to work. There are people out there driving big motor e-bikes because they can't afford a car. Or because they can't get a license.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#369

Post by ninalanyon »

complex_pi wrote: post #333
bee_rider wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Norway e-scooters don't require registration plates but do require liability insurance. It's less than 100 NOK per month (~10 EUR).

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#370

Post by jandrewrogers »

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #332
giantg2 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Ground clearance. In some parts of the US and for some use cases this is non-negotiable. It would be like buying a car in Texas without an air conditioner. There is a Japanese automaker (Subaru) that traditionally caters to this market almost exclusively in the US.

I won't buy a vehicle with less than 8 inches of ground clearance for safety reasons.

Post reply on HN