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

381–390 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#381

Post by gf000 »

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.

E=1/2mv^2

The energy of a crash at the same speed is linearly scaled with mass though. Especially when you have two such monsters collide, it's significant.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#382

Post by piker »

cjs_ac wrote: post #375
piker wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 asser…

You chose to buy the car with the big blind spots. You’re responsible for checking your blind spots, by moving your head as necessary. This is part of the driving test. Your poor consumer choices do not absolve you of your responsibilities and obligations.

I think I've just lost 10 IQ points in this thread.

YES! OF COURSE. I SAID IT'S A LIABILITY. I AM SHARING INFORMATION, PERHAPS TO AFFECT FUTURE CONSUMER CHOICE.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#383

Post by estebank »

MoonWalk wrote: post #297
estebank wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the effects are explicitly called out for US roads and not other locales. https://m.youtube.com/shorts/FDvTWy0LMt4

Not only does that not have anything to do with texting, but it has nothing to do with the roads. That's about giant vehicles hitting people above the waistline. If you hit someone with a tall-ass truck in Portugal, I'm pretty sure he's going to fall over just like he would in the USA.

> Not only does that not have anything to do with texting, but it has nothing to do with the roads.

From both the NYT video and their article:

> And that increase is unique to the US. Most other wealthy countries haven't seen a similar surge, suggesting that possible culprits, like the raise of smartphones, don't tell the whole story.

---

> If you hit someone with a tall-ass truck in Portugal, I'm pretty sure he's going to fall over just like he would in the USA.

How popular do you think the tall-ass trucks are in Portugal?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#384

Post by octernion »

boelboel wrote: post #313
octernion wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

... his whole point was that people don't want to live in cities, which is just factually incorrect. just baseless, pointless idiocy that is just par for the course on HN these days.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#385

Post by 1970-01-01 »

simplyluke wrote: post #262

The problem is that other countries have seen nearly identical trends in vehicle market share trending towards larger vehicles and have seen sustained declines in pedestrian fatalities. John Burn-Murdoch went deep on this in the FT a couple of years ago (archive link at bottom). > Most of the explanations commonly put forward for why US roads remain so deadly focus on broad structural factors such as vehicle size or…

I too am unconvinced bigger truck/vehicle means things are getting of control. It's terrible how the NYT article has no facts on overall road deaths, so here I state one for everyone: Occupant deaths have a clear falling trend. So while pedestrian deaths are climbing, the overall deaths are still trending downward, and I shouldn't have to defend that the overall count is more important than the pedestrian subset.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#386

Post by zardo »

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 that does get to the point. Maybe differentkinds of vehicles need different kinds of qualification testing. Would you trust your 16yo that just passed their driver's test in a sedan to tow a boat through town with an F250?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#388

Post by jmward01 »

giantg2 wrote: post #307
jmward01 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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 neg…

- It's a tool. If used responsibly, the negative affects are minimized.

This argument gets me all the time. By this argument we should get rid of all regulations on vehicles and requirements for licensing. I too would rather people suddenly woke up and were responsible. Using the 'its just a tool' argument ignores the reality of the impact of that tool and denies their right to life.

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

Here is a forbes article saying everything I said with links. Traffic is worse and deaths are higher because of these things. [1] and here are some facts about road deaths involving suvs and light trucks. The key point [2]:

'Conclusion In the case of a crash, SUVs and LTVs cause more severe injuries to pedestrians and cyclists than passenger cars. This effect is larger for fatalities than for KSIs, and the fatality effect is particularly large for children.' [2]

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

So, yes. They are directly impacting me daily by impacting my city in major negative ways and also increasing my risk of death. I am paying for the decisions of others and it isn't right. The stats show it.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2025/05/07/suvs-... [2] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/early/20...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#389

Post by 331c8c71 »

piker wrote: post #365
cjs_ac wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 asser…

Well the onus is obviously on a driver to make sure they see what they need to see. And that they drive a vehicle that allows them to see things.

That doesn't mean the pedestrians should not be careful...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#390

Post by andrepd »

It's really astonishing how virtually every single quality of life indicator is negatively correlated with number of cars in the road. One of the most effective things you / your city / your nation can do do improve your live in every dimension is to take measures to reduce the number of cars.
Post reply on HN