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

391–400 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#391

Post by nradov »

coryrc wrote: post #372
nradov wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can drive those off-road away from where people live, or you can get properly trained and insured for driving such a dangerous vehicle where people outside vehicles will be present.

Is that a joke? A Tahoe isn't hard to drive. Every regular auto insurer will write policies for them.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#392

Post by topgrain2 »

imglorp wrote: post #259
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…

Maybe not so much "ban" giant vehicles as stop subsidizing, rewarding, and encouraging them. There's safety and emissions loopholes that brought this on: https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-lo... We also subsidize fossil fuels to some $900B/yr, not counting foreign wars for oil, climate damage, health impacts etc. Fuel should be MUCH more expensive, around $15/gal. If priced right, the market wo…

[dead]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#393

Post by andrepd »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #296
baron816 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, probably the right thing to do for large trucks and suvs is to reclassify them so that you need a commercial license to drive them.

[flagged]

Dutch grandmas can transport 3 kids to school on a cargo bike but young parents in the US need a 4-ton lifted truck? Odd.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#394

Post by petcat »

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?

No I just safely drive my SUV to the store and then back home.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#395

Post by Aurornis »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #368
Aurornis wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There are people out there driving big motor e-bikes because they can't afford a car.

Unfortunate for them, but we can't be shaping the laws for everyone around a couple people who already bought a big-motor e-bike to ride on the bike path.

I'm not really persuaded by this argument either, as they can sell their big-motor e-bike and buy a lesser model, or trade someone straight across.

> Or because they can't get a license.

This just raises more questions. If they can't get a license, they shouldn't be driving on the road. That limits them to bike paths, where they shouldn't be driving high powered vehicles anyway. Again, not really persuaded.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#396

Post by baq »

gravatron wrote: post #355
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.

I spent significant time recently in both a new F150 and a Toyota Sienna, and it isn't even close in the comfort between them. F150 wins by a mile by the sheer amount of space you have in that thing for both passengers and cargo. Not to mention the ability to tow.

How often people tow anything?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#397

Post by piker »

331c8c71 wrote: post #389
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…

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...

Yes, I agree with both of those statements. If you read the original statement before the "tut tut" response, you will note that I was only suggesting the A pillars introduce dangerous blind spots. I understand how that could be confused on other platforms, but I expected folks on HN to extend the benefit of the doubt that posters are not generally oblivious to the law. So the conversation derailed.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#398

Post by hnuser123456 »

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…

[dead]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#399

Post by tzs »

hackingonempty wrote: post #64

In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1] It is a massive problem that receives a disproportionate amount of attention. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...

Wait...is the massive problem that it should be more than an order of magnitude more people killed than those killed in mass shootings, or is it that it should be less than an order of magnitude more?

They are such completely different categories of ways to die I'm having trouble understand how to compare them in any sensible way.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#400

Post by jeffbee »

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 who say this is a "gray zone" are practicing motivated reasoning. It is not gray, they are just illegal. There doesn't have to be a "path to legality" for illegal motorcycles. The only "path" necessary is the one straight to jail for the guy who imports these from China and sells them to the public.
Post reply on HN