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

461–470 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#461

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

jorvi wrote: post #272
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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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…

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.

What defines an "e-bike" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It also changes when talking in a colloquial context.

There are electric riding devices that are bicycle-shaped that go up to 45 mph (72 km/h) that are being sold as "e-bikes".

It's why it's hard to talk about e-bikes and regulation surrounding them because you can say "e-bike" and people think you're talking about entirely different things.

For example, in Oregon, for something to be an e-bike, it must be only pedal-assist and only up to 250 watts, which really will only take you to about 15-20 mph. If it has a throttle button so it doesn't require pedaling, then it's classified as an e-motorcycle, regardless of power rating, and so is licensed and registered like a motorcycle.

But enforcement is weak, and parents often don't know, so they'll buy their kids what is legally an e-motorcycle and they'll rip through neighborhoods at 45 mph, not even aware that their kids even riding one at all is illegal.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#462

Post by mothballed »

lobf wrote: post #401
mothballed wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for private property use If only that were actually the law. My roads are 100% private with absolutely zero tax payer funding yet the dumbass registration laws and requirement to display a plate even apply on my private road (only exempt if the owner white-lists traffic, which cannot be done under my easement rules which at best would only mi…

>If only that were actually the law. My roads are 100% private with absolutely zero tax payer funding yet the dumbass registration laws and requirement to display a plate even apply on my private road (only exempt if the owner white-lists traffic, which cannot be done under my easement rules which at best would only might allow me to black-list abusers). In fact pretty much all the roads in my town are completely pri…

[flagged]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#463

Post by tinyplanets »

RickJWagner wrote: post #36

Yes, this is a problem. Look at a typical truck from the 90s or so, they are tiny compared to today’s trucks. The same thing is true of cars. Today’s civic is as big as an accord used to be. There is no Del Sol. We need to turn the incentive knobs that worked so successfully on consumption so we now work on vehicle size. Also, about the center of gravity discussion: I used to have an old friend that spent decades in…

Yeah, but who's going to get those incentives in place? In the US, it sure ain't gonna be the Republicans.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#464

Post by tinyplanets »

protocolture wrote: post #40
ungreased0675 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My normal sized car is at a significant disadvantage in a collision with a full-sized SUV. This creates higher injury risk for me and my family. Larger vehicles also cause more road damage over time, which raises my taxes or reduces the quality of roads I drive on. For those reasons, I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, to encourage more smaller, lighter vehicles.

>For those reasons, I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, to encourage more smaller, lighter vehicles. I pay higher insurance and registration fees already, I think its covered where I am.

And I guess anyone who doesn't want to buy a brodozer can go to hell, right?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#465

Post by dzonga »

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…

banning big SUVs & Trucks is insurmountable not impossible - since you're trying to have people/organizations act against their own interests.

it's one of those cases of stated preference vs observed preference:

for individuals big SUVs/Trucks feel good to drive, are fast enough & come with street cred. Notice I put the word "feel".

for cities/state governments - big SUVs/Trucks mean increased taxes since they consume more gas - thus increased revenues from gas taxes

for the automakers as the article stated - 90% of their profits come from big SUVs/Trucks that American automakers have stopped making sedans. Profits from big co's is a bragging point for the federal government too.

Now legislation would've to try for all those people to act against their own interests ? Unless some geopolitical event happens - that's unlikely.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#466

Post by tzs »

rayiner wrote: post #149

Data shows that introduction of iPhones in 2007 is a better explanation for the increase in pedestrian deaths than heavier trucks and SUVs: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ubbfrv/oc... (All the credit for this analysis goes to the reddit user, I’m just summarizing.) Trucks and SUVs have been getting heavier consistently since 1980 while pedestrian deaths consistently decreased from 1980 to 2009. Tr…

From the late '70s through 2009 there was a huge drop in the number of people who walked or bicycled, and there was also a significant drop in drunk driving over that time. Those explain most of the pedestrian fatality drop.

As far as truck sizes go, yes they have steadily increased, but the bigger trucks did not have as much effect on pedestrian fatality rates in the '80s or '90s because they were a much smaller percentage of vehicles on the road. In 1980 trucks were only about 1/5 of new vehicle sales. It was up to about 1/3 in 1990. By 2000 it was a little under 50%. By 2010 it was a little over 50%. Sometime around 2017 it was 2/3 trucks, and about 4/5 by 2023. (SUVs are counted as trucks in these numbers).

Remember those are figures for new sales, so changes in the percent of trucks on the road will lag changes in the percent of trucks in new sales.

You can get an idea of whether phones or size was the more responsible factor by comparing injuries to deaths. Phones would increase deaths mostly by increasing the number of accidents. Big trucks/SUVs would increase deaths by making accidents more fatal. In the phone case injuries and fatalities should rise at about the same mount. In the big vehicle case fatalities should rise more than injuries.

Fatalities have in fact risen more than injuries (80% vs 15%), suggesting that size is the much more significant factor.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#467

Post by fartcoin67 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #370
UtopiaPunk wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#468

Post by decimalenough »

tzs wrote: post #399
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.

Neither. The OP's point is that shootings consistently make headlines and occasion a lot of passionate debate, while grandma or toddler getting mowed over by a SUV or monster truck doesn't and as a consequence nobody really cares.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#469

Post by rconti »

We've already lost the war on outward visibility. Virtually every bit of our safety regulatory system encourages or demands vehicles that you can't really see out of anymore. Side impact standards and higher door sills all around, curtain airbags, etc. Hell, they encourage (more profitable) SUVs because they don't have to be built to passenger car safety standards. And the market's doing the rest.

The only response from the safety industry is more doodads. Auto braking, backup cameras, lane departure warnings, blind spot warning.

Cars going too fast in your neighborhood? Build huge speed bumps you need an SUV to navigate to navigate at any speed over 5mph!

I don't think there's actually any hope for human-driven cars, long-term. The system doesn't want them.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#470

Post by IshKebab »

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_...

8000 pedestrians killed by cars and 762 in mass shootings. Obviously in raw numbers 8000 is bigger than 762, but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is! 762 is an absolutely astoundingly crazy number and it definitely deserves the most attention.
Post reply on HN