Live data from Hacker News

The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

nytimes.com

501–510 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#501

I drive a 2004 truck, it's not as big as the newer trucks but it's still pretty big. My 2004 truck also has 0 sensors on it and no cameras. If I were driving a newer truck, I believe pedestrians would be safer because of the added safety sensors and cameras.

Well, the statistics say otherwise, so I don't get the argument you're making. That you would trust the car's sensors over your own observations and judgments might actually mean you'd be a more dangerous driver in a newer truck.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#502
No problem with big SUVs ...

Just cap their top speed at 40 mph, use thin A pillars to better protect pedestrians and make them ugly as hell.

But make damn sure they comfortably transport the family to the soccer game, yes...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#503
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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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…

> The law doesn't ban them. It classifies […] The Shifter cycling channel recently polled viewers and came out with a pretty good classification system: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z35F2R7FeE&t=17m20s "E-bike" is pedal assist only/mostly with max speed of 30kph/20mph (only while pedalling) and throttle cuts out at low speeds (7kph: basically just there to get some inertial); treated as just another bicycle (pe…

Most of the AM allowance is grandfathered in if you had an A or B license, some still combine them though. For some countries (like mine), while AM has those maxima, but the only vehicles allowed in the AM category are low power mopeds (sub 45kph). So it's arranged via vehicle allowance, not drivers license requirements. Any ebike with a throttle would fall under that category.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes! The migrants fleeing to the US with nothing but the shirt on their back and tens of thousands of dollars in their pocket so they can buy an F350 Superduty and run over kids with it.

They're not buying the commercial tractor-trailers they're just operating them with CDLs California issued to them without even having enough basic English knowledge to read road signs, with predictable results.

Of course this is partially a problem of the government creating the problem of disqualifying Californians who could perform the job. Like 40% of California smokes weed but recreational use disqualifies you from a DOT physical for interstate CDL driving eligibility, and probably medical too though for not much longer since it's now schedule III and the DOT just hasn't caught up with the rescheduling yet.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#505

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?

Complete indifference. That's the same class of argument as telling people they shouldn't use Signal because criminals use Signal.

Complete indifference to a big increase in deaths?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#506

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.

> but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is

You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones.

The US is the only developed country that has seen a steady increase in the number of pedestrian deaths per 1000km driven over the past 10-15 years. And 10-15 years ago it was one of the worst performing developed countries for pedestrian deaths. Every other developed country has seen decreases in pedestrian deaths over the same time period, which means the US is an extreme outlier when it comes to pedestrian safety, or lack there of.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#507
post #381
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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=1/2 m v^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.

I expect energy dissipation scales in a similar way... e.g. I'd expect a head-on crash of two light cars to be roughly comparable in severity to occupants to a head-on crash of two heavy cars. Is my intuition off here?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#508
post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota Camry curb weight is ~3300 pounds. The minivan based on the Camry is the Sienna, curb weight ~4600 lbs. Lincoln Navigator curb weight ~5600 lbs. If the difference between the first two is marginal (~30%), the difference between the second two is less (~20%). By comparison, actual CDL-requiring commercial trucks weigh up to 80,000 pounds.

Now look at the front end of a toyota sienna vs a lincoln navigator. One slopes down so that you might actually see what is in front of you and allows for pedestrians to impact and roll up and off. The other is effectively a brick notorious for making it difficult to see obstructions in front of you as well as creating an impact that would sooner see the pedestrian explode into a bloody mess over just rolling up and…

Which has nothing to do with the weight of the vehicle. The Audi SQ8 E-Tron has a sloped hood and weighs more than the Navigator. There are vehicles with a square grille that weigh less than the Sienna.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're romanticizing that era a bit. The most commonly sold CUV's today are smaller length and width wise then station wagons or sedans way back when. The Crown Victoria was considered a regular sized sedan for it's day and it's as long as a crew cab F150. The land yachts easily match the footprint of the super cab F150 with shorter beds today, they just seem smaller because they're lower.

> The Crown Victoria was considered a regular sized sedan for it's day [...] Are you sure about that? In North America, other than the Crown Vic in its heyday, Ford also had the Escort, the Festiva, the Tempo and the Taurus for sedans, all of which were smaller than the Crown Vic, which was the largest car they sold.

As far as I was aware the others didn't sell in any close to the same numbers. The Crown Vic and it's Panther platform siblings were the basis for taxis and police cars across the US and Canada for a long time, and they could be had second hand for for a few months pay cheque back in the day.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#510

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.

It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks. I understand they were at least marginally less safe in a crash, but I think changes could have been made to get them safer and more efficient without compromising the ease of repair and generally more pleasant driving experience. It's amazing how much more divorced…

> It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks.

The Ford Maverick exists!

Post reply on HN