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

511–520 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#511

Post by avianlyric »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #385
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.

> 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.

A better question is why is the US the only developed country that’s seen pedestrian deaths increase over the past 10-15 years. Every other developed country has seen both occupant and pedestrian deaths decrease over the same time period, and has seen a larger combined drop in deaths than the US. And to be clear, I’m talking about deaths per mile driven, not absolute counts, so the size of the US is already factored into the numbers.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#512

Post by cucumber3732842 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #280
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…

This is how modern online influencing works. 10 000 people will see the headline here on HN or somewhere else and form their opinion based on it only. 1000 people will open the article Out of those, 200 people will understand that the title is completely false relevant to the data. Out of those 200 people, 150 people will still deny that the title is a lie, down vote, or try to sidetrack, because even a lie has to be…

Whatever society figures out how to solve this behavior will mop the floor with us.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#513

Post by Marsymars »

joe_the_user wrote: post #114
everdrive wrote: post #83

People spend a lot of time on Trucks, but I don't see why SUVs get a pass. Every single car is an SUV now. They're higher up, heavier, and have a higher beltline all so that drivers can "feel safer."

It's an arms race. My older SUV (Lexus 3XX) is worrisome in it's size and blindspots but it's still dwarfed by current trucks. Moreover, once most SUVs were basically built over a pickup chassis but it seems like pickups have gotten so large that it's unusual to see an equivalent SUV.

The equivalent SUVs still exist, e.g. Toyota Tundra -> Sequoia, Ford F-150 -> Expedition, Nissan Titan -> Armada, etc.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#514

Post by asdff »

Sayrus wrote: post #57
mcdow wrote: post #51

there’s another thing that started to get quite popular in the late 2000s… smartphones

Then surely Europe shares that trends and shows growth in pedestrian death. But that isn't the case at all, maybe Europeans are immune to smartphones: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download...

The roads in a lot of places in europe will punish you with death or destruction for being distracted. They might be single laned, windy, and narrow, maybe following a cliff of certain death below.

The US however builds a lot of roads that lure you into thinking its safe to take your eyes out. Even countryside rural roads are dead straight for dozens of miles. We take our narrow certain death cliffside roads and replace them with highways with embanked generous turns and other features like that.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#515

Post by asdff »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #82
saool wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally... Having spent time driving in both Europe and Southern California, I'd say that European drivers are more attentive to their driving and way less likely to be looking at their phone while driving, since it's policed. You can often see drivers in SoCal holding their phone for a video call.

In downtown LA I routinely spot on-duty police officers, who are usually cruising in large SUVs, texting while driving.

Never know when there might be a snorlax around

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#516

Post by piker »

quickthrowman wrote: post #493
piker wrote: post #318

Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them. On a number of occasions I have nearly hit people who I simply could not see crossing in my Volvo XC90 due to these pillars. I've been driving for nearly 30 years in the US and UK and have never felt anything like it. [edit: for future readers, please note that I a…

I move my neck, head, and eyes to look around the A pillar in my vehicle to verify I don’t hit anybody. Yes, every time I start moving forward and there’s a pedestrian crossing in front of me. I suggest doing the same thing unless your cervical vertebrae are fused together. If that’s the case, I understand your concern.

Yes, obviously this is what is required.

> and there’s a pedestrian crossing in front of me

This is wrong. You have to do it every time because the pedestrian is in your blind spot.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#517

Post by Marsymars »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #316
ElijahLynn wrote: post #250

I recently visited Portugal and it was so refreshing not to see huge near monster trucks on the road. Which have a very intimidating vibe to them. I was like oh look at people can actually function without big trucks, wow! What a surprise!

Very urban perspective. If you are a contractor or farmer in rural America, there is no way to survive without a good sized truck.

I dunno, my dad was a farmer when I was a kid, and he did fine with a series of compact pickups. (Some 80's Toyota thing, then a Nissan hardbody, then a Chevy S10.)

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#518

Post by alamortsubite »

trollbridge wrote: post #162
cpursley wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They generally don’t have brodozers

Australia had plenty, yet mysteriously has far fewer deaths.

You're either grossly misinformed or you're being disingenuous; try installing 40" mud tires and a 6" lift kit on your truck in Australia and see what happens. In the U.S. it's just another brodozer and no cop will ever bat an eye.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#519

Post by asdff »

protocolture wrote: post #39
downrightmike wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that fixes an inattentive driver flying down the road playing with tiktok on their phone

>None of that fixes an inattentive driver flying down the road playing with tiktok on their phone Automatic braking does alleviate this, but also, inattentive driving is already illegal?

Yup, since it is illegal everyone pays perfect attention.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#520

Post by [deleted] »

epistasis wrote: post #96
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…

I don't know the particulars, but if what's going on in WA is like what's going on in my California town, I don't think it's reasonable. I see teens going around on ebikes, and people freak out over them in ways that seem completely inappropriate to the kids scooting around. I think it's mostly a reaction to seeing young people being young people, as far as I can tell. Same thing happens on NextDoor, a few kids hangi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN