Live data from Hacker News

The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

nytimes.com

591–600 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know who bike commutes also owns a car and pays taxes on it.

And I know plenty who don't own any actual vehicles, don't pay any taxes and yet they get to be a nuisance on the road with total impunity just because they are "smaller" than cars. Pedestrian enough to use pedestrian crossings without even getting off the bike, weave through people on sidewalks and generally be immune to traffic laws, yet vehicular enough to use the road and slow everybody else down, but not enough…

You seem upset.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know who bike commutes also owns a car and pays taxes on it.

And I know plenty who don't own any actual vehicles, don't pay any taxes and yet they get to be a nuisance on the road with total impunity just because they are "smaller" than cars. Pedestrian enough to use pedestrian crossings without even getting off the bike, weave through people on sidewalks and generally be immune to traffic laws, yet vehicular enough to use the road and slow everybody else down, but not enough…

As someone who bike commutes my highest risk of dying this year is from biking. I've been hit twice biking in Seattle.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#594
For work, I drive an F-350 diesel with a work-bed full of tools and supplies, and a ladder rack. It's a bit nerve-wracking driving through city side streets, especially with pedestrians. It's 22 feet (6.7m) long. Across the tow mirrors is 8.5 feet (2.6m). It probably weighs 4 tons. Yet people happily choose to drive bigger vehicles as commuter cars!

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#596
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The homemarket websites for Mecedes (Geländewagen), BMW (X series), LandRover (defender), Toyota (LandCruiser, Lexus LX), etc. have the large SUVs for sale. They are not as popular as they are in the US but they are available.

"Not as popular" or "nowhere near as popular?" Also, our absurd pickups effectively don't exist in those markets. Occasionally you'll see one and it stands out like a sore thumb.

Parent suggested or intimated that their sole market was the USA.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

It's about the same size as an old f150 though

Sure, if you go back far enough, but this was in response to the older Ford Ranger being no longer available - the Maverick is fairly comparable in size to a 90's Ranger.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But families towed tent trailers back in the 80s behind their sedans and station wagons, too. Maybe there's a bit of circular reasoning going on here where people bought giant vehicles because they liked the aesthetics and internal roominess, and then the prevalence of giant vehicles opened up the market for larger and heavier towables— rigid body RVs, seadoos, a trailer full of gas dirt bikes, whatever it is. I also…

> But families towed tent trailers back in the 80s behind their sedans and station wagons, too. Are we concerned about safety, or are we not? Because towing a 2000+ lb trailer behind a sedan is kind of dangerous.

It always amazes me when I see USians banging on about needing a 7.5 tonne truck to pull a tiny little camping trailer that you'd stick on the back of a Ford Focus anywhere in Europe.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't require commercial licenses though, because they're not large enough to and don't serve a commercial purpose when transporting families / their things. Plenty of families have the need for third-row seating and the ability to haul things around.

The claim is not that they do, it is that they should. The high hood trend post-2009 has provides no functional utility.

I'd go a step further and say the high hoods reduce utility by making the vehicles harder to work on. I'm 6' and needed a step-stool to change the battery on my uncle's Silverado. The truck manufacturers leave that inconvenient detail out of their macho ads on TV.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sorry if I'm being dense, but what parts of the USA? Or, I guess more specifically, what is it that you are needing to clear?

The mountainous parts, particularly if you aren't driving on the interstates. You can end up in a freak blizzard in the passes from September through May. Some roads do not have frequent, regular snow clearance in winter. Localized torrential rains from thunderstorms temporarily dump debris on or wash out the road surface. In the western US, unpaved highways are relatively common in some areas. Random unexpected road closures can send you down ranch or forestry trails intended for 4WD trucks because there are few practical alternatives.

When I lived in the area, I regularly rescued people stranded on roads in the Sierra Nevada mountains around Lake Tahoe that found out the hard way that their vehicles were unfit for the changing road conditions. Nearly getting stranded myself a couple times over the decades informed my vehicular requirements.

I currently live in the city and but rarely drive there. Almost all of my driving is done across the western US. I require the vehicle I own to be able to safely navigate all of the road conditions I am likely to see there.

A less common reason is that the nice paved roads are not always the fastest way between two points. I used to regularly commute to a town in Nevada where using the nice paved highway around the mountains took 30 minutes longer than taking an old mining road straight over the mountains. Everyone that lived in the area took the old mining road. That would have been sketchy without decent ground clearance. A lot of locals just drove old Subarus.

Post reply on HN