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

631–640 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#631

Post by dahart »

giantg2 wrote: post #307
jmward01 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Nobody is asking you to pay for others' decisions (unless we want to go down the rabbit hole of insurance, for which sports cars and high priced electrics are costing all drivers more). Nor is a large vehicle an infringement on anyone's right to life (someone's recklessness could be). Large vehicles increase the risk of death for other people. The article was about pedestrians but the stats are clear about collisio…

"The argument that ownership of these vehicles doesn't infringe on my right to life or have costs to the public as a whole is ridiculous when the stats show clearly the impact." Really, can you show me ownership of these kills people? You aren't looking at this from a systems thinking perspective but just comparing numbers on the surface. Owning a vehicle isnt killing anyone. It's a tool. If used responsibly, the neg…

> can you show me ownership of these kills people? You aren’t looking at this from a systems thinking perspective

It seems like you’re the one ignoring the system and demonstrated end-to-end results. Ownership of larger vehicles is posing a greater risk to the people outside those vehicles. It can’t be waved away with an imaginary responsibility argument; the drivers of larger vehicles would need to act more responsibly than drivers of smaller vehicles in order to compensate.

https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2294

https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2277

https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2293

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#632

Post by wredcoll »

mothballed wrote: post #504
orthecreedence wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Do you have proof of any of that?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#633

Post by lobf »

drtz wrote: post #257
EA-3167 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is often brought out as though it should engender gasps, but a moment of thought punctures the whole prospect. We need cars and trucks for a variety of purposes, and while I agree that most people don't need a pickup or a Unimog, there are many people and businesses who do. The ability to rapidly travel is a centerpiece of modern life, and has been for quite some time. Mass shootings by contrast are not economic…

I think you're take is a bit off for multiple reasons. First, people need transportation, not cars. For the vast majority of people, if you truly need a car, it's because your infrastructure was built in a way that doesn't provide any other modes of transportation. Second, mass shootings aren't the intended effect of guns in the same way pedestrian fatalities aren't the intended effect of cars. Both cars and guns are…

I would argue that cars provide a tangible value, and guns only provide a perceived / emotional value. Guns make you objectively less safe, and at enormous social cost. Cars are (unfortunately) necessary in a lot of cases for the economy to work, there is really no comparison to guns.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#634

Post by giantg2 »

jmward01 wrote: post #388
giantg2 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The argument that ownership of these vehicles doesn't infringe on my right to life or have costs to the public as a whole is ridiculous when the stats show clearly the impact." Really, can you show me ownership of these kills people? You aren't looking at this from a systems thinking perspective but just comparing numbers on the surface. Owning a vehicle isnt killing anyone. It's a tool. If used responsibly, the neg…

- It's a tool. If used responsibly, the negative affects are minimized. This argument gets me all the time. By this argument we should get rid of all regulations on vehicles and requirements for licensing. I too would rather people suddenly woke up and were responsible. Using the 'its just a tool' argument ignores the reality of the impact of that tool and denies their right to life. -"Pollution in cities is worse im…

"I too would rather people suddenly woke up and were responsible"

Then raise the standards for licensing. The difference between the lethality of an idiot with a civic and an idiot with an F150 isn't significantly different in practice.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#635

Post by lobf »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #600
UtopiaPunk wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>A lot of locals just drove old Subarus.

AKA a large SUV or truck is not necessary.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#636

Post by giantg2 »

timw4mail wrote: post #325
giantg2 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The argument that ownership of these vehicles doesn't infringe on my right to life or have costs to the public as a whole is ridiculous when the stats show clearly the impact." Really, can you show me ownership of these kills people? You aren't looking at this from a systems thinking perspective but just comparing numbers on the surface. Owning a vehicle isnt killing anyone. It's a tool. If used responsibly, the neg…

More mass = more momentum = harder crash. That's physics.

And this applies to EVs, not just trucks. It will be the reality across all new vehicle types.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#637

Post by snypher »

alamortsubite wrote: post #599
kube-system wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No-one works on junky new cars; people who work on their cars have a 90's model etc.

SOP now is to pull the whole cab off to work on the engine.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#638

Post by Aurornis »

michael1999 wrote: post #490
Aurornis wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think so. In most states there is no path to legality, at least as far as operating the thing on public streets goes. Not true. It's common to convert dirt bikes into street legal vehicles with conversion kits that add the required pieces. Depending on the state, that means turn signals, a mirror, headlight, and tail light. I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for priva…

Hard to get a plate if there's no VIN.

A VIN is assigned as part of the registration process.

This happens all the time. Even trailers need a VIN. If you build a trailer and get it registered, they will assign a VIN for it.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#639

Post by giantg2 »

lonelyasacloud wrote: post #299
giantg2 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licensing is mostly based vehicle operating characteristics. We already have large vehicle licenses like class B and A for heavy vehicles. Motorcycles have a separate license due to different operating concerns. If you're actually following the stats you will see that vehicle size only accounted for 10% of the increase. You would want to focus on the other 90% to make the biggest difference. And using that logic, you…

> If you're actually following the stats you will see that vehicle size only accounted for 10% of the increase. It's a paper that will make money automobile advertising. Implicitly if there were any other single larger cause for the deaths then the article would be about that. The sensible thing to do would be to carry on investigating the 90%, but in the meantime get on with saving the 200 to 400 people by removing…

"Implicitly if there were any other single larger cause for the deaths then the article would be about that."

Then show me explicitly what the breakdown is.

"the _unnecessarily_ large vehicles"

Define unnecessarily. Do I get to buy one because I'm tall, have a big family, haul stuff?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#640

Post by giantg2 »

postflopclarity wrote: post #380
giantg2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths?" I'd ask to see the data since TFA shows only a 7.5% increase due to size. The rest of the 75% increase is due to other factors. Edit: why disagee, is my data wrong?

"only" a 7% increase in deaths

200 out of 350M is a small number. There are plenty other things we could address that makes a bigger impact. The bigger factor is pedestrian alcohol consumption, but nobody wants to address that.
Post reply on HN