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

661–670 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#661

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

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…

Meh, standard attempt at mollifying the biggest opponents by offering them exemptions and exceptions does not move me at all. Boring.

Lets make it better.

After all, after the nanny state representatives succeed with this, they will move onto some other cause to ban another thing they deem unnecessary and an affront to their sensibilities. They will not be content until everyone does exactly as they say ( but not do ). And that is fine for them. Where I stand, I will keep on trucking and my child, god willing, will own a veritable tank that will crush anti truck infidels under its mighty heels. The gods of molten metal have spoken. Your sacrifice is deemed acceptable -- bike enjoyer.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#662

Post by alamortsubite »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #581
michael1999 wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do need to justify it. There is a great moral hazard prioritizing the driver's safety over pedestrians, since the driver is most in control of the danger. There is very little a pedestrian can do to protect themselves from a driver on their phone who mounts the sidewalk.

Fixing on the pedestrian safety yields higher death counts overall. It is justified in quantity.

How do you reconcile your viewpoint with the non-pedestrian vehicular death rate in Europe? Do you think the reason deaths are so much lower there is because Europeans are unconcerned with pedestrians?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#663

Post by mips_avatar »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #617
mips_avatar wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, because it's an inherently unsafe vehicle which will drop you to the ground and cause major trauma at the slightest provocation. Just like motorcycles.

It wasn't a slight provocation that injured me, it was a car hitting me

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#664

Post by bombcar »

zardo wrote: post #386
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you need to tow a trailer / camper. Maybe there's a reason different kinds of vehicles exist? To fulfill different requirements of their drivers?

But that does get to the point. Maybe differentkinds of vehicles need different kinds of qualification testing. Would you trust your 16yo that just passed their driver's test in a sedan to tow a boat through town with an F250?

Fun fact - in most states a 12 or 13 year old can operate many tens of thousands of pounds of agricultural equipment “incidentally over a highway” or similar - which can be multiple miles between farm plots.

Me? I commute in a New Holland CR11.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#665

Post by bombcar »

kube-system wrote: post #540
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The problematic designs are primarily post-2009, as this fine article points out. Families had no issue finding transportation in 2008 or prior. A 47” high hood line does not provide any utility to transporting children. Children are not stored under the hood.

> Children are not stored under the hood.

Oh now you tell me!

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#666

Post by lobf »

pixl97 wrote: post #649
lobf wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My county doesn't believe in all that dumb bullshit that the "public" has the right to decide about victimless regulatory crimes on your own property and if we could overturn the registration law we would, unfortunately the law is a state law that was made mostly by city slickers in the major cities in my state who have no clue places like our rural private road systems exist. I see. I assume then that you do not ex…

I'm sorry, he won't be able to reply. He was eaten by a bear while taking his refuse out.

You missed a chance to say he's been "mothballed"

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#668

Post by alamortsubite »

piker wrote: post #397
331c8c71 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the onus is obviously on a driver to make sure they see what they need to see. And that they drive a vehicle that allows them to see things. That doesn't mean the pedestrians should not be careful...

Yes, I agree with both of those statements. If you read the original statement before the "tut tut" response, you will note that I was only suggesting the A pillars introduce dangerous blind spots. I understand how that could be confused on other platforms, but I expected folks on HN to extend the benefit of the doubt that posters are not generally oblivious to the law. So the conversation derailed.

You led with "people just hop right out onto zebra crossings expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them." I think framing it this way was a mistake and the cause of your frustration. People in zebra crossings do have the right of way, regardless of whether they hopped there or what there expectations are, full stop.

Your point about modern A pillars is right on the money.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#669

Post by gravatron »

baq wrote: post #396
gravatron wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent significant time recently in both a new F150 and a Toyota Sienna, and it isn't even close in the comfort between them. F150 wins by a mile by the sheer amount of space you have in that thing for both passengers and cargo. Not to mention the ability to tow.

How often people tow anything?

Is this a serious question? A lot of people tow stuff all the time for work, home improvement, or recreation. Not everyone is a city dweller living in a small apartment whose only options to spend their free time is picking which restaurant to eat dinner at.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#670

Post by alamortsubite »

bijowo1676 wrote: post #322
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 like Teslas Forward Collision Warning system which alerts me if it sees the obstacle such as car, a corner, or pedestrian on a path. there is also Active collision avoidance that will adjust vehicle if it senses a car on the nearby lane about to hit my side I think these safety systems need to be mandatory

There have been several studies showing driver assistance systems cause a psychological shift that leads to drivers not paying attention. I guess we have to ask ourselves if we want to encourage people to pay attention while driving, or just leave it up to the latest vibe-coded OTA update Tesla's pushing out.

I'm glad backup cameras are mandatory, though.

Post reply on HN