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

681–690 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#681

Post by forgetfreeman »

briffle wrote: post #561
forgetfreeman wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

omfg I would love that. Like literally force manufacturers to put air brakes on anything above a certain weight limit and demand additional certification to operate one. Full Disclosure: I own four vehicles that would trigger this requirement, each for different reasons, and would be whistling and smirking in the DMV line to take the commercial test.

A commercial driver has a physical every year, severe restrictions on how they can drive, hours behind wheel, etc. But if you have 2 cataract surguries, oncoming dementia, and a body full of arthritis that can barely move, you can drive a 50' Class A Motorhome to your winter home in the South.

Sounds utterly ridiculous I agree but there's something to be said for 60+ years of muscle memory, otherwise olds rocketing motorhomes off of cliffs or augering into the side of the local walmart would feature more prominently in the local news. Quit picking on paw paw and keep the fight where it belongs: suburbanite pavement princesses must die.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#682

Post by dd8601fn »

criddell wrote: post #586
somerandomqaguy wrote: post #458

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.

> most commonly sold CUV's today are smaller length and width wise then station wagons or sedans You didn’t mention height and isn’t that the actual issue?

The article says height of the hood and massive A pillars. People like big and boxy.

Increased hood height kills people and creates an absurdly large blind area. Massive pillars add roll safety but create horrible blind spots in left hand turns.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#683

Post by kalleboo »

simplyluke wrote: post #256
rayiner wrote: post #149

Data shows that introduction of iPhones in 2007 is a better explanation for the increase in pedestrian deaths than heavier trucks and SUVs: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ubbfrv/oc... (All the credit for this analysis goes to the reddit user, I’m just summarizing.) Trucks and SUVs have been getting heavier consistently since 1980 while pedestrian deaths consistently decreased from 1980 to 2009. Tr…

The times article hand-waves away distracted driving by saying that other countries haven't seen a similarly large increase. The problem with that is that vehicle sizes in all other countries have also been increasing, and other countries like Canada and Australia have seen almost identical market shares of those large vehicles without the surge in pedestrian fatalities . The large factors are phone use (more prevale…

> Getting hit by a 4000lb car or an 8000lb truck matters much less

It's not the weight of the vehicle but that the front of a US truck is a big flat brick wall, whereas vehicles more common in Europe have a lower-shaped hood you fall on which is engineered to dent (some even having an actuator to pop up and increase the distance to the engine) and save the life of the pedestrian (as tested by Euro NCAP)

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#684

Post by petcat »

topaz0 wrote: post #440
petcat wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You decrease the risk to you Yes, that's the point. No offense to other people, but I'm trying to not die when I drive to the store. Driving a tank with a sun roof is a good way to do that.

It's an antisocial, even solipsistic way to do that. Offense evidently intended, even if you convince yourself it's not.

No offense to other people, but I couldn't give two shits about whether they're safely walking to the store or not. I only care about myself and my family.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#685

Post by LearnYouALisp »

Marsymars wrote: post #507
gf000 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For the same speed, the total energy would be Car-v^2 vs SUV-to-Car-v^2

But the smaller cars are probably more carefully designed for "crunch" zones, preserving their occupants by maximizing the effect of available material. The nominal energy involved vs Cars would simply scale as Mass of SUV in Cars.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#686

Post by dd8601fn »

NDlurker wrote: post #405
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?

I see lifted trucks and massive SUVs in neighborhoods and grocery stores. I very rarely see them using their towing capacity.

Well you mostly wouldn’t at the grocery store. I see plenty of people towing their toys on highways in the midwest, all summer long.

Boats, campers, etc.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#687

Post by 1970-01-01 »

alamortsubite wrote: post #662
1970-01-01 wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Apples and oranges. EU roads and cities are not US roads and cities and never will be.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#688

Post by LearnYouALisp »

tumdum_ wrote: post #437
9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did you know that only 1,6% of US population works in agriculture compared to 5% in Portugal? See https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/employmen...

Uh huh, and how far away is everything? What kind of work?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#689

Post by [deleted] »

mips_avatar wrote: post #663
matheusmoreira wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#690

Post by alamortsubite »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #687
alamortsubite wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Apples and oranges. EU roads and cities are not US roads and cities and never will be.

I see. So you believe that if Europeans designed their streets to be less safe for pedestrians, like they are in the U.S., then their overall vehicular death rate would go down. Is that right?
Post reply on HN