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

721–730 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#721

Post by sokoloff »

baron816 wrote: post #253
ggreer wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn't ban them. It classifies fast e-bikes as motorcycles (which require registration, insurance, and a motorcycle endorsement).[1] This seems reasonable to me. The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology. I do think it would make more sense to simplify (and future-proof) the law to just say, "If it can go >30mph on level ground and has a motor, it's a m…

Well, probably the right thing to do for large trucks and suvs is to reclassify them so that you need a commercial license to drive them.

My class D (most typical) driving license is good to 26K pounds.

That seems crazy high to me, but then again, I’m hard-pressed to choose exactly the right lower value that would “perfect”.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#722

Post by s1artibartfast »

coryrc wrote: post #475
nradov wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a joke? A Tahoe isn't hard to drive. Every regular auto insurer will write policies for them.

They aren't hard to drive on the freeway. They are hard to drive without running over people in neighborhoods. The leading cause of death in children 0-14 is automobiles. https://www.kidsandcars.org/frontovers/media-resources

It seems you already got your wish.

Almost every driver is, as you say, "properly insured" It is easy enough to avoid kids that death is is rare, and the insurance cost is quite low - even with astronomical insurance payouts for accidental child death.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#723

Post by bloqs »

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…

I had never heard of NextDoor until I read this post. UK based. I just spent 20 minutes reading Wikipedia and associated articles. They are really old too... Wow

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#724

Post by 486sx33 »

olyjohn wrote: post #675
xnx wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no functional utility Air cooling while towing (allegedly), but it must be a tiny percentage of owners that tow at all.

You mean cooling a 700lb-ft engine. Which is totally unnecessary. You don't need to do 80mph up the steepest hill in the world while towing 20,000lbs.

[dead]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#725

Post by IshKebab »

llbeansandrice wrote: post #713
IshKebab wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones. I mean, yes? Society has decided that cars are worth the convenience because of all their advantages. Now is America too obsessed with cars, and totally ignorant of pedestrian safety? Yes of course. But other countries aren't so bad on that front and they still accept…

Actually many cities aren’t accepting traffic deaths at all and are adopting Vision Zero. I believe it’s Norway that adopted it for the entire country and was able to go over a year with exactly zero traffic related deaths. This problem is solvable and people in this thread saying that it’s not are absurd.

It was just Oslo actually, but I do agree with you. I wasn't saying 8000 is good, just that it's less insane than 762.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#726

Post by Dig1t »

A huge number of people in the US use these cars for transporting large items like plywood and drywall (4 feet by 8 feet), a full sized truck or SUV are the best options for this type of work. Additionally, most tradespeople need these types of vehicles for their work, ask any carpenter, plumber, electrician what they drive. A non-trivial portion of the US economy relies on these types of vehicles.

Safety can dramatically be improved just by focusing on the design of our infrastructure. For example adding bike lanes to a road can dramatically improve safety for both pedestrians and cyclists. The vast majority of the US road network has no bike lanes. Instead of trying to regulate the types of vehicles people are allowed to own even more, why isn't the focus on improving the design of our infrastructure? The amount of taxes we pay is a staggering sum, there's more than enough room in the government budget to spend on roads.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#728

Post by selfsigned »

echelon wrote: post #186
__float wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways. Ok, and what fraction of investment has it gotten? We've underfunded rail/bike infrastructure for decades, of course money is going to flow on the cheapest route. Roads are cheap because we've subsidized the shit out of them.

Bikes are not going to deliver your packages and food and medical services. They're not going to take you on vacation, haul your gear, or provide shelter. There's a meme that bikes will solve everything and that cars suck, but it's dismissive of the orders of magnitude more value that road infra can and will always provide.

Light ~110cc scooters in most of South East Asia are used for just that actually, and a lot of Western European cities have a rather large cargo e-bike push. Reducing heavy road traffic also makes it easier for EMS to get around.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#729

Post by ErroneousBosh »

alamortsubite wrote: post #612
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but Americans commonly tow massive fifth wheels at over 120 kph (regardless of tire rating and including up and down steep grades, transmission and brakes be damned) because why wouldn't you, and the sum total of the training they receive for operating such rigs in this manner is a rubber stamp at the DMV.

Some of the "fifth wheel" setups they have in the US are terrifying too.

Over here a "fifth wheel" coupling is a massive horseshoe-shaped plate that sits on the back of an artic tractor and is rated for some unholy loading and drawbar pull.

Over there it looks very much like a standard 50mm towball welded to the end of a metre or so of scaff tube sticking up from the floor of a pickup.

I used to do auto electrics for a guy who imported American cars to the UK and I was always amazed at just how janky the towing setups often were. It's no wonder people think they need a huge heavy truck when the towball is just bolted to thin sheet metal.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#730

Post by ErroneousBosh »

iknowstuff wrote: post #654
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think these safety systems need to be mandatory Why do you think that?

because there are a lot of externalities resulting from car crashes, the burden for which is not paid by the driver, manufacturer, or even their insurer.

Have you considered looking out of the windscreen once in a while?

How many crashes do you think these prevent?

Post reply on HN