Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trapped Under Trucks

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 241 posts

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#201

Post by matsemann »

hef19898 wrote: post #185
matsemann wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were a truck driver, I would go out of my way to avoid becoming a killer. But we see it all the times, they fighting to avoid doing even the bare minimum. They kill people and blame the "blind zone", but refuse to spend a few bucks on upgraded sensors/alerts and camera monitors. I hope my city bans these kind of vehicles in the city streets. I like London's Direct Vision Standard, only allowing trucks with lower…

The drivers have actually nothing to do with any of what you said.

A driver is responsible for the condition of the vehicle they drive. You would refuse to drive a vehicle with faulty breaks. In the same vein, I think they should collectively refuse to trucks without proper security measures.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#202

Post by ahtihn »

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #149
gambiting wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from countries where truck transport is not allowed on Sundays - it's great. Means that if you're going with your family somewhere on Sunday it's very quiet on the roads. Also awesome for long distance driving, always plan those for a Sunday and the traffic flows much smoother. As for the idea that it moves the traffic to other days - no it doesn't, because a lot of that traffic wouldn't be driving on Sunday a…

Please no. Sundays in Belgium were awful. Nothing to do. At least now in the USA I can go do what I want. It's like any other day. I don't need to stuff everything in my Saturday. And if that means that I'll pass a couple of Semi trucks? No problem. Hell, I'll move out of the way for them. After all, there isn't a single thing in my hands that hasn't been delivered by a truck.

> Sundays in Belgium were awful. Nothing to do.

I never got this? The only thing to do in your mind is shopping?

Restaurants, cinemas, other leisure activities are all available right?

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#203

Post by Jasp3r »

digitalengineer wrote: post #178
elihu wrote: post #77

> "The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, a lobbying outfit representing semitrailer builders, had little desire to make safer rear guards. In correspondence with the department, the TTMA said it would be 'far more practical' to force Volkswagen and other companies making compact cars to produce larger vehicles that were less likely to slip beneath a truck." Of course.

Meanwhile in Europe: "New European legislation on the bumper to improve road safety" https://www.krakertrailers.eu/en/news/126/new-european-legis...

In Europe it has been requirement since '94 and this requirement has been improved in '07 https://www.reifflawfirm.com/canadian-and-european-truck-und...

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#204

Post by hef19898 »

matsemann wrote: post #201
hef19898 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drivers have actually nothing to do with any of what you said.

A driver is responsible for the condition of the vehicle they drive. You would refuse to drive a vehicle with faulty breaks. In the same vein, I think they should collectively refuse to trucks without proper security measures.

Brakes are mandatory, rails preventing people from ending up under the truck not it seems (in the US, in Europe they are). So, it is up to regulators to make the mandatory. And it is lobbyists preventing that, and those lobbyists are not working on behalf of truck drivers.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#205

Post by ehnto »

_trampeltier wrote: post #180
Freeaqingme wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are bars all that expensive? From the article: > The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates. I'm inclined to think that 127 USD (even if the side rails were a little bit more expensive because they're larger) is not too expensive for a feature like this. Also, I think that in Europe these rails are already mandatory. At least the rear guard is require…

Yes in Europe all trucks have bars, but I'm not sure if they would hold a car or if they are more for people on bycicles.

They only need to slow and control the car's stop so that it doesn't slip under too far. In this case there is no perfect, but a massive improvement in safety in just three box steel sections should be a very palatable regulation. Apparently it is too much to ask.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#206

Post by diydsp »

noisy_boy wrote: post #85

> The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates. > They said there’s not enough research to support a government mandate, which would impose huge costs on businesses that operate on thin profit margins. So thin that they can't afford $127 a truck; they are running a no profit charity out of the goodness of their heart and that pittance of an one-time amoun…

Just did a quick check. Profit margin for Old Dominion Freight Line is 22% [a]

[a] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ODFL/old-dominion-...

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#207

Post by hnbad »

digitalengineer wrote: post #178
elihu wrote: post #77

> "The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, a lobbying outfit representing semitrailer builders, had little desire to make safer rear guards. In correspondence with the department, the TTMA said it would be 'far more practical' to force Volkswagen and other companies making compact cars to produce larger vehicles that were less likely to slip beneath a truck." Of course.

Meanwhile in Europe: "New European legislation on the bumper to improve road safety" https://www.krakertrailers.eu/en/news/126/new-european-legis...

To be fair, trucks in Europe also look different anyway because there is also legislation for visibility.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#208

Post by matsemann »

hef19898 wrote: post #204
matsemann wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A driver is responsible for the condition of the vehicle they drive. You would refuse to drive a vehicle with faulty breaks. In the same vein, I think they should collectively refuse to trucks without proper security measures.

Brakes are mandatory, rails preventing people from ending up under the truck not it seems (in the US, in Europe they are). So, it is up to regulators to make the mandatory. And it is lobbyists preventing that, and those lobbyists are not working on behalf of truck drivers.

You're not really refuting my point, which is that the truck drivers should be working on demanding stuff like this. Lobbying themselves, or as a union require certain standards before accepting a haul etc.

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#209

Post by barrkel »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #84
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truck traffic is banned in several EU countries on Sundays and rural communities love it. Families in villages where the sole street is the tertiary road running through, don’t have to worry on Sundays about their children playing outside along that road.

Because their child will survive a collision with an SUV? Quieter, sure.

Some roads aren't even open to non-locals on weekends (no through road for motorized traffic). Here in Switzerland, for example: https://lenews.ch/2018/05/24/swiss-mountain-passes-to-be-res...

Re: Trapped Under Trucks

#210

Post by Bluestrike2 »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #93
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A lot less SUVs in Central and Eastern Europe than in North America. Not really the point but thanks. Pretty sure a collision with any 2000lb metal shape isn't going to go well. >some of the pressure on limiting truck traffic through rural areas on Sundays (or on some roads in general) came from a large amount of fatal collisions involving trucks passing through, whereas ordinary car drivers drive more cautiously th…

> Pretty sure a collision with any 2000lb metal shape isn't going to go well. In spite of that weight, lower speeds plus more awareness from the locals driving cars combine to mean lower risk of fatality. > Rather than fixing the root cause What is it to fix the “root cause” according to you? Sometimes the building of a new motorway to take trucks away from those roads, takes years. To build other roads in a village…

I can't speak for the commenter you're replying to, but there is an alternative to just building more highways in the form of traffic calming measures. Small villages and towns really shouldn't have through-traffic moving through them at high speeds. Or even moderate speeds, if we're being realistic; pedestrians will usually survive the initial impact at 20mph or less, whereas at 36mph it's usually fatal.[0]

Traffic calming sends a very clear, very obvious signal to drivers: slow the f*ck down, because you don't have a choice. It can include big tree branches hanging out over the road, narrower lanes, pinchpoints, speed humps and raised pedestrian crossings, and more.[1] Many of which are relatively low-cost to implement. Certainly, it's far cheaper than building a new highway.

I doubt that those rules were implemented strictly because of pedestrian safety versus expectations of Sunday as a "rest day" versus latching onto it as a post hoc justification--or really just an extra perk--for the rule. And hey, if it does make Sunday a bit safer for kids to play, it's not like that's a bad thing. It's just that the next thought should be "well, how do we make the other six days safer as well?"

0. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-cal...

1. https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-...

Post reply on HN