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

221–230 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#221

Post by rayiner »

pm90 wrote: post #183
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…

If the issue is distracted drivers, I don’t see how heavier trucks is still not the issue. With lighter vehicles you would likely have a higher chance of surviving.

Yes, but on the whole we got much heavier trucks from 1980 to 2009 while pedestrian deaths went down.

There’s also the issue that heavier vehicles are inevitable due to EVs. Our bz4x won’t get tagged as a “big evil truck,” but it’s about the same weight as a base model Ford F150. And heavier than a Toyota Tacoma double cab.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#222

Post by petcat »

topaz0 wrote: post #216
petcat wrote: post #198

> Pop quiz: You’re going to get hit by something coming at you at 50 miles per hour; given equal mass, would you rather that be a small object, or a large object? > Whap! Time’s up. What did you get hit by? If you picked small, you might be dead. If you said “large,” your odds are lower. Why? Two reasons. First, F=ma and second, P = F/A. OK, I suppose that’s really just one reason, and it’s called “physics.” I drive…

You decrease the risk to you but you dramatically increase the risk to other people, especially pedestrians. The total deaths go up.

> 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.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#223

Post by floralhangnail »

Sayrus wrote: post #57
mcdow wrote: post #51

there’s another thing that started to get quite popular in the late 2000s… smartphones

Then surely Europe shares that trends and shows growth in pedestrian death. But that isn't the case at all, maybe Europeans are immune to smartphones: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download...

Anecdotally, it seems to me that most Europeans aren't as consumed by their dopamine delivery devices in day to day activities as most Americans are.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#225

Post by Fricken »

giantg2 wrote: post #156
srdjanr wrote: post #72

So this is only one of the reasons, and a relatively small one: “Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”

Sadly, most will ignore your common sense just as they are ignoring the data.

If ignored, it would imply that the sense you're referring to is not a common one.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#226

Post by jstanley »

epistasis wrote: post #100
unixuser7104 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you react if told you could no longer drive your primary mode of transportation?

How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths? Isn't that a more relevant question?

Complete indifference.

That's the same class of argument as telling people they shouldn't use Signal because criminals use Signal.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#227

Post by TulliusCicero »

ggreer wrote: post #166
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…

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…

True, it's not exactly the same situation, but it does ban them for the riders (the teens) who were previously on them.

You could make it more analogous by saying that we could enforce stricter regulations on big SUVs and trucks in terms of, say, driver licensing, and you'd still have a huge outcry if we tried that.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#228

Post by simplyluke »

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…

As people are correctly pointing out, WA is reclassifying certain e-motos as motorcycles, which is to say they'll require a license and insurance to be used on public roads - two things that are already required for all SUVs and trucks on public roads.

Being local to WA and spending a lot of time on bikes, the easiest thing we could do to improve the situation would be for law enforcement to aggressively enforce existing distracted driving laws. The number of drivers with their face buried in a phone during any kind of slow traffic is terrifying if one looks around.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#229

Post by triceratops »

echelon wrote: post #200
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are, and they do.

The bike meme is unrealistic, and you're dismissing all of my arguments. You're ripping up infrastructure for yuppie pickleball. How do you transmit tons of material on bikes? How do people move in the rain or when they're on their period? How do they move multiple small children or being home furniture? What do old and sick people do? Every lane taken away is centuries of economic activity destroyed.

You'd be ok with restricting automobile traffic to delivery vans and trucks then? With regular checks to ensure they're actually delivering stuff.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#230

Post by frimmy »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #14

Recent Climate Town video on the move to trucks and SUVs: https://youtu.be/JPm4de6-eTg?si=Eu1y3uQIeCGnkR_2 If you don't know Rollie Williams, Climate Town videos are informative but suffused with a lot of humor to prevent it from being too preachy.

++ -- Rollie Williams == for edutainment. His channel is responsible for me becoming a patreon subscriber
Post reply on HN