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

371–380 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#371

Post by kevinob11 »

infecto wrote: post #129
epistasis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My anecdote only but the contraptions being sold as “e-bikes” are actually motorcycles. Like all things a few bad apples ruin it for everyone but in what I have seen it’s more than just a few bad apples. From maintained mountain bike trails, to riding at speed on walking paths. They are far more than just some kids being kids. It is ultimately a lack of parenting these days but I don’t believe the new laws coming int…

I live in WA (south of seattle) and your description is accurate, there are kids riding around on sidewalks in the area around my house on electric motorcycles that are sold as e-bikes. While I don't personally love it, they kept their distance from my small kids so I figure "let kids be kids". The one instance that frustrated me was they also show up at local mountain bike and skate parks. There they ride up the down trails and destroy a lot of the trail edges, a couple of times I've asked folks to leave.

I was hopeful when I saw the new law that it'll be used as a tool to take action on actual problem usage without punishing those using them safely. Unfortunately I'm aware of the history of laws like this, so I'm worried it'll just be used against lower income / privilege folks. We'll see.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#372

Post by coryrc »

nradov wrote: post #342
NDlurker wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minivans and station wagons are just as good as a Tahoe for transporting a family.

Sure, until you need to tow a trailer weighing more than about 1500 lbs or drive on a dirt road where the minivan bottoms out. You might not need those capabilities but a lot of families do that stuff every week.

You can drive those off-road away from where people live, or you can get properly trained and insured for driving such a dangerous vehicle where people outside vehicles will be present.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#373

Post by fartcoin67 »

nradov wrote: post #342
NDlurker wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minivans and station wagons are just as good as a Tahoe for transporting a family.

Sure, until you need to tow a trailer weighing more than about 1500 lbs or drive on a dirt road where the minivan bottoms out. You might not need those capabilities but a lot of families do that stuff every week.

[dead]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#375

Post by cjs_ac »

piker wrote: post #365
cjs_ac wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will matter to you when you’re sentenced, though. Speaking as a fellow immigrant, your attitude is what gives immigrants a bad name worldwide.

Of course it would! That's the whole point. People shouldn't enter the road until it's clear they've been seen. I'm not sure what you're missing here guy. I've said the A bar is a liability because of the blind spot it introduces. Your response was that the person in the road has the right of way. This is known. Somehow I give immigrants a bad name because I acknowledge that it is difficult to manage people who asser…

You chose to buy the car with the big blind spots. You’re responsible for checking your blind spots, by moving your head as necessary. This is part of the driving test.

Your poor consumer choices do not absolve you of your responsibilities and obligations.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#376

Post by jounker »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #337
rypskar wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are looking at it the wrong way. Driving something so large that it would require a commercial license to transport your family around is ridiculous

They don't require commercial licenses though, because they're not large enough to and don't serve a commercial purpose when transporting families / their things. Plenty of families have the need for third-row seating and the ability to haul things around.

My minivan seats seven. It has the footprint as a toyota camry. It’s only marginally heavier than a camry.

Can you please explain to me again why you need a lincoln navigator or the like?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#377

Post by mikepurvis »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #331
ajuc wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more comfortable about SUV or a truck than a minivan or combi? How is a tall hood increasing your family comfort? It only increases your ego.

Plenty of minivans also have tall hoods. I assume by combi you're talking about a station wagon, and in that case you're trading cargo capacity and the ability to tow boats / trailers / campers / etc... Ego has nothing to do with it - utility does. You can fit more people and things in a larger vehicle, this isn't rocket science.

I don't think the cargo capacity argument really holds water. I drive a Volvo V60 wagon which has trunk space of 23.2 cubic feet. When it was in the shop, I had a loaner XC60, and I could noticeably feel that the trunk space was about the same, despite the vehicle sitting considerably taller.

Sure enough, the XC60 crossover has a trunk space of 22.4 cubic feet.

It's the same trunk, just higher off the ground, which to me makes it less useful to me: more lifting to get stuff in, harder to rummage through items (eg camping pantry), much more difficult to access my roof box.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#378

Post by mothballed »

Aurornis wrote: post #360
bootlooped wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it does ban them, effectively. There is what some people say is a gray zone (I don't actually think it's that gray) where a device is too fast or powerful to be a legal e-bike, but also doesn't meet the requirements to be a road legal motorcycle. Will Progressive give me motorcycle insurance on my DIY e-bike without a VIN? Will the DVM register it? I don't think so. In most states there is no path to legality…

> I don't think so. In most states there is no path to legality, at least as far as operating the thing on public streets goes. Not true. It's common to convert dirt bikes into street legal vehicles with conversion kits that add the required pieces. Depending on the state, that means turn signals, a mirror, headlight, and tail light. I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for priva…

>I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for private property use

If only that were actually the law. My roads are 100% private with absolutely zero tax payer funding yet the dumbass registration laws and requirement to display a plate even apply on my private road (only exempt if the owner white-lists traffic, which cannot be done under my easement rules which at best would only might allow me to black-list abusers). In fact pretty much all the roads in my town are completely privately funded and privately owned yet you still need registration/plate along with the legal mumbo jumbo to obtain it.

Pretty soon you realize the laws have nothing to do with the fiction of the laws being there to protect the public roads or public land or taxpayer funding or some such, it's a sham pretense that falls apart upon inspection of how they work.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#379

Post by zardo »

Aurornis wrote: post #360
bootlooped wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it does ban them, effectively. There is what some people say is a gray zone (I don't actually think it's that gray) where a device is too fast or powerful to be a legal e-bike, but also doesn't meet the requirements to be a road legal motorcycle. Will Progressive give me motorcycle insurance on my DIY e-bike without a VIN? Will the DVM register it? I don't think so. In most states there is no path to legality…

> I don't think so. In most states there is no path to legality, at least as far as operating the thing on public streets goes. Not true. It's common to convert dirt bikes into street legal vehicles with conversion kits that add the required pieces. Depending on the state, that means turn signals, a mirror, headlight, and tail light. I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for priva…

> I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for private property use only.

Anywhere an ORV can be legally used. That's not just private property.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#380

Post by postflopclarity »

giantg2 wrote: post #143
epistasis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths?" I'd ask to see the data since TFA shows only a 7.5% increase due to size. The rest of the 75% increase is due to other factors. Edit: why disagee, is my data wrong?

"only" a 7% increase in deaths
Post reply on HN