The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs • Hacker News Board

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#421

Post by throwworhtthrow » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 8:55 PM UTC

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #124

>“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.” Am I crazy? The article itself points out that only 10% of the increase would have been 'saved' if cars had remained the same size. This goes directly aga…

The quote you've selected is an unfortunate example of the NYT poorly summarizing the findings of their own study (not your fault, they're the ones who wrote it). You can find a more precise explanation at the end of the article in the Methodology section.

"200 to 400" is from their model of decreasing hood height for existing collisions. But from the article:

> There are two reasons bigger vehicles are deadlier: They have taller hoods. And they tend to have larger blind zones.

It doesn't appear that NYT included in their model the larger blind zones and how that causes more collisions. So they shouldn't have said their 200-400 estimate covers the increase in vehicle "size" when it only models one dimension of size growth.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#422

Post by piker » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 8:55 PM UTC

baq wrote: post #418

piker wrote: post #318

Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them. On a number of occasions I have nearly hit people who I simply could not see crossing in my Volvo XC90 due to these pillars. I've been driving for nearly 30 years in the US and UK and have never felt anything like it. [edit: for future readers, please note that I a…

Can’t see if there are pedestrians at the crossing? Slow down

It's not a speed issue. They're in a blind spot. Your brain tells you that you can see everything, but it's incorrect.

My experiences have been under slow circumstances only. And that makes sense because the individual "lingers" in the blind spot (and perhaps matches your speed) if you're going slow. If you were going fast, the blind spot would be moving much faster and you would see them.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#423

Post by forgetfreeman » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 8:55 PM UTC

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #340

NDlurker wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

You're going to have a hard time hiding the entire SUV and Light Duty truck market behind an airstream, especially considering neither have transmissions capable of hauling one. Statistically almost nobody tows anything. Of those that do the vast majority tow stuff that comfortably falls within the pulling capacity of a Subaru Outback (or a VW Golf hatchback if you're really feeling rude). Nobody's trying to take anyone's dually away, just reign in the excesses of the auto industry that were mainstreamed by a combination of emissions laws carveouts and aggressive marketing. Hell if this went through we all might start seeing approximately affordable vehicles on the market again and I feel like that would be a welcome change.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#424

Post by baq » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 8:56 PM UTC

whatever1 wrote: post #308

Deadly for the rest. Not the owners. We need more trucks. Be the good guy in a truck.

Precisely. Want to cross the street? Get in the truck. Want to walk to that Starbucks next door for a quick espresso? Take the truck. Are you a newborn in a stroller? Your fault for not being in a truck and putting yourself at risk.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#425

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 8:58 PM UTC

jounker wrote: post #376

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Toyota Camry curb weight is ~3300 pounds. The minivan based on the Camry is the Sienna, curb weight ~4600 lbs. Lincoln Navigator curb weight ~5600 lbs. If the difference between the first two is marginal (~30%), the difference between the second two is less (~20%).

By comparison, actual CDL-requiring commercial trucks weigh up to 80,000 pounds.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#426

Post by baq » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 8:58 PM UTC

piker wrote: post #422

baq wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t see if there are pedestrians at the crossing? Slow down

It's not a speed issue. They're in a blind spot. Your brain tells you that you can see everything, but it's incorrect. My experiences have been under slow circumstances only. And that makes sense because the individual "lingers" in the blind spot (and perhaps matches your speed) if you're going slow. If you were going fast, the blind spot would be moving much faster and you would see them.

Not being able to see is a blind spot issue. Not slowing down because of it is… something else. Irresponsible is the most polite I can come up with.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#427

Post by forgetfreeman » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 8:59 PM UTC

NDlurker wrote: post #324

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Better, actually. Visibility is way better in either of those than a giant-ass SUV.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#428

Post by ghaff » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 8:59 PM UTC

mothballed wrote: post #181

epistasis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they really need a new law to prevent bikes on freeways? I think that's already highly illegal.

It's legal in Oregon and Montana as long as you stay in the shoulder. You can walk there too. I can't remember the law in Washington. In western states with a lot of rural places only serviced by interstate they sometimes never passed blanket prohibition against non-motorized traffic on the interstate property.

Yes, sometimes the interstate is the only reasonable route through a pass in the western US.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#429

Post by tinyplanets » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 9:02 PM UTC

Scoundreller wrote: post #354

mschuster91 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or: Gotta love regulation keeping our societies alive . The US averages 14.9/100k traffic fatalities, Europe 6.7 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Canada beats the euro average at 4.7 but similarly allows regular Joe’s to drive a moving truck and trailer a car behind it with a general license. + Canada’s rates are better on a per km basis (even beating the Dutch). Annual/biannual safety inspections are only required in 3 of 10 provinces and those 3 are on the smaller side (PEI, NS and NB). Motor vehicle infraction enforcement is… an afterthought for Canadian po…

American drivers are also entitled assholes (I say as an American driver). How DARE you tell me I can't do what I want, when I want, or change my behavior in the slightest to benefit my society/local community?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#430

Post by piker » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 9:02 PM UTC

baq wrote: post #426

piker wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a speed issue. They're in a blind spot. Your brain tells you that you can see everything, but it's incorrect. My experiences have been under slow circumstances only. And that makes sense because the individual "lingers" in the blind spot (and perhaps matches your speed) if you're going slow. If you were going fast, the blind spot would be moving much faster and you would see them.

Not being able to see is a blind spot issue. Not slowing down because of it is… something else. Irresponsible is the most polite I can come up with.

My experiences have been at around 5mph. Again, it's not speed.

If you watch the video in the post you will understand. The person is just invisible to the driver and they're travelling around the same very low speed.