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

441–450 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#441

Post by ggreer »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #341
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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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…

Back in the 20th century, before electric bikes, when I was but a wee lad the neighborhood Karens screeched until the local PD dropped one of those mobile "your speed is" trailers onto my street for about a month. It turns out 12yo me could go 29mph on a mountain bike. 30 is too low IMO. Make it 35 or something. 25 is a joke.

I picked 30mph because that's the current threshold for what is considered a motorcycle in the state of Washington. Until recently, e-bikes were exempt from this because the old law was made back when e-bikes were rare and couldn't go much faster than regular bicycles.

I've gone >50mph on a bicycle, 40mph on level ground. Yes it's possible, but it requires significant effort and you can't accelerate as quickly as an e-bike. That's why I said, "and has a motor". Heck, a fast runner can endanger people on the sidewalk. When I'm running, I often slow down in crowded areas so that if someone does randomly veer into my path, I'll have time to avoid them.

If lots of people (who I assume are very fit) were riding bicycles dangerously, maybe the legislature would make some laws about that. But until it becomes a problem, there's really no need.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#442

Post by MengerSponge »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #385
simplyluke wrote: post #262

The problem is that other countries have seen nearly identical trends in vehicle market share trending towards larger vehicles and have seen sustained declines in pedestrian fatalities. John Burn-Murdoch went deep on this in the FT a couple of years ago (archive link at bottom). > Most of the explanations commonly put forward for why US roads remain so deadly focus on broad structural factors such as vehicle size or…

I too am unconvinced bigger truck/vehicle means things are getting of control. It's terrible how the NYT article has no facts on overall road deaths, so here I state one for everyone: Occupant deaths have a clear falling trend . So while pedestrian deaths are climbing, the overall deaths are still trending downward, and I shouldn't have to defend that the overall count is more important than the pedestrian subset.

[flagged]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#443

Post by kccqzy »

elektronika wrote: post #406

We all know how much local PDs like collecting traffic fines, but I wish they would enforce the laws around yielding to pedestrians with the same enthusiasm as speed limits. I walk a lot and pretty much every day someone blows by in front of me while I'm in the crosswalk or takes a right on red into me because they're not looking. It'd be trivial to set up a sting for this sort of driving, just have one plain clothes…

In Sunnyvale the police definitely does this! At one point the sting was a small child crossing the road repeatedly while an officer observed nearby.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#444

Post by xp84 »

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.

Minor quibble: I don't know if 'heavier' is as important as 'taller,' though. I have seen someone hit by an actual sedan, be thrown onto the hood, fall on the ground after the car stops, and survive. Being hit is not the same as being run over, which is much harder to have happen with a car-shaped car.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#445

Post by [deleted] »

bootlooped wrote: post #295
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#446

Post by seanmcdirmid »

epistasis wrote: post #123
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the kids decide to take their E-bikes on I-5, you know something is wrong with their decision making skills: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1sjv7ua/teens_on_e... Yes, people freak out when they see a kid on an e-bike on a crowded freeway.

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

You know, the law banning kids from driving vehicles that can go over a certain speed is also already on the books. The new law is just a clarification that no, you can't be an 11 year old going 40 MPH with an unlicensed E-bike.

The big problem is just Seattle being incredibly underpoliced and really no laws under homicide are really enforced or punished.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#447

Post by not_the_fda »

dualvariable wrote: post #312
cogman10 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's any easy to measure metric, the article even shows it. What we need is a "distance from the front of the car a 4' person is visible." metric. Car manufactures should be penalized for poor visibility.

It is doable, but it is harder for the average redditor to compute something reasonable than just looking at GVW. You should really take into account driver height, pedestrian height and hood slope and length and height.

It doesn't help the truck size is usually inversely proportional to driver height.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#448

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

You can bike at some places on I-90 in Washington state where better options aren't available. I don't think it applies to E-bikes though, or at least the ones that can go faster than 15 MPH.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#450

Post by AlotOfReading »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #420
Scoundreller wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

If you think Canada of all places doesn't have immigrants driving around, boy do I have news for you.
Post reply on HN