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

541–550 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#541

Post by tzs »

trollbridge wrote: post #68
tonmoy wrote: post #55

While their conclusion is probably correct, I would have liked to seen the number of fatalities normalized by population, miles driven, number of pedestrian increase, speed limit change etc

This study didn’t nearly enough to disambiguate for widespread phone use while driving, which IMO is the biggest factor. Self driving AI is the answer.

It's not the biggest factor. Phone use tends to increase accidents but not to change the severity of the accidents much. Tall more vertical fronts change the severity of accidents, which changes the ratio between fatal and non-fatal accidents. The data shows that since ~2010 the ratio has changed significantly towards more fatal.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#542

Post by gnarcoregrizz »

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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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…

Which is too bad... They are great practical and reliable vehicles. You can't even ride them off-road either (CA), since the majority of _accessible_ off-road trails require a highway-legal vehicle, or are otherwise limited to hiking and biking.

So, the only real alternative is a dual sport, which is louder, heavier, faster, and has more emissions. The latest (only?) loophole is to find a plated, clapped out Honda or Yamaha dirt bike and do an electric conversion.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#543

Post by alamortsubite »

sublinear wrote: post #44
lojban wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the benefits of an SUV over a minivan though? They seem objectively worse in practically all regards: worse fuel efficiency, worse doors, less cargo space, worse visibility.

Not all "SUVs" are equivalent. The best ones have AWD and are basically just a beefier sedan/wagon. They more or less have the capabilities of a small pickup truck, but exchange the bed for more passenger space and inside cargo room. A minivan does have more space, but cannot tow and would immediately get stuck in the first mud patch it sees. I have no idea why people in the city buy them though (other than snowy reg…

Despite the fantasy manufacturers are selling, large pickups and SUV are terrible off-roaders. Visibility, weight, and approach, break-over, and departure angles are almost universally atrocious. Most don't even have live front axles, and the vast majority of SUV are unibody. I'm convinced locking differentials only continue to exist because the vehicles are so corpulent they'd be unable to move off-road without them.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#544

Post by dwaltrip »

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]

Immigrants lower the local crime rates.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#545

Post by asdff »

iknowstuff wrote: post #539
asdff wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smartphone use is a compelling case: https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ubbfrv/oc...

Nah thats the same everywhere. Stroads and piss poor urban design, largely due to objections from stubborn fire departments chasing the wrong metrics and refusing to downsize, are a compelling case.

I think it is a combination of both really. If you drive around europe, especially southern europe, it is a white knuckle driving situation a lot of the time. Narrow roads, windy with no embankment, unprotected cliffsides with a pile of hatchbacks on the bottom. Pulling out a smartphone is a death sentence. In the us everything is wide, straight, and embanked, leading to a false sense of confidence where you might open up that smartphone for a minute thinking it is fine. Then we get those dashcam recordings on reddit of people slowly driving off the road and realizing it about 5 seconds too late when all four wheels are already off the pavement and the car is about to flip end over end.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#547

Post by ryandrake »

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #218
EA-3167 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is often brought out as though it should engender gasps, but a moment of thought punctures the whole prospect. We need cars and trucks for a variety of purposes, and while I agree that most people don't need a pickup or a Unimog, there are many people and businesses who do. The ability to rapidly travel is a centerpiece of modern life, and has been for quite some time. Mass shootings by contrast are not economic…

Nothing in the article is suggesting that we do not need cars and trucks. It does make a compelling case that specifically large trucks and SUVs are causing preventable deaths. And I certainly find no reason that we need very large trucks or SUVs.

Yea, depending on where you live in the USA, you practically need a car of some sort. Yes, there are cities where you can get away with not having one, but the vast majority of Americans would have to make a huge lifestyle sacrifice to not have a car. Some people need trucks to haul things, but NOBODY needs giant-grilled zero-visibility monster trucks or monster SUVs where you can't even see a person standing in front. You could get rid of these atrocities and not kill cars/trucks in general.

Maybe that's where effort should be focused.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#548

Post by thelaxiankey »

drnick1 wrote: post #491
echelon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars >>> Bikes + Rail + Pedestrian infrastructure More money flows atop highway and road infrastructure than on biking, rail, and scooter infrastructure. By orders of magnitude. Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways. Biking infrastructure is actually deleterious as it doesn't serve the pregnant, elderly, sick, frail, doesn't work well for rain/snow/high heat/weather, doesn't transport h…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#549

Post by rnxrx »

somerandomqaguy wrote: post #458
mikepurvis wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But families towed tent trailers back in the 80s behind their sedans and station wagons, too. Maybe there's a bit of circular reasoning going on here where people bought giant vehicles because they liked the aesthetics and internal roominess, and then the prevalence of giant vehicles opened up the market for larger and heavier towables— rigid body RVs, seadoos, a trailer full of gas dirt bikes, whatever it is. I also…

I think you're romanticizing that era a bit. The most commonly sold CUV's today are smaller length and width wise then station wagons or sedans way back when. The Crown Victoria was considered a regular sized sedan for it's day and it's as long as a crew cab F150. The land yachts easily match the footprint of the super cab F150 with shorter beds today, they just seem smaller because they're lower.

In terms of platform variants the Taurus outsold the Crown Vic by a fair amount. The latter was certainly hugely popular as fleet vehicles, but the Taurus was Ford's best selling sedan for quite a while. The Taurus was never rated for anything more than fairly light-duty towing (More to the point - at least for automatic transmission variants in the early 90s - even the base F150 could certainly out-tow Crown Vics of the time, unless the latter had a tow package, which would push the rating up to 5000 lbs (..same as the lower end F150). Later on the delta was a lot greater (in the truck's favor) as the tow packages for the cars were phased out.

Nowadays the minimum ratings of F150s (even with shorter beds) is 5000lbs, or more. The smaller CUV/SUV platforms are usually rated ~1500lbs *max*, with some of the larger truck-based models obviously running in the same range as the trucks.

TL;DR - Even back in the day the "typical" sedan was still only rated for towing small loads, unless specially ordered with towing packages. Now..all that said, the frequency with which typical F150 owners ever actually tow anything is a whole other question.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#550

Post by tills13 »

Beyond just being dangerous, it's also incredibly frustrating to go down to my local grocery store and 50% of the stalls have these massive trucks and SUVs sticking out over the sidewalk / into the through-road / taking up literally the entire width of the stall. It boggles me that people buy these things and then use them for puttering around town 99% of the time.
Post reply on HN