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

651–660 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#651

Post by [deleted] »

genxy wrote: post #580
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…

Why do you focus on the old data and not the new data? It is 2026 and hood height for trucks and crossovers (which didn't exist in 2009) has be getting higher and this is what the research talks about. It isn't weight, it is hood height and blunt fronts. But the Great Bluntening didn't happen until recently. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...

[deleted]

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#653

Post by alamortsubite »

solid_fuel wrote: post #336
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…

I agree about large vehicles, but does an individual state even have the authority to ban a given kind of car from their roads? I suspect that is more under a federal authority than state-by-state.

Not ban but states can implement stricter licensing requirements for larger vehicles, and raise registration fees, gasoline taxes, and penalties for their misuse. See how Paris is handling SUV in the city center. It's very effective and other cities are likely to follow.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#654

Post by iknowstuff »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #588
bijowo1676 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Teslas Forward Collision Warning system which alerts me if it sees the obstacle such as car, a corner, or pedestrian on a path. there is also Active collision avoidance that will adjust vehicle if it senses a car on the nearby lane about to hit my side I think these safety systems need to be mandatory

> I think these safety systems need to be mandatory Why do you think that?

because there are a lot of externalities resulting from car crashes, the burden for which is not paid by the driver, manufacturer, or even their insurer.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#656

Post by LandenLove »

I hate everything about modern vehicles. Built cheaply, yet cost a fortune. Are filled with laggy infotainment computers that requires subscriptions and replace reliable and easy to locate climate controls. They are the size of tanks despite having a smaller bed size than a Japanese kei car. The list goes on and on.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#657

Post by bijowo1676 »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #588
bijowo1676 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Teslas Forward Collision Warning system which alerts me if it sees the obstacle such as car, a corner, or pedestrian on a path. there is also Active collision avoidance that will adjust vehicle if it senses a car on the nearby lane about to hit my side I think these safety systems need to be mandatory

> I think these safety systems need to be mandatory Why do you think that?

Because its cheaper to install these systems (a simple sensor and a chip), than try to resurrect dead pedestrians

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#658

Post by somerandomqaguy »

Marsymars wrote: post #532
somerandomqaguy wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I was aware the others didn't sell in any close to the same numbers. The Crown Vic and it's Panther platform siblings were the basis for taxis and police cars across the US and Canada for a long time, and they could be had second hand for for a few months pay cheque back in the day.

> As far as I was aware the others didn't sell in any close to the same numbers. Per wiki, Crown Vic sales peaked at 114k in 1999. In the same year, the Taurus sold 368k and the Escort sold 260k. (The Tempo was discontinued by then, but was typically moving 200k+ per year.)

Hmm, curious, I remember seeing way more Crown Vics and other Panther platform vehicles from the 90's onward then Tauruses, even into the late 2000's. Wonder if it was just a regional thing where I lived...

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#659

Post by alamortsubite »

carefulfungi wrote: post #525
mcntsh wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point is, in germany it takes longer than a test to get your license, unlike the US.

Is it common in other states that you only need a test for a license. Where I live (in the US) if you are a new driver (under 18) you need 30 hours of classroom instruction, 18 hours of trainer-driving time, a 6 month learner permit period with many restrictions and then a finally test, iirc.

And if you're over 18? In my state it's 1) an easy written test, 2) a few minutes driving around a parking lot, and 3) here's your license kid, have at it.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#660

Post by mothballed »

wredcoll wrote: post #632
mothballed wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not buying the commercial tractor-trailers they're just operating them with CDLs California issued to them without even having enough basic English knowledge to read road signs, with predictable results. Of course this is partially a problem of the government creating the problem of disqualifying Californians who could perform the job. Like 40% of California smokes weed but recreational use disqualifies you f…

Do you have proof of any of that?

  An investigation by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration found significant failures by California, Washington, and New Mexico to properly place drivers out-of-service for ELP violations. In addition to the data, California Highway Patrol has also publicly stated it has no intention of following this important federal regulation.   

  California – California has failed to adopt and enforce compatible ELP laws and regulations. From June 25, 2025 through August 21, 2025, of the roughly 34,000 inspections resulting in at least one reported violation, only one inspection involved an ELP violation resulting in a driver being placed out of service. Notably, at least 23 drivers with documented ELP out-of-service violations in other states were later inspected in California – yet the state failed to honor those violations or enforce ELP, allowing unqualified drivers to continue operating on our roads.
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transpor...
Post reply on HN