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

761–770 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#761

Post by mikestew »

baron816 wrote: post #253
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 The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.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…

Well, probably the right thing to do for large trucks and suvs is to reclassify them so that you need a commercial license to drive them.

You know you can go buy a 45’ motorhome that weighs multiples of the heaviest SUV, and drive it home on a standard driver’s license? Last time I renewed my WA license, it was online and the eye test for my retirement-aged eyes consisted of a checkbox that asks, “your eyes aren’t shit, are they?”

I’m not arguing, but more pointing out that what you want will never happen.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#762

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

kube-system wrote: post #573
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Was there something that happened that changed the needs of US families after 2009? Because the trend in TFA only happened in the US, and only after 2009.

> Because the trend in TFA only happened in the US, and only after 2009.

Fuel emissions standards changes, maybe? I vaguely remember that the monster trucks were the result of some efficiency changes introduced by Obama.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#763

Post by alamortsubite »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #729
alamortsubite wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but Americans commonly tow massive fifth wheels at over 120 kph (regardless of tire rating and including up and down steep grades, transmission and brakes be damned) because why wouldn't you, and the sum total of the training they receive for operating such rigs in this manner is a rubber stamp at the DMV.

Some of the "fifth wheel" setups they have in the US are terrifying too. Over here a "fifth wheel" coupling is a massive horseshoe-shaped plate that sits on the back of an artic tractor and is rated for some unholy loading and drawbar pull. Over there it looks very much like a standard 50mm towball welded to the end of a metre or so of scaff tube sticking up from the floor of a pickup. I used to do auto electrics for…

I don't know why you were down-voted, but I agree.

It's also alarming how often you see people towing trailers that aren't even close to being level here. It almost seems like SOP.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#764

Post by alamortsubite »

trollbridge wrote: post #759
alamortsubite wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote that Australia has plenty of brodozers. Crossovers are not brodozers, nor is it possible to operate a brodozer on public roads in Australia. Clearly, you're misinformed, if not entirely disingenuous, but your commitment to stay the course is admirable. > Vehicles with 40s on them and a 6” lift are so rare in America they have no statistical significance in regard to accidents. Do you have a source for this?…

I’m from Australia and lived there off and on. People can and do alter vehicles including lifting them. Your assertion you can’t drive with a 6” lift is flatly false, although 3” is more standard. Many people exceed the statutory limit and simply get away with it. You’re right that 40s are rare, but they’re also rare in America. Vehicles with 40” wheels and 6” lift are extremely rare. I haven’t seen one in at least a…

If you've lived in Australia, I'm back to thinking you're being wholly disingenuous, and certainly evasive. I'll steer clear of engaging with you in the future.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#765

Post by giantg2 »

nkrisc wrote: post #735
giantg2 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol is also a factor on the pedestrian side, not just the driver side. This has not been addressed. It is still a relevant factor on both sides. Yes, vehicle size/design is another factor.

> Alcohol is also a factor on the pedestrian side Absolutely true, but what are you proposing? I’d propose banning most vehicles from city centers where people congregate. Vehicle size and weight will always be a relevant factor as long as people and vehicles exist in the same spaces.

You could propose serving limits, which would help limit drunk driving, reduce drunk pedestrian deaths, and potentially reduce alcohol related health issues. Or enforce drunk in public laws.

Just as vehicle size and weight will always be a factor, so too will alcohol, drugs, phones, etc.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#766

Post by giantg2 »

triceratops wrote: post #671
giantg2 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol is also a factor on the pedestrian side, not just the driver side. This has not been addressed. It is still a relevant factor on both sides. Yes, vehicle size/design is another factor.

> Alcohol is also a factor on the pedestrian side... This has not been addressed. What is there to address? Unless you enforce that people only drink in private homes there will always be pedestrians who've had a few. Walking is probably the safest mode of transportation when you're impaired.

Actually, many places have a drunk in public law because walking is not the safest thing when impaired. Taking a taxi or Uber is safer.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#767

Post by giantg2 »

lonelyasacloud wrote: post #731
giantg2 wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Implicitly if there were any other single larger cause for the deaths then the article would be about that." Then show me explicitly what the breakdown is. "the _unnecessarily_ large vehicles" Define unnecessarily. Do I get to buy one because I'm tall, have a big family, haul stuff?

> Define unnecessarily. Do I get to buy one because I'm tall, have a big family, haul stuff? Give or take inches around the waist we are the same size and shape. We have roughly the same mental faculties. Afaik we are no lesser than our parents and grandparents who all managed to do just fine without huge vehicles. If a situation was fine before and changing something either does nothing or makes that situation worse…

"If a situation was fine before and changing something either does nothing or makes that situation worse"

But it's not. You forgot the size and weight of vehicles from previous generations. You forgot the higher fatalities of the past. You're ignoring that people today are taller. You're also ignoring that pedestrian fatalities have gone down over time when looking at the parents and grandparents timeframe to today, despite the more recent uptick.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#768

Post by mikepurvis »

HDBaseT wrote: post #709
dd8601fn wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says height of the hood and massive A pillars. People like big and boxy. Increased hood height kills people and creates an absurdly large blind area. Massive pillars add roll safety but create horrible blind spots in left hand turns.

Which is strange to me. I hate the big and boxy look. A sedan is the perfect shaped car in my opinion. Wagons are nice too.

As elsewhere in the thread, I drive a V60, and r/sportwagons host regular threads bemoaning the lack of good wagon options stateside. With the death of the focus and golf wagons, it's basically just luxury cars left, and not everyone wants to have a Mercedes, BMW, or Audi as their canoe trip vehicle, much less a freaking Porsche Panamera Turismo.

And nevermind that often these cars come with other compromises that signal they aren't really intended for "utility" use, for example the Taycan can't fit a regular tow receiver so forget about using a bike carrier with it other than the overpriced two-bike one that is available from the manufacturer.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#769

Post by FatherOfCurses »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #296
baron816 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, probably the right thing to do for large trucks and suvs is to reclassify them so that you need a commercial license to drive them.

[flagged]

What's ridiculous is the assumption that the only to comfortably transport a family is via a massive truck.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#770

Post by throw0101d »

to11mtm wrote: post #568
throw0101d wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law doesn't ban them. It classifies […] The Shifter cycling channel recently polled viewers and came out with a pretty good classification system: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z35F2R7FeE&t=17m20s "E-bike" is pedal assist only/mostly with max speed of 30kph/20mph (only while pedalling) and throttle cuts out at low speeds (7kph: basically just there to get some inertial); treated as just another bicycle (pe…

> "E-bike" is pedal assist only/mostly with max speed of 30kph/20mph (only while pedalling) and throttle cuts out at low speeds (7kph: basically just there to get some inertial); treated as just another bicycle (perhaps limit age to ≥14 yo). Everything else is an "e-moto" with the same rules as mopeds and motorcycles. I'm going to respond to this pragmatically. Realistically, the current Class 1/2/3 system more or le…

> But 7KPH is too little […]

The 7kph is a throttle-based boost for pedal-assist to help you get going: think of something like a Urban Arrow where overcoming the stopped inertia may be difficult for a petite person:

* https://www.urbanarrow.com/family-bikes/familynext

Once you're moving it's not hard, and the 'regular' pedal assist keeps you moving, but starting from zero is a challenge. That 7kph limit would be sufficient to start, after which the throttle (boost) gets deactivated and you're using the 'traditional' pedal assist that is 30kph/20mph max.

Post reply on HN