The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

Post by forshaper » Wed, Jun 24, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #96

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 don't know the particulars, but if what's going on in WA is like what's going on in my California town, I don't think it's reasonable. I see teens going around on ebikes, and people freak out over them in ways that seem completely inappropriate to the kids scooting around. I think it's mostly a reaction to seeing young people being young people, as far as I can tell. Same thing happens on NextDoor, a few kids hangi…

Post by b0rtb0rt » Wed, Jun 24, 2026, 8:56 PM UTC

timw4mail wrote: post #317

petcat wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it doesn't quantify how many other lives have been saved specifically because the accidents involved bigger, sturdier, safer cars/trucks/SUVs. That has to be a significant statistic.

For the bigger vehicle, perhaps, but a smaller vehicle, even if up to modern standards, is less safe due to the larger one.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 12:37 AM UTC

coffeemug wrote: post #489

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We never invest effort in things that provide the most value; we invest in what we're the most emotional about. The number of people killed in 9/11 and every plane hijacking is dwarfed by any single year of deaths due to either vehicle accidents or gun shootings. But we do nothing about either of those things, and instead spend $180B on TSA, to save zero lives. We then roll back things like vaccine mandates, to kill…

That’s a very uncharitable way to interpret public opinion. A more charitable way is that people have different ethical intuitions. Some of us lean more utilitarian than others, and almost no one is a pure utilitarian. It isn’t merely a matter of being more emotional; people very reasonably have different views on this stuff.

Post by iknowstuff » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 3:50 AM UTC

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #730

iknowstuff wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you considered looking out of the windscreen once in a while? How many crashes do you think these prevent?

Post by __float » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

drtz wrote: post #210

echelon wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bikes are not going to deliver your packages and food and medical services. They're not going to take you on vacation, haul your gear, or provide shelter. There's a meme that bikes will solve everything and that cars suck, but it's dismissive of the orders of magnitude more value that road infra can and will always provide.

Bikes actually deliver a lot of packages and food in areas where car infrastructure hasn't made other forms of transportation practically impossible, and they do it much more cost-effectively. On the medical front, that's quite a strawman. I doubt you'll find much of anyone opposed to using cars for medical and emergency services.