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

801–810 of 816 posts

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#801

Post by hackingonempty »

IshKebab wrote: post #470
hackingonempty wrote: post #64

In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1] It is a massive problem that receives a disproportionate amount of attention. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...

8000 pedestrians killed by cars and 762 in mass shootings. Obviously in raw numbers 8000 is bigger than 762, but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is! 762 is an absolutely astoundingly crazy number and it definitely deserves the most attention.

All of the time and money put into trying to reduce mass shooting deaths would save more people if it went into trying to reduce vehicular pedestrian deaths. No enumerated rights are involved in driving, making it vastly easier to implement legal solutions.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#802

Post by isthatafact »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #551
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…

> 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 riders. From my perspective it's the other way around. Bikers don't pay taxes, don't follow traffic laws, they generally do whatever they want with total impunity while the law actively protects them. Meanwhile drivers pay taxes, get ticketed for violations and have to bend over backwards in orde…

> "Bikers don't pay taxes"

That is obviously false -- just ask any biker who is not a little kid or a billionaire.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#803

Post by topaz0 »

b0rtb0rt wrote: post #783
matchbok3 wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being proud of selfish behavior is something that is embarrassing to see. What a great role model you are.

he’s not wrong, why should i choose a less safe vehicle for my family to ride in? large heavy vehicles are safer for the occupants in a multi vehicle collision, and in order to protect yourself from large vehicles(including bigger trucks/semis) you should be in a large vehicle too. it’s suicidal to choose a smaller car because trucks make you mad

Road safety is a social good -- it depends on the cooperation of everyone on the road. Choosing to put down your phone or slowing down make everyone safer, including you. Choosing a bigger car makes everyone less safe except you, who get marginally more safe. It's obviously antisocial and the kind of choice that makes the world worse for everyone.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#804

Post by forgetfreeman »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #794
forgetfreeman wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds utterly ridiculous I agree but there's something to be said for 60+ years of muscle memory, otherwise olds rocketing motorhomes off of cliffs or augering into the side of the local walmart would feature more prominently in the local news. Quit picking on paw paw and keep the fight where it belongs: suburbanite pavement princesses must die.

No paw paw can go to hell where they belong.

I hope you live to be 90. :)

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#805

Post by encrypted_bird »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #804
Der_Einzige wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No paw paw can go to hell where they belong.

I hope you live to be 90. :)

Exactly. A lot of these people forget that they will be old too someday. Treat the elderly like shit now, you'll be treated like shit later.

(Also, I love the Half-Life reference in your username btw. ;) )

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#807

Post by lonelyasacloud »

giantg2 wrote: post #767
lonelyasacloud wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

Just what from that list requires something that kills and maims other people because of its size to deliver it? Are their deaths worth it?

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#808

Post by tinfoilhatter »

creaturemachine wrote: post #481
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?

You should leave the continent and gain some context. Every summer the whole of Europe is full of campers towed by humble family sedans and wagons. Not just cheesy tent pop-ups, full-on campers with a family's worth of bikes hanging off the back. But the ads on TV said you'd be a lesser man without a truck, so I guess we can't blame you.

I don't own a truck, but by all means please continue being an asshole. You're doing a wonderful job of it!

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#809

Post by RIMR »

chris_money202 wrote: post #627
RIMR wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the statistics say otherwise, so I don't get the argument you're making. That you would trust the car's sensors over your own observations and judgments might actually mean you'd be a more dangerous driver in a newer truck.

Don't recall saying I would trust them over my own judgement, they are an additional layer of perception

What you did say, anecdotally, is that pedestrians would be safer, in direct response to being presented with empirical evidence that pedestrians are, in fact, not safer...

So my point here is that, whatever argument you are making, it is already debunked. You're arguing against statistics with platitudes.

Re: The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs

#810

Post by Recurecur »

caconym_ wrote: post #158
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…

Trucks and guns have a free pass to cause thousands of deaths yearly. It's that simple. Anybody else doing anything that might be viewed by certain hand wringing hysterical persons as dangerous will be smothered in onerous regulation, despite statistics showing relative (or absolute) harmlessness, but trucks and guns will keep on killing.

Neither trucks nor guns cause a single death. The people using them may cause deaths.

It also should be pointed out that in many cases, both large vehicles and guns save lives.

There is absolutely no denying that larger vehicles are safer in an accident. Anything to the contrary that you have read is propaganda.

In the case of guns, defensive gun uses have actually stopped a tremendous number of crimes. Those statistics were altered by the FBI to make gun ownership less appealing. Note that many of those uses did not involve firing the firearm.

Please educate yourself before you spread more propaganda.

This has been a public service announcement.

Post reply on HN