[HN Gopher] I saw a cool truck today
___________________________________________________________________
I saw a cool truck today
Author : williamsmj
Score : 446 points
Date : 2022-05-09 01:31 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theap.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theap.substack.com)
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Luckily no truck driver wants to go to NYC...
|
| The time before the last time I went through New York City I
| didn't have the cash to pay the toll to not be in New York so the
| toll booth attendant gave myself and another driver directions on
| how to get to a free bridge by taking city streets. Fun times
| were had.
|
| And no, as TFA claims, 53' trailers aren't designed to be only
| used on highways. A lot of the places we end up weren't designed
| with them in mind (because they're old or whatever) but if you
| take your time and use a little caution it is quite possible to
| get it done without taking out a bunch of baby strollers.
|
| If normal folks knew half the sketchy stuff I've gotten up to in
| a big truck over the years they'd be a little horrified and a lot
| impressed because you have to be pretty good at this to last --
| usually it's around the one year mark people get overconfident
| and make some stupid mistake that costs them their job. There's a
| reason a lot of companies won't talk to you without a couple
| years experience.
|
| Always nice to be appreciated by random bloggers though, gives my
| life meaning.
| smilespray wrote:
| Is there a term for this phenomenon of becoming overconfident a
| certain period into learning a new thing, and being able to
| observe this as a spike in accidents and incidents?
|
| I feel it's a pretty universal thing.
| [deleted]
| Aditya_Garg wrote:
| Got any interesting stories to share? Would love to hear more
| pvillano wrote:
| Would it be possible for a startup to create a product with
| [positive externalities] and lobby for companies to be required
| to create their version of the product with [positive
| externalities], instead of incumbents lobbying to get away with
| [negative externalities]
| GayforMoleman wrote:
| I recently visited NYC and I can't help but feel the city has a
| wide culture of laissez faire unenforcement. So many grocery and
| convenience stores in the city have no posted prices for any
| items, even in the airport. As a foreigner I was pretty shocked
| but the people I talked to said it was pretty much normal and
| there's nothing really that can be done. Mind you we checked and
| it is actually not legal to have no visible pricing. I'm not sure
| what it is that's stopping the city from actually doing anything
| about it, like the truck issue it seems it would be trivial to
| enforce.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > and there's nothing really that can be done
|
| And even if they _had_ been posted.. it is still not the price
| you would pay at the till, because you know, reasons.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Here, if the price is posted wrong for groceries, you get the
| product free, up to 10 bucks.
|
| https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/price-labelling-and-
| accur...
|
| You'll note that if they put price stickers on the product,
| things are more lax.
|
| And if they put nothing, you report it. And yes, it is
| enforced.
|
| It is trivial to handle this stuff. Simple.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| I was talking about famous inability to display the actual
| price (product/item price + whatever tax applies that time
| of a day) on a tag.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Not sure what you mean, but outside of tax info, as per
| Quebec link above, no pricing info by, or on the product
| is illegal here.
|
| And it is enforced.
| andrewshadura wrote:
| What the above commenter means, is that in the EU (and
| many countries across the world) if a price tag says
| EUR10, you pay exactly EUR10. In the US, if the price tag
| says $10, you may end up paying $12 or something random
| amount on top of the signed price, because it doesn't
| include taxes, which makes shopping extremely
| inconvenient compared to taxes-included price tags.
| bbarnett wrote:
| It makes it inconvenient for travellers, I agree there.
|
| Growing up, and living with this, I find it trivial to
| deal with.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| It is still inconvenient for everyone. It like saying
| "Growing up, and living with the house full of lying
| rakes, I find it is trivial to deal with". Sure you are,
| but it is one thing what was solved decades ago and now
| nothing stops to _at least_ having both prices on the
| tag.
| bbarnett wrote:
| But why?
|
| Literally, no one here cares. Couple this with the fact
| that some don't pay tax, it can make it more difficult.
|
| (Native Canadians don't pay tax. And as a business, many
| items are tax exempt, if they are for resale. )
|
| You're trying to solve something that isn't a problem.
| This is because it is cultural.
|
| All haggling is done on the basis of pre-tax.
|
| You know in Canada, we used to have built in taxes on
| textiles, levied at the distributor too. We got rid of
| it, an replaced it (and others) with a tax at the
| cashier.
|
| This is because, if you buy product from out of province,
| or out of country, it is easier to decouple the tax.
|
| You may not agree, but so what? We prefer it. It is how
| we do business.
|
| Every time I buy something from amazon in the UK, to ship
| to me in Canada, _I_ get told the wrong price, because
| silly VAT is built in.
|
| So when I Google for competitive quotes, UK businesses
| appear to have wildly inflated pricing.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| How so people but anything not knowing the prices? When
| something on a store doesn't have a price, I ask someone if I
| want it enough or, more likely, won't but it. If a store near
| me regularly wouldn't have prices posted, I'd stop going there.
| It seems like any store posting prices would have a competitive
| advantage. It's every store holding the line?
| woodruffw wrote:
| > I'm not sure what it is that's stopping the city from
| actually doing anything about it, like the truck issue it seems
| it would be trivial to enforce.
|
| Law enforcement in NYC has a revanchist attitude towards the
| actual citizens of the city. Most of the city's police live
| outside of the city[1][2] and drive into work, which puts them
| directly at odds with the average resident.
|
| This attitude extends into every facet of NYC's law
| enforcement, which is why most of the city's _actual_ petty
| crimes (illegal parking, dangerous driving, obscured plates) go
| unreported: everybody knows that the police simply don 't care.
|
| Edit: So that I'm not just kvetching, here are some things that
| I think would improve the situation:
|
| * Allow citizens to report 53' trailers and other illegal
| vehicles (e.g. obscured plates) in exchange for a cut of the
| fines, similarly to how the city uses citizens to report idling
| violations[3].
|
| * Require all uniformed NYPD to attain a post-secondary decree
| (rather than a partial degree at a rock-bottom GPA, as
| currently required). Similarly, require them to pass a fitness
| test similar to the NYFD's.
|
| * Require all uniformed NYPD to live in the city, and
| restructure their patrols to emphasize the neighborhoods they
| live in. Minimize in-car patrol time in favor of foot patrols
| and Japanese style police booths.
|
| [1]: https://gothamist.com/news/majority-nypd-officers-dont-
| live-...
|
| [2]: Notably, civilian employees of the NYPD (and most NYC
| civil servants) are actually required to maintain residency in
| the city. This is purely a carveout for the police.
|
| [3]: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/nyc-anti-idling-
| la...
| lowkey_ wrote:
| > Require all uniformed NYPD to live in the city, and
| restructure their patrols to emphasize the neighborhoods they
| live in.
|
| In addition to the concern of other commenters of how this
| could affect their interactions with the community for the
| worse, I'd be really worried about how our law & order could
| be affected by intimidation of off-duty police.
|
| There's 100,000+ arrests per year in New York City [1],
| thousands of them for extremely violent or dangerous crimes.
| I can only imagine the retaliation that gangs could have on
| officers who make arrests, or refuse to turn a blind eye.
|
| [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_a
| nd_...
| Smithalicious wrote:
| How is getting a degree going to help them enforce a ban on
| big vehicles? It seems to me that requiring a higher
| education level is only going to shrink the pool of potential
| cops and/or increase the amount they have to be paid while
| doing nothing for the issue under discussion.
| [deleted]
| jdeibele wrote:
| A local firefighter and I were volunteers for our kids'
| soccer club. He said that he specifically worked on the other
| side of town because he didn't want to respond to fires or
| health emergencies that involved his neighbors.
|
| There are definitely some tradeoffs with having police
| officers or firefighters live and work in the same
| neighborhood. Does being familiar with the local troublemaker
| help or hurt the police response? Does going to the grocery
| store and seeing the family of someone you couldn't save make
| you feel like staying home? Or maybe you do see the people
| you did help.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > A local firefighter and I were volunteers for our kids'
| soccer club. He said that he specifically worked on the
| other side of town because he didn't want to respond to
| fires or health emergencies that involved his neighbors.
|
| This is a good point. I think it demonstrates a pretty
| drastic difference in scope between (ordinary) police and
| firefighter job requirements: a cop might go their entire
| career without firing their weapon, while a firefighter's
| job is almost entirely defined by situations where multiple
| people might die.
|
| Put another way: I think it's perfectly reasonable for
| fightfighters to not want to work in the neighborhood they
| live in, given the severity of the average incident they
| respond to. I don't think this applies to beat cops, any
| more than it does to mailmen.
|
| (The other point is also great: there's an argument that
| cops are more likely to feel territorial or even more
| violent if they live in the same area as someone they've
| branded a "troublemaker." I don't have a good answer to
| this.)
| lowkey_ wrote:
| As someone who has lived in NYC, there's a ton of crime
| there [1]. It's not at all similar to being a police
| officer in a town. It's also part of why police don't
| seem to care about petty crime in the city.
|
| [1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/05/us/new-york-city-
| crime-wave-2...
| logifail wrote:
| > He said that he specifically worked on the other side of
| town because he didn't want to respond to fires or health
| emergencies that involved his neighbors.
|
| It's totally normal for smaller towns and villages across
| Germany (and Austria and (?) Switzerland) to have mostly
| volunteer fire services.
|
| "the predominant number of Germany's 1,383,730 firefighters
| are members of voluntary fire brigades" [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fire_services
| notch656a wrote:
| >Allow citizens to report 53' trailers
|
| AKA standard trailers. Enjoy having a logistics framework
| where you are incompatible with the primary mode of semi
| freight in the rest of America.
|
| The lack of enforcement on this element is a testament to
| pragmatism.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > AKA standard trailers. Enjoy having a logistics framework
| where you are incompatible with the primary mode of semi
| freight in the rest of America.
|
| Every major city in the US places length restrictions on
| vans and trailers; most are even stricter than NYC's. Here
| are Newark's, for example[1]. Most cities actually
| _enforce_ these laws to no perceptible detriment.
|
| If you actually lived in NYC, you would know that the
| current absence of enforcement is the exact opposite of
| pragmatism: these trucks simply cannot safely navigate most
| NYC streets (even the modern ones that go in straight
| lines). Even if you ignore unnecessary accidents and
| injuries, they're _just plain inefficient_ due to their
| size and unwieldiness on the city 's streets.
|
| [1]: https://ecode360.com/36673291
| notch656a wrote:
| Standard trailers deliver into the outer boroughs where
| it is pragmatic and then smaller vehicles go into places
| like Manhattan. Of course nowhere can you make a trailer
| completely 'safe' in your own words. But not every
| borough is Manhattan where navigating a standard trailer
| is nigh impossible.
|
| If the trailers weren't at all useful then you'd see
| about as many of them as you see horses. The market would
| simply flush them out.
|
| Also the code you cited in Newark doesn't mention length
| that I can find, can you quote where you're referring to?
| Not saying it isn't there, but I see weight requirements
| but not length.
|
| >If you actually lived in NYC
|
| Do you live in every borough? If one is not able to speak
| about somewhere where they do not live, (which is a
| fallacy I reject) then you recognize you can't speak for
| the other boroughs and therefore cannot make a sweeping
| statement that covers all boroughs of NYC.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > Standard trailers deliver into the outer boroughs where
| it is pragmatic and then smaller vehicles go into places
| like Manhattan. Of course nowhere can you make a trailer
| completely 'safe' in your own words. But not every
| borough is Manhattan where navigating a standard trailer
| is nigh impossible.
|
| You have this exactly backwards. Manhattan's streets are,
| on average, much safer for trucks to navigate: they're
| wider, on a standard grid, and have uniform lights and
| speed zones. The outer boroughs don't have uniform grid
| plans (take a look at central Brooklyn or Queens on a
| satellite map: it's all carriage roads) and have much
| less consistent traffic light coverage. There are
| exceptions to this (FiDi in Manhattan, for example), but
| it's the overall pattern.
|
| The irony is that Manhattan is the _best_ case for trucks
| in the city, but is also the borough with _any_
| enforcement whatsoever. For example: trucks are almost
| completely banned on West End Avenue, and I never saw one
| (beyond movers) in the 20 years that I lived there.
|
| And to be clear: I'm not saying that trailers aren't
| useful. They clearly are. I'm saying that they're not
| _efficient_ in the sense that the city would be better
| served by fleets of smaller trucks, and that they 're a
| _social harm_ in the sense of the externalities they
| bring with them.
|
| > I see weight requirements but not length.
|
| You're right, sorry: Newark's are weight, not length
| (although I would be remiss to note that an empty 53'
| trailer truck ways _significantly_ more than 4 tons).
|
| > Do you live in every borough?
|
| I have lived the city my entire life, permanently in two
| boroughs, and have spent many years commuting in and
| through the other three. You can treat it as
| overconfidence if you like, but I feel qualified to make
| these claims based on about two decades of cycling and
| car travel.
| notch656a wrote:
| >You have this exactly backwards.
|
| Hilariously I haven been told the exact opposite by
| another resident who lives in Manhattan. It's safe to say
| your viewpoint is hotly contested by some residents of
| Manhattan themselves.
| [deleted]
| Fatnino wrote:
| I'd say especially at the airport you wouldn't expect to find
| posted prices. The prices on everything there, even water, are
| "if you have to ask you can't afford it. And if you can, I
| don't want to sell it to you".
|
| They have a captive pool of customers and can squeeze them for
| as much as they like. What are you gonna do? Leave through
| security to go join the real market? All before your connecting
| flight? Shut up and pay $10 for 500ml of water.
| alistairSH wrote:
| They don't have a price display on the shelving, or they don't
| have every single item individually stickered with a price
| label?
|
| Here in suburban DC, the latter is rare and the former is the
| norm. That said, we don't have much in the way of bodegas -
| it's all chain markets from 7-11, Sheetz, etc up to the big
| grocers.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > and there's nothing really that can be done.
|
| This seems to be a really common refrain for a lot of problems
| these days.
| freeopinion wrote:
| And it isn't true. There are various things that can be done.
|
| You can shop only at stores that do post prices, even if that
| means travelling some distance or paying higher prices. You
| could open your own store and be sure to post prices. You
| could organize a protest in front of stores that don't post
| prices. You could form a volunteer service that posts prices
| for stores.
|
| Obviously, these things require various levels of effort from
| you. They may or may not be worth it to you.
|
| But "there's nothing really that can be done" usually
| translates to "there's nothing really I am willing to do."
| snmx999 wrote:
| Are the items still scanned and everybody gets the same price
| when paying or are you saying that tourists pay a higher price?
| nerdponx wrote:
| The former, and the cashier can also tell you the price of
| any item before you have to pay for it. However that doesn't
| help much if you are a foreigner and don't speak English
| well.
| a4a4a4a4 wrote:
| > However that doesn't help much if you are a foreigner and
| don't speak English well.
|
| Well... welcome to the world? You'll have the same issue
| traveling to South America, Europe, Asia. When you travel
| and end up in a country where you don't speak the native
| language, communication gets more difficult. This is a non-
| issue.
| em-bee wrote:
| it's an issue when you are an introvert, or busy, in a
| large market. shopping would take hours if i had to ask
| every stall for the price of every item that i want. so i
| usually ignore stalls that don't post prices.
| scambier wrote:
| The issue being discussed is the lack of price tags. If
| I'm a foreigner and don't speak the language, at least I
| know how much I'll pay beforehand.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Quite. Reading numbers is far easier than someone saying
| those numbers in a foreign language.
|
| If someone speaks 10.43 to me in German, I have no idea.
| vetinari wrote:
| Even street vendors in random Asian places will punch the
| numbers into calculator and show you. You don't have to
| understand the language.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Have to? No. But that's not the point.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Looking briefly, it seems owner operated stores with 2 or less
| full time employees are not subject to the pricing display
| regulations. Some close family aren't counted as employees.
|
| (I only looked briefly, maybe I misunderstood)
| nottorp wrote:
| There are a lot of consumer protection rules in Europe. For
| most of them, in the US they don't even know it's possible :)
| cdot2 wrote:
| Except I'm in Texas where we don't have this issue. This is
| specifically a New York thing and is an issue with
| enforcement and not with the wording of the law
| cure wrote:
| > there's nothing really that can be done
|
| I very much doubt nothing can be done - this is just a matter
| of (political) will and appropriate enforcement.
|
| Here in MA we also have a law that says that items for sale
| must be priced. The law must have teeth, because all big stores
| have dedicated price scanners spread out through the store. The
| scanners can be used to check the price of any item, in case a
| price tag was not applied. In general, price tags are present,
| even in small corner stores.
| gumby wrote:
| Here in California the posted price has to include the price
| in "natural" units (per oz, or per dozen eggs, or whatnot)
| for easy comparison. Whole Foods gets around this by often
| displaying the unit price as "per item" (so the two prices on
| the shelf are the same).
|
| They've been getting away with this practice for decades.
| ghaff wrote:
| In my experience in MA, in larger stores shelved items
| usually have a price (and price/pound or price/quart) label
| on the shelf along with an item description. But it's a lot
| less common for individual items to be tagged than it used to
| be. The availability of scanners varies.
| waihtis wrote:
| Same here. I was supposed to buy stuff from JFK but no price
| tag = no purchase.
|
| Also, why are US duty free shops garbage compared to European
| ones? It's double price at the airport in contrast to the local
| shops, whereas in EU you can often buy things with a heavy
| discount at the airport.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > whereas in EU you can often buy things with a heavy
| discount at the airport.
|
| I've browsed the tax-free shops in European airports, it's...
| disappointing. They will bump up the price from retail anyway
| because people assume it's a good deal, and they'll focus on
| premium / luxury goods one wouldn't normally buy.
|
| I mean at the same time, you wouldn't find said premium /
| luxury goods on the high street either, nor an enthusiastic
| salesperson having you try fancy whiskeys at nine in the
| morning, so that's a plus on these tax free shops, lol.
| jhugo wrote:
| It's even worse: many of the alcohol products for sale at
| duty free are exclusive to duty free, thus preventing any
| price comparison. They market this as an advantage (get a
| whisky you can't get anywhere else!) but at least in the
| world of Scotch, they're mostly no-age-statement "luxury"
| whiskies with far more brand than substance.
| waihtis wrote:
| Granted it's a somewhat of an edge case because of the
| state monopoly, but at least alcohol is 20-40% cheaper at
| the airport in FIN airports
|
| UK duty free (pre COVID) also seemed to be slightly better
| priced in contrast to high street
| Symbiote wrote:
| I think they are sold without the duty (the sin tax), but
| still with VAT for an EU flight. Then add on the cost to
| run a shop in an expensive location.
|
| Comparing a basic Gordens gin, at Copenhagen Airport it's
| 6DKK (EUR0.80) less than at a typical supermarket, 165 vs
| 171DKK/litre. However, the price in Sweden is about
| 260DKK/litre, and I assume the target market in that
| airport is Swedes.
| samatman wrote:
| Why are European goods so enormously expensive compared to US
| ones?
|
| VAT. The answer is VAT.
| waihtis wrote:
| I find absolute US and EU (FIN) prices to be quite on par
| in categories like groceries, restaurant, alcohol etc.
|
| Of course US has something like triple salary in tech at
| least, making their purchase power generally much better.
| kergonath wrote:
| VAT ranges from 0 to 20%. It is significant, but not
| enormous.
| wnolens wrote:
| Living there, it definitely feels as if there's a low key
| lawlessness about town. I haven't developed a hatred for the
| cops here yet, but there's an outspoken critique to the point
| of being a meme that they enforce very little of these everyday
| things and beyond (like muggings)
| hbarka wrote:
| San Francisco would like a word about low-key lawlessness.
| Actually beyond low-key.
|
| Watch an open-air market for stolen goods. Watch the
| impunity. See how City Hall and SFPD respond.
| https://youtu.be/dykaJjegDEY
| bbarnett wrote:
| Just watched.
|
| There is no suitable excuse for this, at all, full stop.
| lupire wrote:
| Wow. The city commisioner says "No, yes, No. The police
| have not been aggressive enough with enforcement, because
| we don't want them to."
| mehphp wrote:
| Unreal. People are getting robbed in traffic at gun point
| and there are "bigger" "more violent" issues for the
| police to deal with?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Jesus f..ing christ. It's one thing to not crack down on
| victimless crimes aka people dealing small-time drugs on
| the street, but that here is a travesty of justice.
|
| I mean... what the fuck is that "yeah we have so many leads
| to follow up". Dude. Take a hundred officers, cordon off
| the area and fleece everyone. It isn't _that_ hard. And
| what the fuck was that "we want police to focus on bigger
| things"?! Like, camera crews get robbed on highway heists?
| At gunpoint? Doesn't get much bigger than that!
| mellavora wrote:
| > it definitely feels as if there's a low key lawlessness
| about town.
|
| history of police: the NY police force stared when one
| politician got his street gang made official.
|
| So the police have a cultural heritage.
|
| And on the other side,the city isn't a bunch of people who
| basically agree (or think they basically agree) on what is
| right and wrong, then use the law to enforce this. Counter-
| example, Sweden from circa 1000 to 2000 AD. (Sweden still
| thinks it is this, but has growing issues with immigrants
| from non-nordic cultures)
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Particularly in the realm of traffic, they tend to flout the
| law as well; go to nearly any police station and there will
| be both police and personal cars parked on the sidewalk, or
| illegally parked in spots.
|
| What makes it particularly galling is that they _also_ oppose
| automated enforcement of traffic laws. Officially it is
| because it would take away jobs (that they are not doing,
| since traffic enforcement in NYC leaves a lot to be desired),
| and unofficially because the police themselves benefit from
| the discretion exercised by fellow officers refusing to
| enforce laws on their colleagues.
| konschubert wrote:
| Why is "this would take away jobs" an argument that can be
| made in any non-communist country?
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Because all countries have an element of socialism and
| it's fairly significant.
| ivanbakel wrote:
| > Why is "this would take away jobs" an argument that can
| be made in any non-communist country?
|
| Because a capitalist economy is rooted in self-interest.
| Labour bodies have power to shape the economy, and they
| represent the interests of their members, who don't want
| to lose their jobs.
|
| Plus, people are not perfect market actors with such
| little empathy that they are willing to abandon their
| colleagues for a bit more workplace efficiency. So if you
| know that Bob in your office will be fired due to
| automation, and you like Bob (and worry you are next),
| you're going to oppose automation.
| dahfizz wrote:
| In a democracy, people vote for things. People also want
| a job. People are not going to vote for things which will
| lose them their job.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| And when you're the government you don't want to lose
| employees.
|
| Propaganda will make sure this won't even reach the
| average citizen.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Police is an interesting edge case, where at least in
| 2022 the people who want to reduce police are firmly on
| the left, and those firmly on the right want to cut
| everything _except_ police.
|
| There was an attempt to defund police, and that went down
| with the electorate like a lead balloon.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| There are broad swaths of the left and right that want as
| little to do with law enforcement as possible.
|
| It's the moralizing religious right and the jackbooted
| ivory tower left types (both of whom think they know
| exactly how other people should live) that want lots of
| policing.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Not to get too far into the weeds here, but Eric Adams,
| the black mayor of NYC who was formerly a police officer,
| was certainly not voted in by either the religious right
| or the ivory tower left.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Mostly it isn't unless it is one of those jobs that isn't
| needed most of the time but sometimes like for example a
| soldier or rural fire service and some bean counter
| thinks yeah we can slash that.
|
| Getting rid of the job gets rid of the people with
| experience, so it can be a one way switch.
|
| Normally solving a problem with a robot creates more
| jobs. There are speed cameras, but still you have hidden
| manually operated speed traps and it frees up resources
| for drug and alcohol testing.
| wjnc wrote:
| Oh my. My city recently got a few of those vehicles doing
| automatic parking fines. They were so good the number of
| fines was national news. There is something to be said for
| 100% enforcement of these rules. NYC is a boon for AI
| powered enforcement in that respect. Imagine all video
| enforceable traffic violations being automatically and
| instantaneously ticketed. It would change the city (and the
| cops).
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| You can do your bit by bringing all the items to the checkout,
| ask the price of them all, swap half of the "too expensive"
| ones. Then repeat. Until finally you have purchased what you
| want while driving them crazy.
| mafro wrote:
| How much time do you have?! Let's be realistic, typically one
| just wants to buy something, at the right price, and go back
| to doing something more fun than looking at grocery store
| shelves.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| If I get a spam scam call suddenly my diary opens up :-)
| executesorder66 wrote:
| > Mind you we checked and it is actually not legal to have no
| visible pricing.
|
| Wouldn't raising awareness of the illegal activity be the
| easier thing to do?
| alexanderdmitri wrote:
| It seems like the way to go is get someone to inspect the
| store. Each item with a pricing violation is up to $25 for
| the first twenty items, up to $50 for each item after
| capped at a total $2000[0]. Successive inspections can
| become even more costly.
|
| [0]: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/new-york-
| city-adm...
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| Unfortunately, driving the minimum wage checkout clerk crazy
| is probably not going to have any impact on the store owner.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| It will if people do this en-masse and the throughput of
| the store goes to zero.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Do a full Karen and ask for the manager... every time.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Never go full Karen.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Good solution probably, to vent of some steam, but
| otherwise there are a million things I would rather do,
| than fighting windmills.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| It could have an effect on the owner in the current US job
| market though -- clerks may no longer be willing to do
| crazy checkout item shuffling for minimum wage and decide
| to quit. Then the store owner has to choose what's in their
| best interest: add price tags to items so minimum-wage
| workers won't quit, increase wages to convince the workers
| to stay, or shutdown the business.
| np_tedious wrote:
| In the kind of less formal bodegas that do a poor job
| listing prices, this clerk might very well be the owner or
| a family member.
|
| Chain convenience stores and grocery stores will reliably
| list their prices for each item
| lupire wrote:
| > Chain convenience stores and grocery stores will
| reliably list their prices for each item
|
| No, but the self checkout machine will, as long as the
| item has a UPC code.
| stavros wrote:
| As shitty as it is, making the job harder drives the wages
| up because people would rather quit than do it.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Using malevolent behavior to make someone's job harder so
| that turnover increases and wage growth causes market
| effects that induce owners to comply with laws because
| gov does not enforce their own laws .... God bless
| America where the exchange of power between consumers and
| corporations shall not be infringed.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| That's a feature, not a bug. NYC has always been free, free-
| wheeling, and very pragmatic. Think for yourself, don't worry
| about what everyone thinks about you, get things done, work it
| out pragmatically with the people around you. Look at how
| traffic flows - no laws describe it, lanes are often ignored,
| etc., but it works. Saying 'you are violating traffic laws'
| would be misunderstanding the system fundamentally. NYC has
| always worked very well, the greatest city in the world for
| generations (despite recent media campaigns that seem to have
| forgotten it), but it's also not for everybody.
| zppln wrote:
| Meh, compared to something like Tokyo NYC is a shitshow.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| Crime is getting pretty bad these days.
| (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00041/nypd-citywide-
| cri...) It's not as bad as the worst period in New York's
| history, but that's not an excuse.
| yowzadave wrote:
| New York City might well be the safest city in the country:
|
| https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1520134999164395521
|
| Obviously there's much that could be done to make the city
| safer, and it does seem there was an uptick in certain
| types of crime during the pandemic (though not localized to
| NYC in any way). I'm just wary of people's intuitions about
| things like crime, which have historically been divorced
| from reality.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| How is that related to double parking?
| deschutes wrote:
| More like everyone in the city thinks they're the main
| character.
| bregma wrote:
| Ah, but I remeber the 1970s and 1980s when the bankrupt
| hellhole was considered (by outsiders) one of the worst
| places on Earth and a place you would only go if you had a
| suicide wish. You would expect to get mugged or shot, bad
| graffiti covered every surface, and junkies filled every
| cold-water walk-up that hadn't yet burned down.
|
| The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a
| reversing trend. Seems like that approach has been dropped
| again, and the old New York is coming back.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a
| reversing trend. Seems like that approach has been dropped
| again, and the old New York is coming back.
|
| The "make low effort comments about leaded gas and crime
| crowd" would take issue with that statement.
|
| Seems like everyone wants to take credit for the crime
| decrease in the 90s.
| aleffert wrote:
| This really has nothing to do with broken windows or
| probably even approaches to crime at all. Crime went down
| for thirty years basically everywhere. Now it is going up
| basically everywhere. Hard to point at a specific policy
| when it's so universal across locales
| wildmanx wrote:
| Overall morale is declining. Call it the Trump Effect.
| Having a leader who behaves like he did normalizes this
| behavior and immoral behavior becomes more commonplace
| since people feel its legitimized.
|
| I'm far from being a liberal but that guy objectively
| didn't show manners, so why should the man on the
| street..
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a
| reversing trend.
|
| Yeah, may be, but the bulk of the cost was borne by
| minorities, poor and otherwise vulnerable people [1].
| "Broken windows" _only_ works for everyone in a fair way
| when police is held accountable for their actions and
| systemic injustice gets combatted in parallel - otherwise
| it will only serve to entrench the interests of the White,
| rich population.
|
| [1] https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/03-22-NYSAC.pdf
| wolverine876 wrote:
| If we write really extreme hyperbole, it's witty (not
| really anymore) but doesn't actually support the argument.
| Millions still lived there; it remained the national
| capital of finance, publishing, business, arts, etc.; the
| nation's leading city and one of the world's; a magnet for
| tourism.
|
| > The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a
| reversing trend.
|
| It's a popular claim but AFAIK here's no evidence of that
| and it's one of those claims that was repeated without
| anyone looking at the most basic data: Crime dropped
| nationwide, both in places that used 'broken window'
| policing and without it. It's like today, where gun crime
| has increased relatively evenly everywhere, red states and
| blue, urban and rural areas, but certain political media
| campaigns have successfully associated it with a certain
| political group and cities (and by implication, a certain
| minority). Also, 'broken windows' often amounted to 'harass
| and drive away people that wealthy white people don't
| like'.
| prawn wrote:
| I sat on a citizen's jury about cycling a few years ago and one
| speaker we heard from (in our lead up to working on
| recommendations) was from the trucking industry. We knew trucks
| had poor visibility, that cyclists could get knocked over and
| swept under the trailer, etc but this guy was an absolute buck-
| passer and unfortunately he had the rest of the jurors spellbound
| with irrelevant excuses. He'd admitted that 'skirts' on the side
| of the trucks would make a difference, but there was zero
| appetite for that change because obviously it would cost
| transport companies money.
|
| Even just better visibility with the side windows has to be
| fairly achievable.
|
| That said, I have a lot of respect for truckers here in
| Australia. In my experience, they're some of the more responsible
| drivers on the road, through sheer mileage and consideration of
| their heft. They'll almost always signal when it's safe to
| overtake, through necessity they're wary brakers and so on.
| mstngl wrote:
| With the Econic[1] Mercedes Benz as one of the established
| manufacturers of utility vehicles already offers a product which
| implements some of the mentioned advantages of lower position for
| driver an extended window area. Here in Germany they can be often
| seen as garbage truck or fire fighting truck[2] in the cities. An
| BEV version was announced[3].
|
| On the other hand, even tallest semi trucks (here 40 tons class)
| are allowed to roll through German cities widely. They are often
| involved in accidents with pedestrians or bicylclists with fatal
| outcome. The main reason is bad sight when turning right.
| Therefore turning assistants[3] will become mandatory. However,
| placing the driver better and giving him more field of view is
| preferred.
|
| [1] https://www.mercedes-benz-
| trucks.com/de_DE/models/econic.htm... [2] https://mbs.mercedes-
| benz.com/de/special-trucks/feuerwehr/au... [3]
| https://www.mercedes-benz-trucks.com/de_DE/models/eeconic.ht...
| [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_assistant but better
| see German version :
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbiegeassistent
| MisterTea wrote:
| This is another ill informed piece from a truck hater. We have
| high visibility low cab forward class 7 trucks already: Mack MR &
| LR, Peterbilt LCF, Freightliner Condor, etc. Bartlett dairy in
| NYC runs Mack MR's and DSNY sanitation trucks are all LR's plus
| the postal service runs MR tractors in the city.
|
| I don't understand why he thinks these Voltas will replace 53's
| trailers. First problem is 53's are fine for transport outside of
| NYC meaning the carrier would have to designate NYC a special
| destination. No carrier is going to send a volta 3000 miles to
| NYC to deliver a few tons of freight. This means when you get a
| NYC freight quote you are going to pay for two shipments: from
| the destination to a local transfer dock and from that dock to
| the NYC destination. And does each carrier have their own class 7
| fleet and hub or is that yet another carrier in the mix? This
| adds cost and complexity to the supply chain.
|
| Freight cost is insane right now thanks to the global mess
| humanity is currently in. I had to buy parts for a machine that
| were light weight but 10 feet long (the wood skid was heavier
| than the parts.) Parts cost $310, freight was $650 and came on a
| 53'. If a transfer was involved requiring humpers and a second
| driver I'm sure it would add another few hundred dollars. Of
| course mr truck hater doesn't care because he doesn't directly
| see the impacts from his cushy twitter job.
| schmeckleberg wrote:
| Would a "truck hater" voluntarily describe a truck as "cool"? I
| think it is possible to respond to a more charitable
| interpretation of the post than the one that you are responding
| to.
|
| Tell me some more about your 10 foot long parts that were
| outweighed by their wooden skid? Would you still have bought
| them and had them shipped if freight had cost a few hundred
| dollars more? Genuinely interested. Were the parts for your
| business? An employer's business? A personal project? Honestly
| interested.
|
| A joy shared is a joy multiplied. A pain shared is a pain
| divided.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| Trucks are not allowed also in my hometown in Italy, and it's not
| enforced as people tend to let them work expecting common sense
| based decisions, but a couple of years ago a truck driver just
| lacked that and tried to go through a very narrow old street
| blocking the center for hours and got his license revoked and the
| truck taken, so I guess everyone just be careful
| alexwasserman wrote:
| Lots and lots of stories here in the UK about trucks following
| GPS directions meant for cars and getting stuck, damaging
| buildings in small towns or both.
|
| Eg https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-10809733
| neya wrote:
| Unpopular opinion: (Not in the context of this article) While I
| think the new design of the truck is better w.r.t driver's seat
| position, shouldn't we actually focus on solving the core problem
| instead? Rogue road users.
|
| (Forget the truck and New York), depending on which country you
| live in, they can be rogue or law abiding, but, if you take a
| country like Singapore, it is not uncommon to see rogue bikes
| riding in the middle of the highway - In fact, it is even illegal
| in Singapore. I would hate for manufacturers to accept this as
| reality and modify their vehicles to accommodate rogue road
| users.
|
| There is a reason for this thinking - Every compromise we make
| for other rogue road user, we compromise our own safety. Eg. Our
| bonnets are already weak now due to "pedestrian safety" features
| - ie. in the event a jaywalker comes into your path out of
| nowhere.
|
| I would rather the government focuses on infrastructure to solve
| for these problems than the manufacturers. Everybody wins then.
|
| Edit: Clarified
| IE6 wrote:
| Biking is a weird thing. You're not a car but you're not a
| pedestrian. It's really not safe for you to be where
| pedestrians are (and sometimes it is illegal) but cars want you
| out of their way. Additionally as a biker if you try and be
| courteous to cars it is almost always at the expense of your
| personal safety.
|
| > I would rather the government focuses on infrastructure to
| solve for these problems than the manufacturers. Everybody wins
| then.
|
| I agree 100% and liked what another user said - we have to
| imagine the city we want to live in and build backwards.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| Let me provide some context. I live in Denmark now which is
| arguably one of the best places in the world for alternative
| transport (bikes, trains, walking). Pedestrians and cyclists
| are an absolute menace. Driving in Copenhagen is harrowing
| because it means slamming on brakes _many_ times to avoid
| running over someone. This is in a city with big, dedicated
| walkways and cycleways. So I can tell you for sure it 's not an
| infrastructure problem. It's a culture problem.
|
| There seems to be a deliberate choice somewhere in this culture
| "problem" which has favoured pedestrians and cyclists. A belief
| that drivers _should_ give way to other forms of "better"
| transport. In Denmark this appears to have developed well
| before climate hysteria really took off, so I don't think we
| can ascribe it to that. I think urban planning has
| _intentionally_ designed infrastructure to relegate drivers to
| be second class citizens in the Copenhagen. Knowing the Danes,
| the reason is quite obvious: cycling and public transport is
| _far_ more efficient than cars. It 's also much healthier for
| the population, and costs society less by several metrics.
| Every km that someone cycles instead of drives saves the
| country US$1.41 (https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-
| cycling-infras...).
|
| I imagine there has also been pragmatic research into the
| stifling effect of public transport and cycling/walking with
| regards to stricter enforcement of road rules like
| "jaywalking". The Danish Cyclists' Federation is against
| mandatory helmet laws because of the reduction in the number of
| people who cycle (https://www.cyklistforbundet.dk/english/use-
| of-helmet/). Meaning that it's actually better for society to
| allow minor traffic "infractions" by the better form of
| transport, if it means increased adoption of said transport.
|
| These trucks are probably a product of this attitude, which I
| also see in other major European cities. There isn't an
| appetite to make the environment for pedestrians or cyclists
| worse, in any way. So they will continue to jaywalk, and cut in
| between cars in traffic, and trucks will be expected to yield
| to _them._
| elktea wrote:
| If you are 'slamming' on the brakes many times during a
| normal trip you're probably a really poor driver and you're
| going too fast for the condition. Please try a new style of
| driving in future.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > I think urban planning has intentionally designed
| infrastructure to relegate drivers to be second class
| citizens in the Copenhagen.
|
| Making dense cities deliberately unfriendly to cars is a
| pretty standard approach to urban planning and also tends to
| make much nicer places to live.
|
| The safety benefits of helmets are highly contextual (speed
| and traffic proximity are the two biggest factors) and the
| data to back up helmet laws in the Danish context are weak to
| nonexistent.
| [deleted]
| sterlind wrote:
| Pedestrians and cyclists have right-of-way over cars in the
| US, too. It's not "climate hysteria," it's to prevent brains
| from getting spilled on pavement.
|
| If you can kill someone by not stopping, you're ordered to
| yield for the person you might kill.
| unglaublich wrote:
| The core problem is that we have huge bulks of metal driving at
| high speed through out cities, with drivers that are unable to
| observe their surroundings, and even when they do take too much
| time to come to a safe stop.
|
| You are right about solving infrastructure: cities should be
| people-centric, not car-centric. Ban motorized traffic wherever
| people need to live. Invest in public transport, sharing
| services, walkability.
| ageitgey wrote:
| Large trucks driving through city centers and killing
| pedestrians who moving around the neighborhoods they live and
| work in and the pedestrians are "rogue road users"?
| neya wrote:
| Forget the truck, not referring to the truck, but what if
| these changes are made to cars? So, now to accommodate these
| road users, your car will be made of tin can instead of
| thicker Aluminium sheets. As a biker, that is good news to
| you, but as someone who paid $x0,000 for my car I wouldn't be
| happy obviously.
|
| Bikers drive like trash in most countries, why should car
| users take the hit for that?
| wasmitnetzen wrote:
| Because the car users drive an inherently dangerous
| vehicle, easily killing the biker in a crash. The weaker
| need more protection.
| lancewiggs wrote:
| The people riding bikes you are observing in the middle of
| the road are obeying the rules and trying to stay alive by
| preventing close overtakes. Roads were designed for people,
| horses and bikes - why have we let cars take over?
| neya wrote:
| I am not in favor of lane blocking, blocking an entire
| lane leading to pile up of vehicles 100x heavier than
| them so a biker can go on a joy ride in the middle of the
| road which is actually illegal in most countries,
| including Singapore.
| yodelshady wrote:
| underwater wrote:
| In the context that this article is discussing bikes are legal
| and entitled to use the road. Labelling those people as "rogue"
| is disingenuous.
|
| Even if they weren't legal under current laws, dedicating the
| majority of public space to a specific mode of transport has
| been show to lead to pretty sad results: clogged roads and
| crowded footpaths.
|
| Why _should_ it be that when I switch from driving mode to
| walking mode, I lose the right to access that public space?
| konschubert wrote:
| We have to think of what kind of city we want to live in, and
| then work back from there.
|
| Personally, I want to live in a city where a 6 year old can
| walk or bike to school, safely, on their own.
| konschubert wrote:
| Many of the pedestrians and cyclists killed are following
| traffic laws. Truck drivers simply kill them when they turn
| right while overtaking.
|
| Also, as I said in another comment, traffic laws are not
| constitutional, they can and should be adapted.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| It's not a either or thing. Both help. I'm a Dutch guy living
| in Berlin. Berlin in the last few years has upgraded their
| infrastructure quite a bit to make things safer for cyclists.
| This is of course something that my home country the
| Netherlands started doing after the oil crisis in the 1970s.
| The result of decades of policies and regulations is that that
| is now a very safe place to move around by bike. There are very
| few traffic situations where cycling traffic is mixing with
| normal road traffic. That really cuts down on the accident
| rate. Berlin has some catching up to do on that front.
|
| Here in Berlin, the leading cause for traffic deaths is trucks
| taking right turns at speed and not noticing the cyclists in
| their dead angle. Happens a couple of times per month. The way
| to prevent that is 1) mirrors/cameras 2) installing concrete
| curbs to force the trucks to take the turn properly (slow down,
| take a wider turn so they can actually see what's lurking in
| their dead angle). In the Netherlands neither of those things
| are optional. Almost any significant right turn will have those
| curbs and they really work. Also crossings are super well
| organized and there's just very little room for
| misunderstandings. Any place with abnormally high accident
| rates gets prioritized for a little makeover. And forget about
| being allowed on the road without the required mirrors.
|
| This Volta truck has a great design that should help enormously
| in countries with less regulation / established policy on this
| front. These are designed to go into areas where normal traffic
| isn't even allowed. So lots of pedestrians and cyclists. Even
| in the Netherlands they should help. You never get to perfect
| safety so all little bits help. And I imagine the enhanced
| visibility is helpful in general for drivers.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > installing concrete curbs to force the trucks to take the
| turn properly
|
| What do you mean by concrete curbs? How do they compare to
| other curbs and how do they help? Are they just so large and
| tough that they damage the truck if it runs over the curb?
| unglaublich wrote:
| Curbs that separate the bicycle lane from the main road:
|
| https://chi.streetsblog.org/2015/12/01/cdot-pilots-bike-
| lane...
| yellowapple wrote:
| Are flatbed versions of these trucks in the works? Or is there a
| bare chassis option? As one example: there are a lot of tow
| trucks here in the US in a size class similar to the Volta Zero,
| and seeing as how tow trucks are a common occurrence in cities,
| it seems like it'd be worthwhile for them to get these same
| safety features. Another example use case: hauling 20' containers
| in and out of transit hubs, slashing emissions from last-mile
| freight delivery.
| blenderdt wrote:
| UPS ordered 10.000 Arrival vans. In my city there are only
| electric busses, most made by Iveco. There are a lot of examples
| like this.
|
| Most of those changes are forces by law. And this is a good
| thing. I like that we now have less noise and pollution in our
| cities.
| chrisjc wrote:
| I was waiting for someone to drop the Arrival name. A year or
| less back, Arrival news seemed to be everywhere but lately they
| seemed to have dropped off the map. Perhaps they're heads-down,
| focusing on deliveries and new applications?
|
| They seemed like an exciting company to follow, bar all of the
| SPAC noise. Hope that all is going well with them, bc they're
| certainly in a space with, or soon to have a lot of
| competition.
| pronlover723 wrote:
| It drives me crazy to see laws like this unenforced. An
| unenforced law is basically a law that is only used when someone
| power doesn't like you. It's something they keep in their back
| pocket to either have you pay them off or for them just to kick
| you out. They don't like company ABC, enforce the law just on
| ABC's trucks.
|
| Sure there are some dumb laws, and they should remove them. But,
| if they have a law it should be enforced IMO.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Sure there are some dumb laws, and they should remove them.
| But, if they have a law it should be enforced IMO.
|
| But the dumb laws aren't removed, so now what do we do? There
| aren't enough resources to enforce all the laws, it would
| require major tax increases, and it would stifle life in the
| city for no benefit. Why would we enforce them all? Humans are
| not robots; we can make intelligent decisions about what is
| needed in a situation.
| BMorearty wrote:
| There's at least one other type of unenforced law: a law whose
| opponents were unable to block its passing, but were able to
| block funding for its enforcement agency or block appointment
| of a head of that agency.
| godelski wrote:
| The one that gets me the most is Keep Right Laws[0]. I've never
| been in a state (I've been in a lot) where these are enforced.
| There's small patches where people do this, but never more than
| a 50 mile stretch. It's simple: "If you aren't actively
| passing, stay out of the left/PASSING lane." I really do
| believe that people think being in the left lane makes you go
| faster. But these laws, if enforced, can dramatically reduce
| highway accidents.
|
| [0] https://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
| mellavora wrote:
| It is enforced in Germany. There is a culture which takes
| driving seriously.
| godelski wrote:
| I was highly contemplating adding a joke about the autoban
| to my comment. Didn't take long for someone to mention
| Germany lol. But even though it is enforced in Germany, it
| doesn't help that most people (including police) don't know
| that these laws are even on the books.
| rascul wrote:
| Slow people in the left lane can easily make a calm and
| peaceful drive into a chaotic nightmare as people cut each
| other off trying to get around. Another bad one is when a big
| truck is passing a slow car but then the people behind the
| big truck won't let it move back into the right lane.
| djbusby wrote:
| It's about these electric trucks
|
| https://voltatrucks.com/
|
| Coming soon to USA
| _ZeD_ wrote:
| and they are cool
| moffkalast wrote:
| Batteries definitely have temp control.
| 0des wrote:
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Good to see support of sensible regulations, but I feel the
| author may have got caught up in some pro-UK propaganda:
|
| https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/
|
| Tl;dr like many sensible regulations this was an EU initiative.
|
| https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/seeing-believi...
|
| Not because the EU is nice or anything like that, it's just the
| right level to mandate safety standards so that standard designs
| can be made cheaply at scale and not be undermined by a race to
| the bottom.
| brigandish wrote:
| You've linked to Channel 4's fact check page but not any
| specific article and I don't see one about the direct vision
| standard anywhere on the site.
|
| Secondly, the standard was not an EU initiative, it was
| London's, though the EU and other places are also coming up
| with standards. From [1]:
|
| > Significantly, the EU is set to follow London's DVS for
| trucks
|
| From [2]:
|
| > The Direct Vision Standard was developed by the Mayor of
| London (Sadiq Khan) as part of his Vision Zero initiative
|
| Sadiq Khan is very pro-EU and I find it hard to believe he'd
| miss an opportunity to give credit to the EU and give a snide
| aside towards Brexit and its supporters, but it seems he's not
| bothered this time.
|
| From [3]:
|
| > "Our world-first Direct Vision Standard has saved lives
|
| > TfL is also working with the EU and other cities to mandate
| direct vision in vehicle design and safety regulations.
|
| And from the notes on that page:
|
| > TfL's Direct Vision Standard was developed in conjunction
| with Loughborough University's School of Design and Creative
| Arts and through extensive engagement with lorry manufacturers
|
| > The See Me Save Me campaign was founded in 2009 by Kate
| Cairns following the death of her sister, Eilidh, at Notting
| Hill Gate, London. See Me Save Me challenges industry,
| policymakers and the justice system to push for faster adoption
| of measures to reduce HGV danger
|
| > Kate led the call for direct vision lorries at the European
| Parliament in Strasbourg in 2010, with the See Me Save Me
| (seemesaveme.org) campaign lobbying alongside MEP Fiona Hall
| for mandatory cameras and sensors
|
| > Further lobbying followed in Brussels in 2011 for amendment
| to Directive 96/53 to improve direct visibility of HGV cabs
| (seemesaveme.org/policy). The DVS incorporates both of these
| mitigation measures
|
| So it turns out that the real credit should go to a campaigner
| who has managed, with the help of a charity called Roadpeace,
| to turn personal tragedy into something positive, and those
| with the power to make changes in developing and implementing
| these standards _together and in parallel, and not in
| opposition to each other_.
|
| Finally, I think using words like "propaganda" for situations
| like this is wholly misplaced and unhelpful.
|
| [1] https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-
| stories/insights/arti...
|
| [2] https://vuegroup.org/direct-vision-standard-six-vital-
| things...
|
| [3] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-
| releases/2021/june/t...
| ornornor wrote:
| If only cities in Canada and the US simply _enforced_ traffic
| laws that are already on the books. But no, drivers are free to
| do as they please because the police does nothing. Actually, the
| police is part of the problem in a lot of places by double
| parking or stopping on bike lanes and sidewalks when they want a
| coffee or a donut. Cities are so human hostile in most of NA,
| it's really disheartening.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >If only cities in Canada and the US simply enforced traffic
| laws that are already on the books
|
| Traffic flow is generally outside the bounds of the law. Going
| full jackboot would just piss a lot of people off in the short
| term and get the law changed in the medium term.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I see it the other way: They don't enforce laws that aren't
| pragmatic. Double-parking is essential to getting things done
| in a city, and IME generally everyone acts reasonably - they
| don't double park when they block the entire street or in bad
| traffic. No law says 'you can double park, but not in these
| situations', but people are social animals and act
| intelligently. I love cities, which often bring out the best in
| people.
| moffkalast wrote:
| > Double-parking is essential to getting things done in a
| city
|
| The fuck? Double parking is a fancy word for parking on the
| road, blocking traffic.
| Aditya_Garg wrote:
| Im not sure about essential in all cities, but in Manhattan
| its quite impossible to move out of your apartment without
| the truck being double parked.
| nradov wrote:
| Yes it does block traffic. And if all double parking was
| completely eliminated then commerce in many dense cities
| would essentially grind to halt. If you have to make a
| delivery and literally all the parking spots are taken then
| what do you do?
| moffkalast wrote:
| You find the nearest parking garage and go on foot from
| there?
| nradov wrote:
| Most parking garages can't even accommodate delivery
| vehicles. And do you seriously expect a UPS or FedEx
| driver to park blocks away and then bring packages on
| foot? That's just completely detached from reality.
| ornornor wrote:
| Double parking is a major pain especially for people cycling:
| it's dangerous, it blocks traffic, and there is a reason why
| it's not allowed.
|
| But it's not only double parking anyway, it's also speeding,
| running lights, aggressive driving...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| There's also a reason why it's allowed, because it
| generally is. Rarely have any of those things affected my
| day, and I appreciate that people allow me, when I need it,
| to double park.
| guitarbill wrote:
| In countries that have separation of powers, generally the
| police don't get to decide which laws to enforce, when to
| enforce them, and against whom. If they do this, that's
| police corruption.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I haven't heard of or seen a place where that's true. Where
| are you thinking of? It would be draconian and unrealistic
| - laws are not written nearly well enough to not require
| lots of discretion.
| bpicolo wrote:
| Moving is one time this is awkward. There's basically no
| practical way to "legally" move out/into most apartments in
| Manhattan as it comes to parking and traffic enforcement.
|
| My current building utilizes a bike lane for this purpose,
| I'm sure much to the dismay of bikers. The only other option
| is blocking much of the traffic to one of our city's lovely
| inter-borough bridges.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The cyclists will adjust, like everyone else. In a dense
| city, you can't avoid other people; you have to work with
| and around them all the time. There's no possibility of
| writing rules for it all. It's a beautiful, dynamic thing.
| atty wrote:
| Cool trucks, but if one of the concerns is weight, I can't
| imagine a BEV truck with any decent range is gonna have
| appreciably better weight/axle. But perhaps I'm overestimating
| how much battery they'd need.
| djvdq wrote:
| It's meant for cities. It don't have to have thousands of km in
| range. But as I read for Volta Zero they promises 150-200 km od
| range with ~9 tonnes payload (but they want also 16-ton
| variant). For city driving looks okay for me.
| GayforMoleman wrote:
| Not to mention the idea is to reduce inner city pollution and
| noise pollution levels. Current trucks are despised in cities
| for this. It's worth sacrificing on some other aspects to
| achieve that.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's worth it to you to trade distance for clean/quiet, but
| it's the companies involved using the trucks that need to
| be convinced. Telling them that they need to have separate
| trucks for city use and long haul use will receive push
| back from sheer momentum of how it's done now. Unless the
| cities get involved and tax the bejeebus out of them for
| not switching, they will never switch.
| nine_k wrote:
| They already often have very large trucks that only go to
| warehouses, and would be a pain to drive through a city,
| especially such an old and super-dense one as NYC.
|
| Smaller trucks move smaller quantities around the city
| from the warehouses.
|
| Maybe sometimes you need to bring something especially
| large e.g. for a construction; such deliveries may be
| special-cased and planned carefully, instead of being
| completely off-limits.
| Scarblac wrote:
| It's not the companies that need to be convinced, it's a
| matter of the people wanting this enough that politicians
| act on it or get voted out, and then companies are just
| forced to follow the regulations that require such
| trucks.
|
| The US is a democracy that doesn't act like one.
| mellavora wrote:
| > noise pollution levels.
|
| except for that damn backup "beep beep". Yes, I know the
| arguments for safety, and few of them are based on studies
| which show safety improvements
|
| esp vs other options, like backup cameras. Or if the beep
| only signaled if there was an obstruction behind the truck.
| That would be a great use for computer vision. Someone
| standing behind the truck (or even just something which
| might be a person)? Beep. Otherwise, keep quiet. An alarm
| which is false 10x more than it is true is not an alarm.
| omegabravo wrote:
| The beep isn't for the driver. I don't want it to beep
| after I step out behind it, I want it to beep before.
|
| Despite that, there is an alternative which sounds more
| like a hiss. The main benefit is that you can identify
| the direction from your hearing. I have to look in all
| directions to find where the beep is coming from.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa28lIGuxq8
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Battery electric trucks exist in pretty much any weight class
| you can think off. This stopped being a theoretical thing about
| a decade ago. The main issue is cost and even that is starting
| to look really good. For last mile deliveries in cities it's
| pretty much game over for ICE vehicles. Electrical vans are
| selling as fast as they can be produced. They are cheaper to
| operate, cleaner to drive, more comfortable (no vibrations,
| quiet), etc. and they get the job done.
|
| Range is fine too. 300-500 miles is plenty for a long distance
| truck doing 50-60 miles per hour. There are several
| manufacturers selling battery electrical class 8 trucks now. It
| will take a while for those to get common of course and for
| charging infrastructure to ramp up (these things need some
| serious amounts of juice). They have their required 45 minute
| break every few hours in any case. Great opportunity to charge
| the vehicle.
|
| Range anxiety for commercial vehicles is not a thing. You might
| have personal anxiety but it's an entirely predictable thing
| that you can plan and budget for from a business point of view.
| It either is good/affordable enough and adequate or it is not.
|
| In fact, it seems the low range delivery vans are popular
| because they are more cost effective and more efficient (less
| unneeded dead battery weight). Why spend the extra money on
| range you don't need? It seems the sweet spot is around 100
| miles range. Some vans do even less than that. But it's more
| than the average delivery van does in a day apparently. Longer
| range options are available. Anxiety does not factor into this.
| It's a simple matter of "do we spend the 10-20k extra and is it
| worth it?"
| maxekman wrote:
| Shameless plug for my employer Einride. We are building a almost
| driverless truck (AD with remote safety driver). Really cool
| company to work for.
|
| https://www.einride.tech/pod
|
| Edit: Driverless clarification.
| [deleted]
| inetsee wrote:
| I have often wondered why no one has developed a multi-wheel
| steering truck trailer. I know nothing about the engineering
| difficulties, or the cost penalty, but it seems to me that multi-
| wheel steering would make a truck, even a long truck, much more
| manouverable in confined spaces.
| frederikvs wrote:
| Perhaps it makes more sense to have a few big vans over one big
| truck, when it comes to manoeuvrability in small spaces. A big
| van is more manoeuvrable than a full-sized truck can ever be,
| even with multi-wheel steering - you still have a honking big
| box that can't bend.
| leoedin wrote:
| This is super-common in Europe. You see a lot of trucks around
| London with rear wheel steering.
|
| eg http://www.transportengineer.org.uk/transport-engineer-
| featu...
|
| http://spectrumfreight.co.uk/view_news.php?cid=15
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| To my surprise, they actually exist. Sadly, I'm only relying on
| testimony, so have no way to prove it.
| rascul wrote:
| This is a thing on some large fire trucks. At least for this
| application it requires someone steering from the back of the
| trailer. See this one in Seattle for an example.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhuSwHni0jc
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Most artic trailers with more than two axles (and many with
| only two axles) have got multiple steer axles.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Isn't that one of those laws that would basically bring the city
| to a halt if it were actually enforced? Consider the horrible
| traffic jams created by Nestoring as another example.
| spoonjim wrote:
| That's what business owners want you to think so they don't
| have to change what they're doing. But the entire post is proof
| that it doesn't have to be this way. Set a date when the trucks
| have to be gone. When the day comes, enforce it with the entire
| apparatus of state power. Two things that government is good
| at, and the private sector will figure out the rest.
| atoav wrote:
| Why would it? Less big trucks certainly make traffic flow
| better in a dense city.
| underwater wrote:
| Because there would be no food or goods to purchase?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Or building materials. How big is a readymix? Or are they
| exempt
| theptip wrote:
| The whole point of TFA is that no, it's a law that would cause
| a new type of truck to be brought to market that did comply
| with the length regulations.
|
| Of course you don't start enforcing the law overnight, you make
| a credible firm commitment to phase it in at some point in the
| future. (I'd be interested to hear how aggressive the phase-in
| was in London).
| Twirrim wrote:
| London added the "Low Emission Zone" in 2008, phasing it in
| over 4 years with more aggressive pollution levels, with the
| "Ultra Low Emission Zone" coming in to effect a couple of
| years ago.
|
| Polluting vehicles aren't banned, just charged each time they
| enter the zone, via automated camera based solutions. Aim is
| to provide a solid financial incentive towards using more
| fuel efficient vehicles. Large commercial vehicles get
| charged PS100 a day, everything else just PS12.50. So not
| really prohibitive, but also a cost that soon adds up.
|
| It has been highly effective, with a large reduction of
| pollution in the city, and no doubt the city really
| appreciates the additional revenue stream (even if it's tied
| to specific projects)
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Polluting vehicles aren't banned, just charged each time
| they enter the zone, via automated camera based solutions.
|
| Does that discriminate against people without money, who
| can't always afford less-polluting cars, can't afford the
| fines, and thus are excluded from public streets?
| baud147258 wrote:
| Well, the poor are supposed to take the efficient public
| transportation, while the affluent can continue to use
| their gas-guzzlers (and now their expensive electric
| cars) to clog the streets
| Milner08 wrote:
| Yes, but London has fantastic public transport to the
| extent where if you are living in the Ultra Low Emission
| Zone you probably don't need a car (if you could even
| afford a place with a parking space). Now the extension
| of the Low Emission Zone is a different matter, but its
| less strict and while people complained a bit before it
| expanded I've not heard of any major issues from it (but
| then again, I am probably in a bubble).
| merijnv wrote:
| You're assuming cars are the only valid transport option.
| London isn't the US, you can just take the subway or bus
| instead...
| [deleted]
| IneffablePigeon wrote:
| One could argue it makes even cheaper options like
| walking and cycling into more palatable alternatives. In
| any case, the vast majority of people in London use
| public transport to get around.
|
| I'm not sure how it works for tradespeople who need to
| carry equipment. I'd hope there are schemes to subsidize
| more efficient vehicles for those sorts of cases,
| although I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any.
| a2tech wrote:
| According to every non-wealthy Londoner that I've spoken
| to...yes. Regular folk that live in the city are being
| squeezed every which way. They don't want to leave
| because its always been their home but the city is
| optimizing for the wealthy and well-to-do.
|
| It'll be interesting to see what happens if all the
| really cheap labor stops showing up (cheap labor from the
| EU) and working people clear out of London. What good is
| your million dollar flat if you can't get furniture
| delivered or a tradesperson in to fit a wardrobe?
| Accacin wrote:
| It's funny - If I need to go down to London, I'll drive
| my car to a station just outside of London (where I can
| park all day relatively cheaply), and then take the train
| into London and use the underground whilst I'm there.
|
| Kind of just goes to show how crap trains are outside of
| London, and how great they are inside of London. Plus,
| I've only driven in London once and it's not something
| I'd want to do again :D
| jhugo wrote:
| Driving in very-central London is great. Ever since all
| the fees the streets are often empty! Parking on the
| other hand...
| tom_ wrote:
| The rules are not very stringent for petrol cars. Pretty
| much anything from the past 15 years will do.
| tyrfing wrote:
| This competes with 26' box trucks, not 53' trailers.
| theptip wrote:
| Not if 53' trailers are banned or restricted inside the
| city, like the case of NYC as discussed in TFA.
| tyrfing wrote:
| It's like talking about replacing C++ with Javascript.
| 26' box trucks already exist and could be used, but
| aren't for a reason. The novel part is really just the
| visibility and lower noise, which is irrelevant to a 53'
| trailer ban.
| theptip wrote:
| I think you're missing the point of the conversation up-
| thread. OP is pointing out that 53' trailers are actually
| already banned, but the ban is not enforced. GP suggested
| that enforcing the ban would bring the city to a halt.
| The OP provides a discussion of an alternative that could
| be used if the 53' trailer ban was enforced.
|
| > 26' box trucks already exist and could be used, but
| aren't for a reason.
|
| Right, at least partly because the ban on 53' trailers is
| not enforced. Nobody is claiming that these smaller
| trucks are strictly better in the current market
| environment (including the assumption that the ban is not
| enforced). This thread is discussing what would happen if
| the 53' truck ban was enforced.
|
| Your analogy doesn't make sense in this context. Neither
| C++ nor Javascript are banned. To fix your analogy, try
| this: If you banned C++ (and enforced the ban) in NYC,
| then you'd expect to see an increase in use of JS and
| other languages. Programming would not grind to a halt,
| if you gave enough notice then the pieces currently
| implemented in C++ would be re-implemented in another
| language.
| tyrfing wrote:
| They fill different roles. It's talking about replacing
| something suited for long distance, including intermodal,
| relays, etc with a short distance truck that has distinct
| characteristics. If you absolutely can't use 53'
| trailers, the best alternative is probably 48' trailers.
| svnpenn wrote:
| > Consider the horrible traffic jams created by Nestoring as
| another example.
|
| If people want to speed and tailgate, _they_ are the ones
| causing traffic. Some random dude, staying in one lane, going
| the speed limit, is not the problem. It 's narcissist jackasses
| weaving in and out of traffic.
| atoav wrote:
| While you are right, even the totally lawful driver
| ultimately _is traffic_.
|
| If you wanna reduce congestion, there is a lot of research in
| that area that gets ignored by many planners.
| goodpoint wrote:
| FTA:
|
| > has Volta designed a safer truck for urban transport simply
| because European companies are more enlightened and civilized on
| these issues than Americans? [...] yes, culture matters
| choeger wrote:
| Interestingly, this requires a second set of vehicles, as the
| electrical trucks won't cut it on the long haul.
|
| This evens the ground for rail-based logistics, which also need a
| second set of vehicles at the target location. Of course, the
| drivers of these City-Trucks will earn city wages. It will be
| interesting to see how this works out economically.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Maybe the cost of stuff in London goes up by a penny or two,
| spreading it across everyone. Maybe a tiny bit less crap gets
| ordered online that wasn't needed.
| Closi wrote:
| A second set of vehicles is required for long-haul anyway.
| Usually you want to do the long-haul part with a large capacity
| articulated vehicle (e.g. a double decker) and these will
| typically need to be offloaded at a depot, and then you will do
| the next leg with a rigid vehicle if required.
|
| Similarly for Rail you are loading a container which will then
| probably be handled by an articulated vehicle before THEN being
| loaded onto a rigid vehicle.
|
| (I'm a logistics / supply chain consultant based in the UK, so
| aware of how these things usually work over here at least)
| hnbad wrote:
| Sure but the point is that unlike with traditional LGVs, the
| long-haul can't be done with electric ones because of the
| weight of the batteries required to serve that kind of
| distance.
| Closi wrote:
| Yeah but in both scenarios you are putting it on a
| different vehicle to go longhaul.
|
| These would be replacing rigids for fairly local delivery -
| rigids which don't usually do long haul now.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _A second set of vehicles is required for long-haul anyway._
|
| Per the article, it appears that isn't the case in NYC. The
| 53'ers are driving downtown despite regulation to the
| contrary.
|
| It _should_ be the case. And is now the case in London. Just
| not here in the US.
| Closi wrote:
| Let me clarify - if you are operating a fleet of rigids you
| are probably not operating those long haul (if you are, you
| probably shouldn't be!). This replaces rigid vehicles which
| already operate in this manor - it's not a totally
| different class of vehicle.
|
| This doesn't also mean that you wouldn't operate a large
| articulated vehicle on a short-haul basis, it depends on
| the load characteristics. You don't always want the biggest
| possible vehicle, which is why rigids exist (in cases where
| a driver day caps out on time or miles before vehicle
| capacity).
|
| But you probably aren't operating a rigid long haul,
| because that load can just be mixed onto the back of a
| larger trunk.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I'm surprised. This is a cool truck. Trucks hardly get any
| mention in safety discussions but seeing the visibility
| differences here its quite astounding how much they were able to
| improve it.
|
| I wonder if it would make sense to mandate new ICE trucks to have
| the engine positioned behind the cab rather than under it to get
| these same improvements on non electric trucks.
| joering2 wrote:
| Such a relief comparing it with Musk idea of "daisy-chained"
| Tesla Semis going down the highway in an autopilot, delivering
| cargo at "10% of train's cost"
| atoav wrote:
| Does it factor in road maintenance or is it socialized cost
| as usual?
| warmwaffles wrote:
| > Does it factor in road maintenance or is it socialized
| cost as usual?
|
| It most likely does not factor in road maintenance, and the
| railroad doesn't factor in their maintenance either.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Now you're telling me airplane fares also don't include
| airport construction? I'm beside myself!
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > the railroad doesn't factor in their maintenance
| either.
|
| Aren't railroads (in the US at least) maintained by the
| railroad companies? If so, they are almost certainly
| pricing in maintenance to their shipping costs.
| porphyra wrote:
| For what it's worth, the Tesla Semi also has much better
| visibility than conventional semi trucks.
| joering2 wrote:
| how do you know this?
| Thlom wrote:
| The blind zones on regular trucks are absolutely insane. That
| we as a society let these vehicles drive around in populated
| areas is crazy.
|
| There's a lot of construction in my neighborhood at the moment
| and it's always a bit scary letting my kids bike to school. I
| more than once saw a truck backing into a construction site
| crossing over a side walk. In the dark. And with no guidance,
| only mirrors and cameras (if any). There's so many examples of
| people being killed by trucks backing in populated areas. And
| probably even more examples of trucks crushing cyclist when
| turning right over the cycling lane.
|
| I've told my kids to stay way clear of trucks and never assume
| the driver has seen them.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| > There's so many examples of people being killed by trucks
| backing in populated areas. And probably even more examples
| of trucks crushing cyclist when turning right over the
| cycling lane.
|
| Few years back a girl died at a zebra crossing near my house;
| she started to cross but turned back half-way for whatever
| reason. Trucker was taking a turn and didn't see her (no way
| he could have), girl expected the truck to stop at the zebra
| crossing or maybe just didn't notice it, and ... yeah :-(
|
| Not the trucker's fault as such, no way he could have done
| better, but it goes to show just how dangerous these things
| can be. Not the girl's fault either, but any discussion about
| right of way or what an idiot that driver is or whatever is
| utterly and completely pointless if you're lying under a
| truck. Always be careful, and always take responsibility for
| your own safety, even if you shouldn't have to. It's the
| smart thing to do.
|
| Most truck drivers are pretty careful/decent in my experience
| (unlike van drivers or taxis...), but it's just so darn hard
| to see what's going on around you.
| stefan_ wrote:
| That's because US trucks (the goods carrying type, not the
| status symbol) still look they time-traveled from circa 1950,
| just _even bigger_ now. Here is a random one from Wikipedia:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trucking_industry_in_the_Unite...
|
| It must be some kind of anti-competitive tariff situation for
| this to still be the prevailing design.
| pja wrote:
| IIRC part of the explanation is length limits put on European
| trucks (so that they will be able to navigate the tighter
| design standards of the EU road network I believe) which make
| the cab-over design (where the driver sits above the engine)
| pretty much compulsory.
|
| In the US, the cab-behind design (as seen in the image
| linked) remains the dominant one, both for practical
| (slightly easier access for maintenance IIRC) and probably
| cultural (no change here please!) reasons.
| warmwaffles wrote:
| > for practical (slightly easier access for maintenance
| IIRC)
|
| It's mainly this. A ton of truck drivers love the looks of
| the old Kenworth cab overs, but the issue is definitely
| maintenance becomes a nightmare. When the cab tilts
| forward, it makes access to the radiator more difficult.
|
| There is also the inconvenience that the entire cab has to
| be tilted forward in order to access it. Which sends
| anything not secured rolling forward and out of place.
| Minor, but annoying.
|
| However, the cab overs that dominated the 70s and 80s here
| in the US still don't have the same sight lines that the
| euro trucks do now.
| legalcorrection wrote:
| I think they end up having less living space for the truck
| drivers. I don't know if that's a design limitation, or just a
| separate aspect of the European market (where the flat-front
| trucks are ubiquitous), but it would be bad for the quality of
| life of a lot of truck drivers in the US if the result would be
| a less comfortable living space.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| I drove a euro-spec Mercedes cab over truck (complete with
| the glass that turns to dust if something like a rock, a pipe
| or pieces of an IED goes through it) when I was a civilian
| contractor overseas and they are pretty tiny compared to the
| full sleepers we have over here.
| CRConrad wrote:
| > I drove a euro-spec Mercedes cab over truck (complete
| with the glass that turns to dust if something like a rock,
| a pipe or pieces of an IED goes through it) when I was a
| civilian contractor overseas and they are pretty tiny
| compared to the full sleepers we have over here.
|
| Oh, so a 1960s vehicle? I'm fairly sure lorries in Europe
| have had laminated windscreens since about the 1970s.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| The lamination keeps the whole thing from coming apart
| but the actual glass just breaks up into a bajillion
| little pieces making wearing eye protection a necessity.
|
| It doesn't all turn into powder though, think it has to
| do with the velocity of the penetrating object. A piece
| of shrapnel moving fast enough to put a nice mark in a
| Kevlar helmet leaves a little hole while a rock thrown
| into it makes it a big floppy mess. The pipe was kind of
| in the middle but I think that's because it bounced off
| one of the ballistic plates I had on the dashboard
| instead of going straight through.
|
| Before they put metal mesh screens over the windshield we
| were going through a lot of them so I'm pretty familiar
| with how euro-glass reacts to traumatic impacts.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Car windows in the US don't do this? Even my old Golf 2's
| windshield broke like this when I totaled it.
| circlefavshape wrote:
| An IED? As in an Improvised Explosive Device? I suspect
| you're not comparing like with like here
| stephen_g wrote:
| Surely there's a huge amount of in-city trucking that doesn't
| need a lot of "living space" for drivers? Such as trips from
| a regional distribution centre on the outskirts of a city to
| supermarkets within it? Obviously the distribution centre
| would be stocked from further out by larger trucks (or in an
| ideal world, by rail freight).
| dybber wrote:
| In Europe most drivers working with urban delivery will just
| go home in their own beds after work.
| maeln wrote:
| Yes. Not everywhere, not all the time, but a lot of
| logistic companies have their platform on the outskirt of
| major metropolis where the trucks are parked and emptied.
| Then delivery within the city is handle via van.
| CRConrad wrote:
| With the limiting factor of lorries ("trucks") in most
| jurisdictions being length, one would think the cab-over
| design lets you put a _bigger_ sleeping cabin behind the
| driving space than the long-nose one.
|
| Also, it's hard to see why you'd need much more than https://
| www.moodyinternational.co.uk/truck/scania-r580-topli... or
| https://www.ropasign.nl/Projecten/versteijnen-trucks-
| volvo-g... for a truck to do urban distribution work with. I
| mean, this https://www.smart-trucking.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2018/02/Cu... monstrosity (from
| https://www.smart-trucking.com/big-truck-sleepers/ ), one of
| the few pics where you see the trailer, seems to have about
| one yard of engine + driver's cabin + sleeper for every two
| yards of trailer. Humongously inefficient. Not to mention
| these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct4fm__9HDg . Tell us,
| what's the use of clogging up inner-city streets with ten
| yards of truck-driver's McMansion for every truckload of
| stuff being delivered to downtown shops?
| rascul wrote:
| Those big sleepers can do a lot for the quality of life for
| the long haul drivers. Part of the reason the trucks with
| big sleepers are in town is because it's not often cost or
| time effective to drop the trailer at the edge and let a
| day cab bring it to the final destination. I imagine this
| could potentially change, though.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > but it would be bad for the quality of life of a lot of
| truck drivers
|
| > For the US, Norden plans to follow a similar strategy,
| starting with a Class 7 variant (equivalent to the 16-ton EU
| model), with smaller Classes 5 and 6 variants following.
|
| It is not a replacement for a 53' trucks. RTFA?
| WilTimSon wrote:
| I was worried it'd be about that Tesla Cybertruck but was
| pleasantly surprised as well. The added visibility is genuinely
| smart design that will, hopefully, save lives. Not sure how
| viable these could be for long hauls but if they're for city
| use only, I'm very excited.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| That looks like a converted bus cab.
| orangepurple wrote:
| How will the spike in global lithium prices affect the ability of
| these vehicle manufacturers to deliver their cars and trucks?
| jrockway wrote:
| I'm looking forward to electric vehicles made by Ampere, Farad,
| and Ohm in the near future.
| smilespray wrote:
| And for vehicle size, you can choose between milli, kilo and
| mega.
| LeonM wrote:
| In the Netherlands we have a class of vehicles intended for
| people with a disability that would prevents them from being
| allowed to drive a 'real' car. These are very small 2-seater
| cars, limited to 45km/h.
|
| Ironically, one of the most popular models of these small
| 45km/h cars is the "Mega" build by Aixam.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aixam
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I'm excited for the Tesla Semi as well, which also has the
| central driving position and lots of cameras for better
| situational awareness.
|
| It's more aerodynamic than the European style buses, so more
| optimized for travel between cities than inside cities, though.
|
| (Electric trucks in dense cities is already a slam dunk without
| any extreme battery tech or weight reduction, though. It's
| longer duration travel that battery electric needs the efforts
| like Tesla to prove it's feasible. Affordable, 500 mile range,
| less than 1 hour quick charge, no real reduction in payload,
| etc. That will prove electrification of even heavy long range
| trucks is doable, one of the last bastions of skepticism of
| electrification of land transport.)
| ragebol wrote:
| Opel Ampera: https://ev-database.org/car/1051/Opel-Ampera-e
|
| Faraday Future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Future
|
| I guess there's some resistance against using the name Ohm,
| haven't heard of an electric car with a name inspired on that.
| moffkalast wrote:
| > Price EUR42,990
|
| For a tiny car like that? Absolute insanity. Comes gold
| plated I take it?
| robin_reala wrote:
| Slightly surprised that Ford didn't start a range of electric
| cars called Henrys. Missed opportunity.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Their competition would just coloumble away.
| unwind wrote:
| Yes, one wonders what impedes this good naming choice.
|
| In other words, I see what you did there, and I greatly
| respect you for it.
| ragebol wrote:
| Maybe the name doesn't induce a positive feeling in people?
| [deleted]
| samatman wrote:
| Personally I'm holding out for the Lamborghini Galvani.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-09 23:02 UTC)