[HN Gopher] Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestri...
___________________________________________________________________
Higher vehicle hoods significantly increase pedestrian deaths,
study finds
Author : pseudolus
Score : 209 points
Date : 2024-01-23 17:54 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Interestingly, agricultural tractors have evolved to have
| _better_ sightlines. Could that be because for these machines,
| the pedestrian deaths are usually members of the tractor drivers
| ' family?
|
| https://www.profi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/06/2...
|
| vs
|
| https://bigiron.blob.core.windows.net/public/items/72b53c753...
| porphyra wrote:
| Children keep getting killed by their own parents' SUVs
| though...
| mtoner23 wrote:
| Some SUVs even have front cameras now to help see children
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Mine also has cameras and radars on the sides. Makes
| parking easier and backing out safer. The radars can see
| speeding cars in the parking lot before I can. :)
| Swizec wrote:
| > Could that be because for these machines, the pedestrian
| deaths are usually members of the tractor drivers' family
|
| I have a different guess after seeing tractors in use as a kid:
| Driving tractors is a high precision affair. You're moving
| around expensive equipment that you don't want to bump. You're
| plowing next to all sorts of hazards you don't want to fall
| into. You have to park within an inch of attachments before
| hooking them on.
|
| Good sight lines help with all this.
| riversflow wrote:
| Also, tractors are built to do work, not keep their occupants
| safe in a crash.
| trgn wrote:
| > not keep their occupants safe in a crash.
|
| perfect expression of the tragedy of the commons. Until
| there's top down government intervention, people choose to
| be either part of the problem or part of the solution.
| NikkiA wrote:
| Not totally true, tractors gained roll bars and roll cages
| 40 or so years ago for a reason, and it was safety.
| alan-hn wrote:
| One could say that navigating a large vehicle through streets
| populated by humans should be considered a high precision
| affair, or is the difference expensive equipment vs human
| lives?
| Swizec wrote:
| > is the difference expensive equipment vs human lives?
|
| The difference is in safety margins. You really shouldn't
| drive a vehicle to within 2cm of any object on public
| streets. Not even while parking. 0.5m (2ft) is about the
| closest you should ever drive your car to anything really.
|
| Whereas for a tractor getting within 2cm is normal
| operating procedure. You won't be able to grab a 500kg
| (1100lb) attachment and drag it over to your tractor
| because you stopped too far away.
| u32480932048 wrote:
| > Not even while parking. 0.5m (2ft) is about the closest
| you should ever drive your car to anything really.
|
| I've lived in several US states and the law has always
| been to park less than a foot from the curb.
| axus wrote:
| I try not to get within 6 feet of a human in my car, let
| alone 6 inches.
| alan-hn wrote:
| It can be difficult to manage when you can't see them
| over your hood
| trgn wrote:
| One of the reason I'm holding on to an old car, apart from out
| of spite, is the big windows and fantastic visibility. It's
| like stepping into a sunroom compared to new cars.
| kube-system wrote:
| Agricultural tractors aren't made with any consideration for
| pedestrian safety. The reason they have good visibility is
| because that makes them easier to use, and there is no other
| competing reason not to surround the driver with a lot of
| glass.
|
| Passenger vehicles have other requirements that complicate
| this:
|
| 1. They must be attractive enough to sell in volume to the end
| buyer
|
| 2. They require large A-pillars to absorb crash impacts
|
| You could make an SUV that looks big fish bowl, but it would be
| difficult to simultaneously achieve safety targets and be a
| commercial success.
| matsemann wrote:
| London has enforced a Direct Vision Standard [1 example image]
| for big vehicles. I hope my city will soon as well. Having
| large trucks, trailers etc. in the city with no visibility to
| pedestrians is a death trap.
|
| My city's new trash truck [2]. Instead of the standard "high"
| trailer seating above the engine, it's now down on a pedestrian
| level and can see clearly in what's normally a "blind spot"
| when turning right.
|
| [1]: https://fncdn.blob.core.windows.net/web-
| clean/1/root/direct-... [2]:
| https://storage.googleapis.com/smallstep/sites/33/2022/02/Re...
| astrolx wrote:
| No sh*t sherlock!
|
| As a pedestrian who found himself on the receiving end of a hood
| and survived via a last-second jump to end up on top of the said
| hood, I certainly concur.
| porphyra wrote:
| Vans are a lot better for both transporting people (more spacious
| compared to SUVs) and goods (easier loading and protected from
| the weather compared to pickups), plus of course having vastly
| better visibility. It always seems odd how trucks and SUVs are
| seen as status symbols in the US whereas in, say, Hong Kong, it
| is the MPV that is the status symbol. I suppose certain tax and
| emissions regulations in favor of trucks also contribute to their
| popularity.
| RangerScience wrote:
| AFAIK, exactly this - something about how trucks and SUVs are
| classified differently and so have different emission
| standards, which results in other effects that are then
| appealing to consumers.
|
| Plus, of course, marketing.
| riversflow wrote:
| Vans are not better for goods as a universal rule, they are
| better for certain classes of goods. I do not want a yard of
| manure/dirt/gravel dumped in my van, but thats a common use of
| a pickup in my neck of the woods. Like extremely common.
|
| > Hong Kong
|
| Hot take: The Americas just aren't developed to the level of
| Eurasia, and we should stop pretending like they are.
| mlinhares wrote:
| I think this is an incentives game, Americans have much more
| land and money to pay for expensive development (like
| suburbs) that just do not make financial sense in the EU or
| Asia in general, as they either lack land or it would be too
| expensive to pay for the infrastructure needed to make it all
| work.
|
| I also haven't met an American that has been to a high
| quality of life and walkable city in the EU and didn't come
| back with a changed perspective on what life could be like.
| Once you visit places like London, Paris, Barcelona, Berlin,
| Amsterdam and the like and stay there for a while you rethink
| the suburban life.
|
| I'm in the burbs because having small kids in big US cities
| is super shitty and expensive but as soon as they get older
| the goal is to find a nice city to move to. Either here or in
| Europe.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > I also haven't met an American that has been to a high
| quality of life and walkable city in the EU and didn't come
| back with a changed perspective on what life could be like.
| Once you visit places like London, Paris, Barcelona,
| Berlin, Amsterdam and the like and stay there for a while
| you rethink the suburban life.
|
| Then you haven't met enough people. Lots of Americans, like
| me, visit those cities, enjoy our visit, and come back
| happy to live in suburbia with our big homes and yards.
| Those cities are great to visit, but I wouldn't want to try
| to raise a family there.
| toast0 wrote:
| Suburbia is expensive in some ways, but suburbs are often
| built as a less expensive place to live or at least less
| expensive for a given size. Of course, it's often hard to
| find a studio apartment in the suburbs and it's hard to
| find a single story detached home in the city, so it's
| comparing different kinds of apples; they're comparable but
| not fungible.
|
| I had a very nice visit to Paris and London for business
| many years ago. And I tried to get my boss to transfer me
| to the Paris office. But I moved from the suburbs to a
| ruralish community where I can live on a 9 acre wooded lot
| where I know my neighbors but rarely hear them.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Can't even buy the MPV in the US anymore...
| toast0 wrote:
| Vans tend to have pretty good visibility, but not compared to a
| single cab truck.
|
| Loading into a van can be easier or harder depending on the
| goods. Larger items are easier into a truck, IMHO, since you
| don't have to rearrange or remove the seating, and don't have
| to negotiate door openings, and sometimes it's useful to get
| help over the sides of the bed. Lower typical height of van
| floors can be helpful though. Pickup beds tend to have more and
| better tiedown points, too.
|
| I have a pickup and a van, and a c-max, and I would most likely
| give up the c-max first; especially if either or both the van
| and the pickup had reasonable fuel efficiency.
| baggachipz wrote:
| Yeah but the drivers get to cosplay as Rugged Men(tm).
|
| The only thing that'll reverse the trend and stop this from
| getting worse will be government regulation. Then come the cries
| of "Now they're taking our trucks!"
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Every time I see someone behind the wheel of the absolute
| largest SUV a company offers, it's a small woman. Even as far
| back when SUVs first became a thing, I noticed that the
| smallest moms at school at the biggest SUVs.
|
| They love the "might" that a huge vehicle gives them.
| beretguy wrote:
| So... Rugged Women(tm), then.
| practicemaths wrote:
| TBF Trucks and SUVs are relatively easier to drive in certain
| regards.
|
| Such as being able to see over parked traffic when making a
| turn.
|
| And I've found driving taller vehicles more comfortable for
| my back coincidentally.
| arwhatever wrote:
| Until the parked vehicles also become taller
| mecsred wrote:
| When you become the parked traffic, how does anyone see
| over you? Guess they need an even taller vehicle.
| practicemaths wrote:
| Yup. There's certainly a feedback loop.
|
| Just stating things that make these larger vehicles more
| easier to drive, especially for women whom on average are
| generally shorter so, even with pumping the seat up it's
| still considerably harder to see around traffic.
| mecsred wrote:
| I definitely get it. My girlfriend drives an SUV and I'd
| be lying if I said I never felt glad about that the way
| drivers and roads are out here. She's also been in an
| accident (with minimal injuries miraculously) where an
| SUV wrecked her E-bike in a pedestrian crossing because
| it "couldn't see" her.
|
| I find it important to continually bring up the fact that
| it can be different. More public transit and bike paths.
| If I we could take bikes around the city without worrying
| about being killed or having them stolen it would be a
| dream.
| pokerface_86 wrote:
| in no world does having a higher center of gravity, and
| much higher mass make a car easier to drive. i find them
| painful to drive because i feel so unstable and slow.
| seabird wrote:
| Your average American driver has no understanding of this
| and never will. There's a reason the goofball in the
| Tahoe XL that takes every corner at 5mph is fine with
| going 90mph on the highway; they truly have zero idea on
| how to assess the handling of a vehicle.
| 7e wrote:
| If you're short, you prefer a vehicle which elevates your
| view.
| dingnuts wrote:
| it's because they are mothers with >2 children. You cannot
| fit three car seats in the backseat of modern sedans, and
| station wagons don't meet the emissions requirements.
|
| Large SUVs meet CAFE regulations by being large enough to be
| regulated as a different class of vehicle. Want smaller
| trucks? Complain to your Congresscritter to reign in the EPA
| and force them to write better regulation that does not have
| these unintended effects.
| trgn wrote:
| All true, also sad. That aside, how's the EPA responsible,
| not sure if I understand the connection?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Trucks (and SUVs) don't follow the same emissions
| regulations as sedans/wagons.
|
| I don't know if that's just EPA policy or part of the
| legislation that allows them to regulate auto emissions.
|
| But, it's also Congress's fault for leaving the chicken
| tax in place (25% tariff on imported trucks/vans). This
| essentially allowed domestic brands to price gouge on
| trucks/suvs (as VW at the time, and then the Japanese
| brands as well) couldn't compete.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Toyota has plants in the US; I assume they make the
| Tacoma in the US, which should avoid the chicken tax?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Correct. The Tacoma and Tundra are assembled in the US so
| should avoid the tax. The Land Cruiser is still produced
| in Japan, so subject to the tax. Same for the Lexus GX
| (no Toyota equiv in US) and LX (rebadged Land Cruiser).
|
| The old mini-truck and T100 were made in Japan (except
| maybe a year or two at the end of T100 production).
|
| The tax was implemented in the 60s or 70s, as VW was
| trying to get into the van and truck market in the US.
| alistairSH wrote:
| There are WAY more trucks/SUVs out there than 3-child
| households.
|
| And I'm not sure what you mean by "wagons don't meet
| emissions requirements" - wagons would meet the same
| regulations as sedans.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Wagons are heavier and less aerodynamic than sedans. When
| coupled with the same engine they are less fuel efficient
| (compare the E450 sedan to wagon). The fact that they are
| heavier and sell poorly means they will only usually be
| available with the large(r,st) engine (no E350 wagon in
| the US).
|
| Note that I used the Mercedes because it's the only non-
| compact wagon I'm aware of for sale in the US.
| markdoubleyou wrote:
| There's also the Audi RS6 Avant, a good option for anyone
| interested in spending $160K on a station wagon with 621
| horsepower.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Oh, that beats out the AMG E-series wagon by 18 HP!
| alistairSH wrote:
| That's fair, but the wagon should still outperform an
| equivalent cross-over in just about any measure.
|
| What I don't know is where the line is between car-based
| cross-over and actual truck (as it related to emissions
| and safety standards).
| aidenn0 wrote:
| There's an envelope, rather than a single line, but one
| line that makes up that envelope is AWD, such that some
| models without optional AWD are cars, but trucks with
| optional AWD
| jewayne wrote:
| I love how everybody here who mentions the CAFE regulations
| neglects to mention that they were a gift to the
| automakers.
| nytesky wrote:
| I fit 3 diono car seats across my Honda Fit.
|
| Most aren't even using the 3rd row for seating.
|
| Now a wagon or SUV is good for carpooling, but a minivan
| obv would be best.
| trgn wrote:
| All true.
|
| _everybody_ drives huge SUVs. A few rugged men(TM) driving a
| large truck isn't the problem, they're couleur locale. It'd
| be adorable, like people wearing cowboy hats in Texas.
|
| The web of interwoven incentive structures - reptile brains,
| cafe standards, cheap gas, safety arms race, ... - pushing
| _everybody_ towards larger vehicles is the problem. System
| and id are completely misaligned, killing thousands in the
| process.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| > _everybody_ drives huge SUVs. A few rugged men(TM)
| driving a large truck isn't the problem, they're couleur
| locale. It'd be adorable, like people wearing cowboy hats
| in Texas.
|
| Roughly 18% of the light vehicles sold in the US in 2023
| were pickup trucks. The top 3 selling models in the US were
| pickup trucks. Yes there were about 3x as many SUVs sold[1]
| as pickups, but pickups aren't nothing.
|
| 1: I partitioned the "light truck" class into just pickups
| and SUVs; 78% of cars sold in 2023 were classified as
| "light trucks" per [2]; I got the 18% figure for pickups by
| totaling the sales of the 8 most popular pickup models by
| hand and dividing by 14.9M
|
| 2: https://carsurance.net/insights/car-sales-statistics/
| filoleg wrote:
| God, this is pretty much my mother.
|
| She couldn't care any less about "ruggedness" or that "tough
| guy" image. Her only argument ever is "safety."
|
| I am not in it to change her mind. But whenever she brings
| this topic up and I show her the actual safety ratings for
| different vehicles, it's almost as if her brain shuts down.
| She would say something along the lines "uh oh idk, maybe,
| who knows, it doesn't feel as safe," and the whole thing gets
| forgotten. Right until she decides to bring it up again from
| scratch at some point later, as if our previous conversations
| about it never happened.
|
| Lowkey, I think it would be an interesting idea to mandate
| displaying brightly colored safety ratings for every car on
| display at a dealership. No need to overcomplicate it by
| showing the entire stat sheet with a bajillion different
| numbers. Just one giant number for the overall rating, and
| about 4-5 subcategory numbers (e.g., driver safety score,
| passenger safety score, etc.). I think 1-2 of those metrics
| should be "the safety sub-category on which our car scored
| the worst."
|
| My only worry about this is that the metrics themselves
| become the target goal, leading to either car manufacturers
| influencing safety rating boards or them maliciously
| complying by gaming the metrics just for those measured
| categories at the expense of everything else. Though the
| latter isn't as much of a concern, given that it is pretty
| difficult to accomplish, and it would still have a large
| negative effect on the overall score.
| matsemann wrote:
| Every year, loads of kids die because a family member runs
| over them by accident in the driveway, a parking lot etc.
| With these huge cars, you don't properly see around them,
| and 360 cameras and sensors will not make up for all of
| that.
|
| So yeah, "safety".
| filoleg wrote:
| A lot of those car manufacturers just don't care, and it
| isn't exclusive to large cars either (though the damage
| they can do is obviously much higher, making them more
| dangerous to pedestrians).
|
| I like sports cars, so I tried test driving a Camaro
| about 5 years ago. You would think that visibility on a
| rather small and fast 2-seater would be at least better
| than on an average SUV.
|
| It was singularly the worst car I've ever driven in terms
| of visibility, compared to even most SUVs. Not even
| joking, it feels like driving a military tank, but just
| faster and smaller, with the field of view being
| extremely reminiscent of seeing the road through a thin
| horizontal slit. It's not like it got worse over time
| either, because I remember the 2013 version was at least
| just as awful. Way to ruin a fine car with that tank-slit
| visibility.
|
| This specific case didn't even have anything inherently
| to do with the type or size of the car (unlike with some
| giant trucks), so it made me extremely mad. It was quite
| literally for nothing.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > whenever she brings this topic up and I show her the
| actual safety ratings for different vehicles, it's almost
| as if her brain shuts down
|
| The NHTSA safety ratings come with the following notation:
|
| "Note: A vehicle's rating, or Overall Vehicle Score, can be
| compared with other vehicles of similar size and weight"
|
| She may be, whether knowingly or not, interpreting the data
| offered more in-line with the guidance provided with the
| data.
| drewcoo wrote:
| > Every time I see someone behind the wheel of the absolute
| largest SUV a company offers, it's a small woman
|
| With tiny dogs. Maybe they're the preferred vehicle of tiny
| dogs.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Please don't ignore that every other person also has moved from
| driving cars to crossovers that offer no actual advantages over
| a regular car. Most people want to sit high, and that's what
| sells crossovers. The hoods are higher in them too and we can't
| discount this and blame it all on big trucks.
| closewith wrote:
| Ease of entry alone, especially for the elderly or with young
| children, is an incredible advantage.
|
| What it sounds like is that crossovers don't offer advantages
| that appeal to you.
| olyjohn wrote:
| My grandma has a minivan. It's way better than a crossover
| for ease of getting into. The floor height is nice and low
| so she doesn't have to step way up into it. The roof height
| is high so she doesn't have to scrunch in. It's easier to
| strap in car seats, it's easier to load your kids into.
| It's not a marketing joke like crossovers are.
|
| What it sounds like, is that you didn't actually shop very
| hard for the right vehicle that actually has those
| advantages.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _that offer no actual advantages over a regular car. Most
| people want to sit high_
|
| Isn't that the advantage? In a world where SUV's and trucks
| are more popular than sedans, sitting higher gives a sight
| advantage (and probably safety advantage in a side collision
| with one of those high cars). I drive a midsized sedan most
| of the time, but when I drive the RV (which has a higher
| seating position than many SUV's), I love the extra forward
| visibility, instead being at tailgate level, I can see
| through the back window of the truck/SUV in front of me.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Seating height doesn't help you see over cars when
| everybody else is also in a crossover at the same height as
| you.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| But it helps you see car brake lights ahead through the
| back window of the SUV in front of you
| sokoloff wrote:
| As compared to a lower car, it absolutely helps. (I used
| to drive a lowered Alfa Romeo Spider. Sometimes I could
| see traffic better underneath the lifted trucks in front
| of me...)
|
| I can't control what cars other people buy and drive. I
| can control what I buy and drive.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| You can also look at things that are not cars, for
| example the road.
| autoexec wrote:
| That's just led to an arms race where nobody wins.
| Everybody wants to get higher and higher to get a less
| obstructive view. Restricting the height of cars would at
| least put a cap on the escalation while a push for smaller
| cars would make it less of a problem for everyone over
| time.
| somerandomqaguy wrote:
| ...what?
|
| If you've got back, hip, knee, or ankle problems, then trying
| to bend down into a low car is an undignified exercise at
| best, a struggle at worst. A CUV doesn't have that problem,
| you just sit into it like a chair.
|
| For a family with young children, securing child seats into a
| CUV involves a lot less bending over then in lower car. Bear
| in mind that many child seats are 40 lbs.
|
| If you live in a snowy area, the greater ground clearance
| makes it less likely to get stuck in residential roads that
| are lower priority for snow removal. You also have better
| approach angles as well, which can become a concern if you
| live in an area that's very hilly with steep driveways.
|
| You probably don't see advantages, and that's fine. But that
| doesn't mean they don't exist.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| Maybe this is the way. We should run ad campaigns
| emphasizing that large, high vehicles are for the
| physically infirm. Make them as sexy as walkers with toilet
| seats. Show images of doddering old people getting into
| them.
| silisili wrote:
| First thing I thought of. I had to move from a sedans to
| crossover/small SUV when my knees couldn't take getting in
| and out anymore.
|
| I'm sure that's not the case for everyone, or even most
| people, but who am I to gatekeep.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Minivan. You can get a minivan that has more room than a
| crossover, lower load height so that you hurt even less
| getting in, and you have more headroom to get car seats in
| and out. They're far superior in every way. But everybody
| quit buying them because of some "uncool" factor. It's
| stupid.
|
| The ground clearance on most crossovers is a joke. I have
| to point out how my Lotus Elise has 6 inches of ground
| clearance, and most CUVs have maybe an inch more than that.
| They have low-hanging diffs that hang up, and no recovery
| points for when you do get stuck. They're still the same
| car, barely jacked up. They look higher, but they aren't
| that much higher. Your one inch of extra clearance isn't
| saving you. The black plastic fenders don't make it rugged
| or capable. Most are just FWD, and the ones that are AWD
| just overheat and burn out the transfer case.
|
| I live in a rural area, in the mountains, with lots of
| steep hills. My long ass driveway doesn't get plowed, my
| street is extremely low priority for plowing, never had
| problems getting around with 2wd cars. You sound like my
| neighbors who keep saying that I need a big 4wd truck to
| live out here. People just keep making these excuses to buy
| bigger cars that sit higher, without actually evaluating if
| these vehicles actually have the things they're marketed to
| be able to do.
| sickofparadox wrote:
| It's government regulations that made trucks get this big, most
| people simply buy what is available in the form factor they
| like. Trucks are the most popular form factor in the United
| States (with pickups a close second)[1], and the manufacturers
| keep making the cars bigger because of the poorly written CAFE
| laws[2]. I, and I suspect most Americans with pickups, would
| prefer to purchase one the size of a '90s F-150 as compared to
| the monsters of today but manufacturers can't or won't sell me
| one. Making up some macho strawman to attack actually
| obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more
| difficult.
|
| [1] https://www.motortrend.com/features/car-types-models-body-
| st....
|
| [2]https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-
| ar...
| closewith wrote:
| Does anyone call an SUV a truck? Surely pickups are trucks.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Some SUVs qualify as trucks under the definitions written
| into the law.
| skyyler wrote:
| According to chrysler, the PT Cruiser was a "light truck".
|
| I do think it's common for people to call large SUVs like
| the Ford Excursion "trucks".
| el_benhameen wrote:
| My wife is from the Midwest, and on visits there I've
| regularly heard people refer to suburbans/explorers/etc. as
| "trucks". Essentially the same platform, but with an
| enclosed rear with seats.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| If you see enough pickup trucks with bed caps you'll start
| to just view SUVs as those
| jewayne wrote:
| > _Making up some macho strawman to attack actually
| obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more
| difficult._
|
| Blaming the government for getting captured by industry also
| obfuscates the problem and makes discussing solutions more
| difficult. The current (grotesque) CAFE standards went in
| during the last months of the Bush administration, as a gift
| to the automakers.
| sickofparadox wrote:
| At the end of the day, the government makes the laws -
| regardless of any influences upon it. I think we both want
| the laws to change, we just disagree about what changes are
| needed. I encourage you to call your representatives, as I
| have done.
| autoexec wrote:
| It also looks like the solution to the problem isn't to get
| rid of the regulations, but to change them so that light
| trucks and giant cars no longer get a break on
| emissions/fuel economy standards. Revised regulations that
| incentive smaller cars would solve a lot of problems.
| stcredzero wrote:
| _It 's government regulations that made trucks get this big,
| most people simply buy what is available in the form factor
| they like._
|
| Lots of Americans want smaller trucks. I just saw a Netflix
| show where a main character prized his old Toyota pickup.
| This is also evidenced in the importation of Japanese "K-car"
| trucks.
| sickofparadox wrote:
| >Lots of Americans want smaller trucks
|
| I agree! I believe I said similar in my above comment. I'm
| looking into getting one myself, though I'm apprehensive
| about purchasing a car built in 99 without being able to
| test drive or inspect it.
| cameldrv wrote:
| You can still get something like a 90s F-150, but it's now
| called a midsize truck. The main difference is that the bed
| will be smaller and the interior will be larger. There are
| even some smaller unibody trucks like the Maverick coming on
| the market.
|
| What you can't seem to get is something like a first
| generation Tacoma or 90s S-10 without 4WD that's low to the
| ground. All of the newer trucks have very high bed sides that
| make loading them from the side a huge pain even if you're
| tall.
| sickofparadox wrote:
| They're a step in the right direction for certain, I have
| what would now be a mid-size pickup myself, but even the
| Ford Mavericks are pretty big compared to these 90s cars.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > It's government regulations that made trucks get this big
|
| This is presented incredibly dishonestly in this context.
| It's well understood that automakers had their grubby little
| hands all over emissions regulations in the late Bush admin.
| They spent oodles of cash, tons of lobbyist time, and BEGGED
| for the exclusions for trucks that made complete sense at the
| time for TRUCKS, as in, pickup trucks used by laborers that
| needed the power and relaxed emissions standards that they
| asked for. And then, once that was done, set about changing
| 2/3 of their sales into trucks, so they could continue
| selling ever larger vehicles at ever higher prices with ever
| worse fuel economy.
|
| > most people simply buy what is available in the form factor
| they like. Trucks are the most popular form factor in the
| United States (with pickups a close second)[1]
|
| Which is directly traceable to substantial and aggressive
| marketing pushes by the American auto industry to shove
| trucks and SUV's down American's throats, because they could
| sell them for higher prices than the vans and station wagons
| that were already popular at the time.
|
| And even now, the solution proposed for all the issues these
| oversized stupid machines cause, is more sensors, more
| cameras, more safety features that, OH WOW, they get to
| charge more money for! No way!
|
| > and the manufacturers keep making the cars bigger because
| of the poorly written CAFE laws[2].
|
| Again, the way this is framed posits that the CAFE standards
| were flawed output by the legislators themselves, and not the
| result of back and forth negotiations with the auto industry
| for decades prior.
|
| > I, and I suspect most Americans with pickups, would prefer
| to purchase one the size of a '90s F-150 as compared to the
| monsters of today but manufacturers can't or won't sell me
| one.
|
| Except now after decades of this shit, even if you can find a
| smaller vehicle, many consumers have (correctly) identified
| that their neighbors are driving suburban panzers, and not
| having one yourself puts you and yours at an elevated risk in
| a collision. Tons of people have reasonably sized vehicles in
| this country, and if you get t-boned by some jack-off in a
| lifted F-350 driving one, there is a not-insubstantial chance
| you're going to die, because those vehicles are not designed
| with safety in mind: they are designed to appeal to a
| marketing demographic that has been created: the modern man
| seeking to reclaim his masculinity because his accounting job
| doesn't let him imagine himself a hunter seeking the mammoth
| well enough, or whatever the fuck.
|
| > Making up some macho strawman to attack actually obfuscates
| the problem and makes discussing solutions more difficult.
|
| It isn't making up strawmen, it's _pointing to a strawman_
| manufactured by the auto industry that needs to be burned.
| The ONLY reason all these stupid machines are out driving
| today is because we as a society permit it. That can be
| changed. We are allowed to simply say that if you cannot
| demonstrate competence to handle a vehicle of this size, you
| do not get to drive one, end of discussion. It 's not like we
| haven't had multiple classes of drivers licenses since
| basically the inception of drivers' licenses for _this exact
| reason:_ because handling a 55 foot LTL truck is harder than
| handling a Honda Civic.
|
| This is a _cultural issue_ as much as it is a political one.
| You can 't just not take into account the long-term and well
| documented history of the auto industry and it's involvement
| here, any more than you can not take into account the
| documented history of the NRA/gun manufacturers with regard
| to our gun problem.
| B56b wrote:
| With the ubiquity of SUVs at this point I can't imagine
| that many of them are being sold to men wanting to feel
| more "Rugged". I would think the vast majority are bought
| by those who want the additional space and safety of these
| cars, like families. It's going to be very difficult to
| convince consumers to drive cars smaller cars they see as
| less safe without some significant costs imposed on larger
| cars.
| njarboe wrote:
| Trucks have a 25% import tax in the US and cars don't since the
| 1960. US domestic vehicle manufacturers have spent many decades
| to convince people to buy trucks and SUVs because of this fact.
| Google "chicken tax". Large station wagons used to be quite
| popular in the 1960's
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| It's not just because of this fact. It's also because trucks
| and SUVs are exempted from fuel efficiency standards that
| apply to sedans. So out sedans go, Ford doesn't even bother
| with them at all anymore.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/04/07/trucks-
| ou...
| hipadev23 wrote:
| Government regulation is what forced manufacturers to make
| bigger vehicles.
| jewayne wrote:
| But who asked for the government regulations? Perhaps the
| manufacturers themselves?
|
| Edit: Yeah, it was the manufacturers.
| infecto wrote:
| While I do believe people often buy trucks for the looks and
| emotional feeling, I equally feel that your projection itself
| is just as dangerous as the idea behind it.
| stcredzero wrote:
| Yeah, contemptuously painting a diverse group of people with
| a broad brush as pernicious -- History has something to say
| about this mental move.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I have a hard time believing that truck drivers are a
| diverse group of people when they're really only popular in
| a single region of the world.
| rhuru wrote:
| In the top 10 most sold vehicles in USA 8-9 are trucks if
| I remember correctly. Ford F150 and Chevy Silvardo are
| typically number 1 and 2 consistently for decades. At
| that scale everything is likely to be diverse.
|
| For the soyboys drinking their vegan milk and driving
| their lime bike to pride parade, it might come as a
| surprise, but it in indeed is. (<= This is an attempt to
| show that how any group can be dangerously maligned)
| baggachipz wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
| havefunbesafe wrote:
| The only way to reverse the trend is to create a motocross
| hitch that doesn't pulverize the suspension of a car/crossover.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| You think it's all dudes driving these things though? Surely
| yeah, that's the case for big stupid pickup trucks. But SUVs
| are driven by anxious Starbucks moms. "I need to feel safe."
| Hausfrauenpanzeren.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Better their trucks than my family members.
| rhuru wrote:
| Common sense is the first casualty when any topic has political
| bias to it. This comment demonstrates that.
|
| Large vehicles are important part of American economy and
| mostly driven by blue collar workers doing their work. For
| example things like plumbing, construction site work etc. Now a
| days environment scientists and engineers too drive these large
| vehicles as they are very important for their day to day work.
| Not everyone can drive Tesla Model 3 everywhere.
|
| In fact majority of those large vehicles are you see are mostly
| driven by such needs ( pun intended).
|
| But the research on this topic itself is pretty shoddy. For
| example one has to look at other variables. Who was driving
| when the accident happened ? Chances are someone who was
| rushing to his work.
|
| A lot of other data points out that the drivers are at fault
| are often poor people going to their work in their work
| vehicle. Another data is he victims too are poor people going
| to their work and disregarding basic pedestrian safety.
|
| These are not men pretending to be rugged.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| > Large vehicles are important part of American economy and
| mostly driven by blue collar workers doing their work
|
| Aaaaaaaabsolutely not! Trucks outnumber cars in every U.S.
| state. "Blue Collar" workers represent something like 16% of
| the U.S. workforce. The vast majority of truck drivers are
| not blue collar workers.
|
| Other countries have blue collar workers too. And trucks!
| Have you seen what they look like? Check this bad-boy out.
| This is peak performance when it comes to manly-man workin'
| trucks. [1]
|
| [1] https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2FA3BTR/a-small-blue-pickup-
| utilit...
| somedude895 wrote:
| Did we really need a study for this? What's next? A study to find
| out whether a hammer to the head or torso is more lethal than a
| hammer to the legs? What a total racket to spend money on
| something like this.
| anotherhue wrote:
| You may enjoy
|
| "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping
| from aircraft: randomized controlled trial"
|
| https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
| SECProto wrote:
| If one wanted to make a regulation regarding hood height,
| having a study like this as evidence would be critically
| important. Gut instinct alone wouldn't suffice
| tempestn wrote:
| First, things that are obvious aren't always correct. It's
| better to rely on actual data than intuition alone. Second, the
| study not only gives the qualitative result that higher hoods
| are more dangerous, but also begins to quantify the effect, and
| can give an idea of the specific height at which the pedestrian
| danger begins to spike.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| I'll take your question seriously. Why do people do studies
| like this when the answer seems obvious?
|
| (1) It quantifies the seriousness of the problem. Does it
| increase the chance of death or significant injury by 1%, 10%,
| 50%? Without reading the article, what is the "obvious" answer
| to that question?
|
| (2) People believe many "obvious" things that aren't true. They
| are trivial to find simply by finding two groups with opposite
| beliefs on a subject and both think their conclusions are
| obvious. Eg, did the COVID-19 vaccines reduce or increase death
| rates? It seems obvious to me that it was a great benefit, but
| there are people going on TV claiming the vaccines killed
| millions of people.
|
| (3) Even in areas that aren't contentious, there are many
| widely believed but untested assumptions. If someone didn't
| spend the time and effort to validate those things, we might
| never find what is really true. 50 years ago it was
| unquestioned that stress is what causes ulcers. Almost nobody
| questioned that except for the one guy who did the experiment
| that proved it was bacterial in origin. Had his result been
| negative, you'd be here to mock him.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| You need a study because otherwise people keep posting links to
| youtube videos claiming that hood heights aren't that dangerous
| and it's actually less lethal because pedestrians are less
| likely to hit the windshield with their head.
| chowells wrote:
| Hood heights that are too low are also shown to cause more
| injuries. In fact, there would seem to be an optimal range.
| Studies seem like a great way to find out what that range is in
| practice.
| jewayne wrote:
| But remember, injuries and fatalities are not the same thing.
| It could be the building shin-busting bumpers is the best way
| to save lives. Who knows?
| asylteltine wrote:
| No, you don't need a pickup truck. It's ridiculous you can buy
| one without a license or even extra training. Just absurd.
| u32480932048 wrote:
| Projection from people who never leave their basement is my
| favorite.
| leotravis10 wrote:
| _Related: Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose
| greater risk to pedestrians_ (iihs.org) | 322 points by yours
| truly | 463 comments
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38267588
| youngtaff wrote:
| We've known this for years...
| jiveturkey wrote:
| Article is current but the data is from 2021. I can easily find a
| deep journal-esque writeup dating to aug 1 2022. (JPHSC).
| https://doi.org/10.15586/jphsc. v1i1.47
|
| > Currently, it seems unlikely that NHTSA will move to regulate
| hood heights on new vehicles.
|
| That's quite interesting statement. Hood (or is it bumper? --
| which implies hood) heights are already regulated. Too low of a
| height has been determined to result in more injuries (not
| fatalities I guess), so the height has been forced to increase
| over the last decade or decades. Because of that you will never
| see (eg) a Lambo Diablo design again. Very very hard to find
| information about this imposed minimum height requirement because
| search results are flooded with this new finding since approx Nov
| 2023.
| tfourb wrote:
| I honestly do not understand, why regulators have not mandated
| limits on front dead angles (space occluded from view by the
| hood) and max vehicle hood hight by now. Well, I understand why
| it hasn't happened in the U.S. (how could any regulator curtail
| the manhood of the truck aficionados?), but in the E.U.
| regulators usually are more on top of these things.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Are you saying that trucks with high hoods are prohibited in
| the EU?
| CalRobert wrote:
| They're not. The Netherlands is full of Dodge Rams.
| havblue wrote:
| There are definitely polls that show women find men in trucks
| more attractive in the US than, say, vans. If you want to signal
| wealth and refinement get a luxury vehicle. If you want to signal
| utility and masculinity get a truck.
| 0xdde wrote:
| Of course studies showing anything are out there. Much less
| likely that they are properly set up and therefore believable.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Seriously? There are polls that show anything you want. And if
| you have trouble finding one, you just create your own. Polls
| are essentially meaningless.
| grecy wrote:
| I would be very shocked to learn those polls were funded by the
| makers of large SUVs and trucks. /s
| francisofascii wrote:
| honestly, I believe it. I would blame the truck ads that have
| brainwashed Americans into thinking that driving a truck makes
| you more masculine or tough.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Great. Tax the trucks more and driving one will be an even
| better signal!
| beretguy wrote:
| Whoever injures - or knock on wood kills - somebody with a truck
| with such a high hood should serve a mandatory prison sentence.
| dingnuts wrote:
| vehicular manslaughter is already a crime, and these trucks
| have been regulated INTO existence, not out of consumer desire
| and a lack of regulation. Consumers preferred small trucks
| until they disappeared due to CAFE standards.
|
| If you want the government to intervene, their first step
| should be to remove the regulations that encourage this growth
| in vehicle size to begin with, rather than going after
| consumers who have very little choice in trucks
| acdha wrote:
| The average American truck buyer picked it as a lifestyle
| accessory - it's not like there was a huge shift in the
| percentage of trades jobs over the last few decades!
| Liability would be one way to encourage expressing that
| fashion aesthetic in other ways.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Liability already exists. what next?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think it should depend on the circumstances.
|
| If the pedestrian is at fault, I think the individual, or their
| estate, should have to pay for the truck repairs and therapy
| for the driver.
| matsemann wrote:
| In the Norwegian traffic law, it specifically says that you
| are to slow down in areas with children. So "the child ran
| into the street chasing a ball right in front of my truck"
| isn't a valid excuse, as that's something "to be expected"
| when driving in a residential area.
|
| At least in theory. Unfortunately the cops here almost never
| wants to prosecute cars hitting kids or pedestrians. There's
| always an excuse. "The sun was in their eye", "kid didn't
| wear high vis (it was daytime)".
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I agree that there is an ammount of reasonable care drivers
| should have. However, I think the contribution of
| pedestrians is generally understated.
|
| AT least in the US, 33% of pedestrians involved in fatal
| accidents were drunk.
|
| 16% were on freeways. 59% were on non-freeway arterials,
| while 22% were on local streets. [1]
|
| I found it surprising that fatalities are far more likely
| to involve Pedestrians being drunk or jaywalking on high-
| speed throughfare than drunk drivers.
|
| https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/GHSA-
| Pedest...
| burnerburnson wrote:
| I'd guess the majority of pedestrians who are at fault for
| accidents are vagrants who can't or won't pay for any damage
| they cause.
|
| I don't see well-to-do businessmen jumping into the road all
| that often, but I do see deadbeat beggars do it every day.
| cbondurant wrote:
| the current pavement princess trends have left me doubting that
| any more regulation of any kind will happen in the US.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Not just the pavement princess stuff - Congress is simply doing
| less period.[1]
|
| Through most of the 20th century, 1000+ laws/year was common.
| Since 2000, that's dropped to <500 laws/year.
|
| 1 -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Pages of laws passed is a better metric as the laws have
| become more bundled due to partisanship.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Even then, one era might write more tersely than another.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Hard to measure between eras with the evolution of pork
| barrel politicking and other recent cultural practices.
| Havoc wrote:
| After the cybertruck my working assumption had been that US
| regulators had just given up on pedestrian safety.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| The cybertruck has not been shown to have lower pedestrian
| safety than other trucks.
|
| Ironically, you're commenting on an article about higher hoods,
| and the CT has one of the lowest hoods among trucks on the
| market.
| Havoc wrote:
| I'm commenting on pedestrian safety & regulators absence.
| Sharp edges and rolled steel instead of crumple zones is
| absolutely a bad time if you're a pedestrian. High hoods
| isn't the only possible risk.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| 1) It seems you are confusing crumple zones (which the ct
| definitely has lol) with cushioning the impact for a
| pedestrian.
|
| 2) sure, but the only research we have says higher hood =
| much more deadly. Cybertruck has a lower hood with a better
| angle. So why single it out when the jury is out on what's
| more important for safety
| u32480932048 wrote:
| Cybertruck Man Bad.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| The Cybetruck's obnoxious hood height[0] and curb weight[1]
| all but guarantees that it's dangerous for pedestrians. Not
| that singling out Cybetruck is completely fair, all large EVs
| are strictly worse for pedestrian safety due to their weight.
|
| [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2023/12/05/with-
| litt...
|
| [1] https://www.autoweek.com/news/a46013576/tesla-cybertruck-
| spe...
| grecy wrote:
| The Cybertruck is lighter than the Rivian and the F-150
| Lightning. It's around 3,000lbs lighter than the electric
| Hummer.
|
| It's also lower than all of them.
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a46031051/2024-tesla-
| cyber...
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| The height is adjustable via air springs. It can ride
| lower, higher, or equal to those.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The thing looks like a maul made for splitting wood and you
| know its owners will drive like they have a lawyer on
| retainer.
| autoexec wrote:
| Honestly all the "self-driving" car companies allowed to beta
| test their products on public streets show a strong disregard
| for pedestrian/public safety.
| jetrink wrote:
| My proposed regulation is to introduce a hazardous vehicle
| license for large trucks and SUVs. Everyone is automatically
| granted one alongside their normal drivers license, but if you're
| caught driving recklessly (weaving through traffic on the
| highway, aggressively tailgating, speeding through residential or
| urban areas), you lose it and you have to drive a normal-sized
| car. Perhaps there's a way to earn it back through paying a fine
| and taking a safe driving course. The classification of vehicles
| as hazardous should be based on factors known to increase
| pedestrian and vehicle collision fatalities to encourage safe
| designs.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| I like the spirit, but don't like the unintended consequence
| that it would create a stigma around sedans -- "oh, those are
| the cars for the bad drivers". We need to do something that
| makes SUV drivers feel ridiculous and humiliated. Or, failing
| that, just make it expensive: Weight and size dependent tolls,
| say (using the fourth power of weight, possibly, to match road
| wear equations?). Or just fewer lanes in which those vehicles
| are allowed. "You don't get the elite lane."
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| > We need to do something that makes SUV drivers feel
| ridiculous and humiliated
|
| Oh, that couldn't _possibly_ have any side effects.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Hopefully it would have an effect. 95% of the people in
| these giant walls of steel have no reason to be driving
| them.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I see. And how have you determined that?
| dysfunction wrote:
| Maybe not 95%, but quite a lot of truck owners when
| surveyed essentially never use them for towing or hauling
| https://www.axios.com/2023/01/23/pickup-trucks-f150-size-
| wei...
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| they need protection from the other people also driving
| giant walls of steel for no other reason than...
| danaris wrote:
| If we're going to try to "punish" SUV drivers for driving
| those vehicles, then I think we need to both recognize and do
| some things:
|
| 1) We need to recognize that there's a wide variety of
| vehicles in the SUV category. Many of them have replaced (not
| supplemented, _replaced_ , because they sell better and car
| companies are hyperoptimizing their profits like everyone
| else) old standards like station wagons and minivans in
| manufacturer lineups. _Most_ of them do _not_ have the
| stupidly-high hoods that this article is actually about:
| those are primarily on pickup trucks.
|
| 2) We need to recognize that, at least for _some_ SUVs, there
| are genuine, non-overcompensating use cases. Like driving on
| snowy, icy winter roads in the northern US and all of Canada.
|
| 3) Having recognized these things, we need to make sure there
| is provision in place for the people who have _actual needs_
| these vehicles are fulfilling--whether because they fall into
| the smaller category of people who would always need these
| things, or because they fall into the much larger category of
| people who would have bought a minivan or station wagon in
| the '80s and '90s, but most of those have gone away--before
| we start treating them _all_ like the worst members of the
| category.
|
| Full disclosure: I drive a Subaru Outback. I drive it for
| three main reasons: it's extremely reliable, it has amazing
| cargo capacity (which I _do_ use regularly), and its AWD is a
| godsend on the roads in upstate NY in the winter. (Is it
| possible to drive on these roads without it? Absolutely; I
| drove a Toyota Corolla for over a decade. But I am _much less
| stressed_ with the AWD.) I just bought my second one, after
| shopping around _extensively_ to find something that would
| fulfill my requirements, but get better gas mileage (which,
| to be fair, the Outback 's is actually _shockingly_ good for
| an SUV).
|
| The Outback is also basically the shape of a station wagon.
| It does not have an unhealthily high hood. I honestly don't
| know how its weight compares to other non-SUVs, but my
| understanding is that right now, the heaviest cars are
| _electric_ cars, so using weight alone is also not a great
| metric.
|
| Ultimately, I think what people like you need to do is
| consider this question: Are you actually trying to solve a
| real problem with what cars are on the road? Or are you just
| looking for a socially-acceptable group of people to bully
| and be mean to? Because your proposals sound a _lot_ like
| they 're aimed at the latter, and very little like they'd be
| effective at the former.
| bejk22 wrote:
| I won't recognize (2) because it's false. Any current - and
| past - fwd will work just fine in Canadian snowy and icy
| conditions. Sure if you drive a shitty propulsion car you
| will get stuck everywhere but those cars are the exception.
|
| Edit: you acknowledged yourself that argument is mostly bs
| later in your comment...
| jamwil wrote:
| Calgarian here. AWD does help in the snow.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| FWD comes standard on the most popular SUVs sold in the
| US and Canada. I don't know for sure, but it wouldn't
| surprise me if only a minority of SUVs here are AWD.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Suv style vehicles are actually a lot more dangerous in the
| snow. Its so much more mass you are dealing with and damage
| when you lose grip entirely on ice under gravity power
| alone. On video clips of this sedans and such might kind of
| bump against a parked car and come to a stop while the big
| Suburban goes on to total a parked car with all the kinetic
| energy. If you want a snow tank, get a car that weighs like
| ~2500lbs, put on actual snow tires, and keep the
| transmission in high gear to engine brake. It also helps to
| learn to brake traction and skid with control in a snowy
| empty parking lot.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| > Full disclosure: I drive a Subaru Outback. [...T]he
| Outback's [gas mileage] is actually shockingly good for an
| SUV).
|
| Funny, I call the Outback an AWD station wagon, not an SUV
| at all. I've got no problem with that; I'd be much happier
| if people bought those. Indeed, the very existence of
| Subarus seems to make most SUVs unnecessary. The only SUV
| Subaru makes (that I am aware of) is the Forester (and
| while that's a little larger than my ideal, it's not
| gigantic).
|
| > We need to recognize that there's a wide variety of
| vehicles in the SUV category.
|
| If I were Supreme Ruler, I would permit the Honda CRV
| (SUV), Toyota RAV4 (SUV), and Ford Maverick (truck) to
| exist, but no larger (ignoring commercial vehicles). Also
| station wagons, and minivans up to the size of the Honda
| Odyssey.
|
| (As I am _not_ Supreme Ruler, I recognize that this has all
| the weight of a random opinion on the Internet.)
|
| > Are you actually trying to solve a real problem with what
| cars are on the road? Or are you just looking for a
| socially-acceptable group of people to bully and be mean
| to?
|
| Full disclosure: I walk everywhere, or else I take the bus
| -- and on the rare occasions that I rent or borrow a car,
| it's typically a small sedan. I react negatively to
| oversized vehicles (a) because I view them as _a threat to
| my person_ , and (b) because I'm acutely aware of the arms-
| race dynamics here. People buy big SUVs because they "feel
| safer", i.e., in a crash, they are more likely to survive
| and kill the other driver, rather than the other way
| around. Recognizing the primal violence underlying this, I
| respond that the solution is more primal violence, to
| disincentivize this selfishness and arrest the arms race
| before it goes any further.
|
| None of which, I will add, applies to the Subaru Outback,
| which I'm totally cool with.
| sschueller wrote:
| In Europe vehicles like the Humer electric can't even be driven
| with a regular license because of its weight (3500kg is the
| limit). It's basically a large truck and requires a much more
| involved license.
| Hamuko wrote:
| The EV Hummer is probably impossible to get registered as
| anything other than a truck, but there's some trickery you
| can do with regular pick-up trucks. I found at least one
| F-150 on sale that is registered as a van and you can drive
| it with a regular passenger car (B) license instead of a
| light truck (C1) license. Shockingly, the van F-150 isn't
| even prohibitely expensive in tax: just 531EUR per year.
| Although with 1.70EUR to 1.90EUR per litre of 95E10, you'll
| probably just deposit all of your savings at the pump
| instead.
| consp wrote:
| The F150 lightnings registered as a VAN can carry two
| passengers and about 250kg before going over it's
| registered and allowable weight limit. As a civilian those
| fines are hefty where I live, doing it as a company is
| extremely expensive. It's a useless vehicle except maybe
| for towing. If you fill all seats with some hefty adults
| wou'll already cross the weight limit.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Just require a class A/B license to drive anything above...I
| don't know, 4000lbs? Exclude batteries from the weight if that
| becomes a problem for electric cars.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Although I see why you'd want to exclude batteries from
| weight, I'm not sure it's totally justified. After all, F =
| MA regardless. A friend of mine was hit by an EV and suffered
| broken bones, despite being belted, and on the opposite side
| of the car that was hit. If it had been a lighter vehicle,
| her injuries wouldn't have been as bad.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| My main thinking was there are a lot of things weight can
| (somewhat) be a shorthand for: Visibility past/around the
| car, visibility from within the car, carbon emissions,
| difficulty to drive, amount of space taken to park,
| deadliness of collision due directly to weight, impact on
| roads, and deadliness of collision due to form factor.
|
| Of those, the deadliness of collision due to weight and
| impact on roads are the only ones that still hold up if
| it's an EV. I just want to avoid a situation in which
| someone gets a gas engine instead of an EV of the same form
| factor because they would need a special license to drive
| the EV, which just barely gets over the weight limit. But I
| would also be open to this law in any form.
| punkybr3wster wrote:
| In the F150 Lightning the batteries even on a standard range
| weigh as much as a Volkswagen. The standard range batteries
| weigh something like 1800lbs. The ER model has about 25% more
| battery and the Platinum weight is like 7150lbs! So maybe
| around 2100lbs of that is battery?
|
| So you're still over 5000lbs on that monster without the
| batteries.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I feel confident in wagering that GP didn't intend to allow
| driving an F150 with a regular license.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > In the F150 Lightning the batteries even on a standard
| range weigh as much as a Volkswagen.
|
| Even a Smart Fortwo is minimally 1800 lbs curb weight. How
| old is this Volkswagen? :)
| TrevorJ wrote:
| The reason some of these vehicles ARE so big IS the
| regulations. We could look at rolling back THOSE changes first.
| punkybr3wster wrote:
| This is the one time I always pull out my "Thanks Obama!"
| without being ironic.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Yes, clearly the US needed less sedans and more F150s.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Consumers just prefer larger vehicles here in the US, and
| those same preferences are also becoming the norm in other
| countries. You can't blame the modern Camry being gigantic on
| the Chicken Tax. You can't blame larger vehicles being
| associated with luxury on efficiency regulations.
| bitfilped wrote:
| I don't think that's accurate, vehicles are being made
| larger to get around emission limitations. I'd love a new
| small truck like what Toyota used to make and ford
| f150/ranger's used to be ~10-20 years, but such vehicles
| just don't really exist anymore.
| twoWhlsGud wrote:
| Consumers prefer a vehicle that looks like it'll keep them
| and their family alive on the streets as given - if some
| other persons kid ends up dead as a result of their choice
| - well "whateves".
|
| Make the streets less dangerous and they might prefer
| something cheaper and as a side bonus less deadly to their
| neighbors.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| There is another angle here besides the immediate impact (pun
| intended) of getting hit by a big truck.
|
| I'm nearly 60, but I can remember what it was like learning to
| drive back in 1980. Before SUVs and huge pickup trucks became
| common, and before tinting windows to near opacity became a
| thing, it was possible to see road conditions three cars ahead --
| you simply looked through the windows of the car or cars in front
| of you. I found it unnerving to drive behind a delivery truck
| because all I could see of the road was the back of the truck, so
| I'd change lanes so I could have more advanced notice of what was
| ahead of me.
|
| These days that is mostly over: windows are too opaque, and very
| often that is moot because the vehicle immediately before me is
| well above my Corolla's vantage point.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Non-trucks attempting a right-turn-on-red next to trucks are
| also more likely to hit a pedestrian, though if they are
| driving in a sane manner, it's unlikely to be fatal. I cannot
| see a pedestrian over the hood of a truck stopped just short of
| the crosswalk until my bumper is already well into the
| crosswalk.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Not nearly as bad as hitting someone, but it's also annoying
| when a person is honking behind me and I'm thinking "Dude, I
| can't turn right until the light turns green because I can't
| see oncoming traffic since the truck/SUV in the left lane
| pulled forward.".
| Zancarius wrote:
| Oh, I've been honked a few times in the past few months
| right after pulling up to a light just after it turned red
| and the cross traffic has a green light. It's like... "you
| really expect me to pull out INTO traffic because you're so
| impatient?!" The first time it happened the person kept
| hitting their horn until they saw the cross traffic.
| Amazing.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Streets haven't gotten wider since then either. Maybe less of a
| problem in the US where everything is planned around humongous
| fire trucks, but in the EU if you had a street that could
| easily accommodate two moving lanes with parking on either
| side, that has basically narrowed down to one moving lane.
|
| Also reminds me of all the regulation around car lights - you
| literally specified the beam pattern light intensity color and
| what not, but you couldn't be bothered to narrowly restrict the
| height off the ground? Great, now everyone in a sedan is being
| blinded by all sorts of SUVs and trucks. Utter failure.
| Jayakumark wrote:
| To add to it, they should put a limit on Lumens on Headlight
| something like not to exceed 2000 lumens, Also its
| temperature should be 3000k range like old cars but new ones
| are like 8000k. yesterday night - saw a light that must be
| atleast 20000 lumens its like watching sun, cant see anything
| for a few seconds.
| _puk wrote:
| They (The RAC[0]) are actually pushing for regulation here
| in the UK along those lines.
|
| There seems to be quite a push from the public to do
| something, so maybe it'll change one day..
|
| "According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of
| Accidents, between the ages of 15 and 65, the time it takes
| to recover from glare increases from one to nine seconds.
|
| At 60 miles an hour, that's 250 yards in nine seconds.
|
| Baroness Hayter said: "The Group's first interaction with
| Ministers led them to say: No problem here, no evidence of
| deaths or serious injuries. Since then, the public have
| reached out to tell us they disagree, and that many are
| stopping driving at night, with eight out of 10 drivers
| surveyed wanting action to reduce glare.
|
| "We know other countries share our concern, with drivers
| demanding action. The Government needs to heed our call for
| action and be on the side of road safety."
|
| 0: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/drivers-
| deman...
| Zancarius wrote:
| > Great, now everyone in a sedan is being blinded by all
| sorts of SUVs and trucks. Utter failure.
|
| I drive a truck and live in a mountainous area. Trust me,
| it's not just sedans. Nearly everyone drives around with
| their brights on and it seems they no longer bother to turn
| them down when approaching traffic (automatic dimming
| features don't work well up here). Consequently, night time
| driving is dangerous. I don't know what their advertised beam
| pattern is, but it's like driving passed spotlights aimed at
| your eyes while on the road when you're on the outside lane.
|
| FWIW mine are halogens (2014). Plenty bright (and aim-able--
| for towing), but they're useless when you're temporarily
| blinded by super bright LEDs.
| dysfunction wrote:
| Streets may not have gotten wider in a given city/town since
| then, but there's been a lot of population growth and
| development in that time in the sunbelt where urban planning
| has favored very wide roads. So even if roads themselves
| aren't getting wider, people have been moving to places where
| roads are wide.
| twoWhlsGud wrote:
| This. I was recently in Phoenix for a meeting and was
| struck by the state of the roads there. Lots of paint on
| the roads bike lines on 4 or 6 lane 45 mph streets where
| lots of folks were doing 55+. I class myself as someone who
| will bike a lot of places in Seattle but I didn't see a
| single road (i'm sure there are some _somewhere_ there)
| that I 'd be willing to ride in Phoenix.
| wharvle wrote:
| Windows and front/back windshields are way smaller now, too.
| It's like we're all driving around looking out of tank-
| viewport-slits. (I'm sure there are exceptions in some models--
| I drove a buddy's Jeep-truck the other day and the unusually-
| good-by-modern-standards visibility nearly turned me into a
| Jeep guy on the spot--but that's the trend)
| hwillis wrote:
| Hmm. I'm not sure how true that is, but that might be a
| perception thing because hoods have gotten longer and
| windshields have gotten more slanted. Being farther from the
| front of the car/windshield makes your view angle smaller
| even if the height of the window hasn't changed.
|
| Surprisingly, sloped windows are more of a safety thing than
| a fuel efficiency or aerodynamics thing. If the windshield is
| too sloped, it acts like a wedge that throws air up above the
| car and causes a ton of turbulence. It's more important that
| the airflow stays stuck to the top surface of the car, and a
| steeper windshield helps with that.
| wharvle wrote:
| OK, the glass may or may not be smaller on the windshield
| and rear (I haven't measured, and yeah, a greater slant
| could be the mechanism, not less glass) but the viewable
| area is smaller.
|
| Side windows are 100% for-sure smaller, because all the
| structures around them have gotten much thicker.
| mturmon wrote:
| Yes. As you may know, recent safety regulations prompted by
| rollover incidents have meant that the "A" and "C" pillars
| connecting the body to the roof have been made wider. [See
| the first 2 paragraphs of the "Design" section of:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_(car) ]
|
| It seems like there's a second-order effect here on
| visibility that may not have been really appreciated.
| epage wrote:
| With my previous car, I never remember having visibility
| issues. I then got a 2013. The pillars aie ierfect
| pedestian blockerr, especially when making turns. I don't
| see how me doing better in a roll over is better than me
| running someone over.
| saltcured wrote:
| Cars in the 80s and 90s definitely had more of a "greenhouse"
| feel to them, with mostly transparent glass and small
| framing.
|
| Due to a mixture of standards, this has changed. The roof cap
| and pillars have thickened and curved for roll-over
| protection, and front pillars are also thicker to hold air
| bags that didn't exist in those older cars. The windows sills
| are higher up relative to the driver, to improve side-impact
| protection.
|
| There are other changes too, such as dark coatings around the
| edges of windshields and fat mounts behind the rear view
| mirror to hold sensors, cameras, etc. As a tall driver, I
| find these changes very frustrating. The rear view mirror is
| capable of hiding a crossing car at a 4-way stop, and I
| sometimes cannot even see overhead traffic lights when
| stopped in the first position at an intersection.
| burnerburnson wrote:
| I regularly pass people on the right and then cut them off
| getting back into the left lane just so that I don't have to be
| stuck behind someone I can't see around.
|
| The tinted front/rear windows really piss me off because they
| make my drive more dangerous for very little reason. I'd make
| them illegal if it were up to me.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| >I'd make them illegal if it were up to me.
|
| They mostly are (at least the front windshield is), it's just
| not really enforced.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| Tinted front windshields are illegal in California, among
| other states, fwiw. The law just isn't enforced, just like
| modded exhaust, and residential speed limits ... and passing
| on the right.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| It's perfectly legal in California to safely pass on the
| right on a multilane highway and in some other situations.
| What is illegal is using anything other than a normal
| traffic lane to do this, such as the shoulder.
|
| Of course this does not excuse GP's practice where "I
| regularly pass people on the right and then _cut them off_
| getting back into the left lane... "
|
| Unless I misunderstood GP's comment, that sounds like
| reckless driving.
|
| Source:
|
| CVC 21754. The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass to
| the right of another vehicle only under the following
| conditions: (c) Upon any highway outside of a business or
| residence district with unobstructed pavement of sufficient
| width and clearly marked for two or more lines of moving
| traffic in the direction of travel.
|
| CVC 21755. (a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and
| pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions
| permitting that movement in safety. In no event shall that
| movement be made by driving off the paved or main-traveled
| portion of the roadway.
|
| [other subsections omitted here, see below for full text]
|
| https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-
| veh/divisi...
|
| https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-
| veh/divisi...
| uoaei wrote:
| You were being pedantic up until here, so let's continue
| with the presumption of pedantry: what GP described is
| very far from _reckless_ driving because they knew
| exactly what they were doing. You can cut people off
| safely, if dickishly, because of how the laws of physics
| work: cars can 't suddenly teleport into where you will
| be, acceleration (especially at those speeds) is
| relatively slow for the vast majority of passenger
| vehicles.
| klyrs wrote:
| Agreed, passive aggressive driving is wreckful, not
| reckless.
| dcotter wrote:
| Know what's already illegal? Passing on the right:
|
| > Laws that cover passing when crossing the centerline of the
| roadway is not required (where there are multiple lanes in
| the same direction), often say something like this:
|
| > The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle
| proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left
| thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the
| right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken
| vehicle.
|
| source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-
| books/beat-tick...
| stronglikedan wrote:
| It's not illegal everywhere, and it's silly that it's
| illegal anywhere.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| The right lanes are generally explicitly intended to be
| slower lanes. Making them optionally faster lanes can be
| dangerously disruptive. As well as, when the rightmost
| lane is used to pass, difficult for new vehicles to merge
| from side roads.
|
| These laws are made so people know what to expect for
| safe driving. When we're all being chauffeured in
| autonomous vehicles it'll be safe to rethink them.
| dcotter wrote:
| Not silly. Here's why:
|
| 1. Passing on the right, i.e. passenger side, means being
| in the driver's blind spot longer.
|
| 2. On- and off-ramps are almost always on the right, as
| are police making traffic stops, ambulances, cars pulled
| over on the shoulder, sidewalks, pedestrians, cross
| streets, etc.
|
| 3. Slower traffic is supposed to be in the right lane
| (because of #2), so a car accelerating to pass the car in
| front of it, suddenly in a lane of slow traffic, is a
| safety hazard to the slower drivers, regardless of #2.
|
| I'm writing from the US, so for me left lane = driver's
| side.
| Zancarius wrote:
| Depends on the state.
|
| https://law.justia.com/codes/new-
| mexico/2011/chapter66/artic...
|
| Which is probably a good thing since drivers from out of
| state (ahem, Texas) tend to prefer to left lane, will go
| 10-15 under the posted speed limit, and promptly go 10-15
| OVER the posted speed limit when you attempt to overtake
| them.
| uoaei wrote:
| Those jurisdictions typically have more strongly enforced
| "slower traffic keep right" laws also. Why the double
| standard?
| Symbiote wrote:
| It's even more noticeable cycling. An adult on a bicycle has
| their head just above roof level of an ordinary car, which is
| excellent as it gives a view of cars coming the other way.
|
| I go through the area where all the really rich people live,
| and it's easy to see over their sports cars, luxury sedans etc.
|
| Continuing through the wannabe-rich area, my view is then
| blocked by SUVs and similar.
|
| (Whether this is important depends mostly on how well separated
| car and bicycle traffic is.)
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Just stay well enough back from the car in front of you and
| you'll be fine..
| mbostleman wrote:
| I think that's more of a function of the relative difference
| between the sizes of your vehicle and the other vehicle, not
| the absolute size of the other vehicle. The relative size is a
| big factor in why mixing bikes with cars is so deadly. The
| other one, of course, is relative speed. Years ago I got my CDL
| and there was a multiple choice question to the effect of what
| is the safest speed to drive. Three of the answers were all
| relative to the speed limit and the correct answer was relative
| to other traffic: the safest speed is the speed of the cars
| around you, or zero relative speed.
| bradgranath wrote:
| No duh?
| sf_rob wrote:
| I got in an argument with the Ford CMO on Twitter about this. He
| said that the F150 has maintained the overall footprint for
| years, which is true. However, if you super-impose an image of
| older F150s and newer ones (which I did) you find that the hood
| is much more "cubic" leading to a higher edge and much worse
| viewing angle. I believe this is entirely stylistic.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Another big difference between a new one and a 50 year old one,
| is the cabin on the old one is basically like driving in an
| aquarium tank in terms of visibility with the lack of a or b
| pillar obstruction and low belt lines. Suspension is also
| generally lower on smaller tires from the ones I still see
| around town from the 70s. Sometimes their hoods aren't much
| taller than a sedan but that could be from the suspension
| setup.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yeah, that makes sense. But lots of people pointed out to me that
| "right of way won't matter when you're dead" and that "cemeteries
| are filled with people who had the right of way". That's true and
| taking that to heart means buying a big truck because then right
| of way doesn't matter and it's the other guy in the cemetery.
| After all, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6" or
| whatever. Yield to gross tonnage.
| quadyeast wrote:
| The opaque tinted side windows make it hard to tell if the driver
| sees you at the pedestrian cross. I'm often forced to wait till
| they leave and they sometimes wait for me so ...
| tomaskafka wrote:
| It seems that no one has yet posted the famous article linking
| SUVs to immaturity and low self esteem, so here we go.
|
| > Car companies managed this remarkable feat because they ran--
| and continue to run--quite possibly the most sophisticated
| marketing operations on the planet. They knew what people really
| wanted: to project an image of selfish superiority. And then they
| sold it to them at a markup
|
| > Who has been buying SUVs since automakers turned them into
| family vehicles? They tend to be people who are insecure and
| vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and
| uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in
| their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered
| and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or
| communities.
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7q7eb/electric-or-not-big-s...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-23 23:01 UTC)