[HN Gopher] Yes, it 'looks like a duck,' but carriers like the n...
___________________________________________________________________
Yes, it 'looks like a duck,' but carriers like the new USPS mail
truck
Author : vincentchau
Score : 91 points
Date : 2024-11-26 20:13 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| smitelli wrote:
| Say what you will about the Grumman LLV, but every one of them
| you see on the road today is at least 30 years old, and some
| could be pushing 40. (The similar-looking Ford-Utilimaster FFV is
| ~25 this year.) As uncomfortable as it must be to sit in one for
| hours on end (I never had the privilege myself) you've got to
| respect their longevity.
|
| Here's hoping these new trucks make it to the 2050s and beyond.
| hex4def6 wrote:
| "While the all-aluminum body of the LLV has resisted corrosion
| exceptionally well over the years, the main powertrain
| components have been replaced multiple times and now must be
| sourced through aftermarket manufacturing. This has
| significantly increased repair costs while reducing performance
| and reliability.
|
| In fact, the Postal Service had to contract an alternative
| supplier to reverse engineer and manufacture the chassis frame
| to keep the LLV operational. As a result, the average annual
| maintenance cost exceeds $5,000, with 7% of LLVs exceeding
| $10,000 annually. Additionally, they are less fuel-efficient
| and unsuitable for future delivery needs given projected
| changes in market demand, mail mix, and increasing delivery
| points.
|
| The LLVs also lack modern safety features such as airbags,
| anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, back-up cameras, blind-spot
| warning systems, daytime running lights, and seatbelt
| reminders."
| https://uspsngdveis.com/documents/USPS+NGDV+FEIS_Dec+2021.pd...
|
| Sort of a Ship of Theseus vehicle. Yes, some have lasted over
| 40 years, but that's with potentially multiple drivetrain
| replacements, at an annual maintenance cost of $5,000 -
| $10,000. That feels high, given how simple those vehicles are.
| varikin wrote:
| I believe the LLV line was only suppose to be in service for
| 20 years, but the government gonna government and not find a
| replacement till it's almost too late. So yes it was a lot of
| scrounging and probably a lot of USPS mechanics needing to be
| creative, but the LLV lasted twice as long as it was designed
| for. I expect this same conversation will happen again in
| another 40 years.
| not_kurt_godel wrote:
| > the government gonna government and not find a
| replacement till it's almost too late
|
| Actually they were going to convert to EVs back in 2006
| when Bush stepped in to prevent that and punish them on
| behalf of his oil buddies with the Postal Accountability
| and Enhancement Act. The problem isn't government, it's
| politicians voted in to destroy it in favor of corporate
| interests.
| throwworhtthrow wrote:
| According to Wikipedia:
|
| > Passed the House on December 8, 2006 (voice vote)
|
| > Passed the Senate on December 9, 2006 (unanimous
| consent)
|
| Can't pin it all on Bush Jr.
| not_kurt_godel wrote:
| > According to Tom Davis, the Bush administration
| threatened to veto the legislation unless they added the
| provision regarding funding the employee benefits in
| advance with the objective of using that money to reduce
| the federal deficit.
|
| Bush was responsible for the provision that kneecapped
| USPS to prevent them from ever funding their EV ambitions
| (until Biden funded NGDV in 2022)
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| > manufacture the chassis frame
|
| Ship of Theseus notwithstanding, at that point, isn't it a
| new car if you're replacing the chassis?
| whalesalad wrote:
| From my desk at home I see the lil LLV come down our private
| road every single day. With retrofitted LED lighting.
| deciduously wrote:
| Constantly starting and stopping, too, in a variety of
| temperatures.
| m463 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the enemy of vehicle longevity isn't design,
| but parts supply.
|
| The crown victoria could have kept on supplying police
| departments for another decade or two if ford didn't
| discontinue it.
| mmooss wrote:
| > every one of them you see on the road today is at least 30
| years old, and some could be pushing 40.
|
| Survivor bias: The ones you see are the ones that have
| survived. You don't see the junkyards full of failed trucks.
| kaveet wrote:
| http://archive.today/Mcwu5
| postoplust wrote:
| The seat height in the banner image looks too tall for the
| mailboxes. I wonder how the seat height in the NGDV compares to
| the Grumman LLV.
| garciansmith wrote:
| I've read so much knocking their appearance, which is so
| confusing to me. It's ultimately function over form in this case;
| who cares if you don't like how it looks? I can only dream that
| the visibility and safety of having features like such a low hood
| and large bumpers would be incorporated into other vehicles
| (i.e., every SUV ever).
| tantalor wrote:
| > It's ultimately form over function in this case
|
| Doesn't "form over function" mean the opposite of your usage?
|
| Form = appearance
|
| Function = usefulness
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| I took this to mean that critiquing appearance is itself form
| over function.
| tantalor wrote:
| Oh. What does that even mean? Saying something is "form
| over function" is not derogatory. Lots of great inventions
| prioritize form over function (iPod comes to mind).
| phil21 wrote:
| iPod was famously both though? The click-wheel was pretty
| unique and worked great to make an accessible UIx for the
| masses.
|
| It may have been somewhat limiting in edge cases, but for
| normal usage I don't recall anyone complaining about it
| outside of hardcore tech circles.
| tantalor wrote:
| "No wireless? Less space than a Nomad? Lame"
|
| Seriously though, the iTunes integration and cross
| platform compatibility kind of sucked. It would have been
| much more useful if you could just mount it like a hard
| drive without special library management software.
|
| The click wheel was cool.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| > Seriously though, the iTunes integration and cross
| platform compatibility kind of sucked. It would have been
| much more useful if you could just mount it like a hard
| drive without special library management software.
|
| I very much preferred this, actually. file management is
| really annoying compared to custom-built software with
| all the tagging etc built-in. Subjective, obviously, but
| I really miss that every time I'm managing music on linux
| or windows and get frustrated when labeling invariably
| changes (even if only subtly) when moved to a device.
|
| Granted, itunes could have also done a much better of
| unifying the tagging etc with the files to avoid this
| entire fiasco.
| VogonPoetry wrote:
| I think that making the iPod mount like a filesystem
| would have had significant impact on other aspects of the
| device.
|
| There is no filesystem level abstraction over USB (or
| Firewire). So plugging in presents as a hard drive /
| block device, which then means it needs to have a
| filesystem. For "built-in" cross OS compatibility that
| means it would be have to be a FAT filesystem. If you
| change these decisions either a new filesystem or device
| driver would need to be installed for some machines.
|
| Most devices that present a FAT filesystem when plugged
| in stop working like they do when unplugged. i.e. the
| device itself and the connected computer cannot access
| the data at the same time. For the iPod this would mean
| it wouldn't be possible to play music while syncing.
|
| I think it might be possible to build a "fake" drive and
| FAT filesystem when plugged in, but it would take quite a
| bit of work and have lots of odd corner cases. For
| example, the user on the computer attempting to re-format
| the drive, perhaps with a different filesystem.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| I'm not convinced the iPod was. Everything else was
| pretty terrible at that time. The iPod did it right (and
| arguably still does)
| garciansmith wrote:
| Yes, I just reversed it by mistake!
| jackcosgrove wrote:
| I think it's a misquote of the phrase "Form ever follows
| function", commonly attributed to architect Louis Sullivan.
| It's an odd sentence structure, where the leader comes second
| in the phrasing, that trips people up.
| dylan604 wrote:
| for utilitarian purposes, like the guy was quoted "it gets the
| job done", but for soccer moms and their SUV looks are
| important.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Safety should be even more important than both, but it
| obviously isn't since only the USPS trucks have a pedestrian
| safe design.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If safety were more important than looks, the stilleto
| would be banned.
| klik99 wrote:
| Probably in the minority, but I actually like the look of them.
| I find so many modern car designs indistinguishable from each
| other. Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered
| "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform.
| m463 wrote:
| I think when it comes to vans they've kind of let go of
| traditional designs.
|
| like
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Dodge-
| Ra...
|
| Now they've gotten the european influence to be very square:
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/2015_For.
| ..
|
| or like the european designed mercedes sprinter, very tall
| too:
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Mercedes.
| ..
| laurencerowe wrote:
| The European equivalents to the Dodge Ram Van are the
| smaller Transit Custom or VW Transporter
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Transit_Custom
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Transporter
|
| The equivalent US trucks mostly used by FedEx and UPS are
| much squarer than the European designed Transit or Sprinter
| vans that are now replacing them.
|
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FedEx_Express_truck
| ....
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good
| aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform.
|
| The issue is fuel efficiency. Modern cars are all built to be
| as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the
| constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very
| similar as well.
|
| However, these mail trucks don't travel 85 miles an hour,
| most of them will be on average less than 25 mp/h or less,
| where aerodynamics plainly just does not matter (it's
| v-squared), so they can prioritize safety and driver comfort
| over anything else.
| Oarch wrote:
| Like wet putty
|
| https://www.blackbirdspyplane.com/p/why-do-new-cars-look-
| lik...
| duskwuff wrote:
| > I've read so much knocking their appearance, which is so
| confusing to me.
|
| Especially since the old LLVs were pretty ugly in their own
| way. We've just gotten used to seeing them over the last 38
| years.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Well, they're mostly not qualified to comment on the function,
| are they?
| stackedinserter wrote:
| Would you wear the same cloths but in clown colours?
| techjamie wrote:
| The low hood is almost definitely to help prevent scraping
| mailboxes and other objects, but especially mailboxes. My dad
| was a rural USPS carrier that used his own vehicle, and despite
| him having been an excellent driver with no accidents on record
| in his life, he still ended up swapping minor paint with
| mailboxes a few times.
|
| Can't imagine how often it happens across the country.
| pearlsontheroad wrote:
| I'm proud to have helped implement the brand new dedicated ERP
| system that is used to build these trucks. Nice to see the final
| product is hitting the streets.
| bnc319 wrote:
| Can you provide some more information as to what the ERP system
| is built on? (i.e. open source software, "from scratch", etc?)
| pearlsontheroad wrote:
| Latest Oracle JDE E1
| mmooss wrote:
| I think you owe us some information to satisfy 'intellectual
| curiosity'! :)
|
| I'll start: Why did they create a brand-new and why a dedicated
| ERP system? Didn't the manufacturer have an ERP system used for
| manufacturing other vehicles?
| xnx wrote:
| I don't mind the appearance if it serves a function, but what's
| the function? An electric truck wouldn't need a traditional
| engine compartment.
| capital_guy wrote:
| A crumple zone?
| dylan604 wrote:
| i guess they could have made it flat nosed like a bus?? are
| they putting the batteries in the nose? it looks like the cargo
| part is too low for them to be placed under there. also, gotta
| put that ac somewhere. probably makes it easier to work on
| under the little hood than having to climb on top of the truck.
| varikin wrote:
| According to Wikipedia[1]:
|
| > Four variants of the NGDV are expected to be in fleet use:
| both gasoline-powered and battery-electric, in either front
| wheel drive or all wheel drive.
|
| So I expect the front hood is for the gas powered engine for
| those variants. Further down, it talks about only 10% will be
| EV at the start due to cost. Also, this is in partnership with
| Ford so the ICE power train is the from the Ford Transit van.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV
| fencepost wrote:
| They aren't/weren't all going to be EVs. Originally the USPS
| was looking at 10% EVs and 90% internal combustion but there
| were a bunch of challenges to that (including that ratio being
| based on incorrect environmental impact data). Now it's 75% EVs
| in the first order of 60,000 and future orders may be that high
| or higher (currently expected that it will be all EVs starting
| in 2026).
|
| sources: article and wikipedia
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV)
| agent281 wrote:
| One benefit of a low hood is that it scoops up pedestrians that
| might get hit instead of hitting their torsos with the vehicle.
| It'll probably break your legs, but you are more likely to
| survive.
|
| This is one of the reasons that SUVs and large trucks are
| deadly: it's basically hitting you directly in the chest
| cavity.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Few things are more masculine than mowing down pedestrians
| with a pseudo diesel locomotive.
| fencepost wrote:
| How could they _not_ love them in comparison to the 30+ year old
| vehicles they 've been driving?
| rectang wrote:
| Cultural hostility among a subpopulation to electric vehicles
| as "woke"? Ordinary sentimentality and the natural human
| discomfort with change?
| fencepost wrote:
| I have great faith in the ability of _ahem_ some individuals
| to harm themselves out of spite or inability to recognize
| inbound leopards, but I 'm pretty sure that even those would
| find the new vehicles to be an improvement even if they're
| EVs - at least if they're actually driving the old and new
| vehicles.
| schiffern wrote:
| Yes, It 'Looks Like a Duck,' but...
|
| ...but that means it's far safer for pedestrians than the
| currently-in-vogue "bulldozer" vehicle front ends.
|
| I for one welcome our new duck-shaped overlords.
| matsemann wrote:
| Direct Vision Standards[0] should implemented as a mandatory
| requirement everywhere for large vehicles traveling in cities
| or residential areas where there's "soft road users"[1]
| (pedestrians, cyclists). Should be able to see straight to the
| side and know you're not running someone over.
|
| [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Vision_Standard
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-motorist
| morsch wrote:
| I was squeezing by in front of a modern garbage truck this
| morning that basically had a glass side door. It was great: I
| could actually establish eye contact with the driver and sign
| that I was going to drive in front of him and he could give
| me small wave to go ahead. The driver of a less modern truck
| would have had no way at all to see me, much less communicate
| with me.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Interesting that the front windshield only has about 50-60%
| usable space. On the top this makes sense, as the black coating
| acts as a sun shade. On the bottom... there goes all the
| visibility gained by having the low hood. wtf?
|
| The upfitter AUX switches appear to be Ford, same for the AC
| controls.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The final photo in the article appears to show pretty good
| forward visiblity. Seems fine?
| jacobgkau wrote:
| > On the bottom... there goes all the visibility gained by
| having the low hood. wtf?
|
| That is a little weird, now that I look at it again. But the
| way you'd use the rest of that bottom space would be by
| lowering the driver, basically, and that would mean the
| driver's not as high up over the hood. So maybe getting the
| higher angle gains more visibility than having them sit lower
| just to maximize usable windshield area? (The only way you
| could have both is if the dashboard was transparent.)
| cooljoseph wrote:
| The camera is positioned so that the side window is visible
| through the front windshield. I think the "black coating" you
| are seeing is just the interior of the van, and that the entire
| front windshield is usable.
| starkparker wrote:
| > The upfitter AUX switches appear to be Ford, same for the AC
| controls.
|
| Ford supplies the ICE engine, transmission, suspension,
| steering wheel, and instrument cluster, so that tracks.
| https://fordauthority.com/2024/10/new-usps-mail-carrier-uses...
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| My $5 it's the usual 'too late to change'. Compare with the
| 2021 version.
|
| Also the if you trace LoS in the cabin pic in the article you
| would find what the driver wouldn't see more of the hood
| because he need to be sat quite a lot higher (up to 20cm I
| think) to gain the view you are thinking of. And this is
| incompatible with 'do the mailman thing without getting out of
| chair'.
|
| https://www.nalc.org/news/the-postal-record/2021/may-2021/do...
| hoherd wrote:
| This is great news! The design is interesting though. Why would
| they choose such a hard angle for the hood and windshield vs
| something more gentle? Does anybody know why they made that
| design choice?
| fatboy wrote:
| After driving a new Mercedes Vito (I can't describe how insane
| the controls of this vehicle are, but it has capacitive-touch
| buttons that you have to swipe to change the stereo volume ON THE
| STEERING WHEEL), I long for controls that look like this:
|
| https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/11/20/multimedia/00xp-m...
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Tactile controls should be the default. I was actually
| interested in the Lincoln Corsair until I saw how much they
| rely on touch - even for things like the climate control, same
| as the Teslas. Instantly took it off the list.
| silisili wrote:
| That's why I won't even consider a Tesla. Test drove a few
| vehicles and it's amazing how many do touch screen everything
| now. Will -not- buy.
|
| The one I ended up buying is all tactile except changing the
| radio stations. Even that gets really annoying, as you have
| to take your eyes off the road to change stations. I end up
| just poking it in random places blind until something
| happens.
| stanski wrote:
| Reminds me of the Pilatus PC-6. Another ugly duckling (in some
| people's eyes) that's a workhorse.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| lol they're paying (with my money) something like 60k for each
| one of those.
|
| Should have just bought police explorers like the cops are
| driving and saved 15-20k+ per unit. Plus as a bonus you might
| have actual parts availability for the foreseeable future, unlike
| when Oshkosh corp decides burning money in a barrel is more
| financially viable than building replacement parts for the postal
| service and the 40-70k of these that they'll actually get ordered
| before the budget gets slashed or whatever.
| imp0cat wrote:
| Needs just one thing - light blue paintjob with an orange beak
| and a tiny purple hat. ;)
| ggreer wrote:
| I wondered why other delivery companies use commercial vehicles
| instead of NGDVs or LLVs, and the answer is that commercial
| vehicles are more capable while being significantly cheaper.
|
| NGDVs cost $60,000 each, and that's for half of them being ICE
| vehicles and half EVs with a 70 mile range (35 miles if you use
| the heater). The ICE version gets 14.7 miles per gallon (8.6mpg
| if you turn on the air conditioning).[1] There is no hybrid
| version, which is outrageous considering the expected driving
| profile.
|
| For comparison, a Mercedes eSprinter (which has more cargo
| capacity and >2x the range of the NGDV) starts at $63,475 MSRP.
| I'm sure a bulk order of 50,000 would get a significant discount.
|
| This whole project seems to be a handout to a defense contractor,
| not an efficient use of funds.
|
| 1.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV#Fuel_economy_and_...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I wondered why other delivery companies use commercial
| vehicles instead of NGDVs or LLVs, and the answer is that
| commercial vehicles are more capable while being significantly
| cheaper.
|
| Commercial vehicles in fleets are leased - they last anywhere
| from 2-5 years then they're pushed off to the used vehicle
| market. After 10-15 years they're so done that they'll end up
| on the scrap yard or shipped off to Africa or Asia. On top of
| that they're designed to be aerodynamic at highway speeds
| because they'll spend a lot of their life time on such streets
| and speeds, whereas these postal trucks will spend most of
| their time moving like snails.
|
| These USPS tanks in contrast are expected to last 30, 40 years
| like their predecessors, racking up insane mileage... and while
| no one cares if some underpaid gig worker runs over some child
| because the child happened to be in the dead spot of his
| vehicle, if the same happens to USPS the government itself is
| the target for a nice juicy lawsuit. So it makes sense for a
| custom order at that scale and expected life time, and it also
| makes sense to stray from what the market has to offer because
| the requirements are different.
|
| Oh, and commercial delivery doesn't have to take care about its
| workers. They'll get burned out with their backs and joints
| ruined, but the companies don't have to pay a dime. In
| contrast, USPS is a government agency and has a massive
| financial incentive to keep healthcare costs low.
| greenthrow wrote:
| As usual when you take a dismissive stance ("this is obviously
| a waste of money!") you are ignoring lots od details. The use
| case of a mail carrier is not well suited by a massive
| eSprinter. They have no need for something so large. They want
| to be seated at the height where most mailboxes are so they can
| make many deliveries without getting out of the car.
|
| Whenever you find yourself going "why would they make THAT
| decision?" assume it is yourself that is ignorant and take it
| as an opportunity to learn, rather than dismiss the choices of
| people who specialize in the area you are puzzled by.
| ggreer wrote:
| I used the eSprinter as one example, not the only option.
| Maybe something like the Ford eTransit or the Rivian EDV is a
| better fit for postal deliveries. My point is that other
| delivery companies and postal services use commercial
| vehicles, most likely because that's the most cost-effective
| option.
|
| Considering the NGDV's atrocious efficiency, lack of hybrid
| option, and high unit costs, it seems far more likely that
| this is a pork project for a defense contractor than that
| everyone else is doing it wrong.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Is it inefficient? Would it be more worthy to have two
| chassis designs, one for ICE and one for EV, to make it
| more efficient for the gas version? Would any hybrid
| drivetrain provide higher efficiency for similar build
| costs on the same chassis?
|
| My point would be that they weighed a lot of design
| considerations and I assume this is the best they could get
| that meets all of them. Like others said, other commercial
| delivery vehicles don't have the same use case as this. Who
| cares about range when the use case for this vehicle is ~20
| miles a day?
|
| Everyone else isn't "doing it wrong", they're doing it
| differently, for different needs.
| KK7NIL wrote:
| Did you not read the article?
|
| The NGDVs aren't Sprinter vans, they're purpose made mail
| delivery vehicles, with ergonomics and cargo space setup for
| that, which makes a massive difference for the drivers,
| especially when it comes to repetitive motion injuries, which
| is a huge cost for USPS.
|
| Amazon went away from commercial vans to purpose made vehicles
| built by Rivian for many of the same reasons and they've been
| widely praised by the drivers.
| ggreer wrote:
| The Rivian vans are commercially available.[1] Like the NGDV,
| they have a side door and an 80 inch interior height so that
| nobody has to stoop while in the cargo bay.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivian_EDV
| SoftTalker wrote:
| UPS brown trucks (they call them "cars" internally) are also
| custom made. They don't even resell them when they are at EOL
| they crush them.
| chomp wrote:
| How in the world is a mail carrier going to deliver mail in a
| huge esprinter, you going to have them open their door and
| climb out at every mailbox?
| ggreer wrote:
| My point was that a much more capable vehicle could be
| purchased for a similar price. Depending on the use case, of
| course other commercial vehicles would make more sense. The
| smaller versions of the Ford Transit are a popular option
| among non-US postal services. And if US Postal Service was
| willing to buy foreign vehicles, they could have even smaller
| and cheaper options. (Though they'd have to deal with EPA and
| NHTSA rules to make them street legal.)
| mmooss wrote:
| > My point was that a much more capable vehicle could be
| purchased for a similar price.
|
| This leaps to a conclusion. Probably the documents are
| public - why did they chose this solution over off-the-
| shelf options? (No point in speculation; what is their
| actual analysis?)
| saltminer wrote:
| One key difference between USPS and UPS/Fedex is that USPS does
| not do freight, and they do a lot more lightweight items (i.e.
| letters), so cargo capacity is much less of a concern. The fact
| that junk mail is so common actually reduces the need for cargo
| capacity since their routes tend to be made long not because of
| physical volume/distance so much as dwell time (that is, if
| someone is using EDDM[0] to target a neighborhood, you have to
| stop at _every_ mailbox in that neighborhood, even if it 's
| just to deliver that one piece of junk mail which will
| immediately get thrown away, and this takes far more time than
| delivering a bundle of packages to a handful of houses).
|
| I remember reading about the NGDV, and one of the reasons it
| looks so weird is because USPS wanted a vehicle that was low to
| the ground (to make it easier to climb in and out of) and easy
| to see over the hood, even for very short drivers[1]. Given
| that they are in residential areas (and thus, in proximity of
| kids playing outside) far more often than UPS/Fedex, I can't
| say I disagree with that requirement. (Also, if you have a tall
| truck like UPS and Fedex typically roll, good luck delivering
| to the average mailbox while staying in your seat.)
|
| USPS has certainly evaluated more traditional designs; in fact,
| they are actively using ~20k Ram ProMasters (a rebadged Fiat
| Ducato), which are quite similar to the Mercedes Sprinter,
| alongside ~9k mini vans[2].
|
| [0]: https://www.usps.com/business/every-door-direct-mail.htm
|
| [1]: https://x.com/Nir_Kahn/status/1364465483911675905
|
| [2]:
| https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-01/...
| (PDF page 6)
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| > Given that they are in residential areas (and thus, in
| proximity of kids playing outside) far more often than
| UPS/Fedex...
|
| That isn't the case at all in my experience. In any
| neighborhood I've ever lived in, you see at least one van
| from each organization come through daily. And if anything,
| UPS and FedEx come through more than once per day sometimes,
| whereas USPS doesn't.
|
| Per your earlier point about freight I can imagine that
| UPS/FedEx have a lower percentage of company traffic in
| residential areas than USPS does. But I find it difficult to
| imagine that the total number of trips to residential areas
| is lower for them. They simply have more non-residential
| traffic than USPS, not less residential traffic.
| hiccuphippo wrote:
| According to this video[0] the shape is because there's a
| requirement for 95th percentile males to be able to stand up
| inside and the front is low for 5th percentile females to be able
| to see a specific distance in front of the hood. The shape makes
| perfect sense.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6z4QvtQL8
| juunpp wrote:
| I thought it was going to be about duck typing.
| yongjik wrote:
| Honestly I think it looks great - the design screams "I care for
| pedestrian safety" and "I'm a nice person, and I don't need to
| compensate for anything, because I have great sex life."
| whatio wrote:
| It was designed with the person who will operate it in mind and
| it's made in the USA. That means it looks fantastic to me.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-26 23:01 UTC)