HN Explorer

136 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] thread
kelseyfrog
These are gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men. Taking them away is a direct attack on their masculinity. When we say, "Men are under attack," it refers to things like this.

Regardless of any safety claims, for that reason alone, I don't see it as a politically viable issue.

edbaskerville
I can't tell if you think this is a good thing or a bad thing that men use big trucks to compensate for a masculine sense of inadequacy. But I think this is a good point, and I think we need to fight against it.

I don't think it's politically impossible. These things are killing children (among many other people). "Giant trucks and SUVs are killing children" seems like a pretty powerful line.

RIMR
I 100% agree with you, but I do sorta get the other point being made here.

Assault rifles have been used to slaughter classrooms full of children in some of the most bone-chilling acts of violence imaginable, and people have such a weird identity complex around guns that they go to outrageous lengths to avoid any meaningful action. We've even seen parents of murdered children accused by gun-rights activists of being paid actors and deliberately threatening 2nd amendment rights.

Car culture in America is similarly toxic, with people having strong automobile-centric identities. The culture surrounding giant trucks is the most extreme, and there's a mountain of dashcam video online suggesting that the kinds of people who buy these massive truck are also quite reckless behind the wheel and do intentionally aggressive things with them, including deliberately harassing behaviors like "rolling coal". These aesthetics and behaviors are enshrined by popular political establishments on the right, meaning that challenging any of it becomes a partisan fight.

The backlash of banning these kinds of vehicles would be straight out of the movie Idiocracy, but there are enough jerks in this country that it would completely block any progress from ever being made.

ortusdux
Does the added risk translate proportionally to increased insurance costs? Or is there an imbalance? When I was a teen getting insurance for the first time, certain vehicle colors were significantly more expensive to insure, and that fact factored into my car buying decisions.
protocolture
I have 360 degree cameras (at toddler height), auto braking, every conceivable safety mechanism. I really think that once these are implemented, any hatred of large vehicles is just jealousy.
adamsb6
No mention of CAFE standards? How can you write this article without mentioning the policy that incentivizes larger vehicles?
avalys
There are many factors driving this:

1. Fuel economy regulations that scale regressively with vehicle size, that incentivize automakers to build and market larger vehicles that are easier to hit regulatory targets.

2. Rollover and crash worthiness regulations that require thicker A-pillars and more robust roof structure.

3. Towing performance. The large pickup manufacturers are in an arms race to beat each other’s power and towing capacity numbers. This requires a large, upright grille to provide adequate cooling for a large engine.

4. Consumer demand. The idea that marketing is telling people what to buy is silly. People are spending $80k+ on massive vehicles because they like them. Simple as that. The industry puts lot of marketing effort behind vehicles that are flops. They can’t make people buy a product they don’t want.

Disclaimer: I own a huge diesel pickup, along with a Tesla Model Y and a Porsche 911. Why? They’re fun! I use the pickup to tow an RV, but it’s also just fun to drive.

I have definitely noticed the visibility problem though. Forget pedestrians, sometimes entire cars are hiding behind the A-pillar! You have to move your head to the side to clear the blind spot safely.

tinyplanets
Okay, then sell your huge diesel pickup. Or is it just too much fun!
tasty_freeze
Recent Climate Town video on the move to trucks and SUVs: https://youtu.be/JPm4de6-eTg?si=Eu1y3uQIeCGnkR_2

If you don't know Rollie Williams, Climate Town videos are informative but suffused with a lot of humor to prevent it from being too preachy.

frimmy
++ -- Rollie Williams == for edutainment. His channel is responsible for me becoming a patreon subscriber
recursivedoubts
all we want are 70-series land cruisers, prados and suzuki jimnys

end the idiotic chicken tax and make small trucks and utes legal again

while we are on the topic, full size vans make a lot more sense than "suvs" for most families

RickJWagner
Yes, this is a problem. Look at a typical truck from the 90s or so, they are tiny compared to today’s trucks.

The same thing is true of cars. Today’s civic is as big as an accord used to be. There is no Del Sol.

We need to turn the incentive knobs that worked so successfully on consumption so we now work on vehicle size.

Also, about the center of gravity discussion: I used to have an old friend that spent decades in business running a body shop. I asked him once what was the worst animal for causing vehicle damage. ( This was in rural South Dakota. I was thinking cow, horse, maybe bison. ) Nope. He said most animals would go up and over the hood, just like the people in the article. He said pigs were the worst. They stay low, going right into the car and not bouncing over. Often resulting in a total loss for that car.

tinyplanets
Yeah, but who's going to get those incentives in place? In the US, it sure ain't gonna be the Republicans.
mcdow
there’s another thing that started to get quite popular in the late 2000s… smartphones
mc32
At the same time avoidance systems have become much better on those large new cars… so would it have even worse had collision avoidance not come into being?

Also interesting that often people tend to imagine F-150s, Silverados ,etc., but if you see what people drive they are large Bentzs, Toyotas and of course Suburbans and F-150s. But everyone is building them not just American manufacturers.

tonmoy
While their conclusion is probably correct, I would have liked to seen the number of fatalities normalized by population, miles driven, number of pedestrian increase, speed limit change etc
TulliusCicero
WA state recently passed a law about e-bikes/e-motorcycles to deal with the issue of younger teens on these kinda moped-style e-bikes going very fast around town (and often riding quite recklessly).

The law is reasonable, but it strikes me what a double standard there is for biking vs driving. For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders.

Meanwhile, everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people, but we do basically nothing. Even on the off chance that we passed a law about them, existing vehicles would certainly be grandfathered in, we would never outright ban current vehicles/motorists. If we banned existing SUVs and trucks, millions of people would be screaming bloody murder about their right to drive pedestrian-killing cars.

allthetime
I think at the very least owners of these vehicles should be made to undergo more rigorous licensing education and testing.
simpaticoder
>everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people

The number of things I believe "everyone knows" has tended to zero over time.

dzonga
banning big SUVs & Trucks is insurmountable not impossible - since you're trying to have people/organizations act against their own interests.

it's one of those cases of stated preference vs observed preference:

for individuals big SUVs/Trucks feel good to drive, are fast enough & come with street cred. Notice I put the word "feel".

for cities/state governments - big SUVs/Trucks mean increased taxes since they consume more gas - thus increased revenues from gas taxes

for the automakers as the article stated - 90% of their profits come from big SUVs/Trucks that American automakers have stopped making sedans. Profits from big co's is a bragging point for the federal government too.

Now legislation would've to try for all those people to act against their own interests ? Unless some geopolitical event happens - that's unlikely.

stouset
Yep. And the refrain is always about “dangerous” behavior by cyclists, despite the fact that deaths and injuries to others from those on bikes are essentially a rounding error. The vast majority of what danger there is is borne by the riders themselves and not by bystanders.

Meanwhile, nobody bats an eye over the fact that motor vehicles are a leading cause of death in this country and the brunt is often borne by others.

progmetaldev
I'm definitely not arguing that SUVs and trucks are killing people, and as someone that drives a Ford F-150, I wouldn't mind having to be licensed for a commercial drivers license (although would like that to be based on skill, rather than charging more for that license).

I am constantly having to dodge these e-bikes in the streets, mostly driven by children/teenagers, who do not follow traffic laws (I'm in upstate NY). They don't even follow standard bicycle traffic laws. Driving in the city, I regularly have e-bikes coming at me against traffic in my lane. I would be absolutely devastated if I hit someone with my truck, and I honestly usually drive lower than the speed limit in these areas. It's even worse in the suburbs, because these people don't have the same survival instincts when riding these e-bikes as those in higher traffic areas. It's constantly on my mind that if I hit one of these children, not only will my conscious be filled with guilt, but I will probably be charged with manslaughter charges.

Upstate NY is starting to create laws and restrictions around e-bikes, but that is not stopping parents from being uninvolved. In the cities, there are rentable e-bikes being used everywhere, and it only requires the ability to pay to use it. I'm all for making transportation easier for those of lower income, or that prefer to use something that doesn't spew emissions like a gas-powered vehicle, but beyond being able to pay for the e-bike there is little being done to regulate or enforce how they are used.

matheusmoreira
> For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders.

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

isthatafact
> "Bikers don't pay taxes"

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

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
flakiness
I hope that law comes to CA soon. The trail walk has become a deadly adventure in the past few years because of these reckless ebikes.
Manuel_D
The new WA basically did nothing except re-state existing laws. Ebikes cannot be more powerful than 1 horsepower (750 watt) and cannot go faster than 20 mph on throttle or 28ph on throttle + pedal assist.

"Moped-style ebikes" like Surrons were already illegal on public roads.

iugtmkbdfil834
Meh, standard attempt at mollifying the biggest opponents by offering them exemptions and exceptions does not move me at all. Boring.

Lets make it better.

After all, after the nanny state representatives succeed with this, they will move onto some other cause to ban another thing they deem unnecessary and an affront to their sensibilities. They will not be content until everyone does exactly as they say ( but not do ). And that is fine for them. Where I stand, I will keep on trucking and my child, god willing, will own a veritable tank that will crush anti truck infidels under its mighty heels. The gods of molten metal have spoken. Your sacrifice is deemed acceptable -- bike enjoyer.

chazzalpha
I would 100% be in favor of banning these oversized vehicles. European countries are doing the same precisely because these trucks and SUVs are ridiculously effective at mowing down pedestrians. They are a public health issue like cigarettes, drunk driving, and guns. And most of these large trucks on the road are driven by insecure suburban men who work office jobs and haul maybe a couch once a year. The US needs to have a reckoning on its deadly addiction to automobiles.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
hackingonempty
In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1]

It is a massive problem that receives a disproportionate amount of attention.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...

tzs
Wait...is the massive problem that it should be more than an order of magnitude more people killed than those killed in mass shootings, or is it that it should be less than an order of magnitude more?

They are such completely different categories of ways to die I'm having trouble understand how to compare them in any sensible way.

IshKebab
8000 pedestrians killed by cars and 762 in mass shootings. Obviously in raw numbers 8000 is bigger than 762, but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is! 762 is an absolutely astoundingly crazy number and it definitely deserves the most attention.
hackingonempty
All of the time and money put into trying to reduce mass shooting deaths would save more people if it went into trying to reduce vehicular pedestrian deaths. No enumerated rights are involved in driving, making it vastly easier to implement legal solutions.
allarm
This comparison seems bizarre to me, but what do I know about the US?
like_any_other
Not that I object to the findings, but the Center for Disease Control getting involved in traffic safety is massive scope creep. Especially since we already have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.
srustagi
more europeans are killed from not having AC/heat-related deaths than both of those.

I don't think any of these are apples to apples comparisons tbh your point still stands without the extreme analogy.

carlosjobim
Took less than 5 seconds of reading the article to find out the title is a total lie:

“That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”

Edit: The title of the OP has been changed after I made this reply.

tantalor
Okay. What's the correlation coefficient?
srdjanr
So this is only one of the reasons, and a relatively small one:

“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”

b112
It could be why.

It could also be from people staring at their cell phone and walking down the road. I see it all the time. I've seen people walk right into intersections against the light.

Maybe, it's even both, because while I can believe large cars aren't helping... I surely know staring on your phone, walking, and not paying attention is just plain dumb.

izend
Vehicles accelerate a LOT faster on average than years ago, EVs and Turbo Engines...
everdrive
People spend a lot of time on Trucks, but I don't see why SUVs get a pass. Every single car is an SUV now. They're higher up, heavier, and have a higher beltline all so that drivers can "feel safer."
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
bluescrn
What also happened around 2009?... Smartphones taking off in a big way.

Distracted pedestrians must be a significant factor too. Especially if they've got noise-cancelling Airpods or similar in their ears while looking at their phone.