5 ms·

Or MAYBE it's time to install safety skirts on trucks just like they do in Europe? There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truc

by Swizec 10y ago

Or MAYBE it's time to install safety skirts on trucks just like they do in Europe? There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truck. This is what a truck designed for safety looks like: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Artic.lorry.arp.750pix.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Artic.lo... Notice how no part of it is higher off the ground than a foot or so. Way too low for a car to fit under. This is what truck in the US looks like: http://www.center-linecurtains.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/HomePageTruckN.png http://www.center-linecurtains.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/0... Notice how you could hide a sports car underneath.

mschuster91 10y ago
> There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truck. There is, it's called capitalism, and a safety skirt costs money. The fix is, as in many cases, regulations. However, I believe that even the shown safety skirt leaves too much space below, and especially exposed tires, which is still dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.
- Swizec 10y ago
  A lot of those skirts also aren't quite as strong as they should be. Here's a comparison between one that fails testing and one that doesn't: https://youtu.be/gL8DQIAqZms?t=151 https://youtu.be/gL8DQIAqZms?t=151 As for pedestrians and bikers, I really really like Europe's solution to that problem: Pedestrian and Bikers are illegal on the freeway. Big trucks are made strongly and forcefully impractical in cities, towns, and villages. It's crazy that I live in downtown SF and there are huge freight trucks driving past my bedroom window every day.
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    With the pedestrians and bikers, I mainly meant when large trucks are driving in the cities to serve e.g. supermarkets - one I worked at, right in the center of Munich, had a huge 40-ton truck serving it each day. It's dangerous as hell, but impractical to do any other way...
    - Swizec 10y ago
      Maybe it was just my neck of Europe then. Trucks would only go to supermarkets on the big roads where there's strict physical separation between traffic and everyone else. They're also position on the edge of the city next to the ring freeway so that trucks have a short path from freeway to supermarket. Deliveries inside the city are done with smaller lorries which are a bit safer maybe. If not safer, definitely more practical on tight inner-city streets. I don't think it's practical for trucks to be designed as pedestrian safe as modern city buses are, so it's better to keep them away from pedestrians as much as possible.
- randyrand 10y ago
  Non for profits that buy semi trucks also do not install safety skirts. Neither do any government trucks I've seen. I don't think capitalism is the issue.
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    Capitalism is the issue because the money is being saved by cutting corners on safety. In case of non-profits and the government people might actually sue for wasting of money because money is spent on stuff that is not required by law.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Capitalism is the issue because the money is being saved by cutting corners on safety. Saving resources by skipping on safety features is not exclusive to capitalism. If anything, the correlation seems to run backwards - capitalist countries are generally safer (mostly, I'd say, because they're rich enough to spend extra resources on safety). In case of non-profits and the government people might actually sue for wasting of money because money is spent on stuff that is not required by law. Can you give an example of such a lawsuit ever having succeeded?

by Swizec 10y ago

mschuster91 10y ago

> There's no reason why an entire sedan should fit under the trailer of a truck. There is, it's called capitalism, and a safety skirt costs money. The fix is, as in many cases, regulations. However, I believe that even the shown safety skirt leaves too much space below, and especially exposed tires, which is still dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.

Swizec 10y ago
A lot of those skirts also aren't quite as strong as they should be. Here's a comparison between one that fails testing and one that doesn't: https://youtu.be/gL8DQIAqZms?t=151 https://youtu.be/gL8DQIAqZms?t=151 As for pedestrians and bikers, I really really like Europe's solution to that problem: Pedestrian and Bikers are illegal on the freeway. Big trucks are made strongly and forcefully impractical in cities, towns, and villages. It's crazy that I live in downtown SF and there are huge freight trucks driving past my bedroom window every day.
- mschuster91 10y ago
  With the pedestrians and bikers, I mainly meant when large trucks are driving in the cities to serve e.g. supermarkets - one I worked at, right in the center of Munich, had a huge 40-ton truck serving it each day. It's dangerous as hell, but impractical to do any other way...
  - Swizec 10y ago
    Maybe it was just my neck of Europe then. Trucks would only go to supermarkets on the big roads where there's strict physical separation between traffic and everyone else. They're also position on the edge of the city next to the ring freeway so that trucks have a short path from freeway to supermarket. Deliveries inside the city are done with smaller lorries which are a bit safer maybe. If not safer, definitely more practical on tight inner-city streets. I don't think it's practical for trucks to be designed as pedestrian safe as modern city buses are, so it's better to keep them away from pedestrians as much as possible.
randyrand 10y ago
Non for profits that buy semi trucks also do not install safety skirts. Neither do any government trucks I've seen. I don't think capitalism is the issue.
- mschuster91 10y ago
  Capitalism is the issue because the money is being saved by cutting corners on safety. In case of non-profits and the government people might actually sue for wasting of money because money is spent on stuff that is not required by law.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Capitalism is the issue because the money is being saved by cutting corners on safety. Saving resources by skipping on safety features is not exclusive to capitalism. If anything, the correlation seems to run backwards - capitalist countries are generally safer (mostly, I'd say, because they're rich enough to spend extra resources on safety). In case of non-profits and the government people might actually sue for wasting of money because money is spent on stuff that is not required by law. Can you give an example of such a lawsuit ever having succeeded?