5 ms·

If anyone has ANY additional data around the dangers or problems to either people or the environment by large / heavy vehicles, please reach out. I am preparin

If anyone has ANY additional data around the dangers or problems to either people or the environment by large / heavy vehicles, please reach out. I am preparing arguments for stronger regulation around vehicle size/weight. Focused on non-commercial usage. Email in profile.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The fact that regulation precludes the viability of a small vehicle that is able to punch above its size (like a Chevy Astro, or older Ford Ranger) in terms of capability is a large part of why vehicles have grown so large. Commercial needs that used to be served by these small vehicles are being solved by F150s and Transits. Commuters who used to commute in hatches and wagons which could sufficiently perform their weekend duties as well are buying crossovers and SUVs which have nearly identical interior dimensions. This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations. The road to hell is legislated with good intentions.
- majormajor 5y ago
  Seems like the smart thing to do would be to treat law and regulation as something that needs - just like any other product - continual feedback, iteration, and improvement. "Oops we created this bad side effect, let's narrow things down further" in the same way that we'd patch a security hole introduced by a new product feature. Saying "the answer is to just stop trying to prevent bad things" is nonsensical on the face of it. The problems that caused people to care enough to want regulation didn't just magically go away!
- asdff 5y ago
  >This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations. Why don't we see this in europe, or japan, or any other first world urban area where you see a proliferation of tiny trucks, tiny vans, tiny vehicles, mopeds, etc? Surely these other places also chased fuel economy savings and safety, but they ended up with a market that looks (and weighs) a lot different. I doubt these cars are any more dangerous or less fuel efficient than some American market car. What sort of policies were enacted in these places that lead to the markets for these small vehicles, which we don't see here?
- cycomanic 5y ago
  >Commercial needs that used to be served by these small vehicles are being solved by F150s and Transits. Commuters who used to commute in hatches and wagons which could sufficiently perform their weekend duties as well are buying crossovers and SUVs which have nearly identical interior dimensions. This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations. I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you implying SUVs have better fuel economy? Because they don't? Also generally safety regulations are tougher in Europe, but cars are smaller, so I don't believe that SUVs comply better with safety regulations either.
  - benjohnson 5y ago
    The federal fuel economy standards have a weird calculation that incentives vehicles with a large footprint. It's the ratio of footprint to MPG that's important to the feds.
    - zip1234 5y ago
      They tried to make exceptions for work vehicles which seems to have spectacularly backfired.
      - blacktriangle 5y ago
        If only people would learn that regulation backfiring is the expected outcome.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      Ok, thanks for clarifying. I'm European where I don't think calculations like this exist.
      - cvak 5y ago
        Haha, they do, and they are the same bullshit, and basically killed small hatchbacks. In EU car makers are paying for extra g of CO2/km on every vehicle. And that g/km is calculated based on weight of the vehicle. I don't have exact numbers, but basically 2 ton SUV can have something like 140g/km without penalty, while 1.3 ton hatch has to have 70g/km which is impossible.
- bryanmgreen 5y ago
  I drive a 2017 Ford Fiesta hatchback that is 160" long, weighs about 2,600 pounds, and gets a minimum of 26, average 28, MPG in Los Angeles traffic on basic gas. I've moved with it, put a rack on the top, and drive friends around. It's got CarPlay, cruise control, even stupid LED lighting for my cupholders. If that's not punching above its literal size and weight, I don't know what would. Unfortunately this car has been discontinued now. Nothing in today's market is comparable. Regulation on size/weight will give cars like this the opportunity to survive.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    You're missing the point. Between increasing belt-lines, fatter pillars, thicker doors and smooth/aerodynamic and rounded shapes modern cars have less space than older ones of equivalent exterior dimensions. Because people want a baseline amount of interior space in any given class of vehicle the vehicles have grown. Look at the new iterations of compact cars and compact trucks (and their counterpart SUVs) for a good example. They have nearly identical interior dimensions and have grown a couple inches in every direction and a couple hundred pounds. Just because you feel your car is a good deal for what it is does not mean it is not also subject to the same regulatory treatment. An '03 Ford Escort wagon is 10" longer and the same width and weight as your car and blows it out of the water in terms of usable interior space (I could only find a spec for the 2dr coupe but it has 92.x cubic feet vs 97.x for your Fiesta hatch). It's slower and gets worse fuel economy and doesn't have bluetooth but that's just a reflection of the state of tech at the time. Pretty much every product line has received this treatment over the last 20yr. Your car would exist without modern safety/fuel economy regulation. It would just look like a 2003 Ford Escort that puts down performance numbers that are more befitting the year 2021.
latencyloser 5y ago
Similarly, I hope folks will reach out with ANY additional data around the lack of danger caused by large / heavy vehicles as opposed to any other non-commercial vehicle. I'm sorta tired of people regulating or trying to regulate every aspect of life. Maybe just let people make their own decisions.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  The problem is that the people driving the large vehicles are making decisions for the pedestrians on the road, not themselves.
  - latencyloser 5y ago
    I still disagree that there's a regulatory need here. Are there not consequences for the drivers in these situations? Are pedestrians not somewhat liable for their own situational awareness? Even if regulation is the only solution (I do not believe it is) there's ways with better locality like limiting access to the roads, providing better pathways for pedestrians, better guard rails, lighting, etc. Regulating the vehicle is a sweeping change that assumes that people who own these vehicles have absolutely no need for them in the first place. I live in an area where a high clearance SUV or other large vehicle is a necessity for navigating many of the roads. Why should I, and others like me, suffer for the externalities occurring in cities (this seems to pertain to) where I will never drive?
    - zip1234 5y ago
      What 99% of Americans use their large SUVs and pickup trucks for is not to drive on seasonal roads in Montana.
      - latencyloser 5y ago
        99% of Americans don't get run over by SUVs or pickup trucks either. I don't live in Montana, fwiw.
    - 5y ago
frontiersummit 5y ago
The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from NHTSA codes every fatal motor vehicle accident in the United States, including collisions with pedestrians. It's a magnificent data set used widely in the insurance industry, but also by engineers in related sectors. It would be my goto dataset if I was in your position. https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report...
Gibbon1 5y ago
Random thought. Implement standards for pedestrian safety. Ban personal vehicles that don't meet them from urban streets.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

The fact that regulation precludes the viability of a small vehicle that is able to punch above its size (like a Chevy Astro, or older Ford Ranger) in terms of capability is a large part of why vehicles have grown so large. Commercial needs that used to be served by these small vehicles are being solved by F150s and Transits. Commuters who used to commute in hatches and wagons which could sufficiently perform their weekend duties as well are buying crossovers and SUVs which have nearly identical interior dimensions. This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations. The road to hell is legislated with good intentions.

majormajor 5y ago
Seems like the smart thing to do would be to treat law and regulation as something that needs - just like any other product - continual feedback, iteration, and improvement. "Oops we created this bad side effect, let's narrow things down further" in the same way that we'd patch a security hole introduced by a new product feature. Saying "the answer is to just stop trying to prevent bad things" is nonsensical on the face of it. The problems that caused people to care enough to want regulation didn't just magically go away!
asdff 5y ago
>This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations. Why don't we see this in europe, or japan, or any other first world urban area where you see a proliferation of tiny trucks, tiny vans, tiny vehicles, mopeds, etc? Surely these other places also chased fuel economy savings and safety, but they ended up with a market that looks (and weighs) a lot different. I doubt these cars are any more dangerous or less fuel efficient than some American market car. What sort of policies were enacted in these places that lead to the markets for these small vehicles, which we don't see here?
cycomanic 5y ago
>Commercial needs that used to be served by these small vehicles are being solved by F150s and Transits. Commuters who used to commute in hatches and wagons which could sufficiently perform their weekend duties as well are buying crossovers and SUVs which have nearly identical interior dimensions. This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations. I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you implying SUVs have better fuel economy? Because they don't? Also generally safety regulations are tougher in Europe, but cars are smaller, so I don't believe that SUVs comply better with safety regulations either.
- benjohnson 5y ago
  The federal fuel economy standards have a weird calculation that incentives vehicles with a large footprint. It's the ratio of footprint to MPG that's important to the feds.
  - zip1234 5y ago
    They tried to make exceptions for work vehicles which seems to have spectacularly backfired.
    - blacktriangle 5y ago
      If only people would learn that regulation backfiring is the expected outcome.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    Ok, thanks for clarifying. I'm European where I don't think calculations like this exist.
    - cvak 5y ago
      Haha, they do, and they are the same bullshit, and basically killed small hatchbacks. In EU car makers are paying for extra g of CO2/km on every vehicle. And that g/km is calculated based on weight of the vehicle. I don't have exact numbers, but basically 2 ton SUV can have something like 140g/km without penalty, while 1.3 ton hatch has to have 70g/km which is impossible.
bryanmgreen 5y ago
I drive a 2017 Ford Fiesta hatchback that is 160" long, weighs about 2,600 pounds, and gets a minimum of 26, average 28, MPG in Los Angeles traffic on basic gas. I've moved with it, put a rack on the top, and drive friends around. It's got CarPlay, cruise control, even stupid LED lighting for my cupholders. If that's not punching above its literal size and weight, I don't know what would. Unfortunately this car has been discontinued now. Nothing in today's market is comparable. Regulation on size/weight will give cars like this the opportunity to survive.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  You're missing the point. Between increasing belt-lines, fatter pillars, thicker doors and smooth/aerodynamic and rounded shapes modern cars have less space than older ones of equivalent exterior dimensions. Because people want a baseline amount of interior space in any given class of vehicle the vehicles have grown. Look at the new iterations of compact cars and compact trucks (and their counterpart SUVs) for a good example. They have nearly identical interior dimensions and have grown a couple inches in every direction and a couple hundred pounds. Just because you feel your car is a good deal for what it is does not mean it is not also subject to the same regulatory treatment. An '03 Ford Escort wagon is 10" longer and the same width and weight as your car and blows it out of the water in terms of usable interior space (I could only find a spec for the 2dr coupe but it has 92.x cubic feet vs 97.x for your Fiesta hatch). It's slower and gets worse fuel economy and doesn't have bluetooth but that's just a reflection of the state of tech at the time. Pretty much every product line has received this treatment over the last 20yr. Your car would exist without modern safety/fuel economy regulation. It would just look like a 2003 Ford Escort that puts down performance numbers that are more befitting the year 2021.

latencyloser 5y ago

Similarly, I hope folks will reach out with ANY additional data around the lack of danger caused by large / heavy vehicles as opposed to any other non-commercial vehicle. I'm sorta tired of people regulating or trying to regulate every aspect of life. Maybe just let people make their own decisions.

cycomanic 5y ago
The problem is that the people driving the large vehicles are making decisions for the pedestrians on the road, not themselves.
- latencyloser 5y ago
  I still disagree that there's a regulatory need here. Are there not consequences for the drivers in these situations? Are pedestrians not somewhat liable for their own situational awareness? Even if regulation is the only solution (I do not believe it is) there's ways with better locality like limiting access to the roads, providing better pathways for pedestrians, better guard rails, lighting, etc. Regulating the vehicle is a sweeping change that assumes that people who own these vehicles have absolutely no need for them in the first place. I live in an area where a high clearance SUV or other large vehicle is a necessity for navigating many of the roads. Why should I, and others like me, suffer for the externalities occurring in cities (this seems to pertain to) where I will never drive?
  - zip1234 5y ago
    What 99% of Americans use their large SUVs and pickup trucks for is not to drive on seasonal roads in Montana.
    - latencyloser 5y ago
      99% of Americans don't get run over by SUVs or pickup trucks either. I don't live in Montana, fwiw.
  - 5y ago

frontiersummit 5y ago

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) from NHTSA codes every fatal motor vehicle accident in the United States, including collisions with pedestrians. It's a magnificent data set used widely in the insurance industry, but also by engineers in related sectors. It would be my goto dataset if I was in your position. https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report...

Gibbon1 5y ago

Random thought. Implement standards for pedestrian safety. Ban personal vehicles that don't meet them from urban streets.