7 ms·

The conventional answer is that vehicles are getting bigger/higher off the ground/heavier in the US. Some new pickup trucks are so big and have such a bad view

The conventional answer is that vehicles are getting bigger/higher off the ground/heavier in the US. Some new pickup trucks are so big and have such a bad view of the road in front of them that you can't even see a normal sized car stopped in front out the windshield and they need to have a front camera. A lot of SUVs aren't quite there yet but they are getting ridiculously big/heavy and still high enough that it's hard to see children in front. The height means that the bumper is positioned in a much worse way and rather than rolling on the windshield you'll just die if you're hit. The weight also increases the risk to pedestrians in a collision. Also, some other countries are doing much more serious things to reduce pedestrian/cyclist deaths while the US is doing pretty much nothing.

Dalewyn 4y ago
The other side of the coin is that you're safer inside a bigger and heavier vehicle when you're inevitably in an accident. A big Ford F-350 is going to have a much better chance of successfully protecting its passengers than a Toyota Camry.
- chillwaves 4y ago
  Based on what? I have never heard of this rule "Bigger = safer". Nothing "inevitable" about accidents.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    It's very simple physics: if your vehicle is much larger than the vehicle you crash into, you're going to have lower acceleration forces inside your vehicle and thus experience fewer injuries. Sucks to be the person in the other vehicle though. The end result is an arms race of vehicle sizes.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >Nothing "inevitable" about accidents. Car accidents are a question of when, not if. Sooner or later you're going to be in one. If you somehow get through life without ever being involved in one, you were a very lucky bastard.
    - sveme 4y ago
      Live in Germany, driving for 25 years. Never was in an accident. Same as my father, who has been driving for more than 45 years. Anecdotes, I know, but I definitely know less people that were in accidents than those that were not.
      - usr1106 4y ago
        Nobody in my wider family drives. But I remember 4 accidents. 2 as passengers in a car, which is already very rare in a family without cars. 2 hit by cars breaking traffic law when cycling. Nothing overly dramatic happened, but still. Most of my relatives and friends have been in car accidents. 2 friends of friends even deadly. Germany, too. Edit: My active memory is around 50 years.
    - mcv 4y ago
      That's a defeatist attitude. Most people I know have never been in a car accident (I actually have; I just remembered. I hit a bike when turning right when I just had my license; never happened since, fortunately. Nobody was hurt). But I live in a country that cares about safe traffic design; that matters a lot.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        >That's a defeatist attitude. It's called being realistic. First, think of the stupidest guy you can think of and understand half of humanity is stupider than him. Second, think of simply how many people and cars are on the road at any given time. Counting would be a fool's errand, to say the least. Third, understand that driving a car is not something that comes naturally or instinctively. Some might be more talented drivers than others, but we all have to learn how to drive a car to varying degrees of competency. Fourth and finally: Murphy's Law. When you combine all of these together, it's a miracle that we aren't seeing several orders of magnitudes more car accidents on a daily basis. The old saying that you're more likely to be in a car accident going to the airport than the chance you'll be in a plane accident is based in reality. If you get through life without being in a car accident, I reiterate you were a lucky bastard and I would sincerely be happy for your good fortune.
- etrautmann 4y ago
  Safety for you at the direct expense of everyone else. Classic tragedy of the commons I suppose.
- notacoward 4y ago
  "Make sure the other guy dies" is not a great approach to social policy.
  - coryrc 4y ago
    But it is a very American approach.
- davidw 4y ago
  This is not wrong, but it's a horrible arms race that leads to an incredible loss of life as well as massive amounts of unnecessary pollution.
- kranelisa 4y ago
  So, arms race towards everyone driving a tank?
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Let's drive tanks then, and play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadBlasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadBlasters !1!! edit: Did not downvote, because on point. But mine is too, in extrapolation.
WalterBright 4y ago
In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes. Madness. There's no way I'd ever ride a bike in those lanes. I hate the Kriss-Kross when I'm driving, because in slow traffic the bikes often move faster, passing on the right and then Kriss-Krossing in front of you.
- MonaroVXR 4y ago
  " In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes" Same in the Netherlands, not all bicycle and stoplights are equal
- livueta 4y ago
  I biked many thousands of miles to/from work/school in Seattle - well, up until the third time I got run over and decided to call it quits - and agree 1000%. The idea that "sharing the road" is possible if only we were all a little nicer and more attentive is a supremely naive fantasy that exists primarily as a justification to not build real physically divided infrastructure. Painted bike lanes (and crosswalks, tbqh) are death traps and overall fucking terrible fig-leaf concepts. Barriers (and over/underpasses, etc) or nothing.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Sharing the road with a sane driver travelling at sane speed limits in a sane car is perfectly reasonable. There's no practical reason 95% of motor vehicles couldn't be as small as the eu L7e class (or even half the weight) and governed to 40km/h (with a manual override for larger roads) with the remaining 5% only travelling on local roads by timed permit. Filling the roads with monster trucks is an intentional policy choice, not some inevitability and even not what people would naturally decide to do. For rural roads a bike lane works fine as there are very few conflict points.
    - Reason077 4y ago
spookierookie 4y ago
European here. We mostly get what you guys have in terms of cars and politics lagging just a few years or months back. Usually with narrower roads and worse infrastructure.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
  From a pedestrian safety perspective, narrower roads and worse infrastructure is a good thing. It slows cars down and makes it less pleasant to drive, so fewer do.
  - spookierookie 4y ago
    You'd expect so (and I'd hope so) but nope. Drivers become even more reckless. Driving huge, noise-insulated cars seems to put them in the mindset of total control, detachment from actual speed and "I'm not gonna hurt myself anyways". Depending on the country you can add a less than perfect driver education (if any) to the mix.

Dalewyn 4y ago

The other side of the coin is that you're safer inside a bigger and heavier vehicle when you're inevitably in an accident. A big Ford F-350 is going to have a much better chance of successfully protecting its passengers than a Toyota Camry.

chillwaves 4y ago
Based on what? I have never heard of this rule "Bigger = safer". Nothing "inevitable" about accidents.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- midoridensha 4y ago
  It's very simple physics: if your vehicle is much larger than the vehicle you crash into, you're going to have lower acceleration forces inside your vehicle and thus experience fewer injuries. Sucks to be the person in the other vehicle though. The end result is an arms race of vehicle sizes.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Nothing "inevitable" about accidents. Car accidents are a question of when, not if. Sooner or later you're going to be in one. If you somehow get through life without ever being involved in one, you were a very lucky bastard.
  - sveme 4y ago
    Live in Germany, driving for 25 years. Never was in an accident. Same as my father, who has been driving for more than 45 years. Anecdotes, I know, but I definitely know less people that were in accidents than those that were not.
    - usr1106 4y ago
      Nobody in my wider family drives. But I remember 4 accidents. 2 as passengers in a car, which is already very rare in a family without cars. 2 hit by cars breaking traffic law when cycling. Nothing overly dramatic happened, but still. Most of my relatives and friends have been in car accidents. 2 friends of friends even deadly. Germany, too. Edit: My active memory is around 50 years.
  - mcv 4y ago
    That's a defeatist attitude. Most people I know have never been in a car accident (I actually have; I just remembered. I hit a bike when turning right when I just had my license; never happened since, fortunately. Nobody was hurt). But I live in a country that cares about safe traffic design; that matters a lot.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >That's a defeatist attitude. It's called being realistic. First, think of the stupidest guy you can think of and understand half of humanity is stupider than him. Second, think of simply how many people and cars are on the road at any given time. Counting would be a fool's errand, to say the least. Third, understand that driving a car is not something that comes naturally or instinctively. Some might be more talented drivers than others, but we all have to learn how to drive a car to varying degrees of competency. Fourth and finally: Murphy's Law. When you combine all of these together, it's a miracle that we aren't seeing several orders of magnitudes more car accidents on a daily basis. The old saying that you're more likely to be in a car accident going to the airport than the chance you'll be in a plane accident is based in reality. If you get through life without being in a car accident, I reiterate you were a lucky bastard and I would sincerely be happy for your good fortune.
etrautmann 4y ago
Safety for you at the direct expense of everyone else. Classic tragedy of the commons I suppose.
notacoward 4y ago
"Make sure the other guy dies" is not a great approach to social policy.
- coryrc 4y ago
  But it is a very American approach.
davidw 4y ago
This is not wrong, but it's a horrible arms race that leads to an incredible loss of life as well as massive amounts of unnecessary pollution.
kranelisa 4y ago
So, arms race towards everyone driving a tank?
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Let's drive tanks then, and play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadBlasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadBlasters !1!! edit: Did not downvote, because on point. But mine is too, in extrapolation.

WalterBright 4y ago

In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes. Madness. There's no way I'd ever ride a bike in those lanes. I hate the Kriss-Kross when I'm driving, because in slow traffic the bikes often move faster, passing on the right and then Kriss-Krossing in front of you.

MonaroVXR 4y ago
" In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes" Same in the Netherlands, not all bicycle and stoplights are equal
livueta 4y ago
I biked many thousands of miles to/from work/school in Seattle - well, up until the third time I got run over and decided to call it quits - and agree 1000%. The idea that "sharing the road" is possible if only we were all a little nicer and more attentive is a supremely naive fantasy that exists primarily as a justification to not build real physically divided infrastructure. Painted bike lanes (and crosswalks, tbqh) are death traps and overall fucking terrible fig-leaf concepts. Barriers (and over/underpasses, etc) or nothing.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Sharing the road with a sane driver travelling at sane speed limits in a sane car is perfectly reasonable. There's no practical reason 95% of motor vehicles couldn't be as small as the eu L7e class (or even half the weight) and governed to 40km/h (with a manual override for larger roads) with the remaining 5% only travelling on local roads by timed permit. Filling the roads with monster trucks is an intentional policy choice, not some inevitability and even not what people would naturally decide to do. For rural roads a bike lane works fine as there are very few conflict points.
  - Reason077 4y ago

spookierookie 4y ago

European here. We mostly get what you guys have in terms of cars and politics lagging just a few years or months back. Usually with narrower roads and worse infrastructure.

asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
From a pedestrian safety perspective, narrower roads and worse infrastructure is a good thing. It slows cars down and makes it less pleasant to drive, so fewer do.
- spookierookie 4y ago
  You'd expect so (and I'd hope so) but nope. Drivers become even more reckless. Driving huge, noise-insulated cars seems to put them in the mindset of total control, detachment from actual speed and "I'm not gonna hurt myself anyways". Depending on the country you can add a less than perfect driver education (if any) to the mix.