3 ms·

It would be interesting to see a study on the net impact increasing vehicle size actually has had on safety. All else being equal, it makes logical sense that

It would be interesting to see a study on the net impact increasing vehicle size actually has had on safety. All else being equal, it makes logical sense that a larger vehicle would be safer in a crash than a smaller one. But the proliferation of larger and larger vehicles almost certainly causes some second order effects that means all else is likely not equal, especially when you consider the population as a whole. An accident involving two large vehicles seems like it could actually be more dangerous than an accident involving two smaller vehicles since there is a lot more force involved. And to your example, it seems like larger vehicles could make people drive more aggressively since they feel more invulnerable. Certainly larger vehicles are less agile, harder to control, and more prone to things like rollovers, which could make avoiding an accident in the first place more difficult. I think the statistics show that if you're making a personal buying choice in 2023, a larger vehicle is safer than a smaller one. But the impact on overall safety of all those personal choices added up is less obviously a positive one.

trgn 4y ago
The answer is right there, so obvious. More mass in motion at high speeds, all things being equal, is more danger, damage and destruction, more wear and tear on roads. Simple physics. It is a tragedy of the commons. Any individual rationalization is in effect making the situation worse, and a post hoc justification of the current arms race. This needs top down regulation, not bottom-up convergence. Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years ago, because cars have gotten more foul. Note that the only places where this noxious effect is countered, are the places that side-step the issue by curbing driving as a whole. The galvanizing program of every western european city the last 10-15 years has been calming traffic and encouraging walking, cycling, transit. The effects are clear. Cars are trashing up those cities less than before, they've improved quality of life. In most of the US, the effect is the opposite. No efforts to curb driving; and the bigger cars and trucks have made cities worse; deadly, dangerous, scaring people into bigger cars, scaring people from riding bikes, walking. Things can always get worse, and we've been finding out.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >more wear and tear on roads. Listen, I hate the electric hummer and Chevy 2500s as much as the next guy but talking point needs to be taken out back and shot. The wear and tear light vehicles put on the road is a rounding error on any road that sees commercial traffic >Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years ago, This is just pure lying. The "fleet" is much cleaner than it was 15-20yr ago for a variety of reasons. Cities are much safer and richer. >This needs top down regulation, Top down regulation is what gave us LA. People in general can't be trusted to centrally plan and the people who think they can solve the world's ills with central planning are the least trustworthy. We need to "regress" to pre-1940s urban development patterns.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >Cities are much safer and richer. Speaking generally, rather than specifically in the context of cars, most big US cities were worse on pretty much every axis (other than cost) in 1990 than they are today. I suspect most people who object to the, say, Disneyfication of Times Square weren't there at night 30 years ago. Cities were in general significantly more dangerous and grittier than they are today.
nine_k 4y ago
Kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared, so yes, heavier cars expend more energy in collisions, likely making the collisions more destructive. "Being in a larger car" is basically the classic competition of armor vs projectile: the currently bigger thing has an advantage, but the opposing side of the collision quickly gets up to par and beyond, and the cycle continues.
agloe_dreams 4y ago
A key value is that larger cars are worse in every single accident avoidance situation. Braking distances are longer in the dry and much longer in the wet, moose test results are often failed by large SUVs, rollover risks are higher, and general vehicle visibility is worse. A Toyota RAV4 for example has a stopping distance (in ideal situations) of 135ft. A Camry stops 15 feet quicker. Interestingly, the Hybrid RAV4 Prime with eco-focused tires stops up to 12 feet further than the base RAV4. This isn't all due to SUVs of course, a Volvo XC40 does it in a stunning 110ft. But cheap tires and small brake packages harm SUVs worse.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  So they're likelier to crash and likelier to kill other people.... we need regulation for this.

trgn 4y ago

The answer is right there, so obvious. More mass in motion at high speeds, all things being equal, is more danger, damage and destruction, more wear and tear on roads. Simple physics. It is a tragedy of the commons. Any individual rationalization is in effect making the situation worse, and a post hoc justification of the current arms race. This needs top down regulation, not bottom-up convergence. Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years ago, because cars have gotten more foul. Note that the only places where this noxious effect is countered, are the places that side-step the issue by curbing driving as a whole. The galvanizing program of every western european city the last 10-15 years has been calming traffic and encouraging walking, cycling, transit. The effects are clear. Cars are trashing up those cities less than before, they've improved quality of life. In most of the US, the effect is the opposite. No efforts to curb driving; and the bigger cars and trucks have made cities worse; deadly, dangerous, scaring people into bigger cars, scaring people from riding bikes, walking. Things can always get worse, and we've been finding out.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>more wear and tear on roads. Listen, I hate the electric hummer and Chevy 2500s as much as the next guy but talking point needs to be taken out back and shot. The wear and tear light vehicles put on the road is a rounding error on any road that sees commercial traffic >Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years ago, This is just pure lying. The "fleet" is much cleaner than it was 15-20yr ago for a variety of reasons. Cities are much safer and richer. >This needs top down regulation, Top down regulation is what gave us LA. People in general can't be trusted to centrally plan and the people who think they can solve the world's ills with central planning are the least trustworthy. We need to "regress" to pre-1940s urban development patterns.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >Cities are much safer and richer. Speaking generally, rather than specifically in the context of cars, most big US cities were worse on pretty much every axis (other than cost) in 1990 than they are today. I suspect most people who object to the, say, Disneyfication of Times Square weren't there at night 30 years ago. Cities were in general significantly more dangerous and grittier than they are today.

nine_k 4y ago

Kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared, so yes, heavier cars expend more energy in collisions, likely making the collisions more destructive. "Being in a larger car" is basically the classic competition of armor vs projectile: the currently bigger thing has an advantage, but the opposing side of the collision quickly gets up to par and beyond, and the cycle continues.

agloe_dreams 4y ago

A key value is that larger cars are worse in every single accident avoidance situation. Braking distances are longer in the dry and much longer in the wet, moose test results are often failed by large SUVs, rollover risks are higher, and general vehicle visibility is worse. A Toyota RAV4 for example has a stopping distance (in ideal situations) of 135ft. A Camry stops 15 feet quicker. Interestingly, the Hybrid RAV4 Prime with eco-focused tires stops up to 12 feet further than the base RAV4. This isn't all due to SUVs of course, a Volvo XC40 does it in a stunning 110ft. But cheap tires and small brake packages harm SUVs worse.

CalRobert 4y ago
So they're likelier to crash and likelier to kill other people.... we need regulation for this.