5 ms·

I agree with the video's thesis that large trucks and SUVs are unsafe to pedestrians, children, and other drivers even, but the end of the video focuses on tryi

I agree with the video's thesis that large trucks and SUVs are unsafe to pedestrians, children, and other drivers even, but the end of the video focuses on trying to change regulations to make these kind of vehicles safer in many respects. The issue is that, at least in the United States, there are so many of these large trucks and SUVs on the road, that even if some safer regulations come in, these vehicles are already on the road in large numbers. In my neighborhood alone, there are more large trucks and SUVs than cars. I wish that the video concentrated more on things that you can do to protect yourself or others from large trucks and SUVs. I have been hit by a car while cycling before, and it was no fun, but I did at least roll up the hood as described in the video. That will not happen for one of these large vehicles. I try to concentrate on positive things that I can at least control for in cases like these, but I honestly am drawing a blank. Any ideas?

mslate 4y ago
We could take these vehicles off the road. They have to be registered with the state department of motor vehicles. Either charge them a differentially higher vehicle registration fee, or ban them outright. Another front is questioning whether car insurance rates reflect the real legal liability that drivers of these vehicles incur? If they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?
- chongli 4y ago
  We could take these vehicles off the road. That’s a political non-starter in the U.S. You’d have better luck taking away personal firearms.
  - justinator 4y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but there is nothing in the Constitution that protects one's right to own and drive a car (there is for owning firearms). But car ownership is seen as a right, rather than a privilege, and that comes with it a hugely entrenched feeling of entitlement, privilege, and exceptionalism. A way to feel this is to go car-free for a week in the US. Some places are easier than others. But compare this to going car-free for a week in Europe. It will probably be a much different experience for most places in Europe, as compared to the US.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      Driving at all is specifically and overtly considered a privilege and not a right by the law. We are told that more than once on our way to getting a license. I would be in favor of governments taking that more seriously.
      - justinator 4y ago
        It takes a lot to lose one's driver's license. You can be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter and the idea of losing a license is seen as inhumane - as if that's what's going to ruin one's life. "How will they get to work? How will they do any other daily activity? We couldn't do that to them!"
      - dancingvoid 4y ago
        What makes you think that rights come from “the law”? Do you think that because some people you never met wrote something on a piece of paper, it becomes right or wrong? What if those people that wrote it believe that killing babies is good for the environment? Is it okay now?
        JohnFen 4y ago
        You're conflating two different things -- the law, and the concepts of right and wrong. But the majority of the things people think of as "rights" do, in fact, come from the law. "The law" is just us collectively deciding what the rules we live by are. There is a small set of fundamental human rights, but that's a bit of a different thing and I think it's very hard to argue that driving a vehicle on public roads is one of them.
        dancingvoid 4y ago
        I reject that anyone else can tell me what rules to live by. I only respect other peoples requests if they claim and show that my actions are causing harm. Otherwise, the “collective” is just a bunch of people I never met ganging up and telling me how to live my life at the point of a gun. And they don’t even have the courage to hold the gun themselves in most cases but go crying to father government to punish people they don’t agree with. I define “rights” as what I may do morally, not a code, act, statue or “collective” decision. Words can have multiple meanings. What you are calling rights, I am calling arbitrary rules made by other people against my will. Edit to reply to below: I am that I am. I don’t take titles like anarchist, but sure, that’s a decent title if you insist. Anarchy isn’t a system. It’s just a word. It means no rulers. I don’t think that we should abolish the government (nor could we, it doesn’t exist), I just wish people would grow up morally, so we (conscious beings) didn’t feel the need to play ruler and ruled. I wish to see a world where each being understands morality and what is right and wrong “to the bones” or “from the soul”, so the idea of abstracting away and externalizing our morality and violence was no longer the accepted normal.
- asdfadsfgfdda 4y ago
  Private car insurance companies are pretty sophisticated, so they certainly know if a certain vehicle is causing higher claims and will price accordingly. But, IMHO, the legal minimum liability insurance policy is way too low. A serious car accident could easily cause millions in personal injury damage. Most US states require only ~$50k personal injury coverage.
  - WirelessGigabit 4y ago
    35K in CA. So don't hit that Rolls in Los Angeles.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Exponentially scaling property taxes and especially moving violation fines for heavier vehicles seems like a great way to align incentives. The heavier the vehicle, the more-strongly you're encouraged to drive safely (which makes sense, as heavier vehicles are more dangerous); if you have multiple vehicles, it encourages you to use lighter ones unless you really need a heavy one for a given trip; and they'd remain a viable option for safe drivers who really need one (but even those drivers would be encouraged to get the smallest one that'll get the job done).
- CalRobert 4y ago
  "if they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?" Typically the dead child is held liable.
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  We could take pushbikes off the road. It's too dangerous for our soft squishy bodies to not be encased in faux leather and crumple zones. Since most people need to get from a to b in a shorter time and potentially carrying goods, maybe its safer to remove cyclists from the roads for their own protection. After all its not just SUVs that pose a danger to cyclists. Don't worry though, we will still be able to ride our bicycles at dedicated bike parks where motorised vehicles aren't allowed.
davidw 4y ago
> Any ideas? Not really. They're more lethal and will kill thousands of people in the US.
- hermitdev 4y ago
  > They're more lethal Are they really? A quick search for "US pedestrian deaths by vehicle type" and I came across this 2005 study [0] looking at pedestrian fatalities per mile by vehicle type (and I'll admit some has changed in the nearly 20 years since the study was published). What surprised me was motorcycles caused more pedestrian fatalities than light trucks per billion miles. Urban buses had the highest kill rate, nearly 4 times that as light trucks. Happen to have anything with more current statics? [0] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/11/4/232.full.pdf https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/11/4/232...
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    Urban buses spend almost all their driving time on roads with pedestrians. The statistic needs to be vehicle type in accidents in urban areas.
    - twblalock 4y ago
      The article splits out stats for urban and rural areas for all vehicle types. Notably all vehicle types become more dangerous in urban areas but even buses on rural roads are more dangerous than light trucks on urban roads.
      - Symbiote 4y ago
        Thanks, I had not scrolled that far down. Buses have flat fronts (at least to a typical chest/head height), so they're terrible for pedestrian collisions. The typical American school bus from 2002 is horrendous -- huge blind spots, a high chassis, and the typical user being well below adult height. To European eyes, they look like some sort of off-road military transport vehicle. Though other than buses, I think the paper supports the video: > The increased risk associated with light trucks is attributed to several factors: their greater mass; greater vehicle speed of collision with pedestrians, and their front end design.
Gigachad 4y ago
There are still ways to improve safety, mostly by just slowing traffic down. These cars kill at any speed, but they are significantly less likely to if traveling at say 30km/h. Narrow lanes, reduce visibility, add complexity and turns. Traffic will naturally slow down with drivers paying more attention. It's been demonstrated that the easier you make a road to drive on, the more people speed and play with their phones.
- atrettel 4y ago
  Thanks, those are all generally good ideas. I realized another would be to provide separate paths for pedestrians and vehicles (beyond just sidewalks), but that may be difficult to implement in many suburban neighborhoods.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  If you're in the Bay Area, I invite you to drive around on Middlefield Rd in the 25mph sections to see how well setting speed limits way below what most drivers would consider reasonable works in practice (most people travel ~35-45mph there). Further reading if you're really curious about this situation in particular, there's been a lot of back and forth around Menlo Park / Atherton specifically: - https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8751/Engineering-and-Traffic-Survey-Speed-Limits-Menlo-Park https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8751/Engin... - https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2020/10/22/menlo-park-council-favors-lowering-speed-limits-citywide https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2020/10/22/menlo-park-counc... - https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/11/17/palo-alto-eyes-higher-speed-limits-at-busy-roadways https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/11/17/palo-alto-eye... - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2017/8267.pdf https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-m... - on 85th percentile theory: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/setting-speed-limits https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/setting-speed-li... Particularly amusing is https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/30/radar-isnt-best-option-to-reduce-speed-council-concludes/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/30/radar-isnt-best-optio... ... where most people seem to agree that everyone drives too fast, but in order to use radar / lidar to measure speed, they'd need to comply with state law which would mean /raising/ the speed limits in order to comply with the 85th percentile rules, so instead they just stick their heads in the sand and continue to believe, despite many studies finding to the contrary, that zero enforcement and a sign that says 25mph will actually get people to drive on 5-lane roads at ridiculously slow speeds. This leads to an exciting mix of a few cars trying to actually drive the 25mph speed limit while most other people try to frantically pass them. Extra fun on sections that don't have left turn lanes, where the left of the two lanes becomes the de-facto turn lane, then combine that with the general lack of turn signal usage and you get...a very frustrating commute indeed. But what do you want for your $3m 1000sqft single-family home in those neighborhoods?? Edit: there's a lot more traffic engineering theory around speed limits vs how fast people actually drive. The last couple of points in particular are extra fun: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/998/Setting-Speed-Limits-PDF https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/998/Setting-S... The rationale for speed zoning is also based on the following fundamental concepts, which are deeply rooted in our system of government and law: • The normally careful and competent actions of a responsible person should be considered legal. • Laws are established for the protection of the public and the regulation of unreasonable behavior by the individual. • Laws cannot be effectively enforced unless the majority of people voluntarily consent to and comply with them. In general, most people accept, understand, and follow these concepts. But, as mentioned earlier, when confronted by local traffic challenges—an increase in traffic volumes or the frequency or severity of car crashes in a particular area, for example—people often reject these concepts and rely instead on a number of widely held misconceptions, such as: • Lowering a posted speed limit will reduce traffic speeds. • Raising a posted speed limit will increase traffic speeds. • Lower speed limits will reduce the rate of crashes and increase safety. • Any posted speed limit is safer than an unposted speed limit. In fact, these commonsense notions are not supported by studies, which consistently demonstrate that: • The speed of traffic does not change significantly after new or revised speed limits are posted. • There is no direct relationship between posted speed limits and the frequency of traffic crashes. Lane width vs speed is interesting to read about too: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/review_lane_width_and_speed_parsons.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/review_lane_width_and_speed_pars... (tl;dr people will naturally drive more slowly on streets with street parking, narrow lanes, curves, driveways, visible foot traffic, etc, and drive more quickly when roads are visibly more open)
jimbob45 4y ago
It doesn’t help that the type of young male that would buy a truck like this isn’t likely to make safety a top priority when driving.
CalRobert 4y ago
The narrator describes the US as a lost cause and expresses hope that Europe at least has the sense to regulate for gigantic vehicles.
acjacobson 4y ago
You're right there aren't any quick fixes, but regulation can change things over time. While there may be tons of SUVs on the road now, we could incentivize different vehicles and within 10-15 years the balance would be completely different (as it was not that long ago). Grandfather in whatever has already been sold, and require a different standard for the future. This is the exact pattern we use for emissions and safety standards.
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  I would be OK with this if it was a bylaw for urban environments. You need to realize that these vehicles actually serve a real purpose outside of the cities. There should also be an exemption for overlanders who otherwise live in urban environments for whom the truck is not a daily driver.
mikrotikker 4y ago
Have you seen the flags they use on motorobikes in sand dunes? Its like a orange fluoro flag on a pole. That would be useful I'd bet.

mslate 4y ago

We could take these vehicles off the road. They have to be registered with the state department of motor vehicles. Either charge them a differentially higher vehicle registration fee, or ban them outright. Another front is questioning whether car insurance rates reflect the real legal liability that drivers of these vehicles incur? If they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?

chongli 4y ago
We could take these vehicles off the road. That’s a political non-starter in the U.S. You’d have better luck taking away personal firearms.
- justinator 4y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but there is nothing in the Constitution that protects one's right to own and drive a car (there is for owning firearms). But car ownership is seen as a right, rather than a privilege, and that comes with it a hugely entrenched feeling of entitlement, privilege, and exceptionalism. A way to feel this is to go car-free for a week in the US. Some places are easier than others. But compare this to going car-free for a week in Europe. It will probably be a much different experience for most places in Europe, as compared to the US.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Driving at all is specifically and overtly considered a privilege and not a right by the law. We are told that more than once on our way to getting a license. I would be in favor of governments taking that more seriously.
    - justinator 4y ago
      It takes a lot to lose one's driver's license. You can be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter and the idea of losing a license is seen as inhumane - as if that's what's going to ruin one's life. "How will they get to work? How will they do any other daily activity? We couldn't do that to them!"
    - dancingvoid 4y ago
      What makes you think that rights come from “the law”? Do you think that because some people you never met wrote something on a piece of paper, it becomes right or wrong? What if those people that wrote it believe that killing babies is good for the environment? Is it okay now?
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        You're conflating two different things -- the law, and the concepts of right and wrong. But the majority of the things people think of as "rights" do, in fact, come from the law. "The law" is just us collectively deciding what the rules we live by are. There is a small set of fundamental human rights, but that's a bit of a different thing and I think it's very hard to argue that driving a vehicle on public roads is one of them.
        dancingvoid 4y ago
        I reject that anyone else can tell me what rules to live by. I only respect other peoples requests if they claim and show that my actions are causing harm. Otherwise, the “collective” is just a bunch of people I never met ganging up and telling me how to live my life at the point of a gun. And they don’t even have the courage to hold the gun themselves in most cases but go crying to father government to punish people they don’t agree with. I define “rights” as what I may do morally, not a code, act, statue or “collective” decision. Words can have multiple meanings. What you are calling rights, I am calling arbitrary rules made by other people against my will. Edit to reply to below: I am that I am. I don’t take titles like anarchist, but sure, that’s a decent title if you insist. Anarchy isn’t a system. It’s just a word. It means no rulers. I don’t think that we should abolish the government (nor could we, it doesn’t exist), I just wish people would grow up morally, so we (conscious beings) didn’t feel the need to play ruler and ruled. I wish to see a world where each being understands morality and what is right and wrong “to the bones” or “from the soul”, so the idea of abstracting away and externalizing our morality and violence was no longer the accepted normal.
asdfadsfgfdda 4y ago
Private car insurance companies are pretty sophisticated, so they certainly know if a certain vehicle is causing higher claims and will price accordingly. But, IMHO, the legal minimum liability insurance policy is way too low. A serious car accident could easily cause millions in personal injury damage. Most US states require only ~$50k personal injury coverage.
- WirelessGigabit 4y ago
  35K in CA. So don't hit that Rolls in Los Angeles.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Exponentially scaling property taxes and especially moving violation fines for heavier vehicles seems like a great way to align incentives. The heavier the vehicle, the more-strongly you're encouraged to drive safely (which makes sense, as heavier vehicles are more dangerous); if you have multiple vehicles, it encourages you to use lighter ones unless you really need a heavy one for a given trip; and they'd remain a viable option for safe drivers who really need one (but even those drivers would be encouraged to get the smallest one that'll get the job done).
CalRobert 4y ago
"if they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?" Typically the dead child is held liable.
mikrotikker 4y ago
We could take pushbikes off the road. It's too dangerous for our soft squishy bodies to not be encased in faux leather and crumple zones. Since most people need to get from a to b in a shorter time and potentially carrying goods, maybe its safer to remove cyclists from the roads for their own protection. After all its not just SUVs that pose a danger to cyclists. Don't worry though, we will still be able to ride our bicycles at dedicated bike parks where motorised vehicles aren't allowed.

davidw 4y ago

> Any ideas? Not really. They're more lethal and will kill thousands of people in the US.

hermitdev 4y ago
> They're more lethal Are they really? A quick search for "US pedestrian deaths by vehicle type" and I came across this 2005 study [0] looking at pedestrian fatalities per mile by vehicle type (and I'll admit some has changed in the nearly 20 years since the study was published). What surprised me was motorcycles caused more pedestrian fatalities than light trucks per billion miles. Urban buses had the highest kill rate, nearly 4 times that as light trucks. Happen to have anything with more current statics? [0] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/11/4/232.full.pdf https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/11/4/232...
- Symbiote 4y ago
  Urban buses spend almost all their driving time on roads with pedestrians. The statistic needs to be vehicle type in accidents in urban areas.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    The article splits out stats for urban and rural areas for all vehicle types. Notably all vehicle types become more dangerous in urban areas but even buses on rural roads are more dangerous than light trucks on urban roads.
    - Symbiote 4y ago
      Thanks, I had not scrolled that far down. Buses have flat fronts (at least to a typical chest/head height), so they're terrible for pedestrian collisions. The typical American school bus from 2002 is horrendous -- huge blind spots, a high chassis, and the typical user being well below adult height. To European eyes, they look like some sort of off-road military transport vehicle. Though other than buses, I think the paper supports the video: > The increased risk associated with light trucks is attributed to several factors: their greater mass; greater vehicle speed of collision with pedestrians, and their front end design.

Gigachad 4y ago

There are still ways to improve safety, mostly by just slowing traffic down. These cars kill at any speed, but they are significantly less likely to if traveling at say 30km/h. Narrow lanes, reduce visibility, add complexity and turns. Traffic will naturally slow down with drivers paying more attention. It's been demonstrated that the easier you make a road to drive on, the more people speed and play with their phones.

atrettel 4y ago
Thanks, those are all generally good ideas. I realized another would be to provide separate paths for pedestrians and vehicles (beyond just sidewalks), but that may be difficult to implement in many suburban neighborhoods.
seanp2k2 4y ago
If you're in the Bay Area, I invite you to drive around on Middlefield Rd in the 25mph sections to see how well setting speed limits way below what most drivers would consider reasonable works in practice (most people travel ~35-45mph there). Further reading if you're really curious about this situation in particular, there's been a lot of back and forth around Menlo Park / Atherton specifically: - https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8751/Engineering-and-Traffic-Survey-Speed-Limits-Menlo-Park https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8751/Engin... - https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2020/10/22/menlo-park-council-favors-lowering-speed-limits-citywide https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2020/10/22/menlo-park-counc... - https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/11/17/palo-alto-eyes-higher-speed-limits-at-busy-roadways https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/11/17/palo-alto-eye... - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2017/8267.pdf https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-m... - on 85th percentile theory: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/setting-speed-limits https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/setting-speed-li... Particularly amusing is https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/30/radar-isnt-best-option-to-reduce-speed-council-concludes/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/30/radar-isnt-best-optio... ... where most people seem to agree that everyone drives too fast, but in order to use radar / lidar to measure speed, they'd need to comply with state law which would mean /raising/ the speed limits in order to comply with the 85th percentile rules, so instead they just stick their heads in the sand and continue to believe, despite many studies finding to the contrary, that zero enforcement and a sign that says 25mph will actually get people to drive on 5-lane roads at ridiculously slow speeds. This leads to an exciting mix of a few cars trying to actually drive the 25mph speed limit while most other people try to frantically pass them. Extra fun on sections that don't have left turn lanes, where the left of the two lanes becomes the de-facto turn lane, then combine that with the general lack of turn signal usage and you get...a very frustrating commute indeed. But what do you want for your $3m 1000sqft single-family home in those neighborhoods?? Edit: there's a lot more traffic engineering theory around speed limits vs how fast people actually drive. The last couple of points in particular are extra fun: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/998/Setting-Speed-Limits-PDF https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/998/Setting-S... The rationale for speed zoning is also based on the following fundamental concepts, which are deeply rooted in our system of government and law: • The normally careful and competent actions of a responsible person should be considered legal. • Laws are established for the protection of the public and the regulation of unreasonable behavior by the individual. • Laws cannot be effectively enforced unless the majority of people voluntarily consent to and comply with them. In general, most people accept, understand, and follow these concepts. But, as mentioned earlier, when confronted by local traffic challenges—an increase in traffic volumes or the frequency or severity of car crashes in a particular area, for example—people often reject these concepts and rely instead on a number of widely held misconceptions, such as: • Lowering a posted speed limit will reduce traffic speeds. • Raising a posted speed limit will increase traffic speeds. • Lower speed limits will reduce the rate of crashes and increase safety. • Any posted speed limit is safer than an unposted speed limit. In fact, these commonsense notions are not supported by studies, which consistently demonstrate that: • The speed of traffic does not change significantly after new or revised speed limits are posted. • There is no direct relationship between posted speed limits and the frequency of traffic crashes. Lane width vs speed is interesting to read about too: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/review_lane_width_and_speed_parsons.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/review_lane_width_and_speed_pars... (tl;dr people will naturally drive more slowly on streets with street parking, narrow lanes, curves, driveways, visible foot traffic, etc, and drive more quickly when roads are visibly more open)

jimbob45 4y ago

It doesn’t help that the type of young male that would buy a truck like this isn’t likely to make safety a top priority when driving.

CalRobert 4y ago

The narrator describes the US as a lost cause and expresses hope that Europe at least has the sense to regulate for gigantic vehicles.

acjacobson 4y ago

You're right there aren't any quick fixes, but regulation can change things over time. While there may be tons of SUVs on the road now, we could incentivize different vehicles and within 10-15 years the balance would be completely different (as it was not that long ago). Grandfather in whatever has already been sold, and require a different standard for the future. This is the exact pattern we use for emissions and safety standards.

mikrotikker 4y ago
I would be OK with this if it was a bylaw for urban environments. You need to realize that these vehicles actually serve a real purpose outside of the cities. There should also be an exemption for overlanders who otherwise live in urban environments for whom the truck is not a daily driver.

mikrotikker 4y ago

Have you seen the flags they use on motorobikes in sand dunes? Its like a orange fluoro flag on a pole. That would be useful I'd bet.