6 ms·
Why not regulate safety instead of size?
by wilg 3y ago
Why not regulate safety instead of size?
- binarymax 3y agoDimensions are easier to quantify than safety.
- bioemerl 3y agoThe two are roughly the same. A big truck is more deadly to smaller vehicles and we shouldn't make it unsafe to drive a regular sized car instead of one of these monstrously large trucks. You could regulate things like requiring stop gates on trucks like semi trucks have though, which would at least help.
- wilg 3y agoI just really want to see a detailed study or article that really focuses on the details of pickup safety versus other cars, with empirical data about the different factors, how and why they differ, and ways of mitigating them. Seems like an important input for regulators. There's a lot of anti-car handwaving in discussions like this that would be good to cut through (for everybody involved).
- mattnewton 3y agoThis would leave the main problems of lower visibility and the higher mass creating a higher more dangerous impact for other cars and pedestrians.
- alistairSH 3y agoPhysics dictates that mass has a significant impact on safety. Especially for people outside the big-ass truck.
- metaphor 3y agoThat's a hard sell when the curb weight of a Tesla Model Y is identical to a Ford F-150 5.0L V8 SuperCab with 6.5-ft bed.
- alistairSH 3y agoThat’s fair. The Tesla is too heavy as well. [dreams about “fun” cars like my old 2200lb Miata]
- wilg 3y ago"Too heavy" in some sense, but the engineering trade off is a pretty good one! Your average Tesla is about: - 1.9x as heavy as the Miata - 4.3x as energy efficient as the Miata - 1.7x faster acceleration vs Miata - 0.2x the emissions of the Miata on a typical power mix (0x on solar)
- tzs 3y ago> Physics dictates that mass has a significant impact on safety I suspect that once you have enough mass though then it is velocity that determines the impact on safety. Getting hit at 50 mph by a Ford F-150 that has a total mass (truck plus cargo) of 9000 pounds is not going to be much more harmful to a pedestrian than getting hit by a similar shaped truck at the same speed that has half that mass. Similarly on the other end if velocity is low enough mass won't matter. Consider for example getting hit by a freight train at 1 mph. Unless the collision knocks you over and you fall under the train it probably won't be fatal (and likely won't even injure you). Even though that freight train would have 300 times the momentum and 6 times the kinetic energy of the 50 mph 9000 pound truck it would be fine.
- alistairSH 3y agoTrue. Rivians scare me, as a pedestrian and cyclist. Not only heavy, but blazingly fast. In 5 years when they get handed down to teenagers, well, shit.
- wilg 3y agoIf biking or walking I'd worry less about a heavy new car than an old car that doesn't have automatic emergency braking.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoI suspect that total energy increases proportionally to mass, all other things (like velocity) equal, meaning an N*2 kg vehicle traveling at 100 kph has twice as much energy as an N kg vehicle traveling at 100 kph and since that energy factors strongly into the outcome for the other vehicle, I suspect that this means weight is what determines the impact on safety just as much, if not moreso (particularly since speeds are regulated already)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rootusrootus 3y agoBecause it's less about facts and more about moralizing.
- disco_framework 3y agoHonestly why not both? The length of these things only can be an issue when it comes to parking lots.
- thsksbd 3y agoSafety is why vehicles have gotten so big. In a collision, all else being equal, you always want to be in the bigger car. Its literally grade 10 physics. But we can have our cake and eat it too. Safer, environmentally sound vehicles and as big as we want them.... by simply lowering and enforcing speed limits.