4 ms·

The idea that trucks are dangerous and unnecessary is pretty prevalent on HN, and I can follow the physics argument but the same argument can apply to anything

The idea that trucks are dangerous and unnecessary is pretty prevalent on HN, and I can follow the physics argument but the same argument can apply to anything (a bicycle is more dangerous than a pedestrian) Are there stats that show that these trucks cause a social problem worthy of regulation, or do we just not like the archetypical truck guy?

nonethewiser 3y ago
Its also safer for the same reason
staplor 3y ago
> The authors find that being hit by a 1,000-pound heavier vehicle results in a 47 percent increase in the baseline probability of being killed in the accident https://www.nber.org/digest/nov11/vehicle-weight-and-automotive-fatalities https://www.nber.org/digest/nov11/vehicle-weight-and-automot...
- akomtu 3y ago
  What's the rate of such collisions for trucks and sedans?
  - staplor 3y ago
    The linked article just looked at collisions that happened and compared danger by vehicle weight. If I had to guess, I would assume lighter vehicles generally have a shorter stopping distance and hit pedestrians less.
    - frumper 3y ago
      The vehicle stopping distances are generally close enough that the only things that will matter in a practical sense is the reaction time of the driver and the condition of the vehicles. From 60mph to 0 in a Toyota Camry is 122 feet, and an F150 is 129 feet. The age of your tires/brakes blow away that 7 feet of difference.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
It's pretty easy to find the answers you want with a couple of Google searches. Large trucks are way more dangerous to pedestrians (and especially dangerous and heartwrenching is all the kids who are killed every year when their parents drive over them because they can't see them over the giant height of the front grill). It's also simple physics that larger vehicles will produce more destructive crashes when average vehicle mass increases. Your "bicycle is more dangerous than a pedestrian" is a very poor analogy. Bicycles provide a ton more utility than walking. The same can't really be said for a suburban parent driving a couple of kids to soccer practice in a giant truck vs. the station wagons of the past.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  // The same can't really be said for a suburban parent driving a couple of kids to soccer practice in a giant truck vs. the station wagons of the past. Is it possible that these parents are seeing some utility that isn't obvious to you, and then buy the vehicles based on that utility? As someone who had a compact car in college, then was a car-less New Yorker for 20 years, and now is a dad of two with an SUV, the utility is obvious :)
  - inciampati 3y ago
    I'm not sure you need an SUV to take care of a family of four, but a lot of people in America specifically seem to feel that way. Elsewhere I guess the standards for comfort are different.
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      You definitely don't need anything - you can raise kids in the woods as our ancestors did. But I don't think large vehicles an American thing, it's a wealth thing. Eg in Japan, which is rich, pretty much anytime you see a family with kids on the road, they were in a Toyota Alphard (look it up, never heard of it till I saw them) which are huge vs typical car. Similarly around the world, the size of the typical family car varies with the wealth of the country (richer countries bigger cars) and likewise wealth of the individual families. So I think the thing about the US is that our wealth and the quality/dimensions of our roads enable us to drive larger cars.
jona-f 3y ago
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=suv%20kill%20people%20study https://googlethatforyou.com?q=suv%20kill%20people%20study
weaksauce 3y ago
would you accept that modern trucks have less visibility than an abrams tank as a stat that they are less safe? https://twitter.com/dannyman/status/1661087159082967040 https://twitter.com/dannyman/status/1661087159082967040

nonethewiser 3y ago

Its also safer for the same reason

staplor 3y ago

> The authors find that being hit by a 1,000-pound heavier vehicle results in a 47 percent increase in the baseline probability of being killed in the accident https://www.nber.org/digest/nov11/vehicle-weight-and-automotive-fatalities https://www.nber.org/digest/nov11/vehicle-weight-and-automot...

akomtu 3y ago
What's the rate of such collisions for trucks and sedans?
- staplor 3y ago
  The linked article just looked at collisions that happened and compared danger by vehicle weight. If I had to guess, I would assume lighter vehicles generally have a shorter stopping distance and hit pedestrians less.
  - frumper 3y ago
    The vehicle stopping distances are generally close enough that the only things that will matter in a practical sense is the reaction time of the driver and the condition of the vehicles. From 60mph to 0 in a Toyota Camry is 122 feet, and an F150 is 129 feet. The age of your tires/brakes blow away that 7 feet of difference.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

It's pretty easy to find the answers you want with a couple of Google searches. Large trucks are way more dangerous to pedestrians (and especially dangerous and heartwrenching is all the kids who are killed every year when their parents drive over them because they can't see them over the giant height of the front grill). It's also simple physics that larger vehicles will produce more destructive crashes when average vehicle mass increases. Your "bicycle is more dangerous than a pedestrian" is a very poor analogy. Bicycles provide a ton more utility than walking. The same can't really be said for a suburban parent driving a couple of kids to soccer practice in a giant truck vs. the station wagons of the past.

xyzelement 3y ago
// The same can't really be said for a suburban parent driving a couple of kids to soccer practice in a giant truck vs. the station wagons of the past. Is it possible that these parents are seeing some utility that isn't obvious to you, and then buy the vehicles based on that utility? As someone who had a compact car in college, then was a car-less New Yorker for 20 years, and now is a dad of two with an SUV, the utility is obvious :)
- inciampati 3y ago
  I'm not sure you need an SUV to take care of a family of four, but a lot of people in America specifically seem to feel that way. Elsewhere I guess the standards for comfort are different.
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    You definitely don't need anything - you can raise kids in the woods as our ancestors did. But I don't think large vehicles an American thing, it's a wealth thing. Eg in Japan, which is rich, pretty much anytime you see a family with kids on the road, they were in a Toyota Alphard (look it up, never heard of it till I saw them) which are huge vs typical car. Similarly around the world, the size of the typical family car varies with the wealth of the country (richer countries bigger cars) and likewise wealth of the individual families. So I think the thing about the US is that our wealth and the quality/dimensions of our roads enable us to drive larger cars.

jona-f 3y ago

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=suv%20kill%20people%20study https://googlethatforyou.com?q=suv%20kill%20people%20study

weaksauce 3y ago

would you accept that modern trucks have less visibility than an abrams tank as a stat that they are less safe? https://twitter.com/dannyman/status/1661087159082967040 https://twitter.com/dannyman/status/1661087159082967040