5 ms·
These cars are more likely to kill your children by running over them as they cross the street. You are more likely to kill your neighbor's kids by running over
by EatingWithForks 3y ago
These cars are more likely to kill your children by running over them as they cross the street. You are more likely to kill your neighbor's kids by running over them because you don't have visibility 6+ feet in front of you. This isn't some sort of wish-washy definition. These are hard to swallow facts.
- pfisch 3y agoWhy does an suv not have visibility in front of it?
- ben_w 3y agoConsider the larger vehicle shown in the picture at the top of the linked article; now imagine a child before the adolescent growth spurt standing in front of it — how far away does the child have to be, for any part of them to be visible to a driver sitting in the driver's seat?
- dangom 3y agoBecause we can safely assume that under normal atmospheric conditions and within the distances we are talking about, light travels in straight lines and the SUV is too high thus blocking some of it from reaching the drivers eyes. I can't pull the sources now, but there was a study discussed here on HN a couple months ago showing an analysis of how this plays out.
- OGWhales 3y agoThis should help you understand the problem of higher vehicles limiting visibility of what's in front of them: https://imgur.com/a/aYbCbyg https://imgur.com/a/aYbCbyg
- pfisch 3y agoModern vehicles beep like crazy with sensors when something is in front of the car like that though. It is impossible not to know.
- throw0101a 3y agoTo add to this, an M1 Abrams tank and a Peterbilt 857 semi have better visibility than some SUVs and pick-up trucks: * https://ifunny.co/picture/a-semi-truck-has-better-visibility-than-a-suburban-ban-9zqEOpoWA https://ifunny.co/picture/a-semi-truck-has-better-visibility...
- dragonwriter 3y agoBecauase they are high and tend to have long flat front hoods, creating an extended blind spot for short objects (like children) in front. Newer models have forward collision sensors that partially mitigate that. (And backup cameras that do an even better job of mitigating the rear low-height blind spot, as long as people use them instead of direct vision when backing up.)
- jewayne 3y agoActually, most of the time it's the parents running over their own children, in their own driveway.
- pc86 3y agoI haven't killed anyone by any means, so I'm not morally culpable of anything. But my moral obligation to protecting my family supersedes any moral obligation I have to protecting strangers.
- EatingWithForks 3y agoBy this logic, because I haven't killed anyone drunk driving, I should be allowed to drive drunk. No, it's important to point out hard facts here: by driving a car with less visibility, you become more dangerous to your family and your neighborhood. You don't even protect your family, because you've now entered a vehicle significantly more likely to flip over in an accident-- which you are now more likely to have because you bought a vehicle with reduced capacity to see what is in front of you. Your choice is your choice-- but it's important not to lie to yourself or others about what that choice entails.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pc86 3y ago> By this logic, because I haven't killed anyone drunk driving, I should be allowed to drive drunk. Drunk driving is illegal, having a large vehicle isn't. If it's illegal, I won't do it. And even ignoring that, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that because you haven't killed anyone drunk driving, you're not morally culpable for drunk driving deaths. Which you're not.
- EatingWithForks 3y agoIf you drive a larger vehicle, you are taking on the increased risk of hitting other children or your own children. Whether or not you've actually hit a child doesn't change that fact and trying to wiggle out of it through that logic is the same as arguing just because an irresponsible driver hasn't killed anyone means they're actually safer than an irresponsible driver who has. The fundamental attribution is their irresponsibility, not whether or not their irresponsibility has resulted in a consequence for them. similarly, regardless of whether or not you've killed anyone with a larger vehicle, the fact is that larger vehicles pose a greater danger of running over children.
- artificialLimbs 3y agoIt takes would take some strong avoidance of reality and logic to clamp down on people's individual safety (by mandating smaller vehicles) to 'help save' the ~ < 50 children that get run over (BY ALL VEHICLES, incidentally) every year.
- adamweld 3y agoNot sure where your number is coming from. A quick search[0] led me to 181 pedestrian and 40 cyclist child fatalities in 2019. [0] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813122 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- Rebelgecko 3y agoThe stats I found put it at around 200 per year in the US for children under 13, probably thousands globally. That was from 2021, and since pedestrian deaths in general have gone up a lot since then, I wouldn't be surprised if the number is greater now. Plus some trucks and SUVs have hoods that are so tall now that even 13+ children are occluded.
- pc86 3y agoI'm not saying any of this data is wrong but I'm not sure there's any correlation between pedestrian deaths generally and deaths of children in this way. Most of the children hurt/killed in this manner are probably in driveways, parking lots, subdivisions etc. while I would expect most pedestrian deaths to be in more business district type areas, crossing the street, that sort of thing. I would also expect most child deaths to be a result of not seeing them, and most pedestrian deaths to be a result of speed - hence much fewer [adult] pedestrian deaths in driveways. So I wouldn't expect a rise in pedestrian deaths (particularly over a very short 2 year period which could just be an aberration in the data) to necessarily mean there was a similar rise in child deaths if they happen in fundamentally different circumstances for different reasons.
- oceanplexian 3y agoKids need to be taught not to play behind a moving vehicle, the same as they need to be taught not to stick their fingers in an electric socket. "Someone else's kids" who aren't being raised properly isn't enough of a reason to force people to own a particular kind of automobile (At least this was the predominant thinking before we lived in a nanny state).
- andrewem 3y agoA plan which makes small children responsible for preventing their own deaths at the hands of adults driving vehicles they personally chose seems at the very least unlikely to produce good results, assuming you are trying to keep children from dying. I suppose if your metric is “nanny state impositions prevented” rather than “children being crushed to death” then it could be considered a success.
- fwungy 3y agoEvery meaningful action carries some risk to ourselves and others. In and of itself it is not an excuse to curtail freedoms because nothing would get done. There needs to be an acceptable risk level for things. We need to talk about "unreasonable risks" that are based on evidence and not what might or could happen.
- EatingWithForks 3y agoI'm okay with discussing reasonable risks people are taking. I'm just arguing not to bullshit me with what the risks are. I'm okay with motorcyclists on the road. I'm not okay with a motorcyclist trying to say "no, cycling actually makes me safer because I'm more agile and can drive between the lanes, so I'm totally out of the way of cars now!"
- fwungy 3y agoMotorcyclist here. A lot of the danger of motorcycles is the rider. The level of danger to a 20 year old man on a sports bike is orders of magnitude higher than that of a 50 year old on touring bike. Same story with guns: the danger of guns is entirely correlated with demographics. People outside of certain demographics and locales face very little risk from guns.
- EatingWithForks 3y agoYou're arguing besides my point. My point is that I don't buy bullshit reasons how a riskier behavior is actually safer. A 50 year old motorcyclist trying to tell me "my age actually makes me safer on a motorcycle than if I was in a car" would get a similar wtf.
- taylodl 3y agoMotorcyclist here who's in their 50's - you'd better sit down. I have some sobering facts for you. The fatalities per 100 million miles driven are as follows (NHTSA data): - 1.1 for car and truck drivers - 2.3 for all motorcyclists - 21.8 for motorcyclists over 50 Why is a 50 year old 20 times more likely to die on a motorcycle than a 20 year old? Here are some reasons given by the MSF: - Decline is physical and cognitive abilities - Increased risk-taking behavior (20 year olds don't typically do poker runs from bar to bar, for example) - Riding bigger, faster bikes (as you know, tourers cost a lot of money, money that a 20 year old simply doesn't have) Now I know neither you nor I are going to park our bikes, but it behooves us both to recognize the dangers in riding at our age and doing what we can to mitigate those risks. Also, remember this: when those 20 year olds do something stupid on their sport bikes and crash they're pretty much good to go due to the resilience of their young bodies. Us? We're going to the hospital or the morgue. Those are just life's realities. Keep the rubber down!