6 ms·
The article mentions safety, and I think safety is an interesting discussion because at its limit, it creates perverse incentives. Manufacturers focus on the sa
by peterlk 3y ago
The article mentions safety, and I think safety is an interesting discussion because at its limit, it creates perverse incentives. Manufacturers focus on the safety of the driver and passengers of the car. Not on the safety of anyone else. Thus, the safest vehicle on the road is a tank. Your babies will never come to harm if you drive them to school in a Leopard 2 tank. But this is a worse outcome for everyone else. How do we make cars safer? We make the windows smaller and the body (armor plating) bigger at the expense of making it harder for the driver to see, we make lights brighter so the driver can see at the expense of blinding everyone around them, we raise the bumper of the vehicle so it rolls over other vehicles in an accident, we increase the length and width of a car so that it doesn’t roll at the expense of being able to make tight turns or fit in a parking space, on and on and on.
I think there is a point where we can say that “safety” has gone too far. Maybe we’re there now; maybe not, but I wish that this was a higher priority discussion because it has many downstream effects.
- adfsgioanioni 3y agoLarge vehicles make crashes more common and more deadly. This is extraordinarily well-documented. They have poor visibility and so often drive right into pedestrians (especially children). If they hit pedestrians, they are far more likely than a normal car to kill them. They are tall and block other people's line of sight. People in a sensible car hit by a large car are several times more likely to die than if they are hit by a sensible car. SUVs make collisions more common and more deadly. Anyone who doesn't know these facts is so ignorant about road safety they have no business driving. Anyone who knows these facts and buys a giant "car" anyway is so selfish and reckless they have no business driving.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bdcravens 3y agoDon't many of the same issues apply to EVs, given the relative heavier weight?
- dghlsakjg 3y agoI would have thought so too, but I just checked and a base Tesla Model 3 weighs just about the same as a base BMW 3-series. I wonder if the weight is like the rocket fuel problem for larger vehicles. Famously the battery pack for the electric hummer weighs more than an entire Civic.
- borissk 3y agoUnfortunately most people are selfish. Successful communities have put a price on being selfish, but a car gives the driver a certain level of anonymity. An SUV hitting a pedestrian leads to bigger harm as the impact is higher up on the body. An SUV hitting a car leads to more injuries for the people in the car, as the weight of the SUV easily crushes the car windows and the frame around them.
- parineum 3y ago> Anyone who knows these facts and buys a giant "car" anyway is so selfish and reckless they have no business driving. That really doesn't take into consideration the negative sum nature of car safety that your sibling comment goes into. The issue is that safety requirements for vehicles are largely about occupants. They don't include sightlines, maximum heights, maximum weights, etc. (things that would make other people safer) thus the incentive is to build tanks. Parents certainly don't need a huge SUV to fit their kids in but, because there are other SUVs on the road, they do want it for safety. Put the right incentives into your safety regulation and cars will shrink.
- rwmj 3y agoA lot of it is lack of choice. My Toyota Yaris now is considerably bigger than my Toyota Yaris from 2005. I would actually like to buy a smaller car.
- m-p-3 3y agoPersonally I hate that if you want a reasonably sized trunk you need to buy an SUV. My early 2000 Hyundai Accent hatchback had a nice trunk compared to what you can get in that category now..
- afiori 3y agoThe ironic thing it that it is a negative sum game: as your car get bigger you are safer and other are at greater risk, as everybody else cars get biggers you are in greater danger more so than your cars makes you safe. It is a classic iterated prisoner's dilemma. Once enough people (few percent points) start playing the tankification game the only reasonable strategy is to start playing too not to be left behind. But the only winning strategy is not to play (ie to make it illegal for others to play).
- rlkf 3y agoThis also creates a self-enforcing effect: When the SUVs climb high enough in the sales statistics, they start out-crowding the other cars at the dealerships. A few years ago there was a larger diversity of car models - nowadays it seems to be mostly SUVs that are available. Gone are more sensible sized coupés and MPVs.
- lafar6503 3y agoThis year I had a chance to visit California (11 years since previous time) and there's a noticeable number of smaller cars on the roads. They still look a bit out of place among trucks and typical large SUVs but 11 years ago all cars were same big size.
- woleium 3y agoI think Japan did this? set a max area for a vehicle? That's why we see a lot of boxy car designs in Japan
- tguvot 3y agoyes, but no. you look only on vehicle size, but it's only one part. there are technical solution to prevent those problems. my car (circa 2019) has cameras/radars and they enable car functionality of pedestrian detection, small pet detection, kangaroo detection (only in australia?), animal detection. New models have more/better radars just for this i think.
- borissk 3y agoTechnical solutions vs the laws of nature - which side do you think wins? E.g. SUVs are heavier, so they take longer to stop - if a child runs on the road in front of you, it will have less chances to survive if you're driving an SUV.
- tguvot 3y agowhich laws of nature ? survival of the fittest ? or evolution - people evolve build-in radars to avoid collisions. if child runs on the road and you do not drive carefully in order to take it into consideration, it will end badly. there is probably better chances that child will survive when i drive my suv for two reasons - because my seat is higher it easier for me to see from "above" somebody been between cars ahead and running out, compared to somebody who sits in reno clio on the ground and seeing nothing till last moment - there is a good chance that radars in "last moment scenario" will react faster than human. otherwise lets ban vans, buses, tracks, etc
- throwyawayyyy 3y agoOh my goodness the lights! Am I misremembering or is it really only the past few years that it's felt like half the cars on the road have their highbeams on constantly? Not even a big car thing, though big cars make it worse; it's any car with LED headlights.
- ultrarunner 3y agoMy car, and several of my recent rentals, have had automatic high beams. They’re usually not great about not just blinding people. Turning it off is one of the first things I generally figure out. That said, yes, high hoods and higher, brighter lights make this a distinction without a difference.
- saltcured 3y agoI've honestly been asking myself if this is because of so many aging drivers who are trying to compensate for vision loss, when they should probably be staying off the roads at night? There can be a lot of denial in accepting one's reduced capacity. Or, is it people who have become so accustomed to automatic-everything that they don't really know or think about the light controls? This could also explain the reverse problem of people driving around a night with only daytime running lights or parking lights. Or, is it really just selfish jerks like those who want massive tanks to crush their opponents? They would like to give others sunburn, if possible. This could also explain those turning on fog lights in all conditions or those who attach off-road auxiliary lights to their trucks but use them on the streets.
- lafar6503 3y agoIn the US- yes, it's so annoying, like half of the drivers never switch to low beams. Or maybe nobody checks the alignment of headlights, idk...
- PrivateButts 3y agoI think it's automatic highbeams mostly. They either make the driver lazy or unaware of who they're blinding. Sorta like how it's a bit jarring to go back to a car with completely manual lighting after driving one that automatically flips on low beams when it gets dark.
- drewcoo 3y ago> I think safety is an interesting discussion because at its limit, it creates perverse incentives Well that's what happens when you leave safety to capitalism: products compete over safety. Profits dominate collective well-being. It's similar to what happens with health care, where the American Medical Association opposes public health because of obvious incentives.
- ultrarunner 3y agoYou just named two of the most heavily regulated industries. In the case of SUVs there’s a compelling case to be made that they’re the direct result of regulation.
- heresie-dabord 3y ago> there is a point where we can say that “safety” has gone too far. Everyone's safety is the Number 1 rule in avionics. How or why is the motor vehicle industry exempted from responsible design? The best-selling vehicles in the US are trucks: pick-up trucks as urban transport! The motor-vehicle industry is also building trucks as passenger vehicles with more seats. The marketing term is "SUV". The further absurdity of making large-battery electric truck-passenger vehicles is squandering the opportunity to make smaller, efficient EVs and reduce pollution. Over 1.3 billion litres of petrol are burned in motor vehicles in the US every day.[1] Of course, any category of product that depends on the petroleum industry is unlikely to be part of an environmental solution, even if we were just hoping to have less pollution in our communities. The annual loss of life due to motor-vehicle accidents is a frightening figure (30K/year in the US, 20K/year in the EU). Double that number for estimated deaths related to pollution from burning petrol. But don't blame the industry, it's your own fault and personal choice to breathe the atmosphere. /s The sustainable community response is not to demand that "car park providers [...] think of new ways to accommodate larger cars." Governments seem afraid to pass crucial legislation and Industrial accounting nationalises this heavy annual loss by merging it in the "personal freedom and incompetence" column. [1] _ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline...
- devnullbrain 3y ago>Manufacturers focus on the safety of the driver and passengers of the car. Not on the safety of anyone else. This is not true. Euro NCAP ratings depend on how the car damages pedestrians: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla... and crash avoidance technology: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/safety-assist/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla... The effect this has on the cars on the market is huge. Jaguar and Mercedes had to remove their iconic badges, pop-up headlights disappeared, the fronts of cars are much higher and rounded to reduce head injuries in a crash, and every modern car has a multitude of crash avoidance technology that defaults to being turned on when the car is started.
- peterlk 3y agoI think Europe is much better than the US for car safety. Having uniform bumper levels also help a lot. I’ve always wondered about the legality of driving a US pickup truck in Europe. Do you have any more resources about that sort of thing?
- pharmakom 3y agoIt’s culturally frowned apron (think “What does this person have to prove? How pathetic”) but that sentiment is being eroded by advertising. SUVs are more profitable to car manufacturers.
- ajuc 3y agoIt's not illegal, just dumb (fuel is much more expansive here, parking spaces and roads aren't designed for huge pickup trucks, and if you're a farmer it makes a lot more sense to have a regular car + farming tractor than to have a pickup truck). So basically only hobbyists drive pickups. I've maybe seen 10 of them this year?
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoOn the topic of safety, the US has enforced the provision of back-up cameras, because people kept running over their own children backing out of their driveways. A very direct safety cost of large vehicles. Here is the story of the child that had the American law named after them, told by his father (warning: this is truly heartbreaking stuff): https://www.kidsandcars.org/child-stories/cameron-gulbransen/ https://www.kidsandcars.org/child-stories/cameron-gulbransen...
- jdeibele 3y agoI've been driving a 2005 Honda Odyssey van for 18 years. It has excellent visibility out the back. My wife has a 2015 Mazda CX-5. Poor visibility out the back but it has a fair backup camera. In May, 2018 every car was required to have a backup camera. [0] It feels like car manufacturers don't even consider visibility out the back anymore since they can rely on the camera. For a while I drove a Jaguar, which had the leaping Jaguar hood ornament. Those were prohibited in Europe and manufacturers moved away from them. [1] Years ago, I read that hoods were required to be higher (which blocks vision in front of the vehicle) to form a crumple zone. The idea was that a pedestrian would be tossed up in the air, land on the hood, and it would give rather than having the solid engine underneath. [2] So there are definitely some governmental reasons why manufacturers do what they do. Thicker pillars protect passengers but reduce visibility. Etc. And most customers want bigger cars. [0] https://www.autoinsurance.org/are-backup-cameras-required-on-new-vehicles-updated/#:~:text=The%20backup%20camera%20law%20went,required%20to%20have%20backup%20cameras https://www.autoinsurance.org/are-backup-cameras-required-on... [1] https://magazine.northeast.aaa.com/daily/life/cars-trucks/auto-history/car-hood-ornaments/#:~:text=Perhaps%20the%20biggest%20factor%20in,a%20person%20during%20a%20collision https://magazine.northeast.aaa.com/daily/life/cars-trucks/au.... [2] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/07/while-other-countries-mandate-safer-car-designs-for-pedestrians-america-does-nothing https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/07/while-other-countries...
- Tagbert 3y agoIn recent cars, the visibility out the backup camera far surpasses the very limited visibility out the back window. It is also better in low light situations where the camera can adjust gain to brighten the scene when you can hardly see out the back at all. As long as the back view lets me see cars while driving and the side mirrors let me see the lane beside me, that's sufficient. I don't care about what I can see when twisted around looking back.
- martin8412 3y agoThere's a natural stop. A typical drivers license in EU countries(and I don't think the UK has changed that) allows you to drive a car up to 3500kg total weight including everything.
- oliwarner 3y agoI don't disagree that there's an aspiration towards larger cars for safety, but only part of that is *because other people are getting bigger cars". Drive into any UK city today and you'll be sharing the [often quite small] roads with 44 tonne lorries, 18 tonne buses, and LGVs and vans you'd need a ladder to see over. People feel safer in bigger cars in cities because the roads are so unsafe. To break this spell we have to have hard size limits. No HGVs in cities, permits and height limits for commercial vans in urban residential areas (no vans and trucks as primary vehicles), and nothing bigger than a (wheelchair accessible) Citroën Berlingo on residential streets otherwise. This won't reduce much traffic but it should make it a lot smaller.
- hulitu 3y ago> How do we make cars safer? We make the windows smaller and the body (armor plating) bigger The car does not have to defend itself from projectiles but from decelaration. The human body can whitstand certain forces until things start to break. That's why the cars are bigger. If you look at euroncap.com you will see that cars with small distance between the front of the car and driver's seat score worse than the cars where this distance is bigger. Same thing for side or pole crash.