7 ms·

I wish car testing was less about the safety of the people inside of the car and more about the safety of the people outside of it, like pedestrians, cyclists a

I wish car testing was less about the safety of the people inside of the car and more about the safety of the people outside of it, like pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles. After all, people buying a car already have a strong incentive to purchase something that is safe for themselves, but how many people put any thought into reducing the risk that the force upon others? For context, pedestrian and cycling deaths have increased for the past decade in North America [0] and it is known that tall blunt hoods increase fatalities [1]. Yet, nothing is being done about it in NA as far as I know. [0] https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deaths-high-traffic-car https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deat... [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU https://youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU

grecy 2y ago
Pedestrian safety is a very big part of European car crash testing - some cars even have front / hood airbags that will deploy for pedestrians.
foooorsyth 2y ago
https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained... NCAP has a dedicated test battery. Pedestrian figures are alarming, but I doubt vehicle mass and shape are the largest factor contributing to their rise. The numbers have increased since 2009. Smart phones and distracted driving are a huge factor here. That combined with NA’s terrible pedestrian infrastructure is a terrible combination. The fastest way to curtail pedestrian deaths is to build real pedestrian infrastructure and get serious about anti-cell phone technology for the driver’s seat. Edit: Oh, also several NA cities just stopped enforcing all traffic laws post summer 2020. Can’t ignore that in the post pandemic spike.
- close04 2y ago
  > I doubt vehicle mass and shape are the largest factor contributing to their rise. Distracted driving might be the biggest factor but it's hard to prevent a human from being distracted. It's easy to make smaller cars, we used to have them. The shape most definitely has a large impact (pun intended). The visibility from recent SUVs and trucks is abysmal without extensive assistance, like sensors and cameras. [0] Sometimes those cameras and sensors are another source of distraction and increase the cognitive load for what used to be "just look ahead", leading to the distracted driving. > examined that front visibility with a group of elementary school children, ages 6 to 10, and several adults of different heights in the driver’s seat of four tall, square-hooded vehicles: Ford F-150 and Toyota Tundra pickup trucks and Cadillac Escalade and Jeep Wagoneer SUVs. With the kids seated in a line stretching forward from the vehicle’s front bumper, it took nine to 11 of them before a 5-foot-2 driver could see a child’s head [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-are-getting-bigger-are-front-blind-zones-children-rcna52109 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...
  - infecto 2y ago
    Speaking from a US perspective. I don't believe its hard to prevent a human from being distracted. The problem is these days there is zero enforcement of traffic laws in most parts of the US. Making cars smaller would require new laws that are most certainly impossible to get made at this point. Definitely would be great if cars were smaller but people need to get off their darn phone.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Citing blind spots fullsize SUVs seems misleading at best when their proliferation peaked in the mid 00s and have been waning since while small SUVs have become dominant. Straight ahead drive overs of unseen pedestrians are vanishingly rare compared to people cornering into pedestrians that are hidden behind pillars. From there the lethality of the vehicle takes over. The largest of SUVs that you complain about are not increasing in frequency. What is happening is that sedans re being traded in for taller SUVs of comparable footprint and that's where the changes in statistics are coming from.
    - close04 2y ago
      > Citing blind spots fullsize SUVs seems misleading at best when they peaked in the 00s and have been waning I'm not sure what's misleading, it's based on data which contradicts your opinion. Every link I can find on this points in the same direction. As as summary: cars have increase continuously over the past decades and so have their blind spots, between 2012 and 2021 the total number of large cars has increased by 50% and each segment of large cars has seen 25-100% increase, the design can make even smaller cars more deadly, and the number of pedestrian deaths increased by 80% since 2009. [0][1] > America's cars and trucks are getting bigger, and so are their front blind zones [0] [look for "Getting Bigger"] > Over the past 30 years, the average U.S. passenger vehicle has gotten about 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller and 1,000 pounds heavier [1] > a blunt profile makes medium-height vehicles deadly too [1] > Pedestrian crash deaths have risen 80 percent since hitting their low in 2009 [1] > many safety advocates have also drawn a connection to the growing portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet made up of pickups and SUVs [1] You call it misleading, I call it supported by data. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-are-getting-bigger-are-front-blind-zones-children-rcna52109 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar... [1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...
- 15155 2y ago
  > get serious about anti-cell phone technology for the driver’s seat. How does this work?
  - foooorsyth 2y ago
    It remains to be defined, but some of the technology is already there. We have driver monitoring systems. We know which device is paired to the infotainment system. That device could be physically sequestered from driver access while the vehicle is in gear (via NFC, for example). I don’t want my car to be an arm of the nanny state. I don’t want insurance companies spying on my drives or owning my driver monitoring data. But, there could be a simple “place the connected device on this pad and strap it in while you drive” type system, that actually attempts to enforce the policy. Does it get hard once multiple people/devices get in the car? Sure. Could individual drivers just bring a second device along to defeat it? Yes. But for the average solo driver that doesn’t pre mediate their own misbehavior, it could reduce distraction without trampling on privacy or significantly added nuisance.
    - 15155 2y ago
      > But, there could be a simple “place the connected device on this pad and strap it in while you drive” type system Why do I have to comply? Is my phone not allowed to be used while in motion or something? Or is this required just to access the infotainment system (hello, car-only phone!)? If you're putting some kind of radio in my vehicle that tells my (and every passenger's phone) to shut off, I'm going to abuse this signal and broadcast it far more widely than any car would. And then just remove, disable, or block the radio. > Does it get hard once multiple people/devices get in the car? It doesn't just become difficult, it becomes logically impossible. Current, common radio technology isn't good enough to isolate the driver's seat. --- Also: good luck getting any technical chain of trust to work and stay safe/secret between numerous phone and automobile manufacturers. Nobody has been able to achieve this with multi-manufacturer DRM so far - DVD, Bluray, etc. Apple is the exception with regards to key material security: auto manufacturers stand no chance, Xiaomi doesn't care, and my Google Pixel is rooted. Before phones there were DVD playing head units in cars: parking and GPS bypasses have existed for these for at least 20 years.
avalys 2y ago
[0] is kind of a useless article because it doesn't provide a graph and it doesn't provide per-capita statistics. If the US population has doubled since 1980, then it wouldn't be surprising that some population-level statistic (total pedestrian deaths) is at an all-time high! And it could still be at an all-time high while reflecting a substantial increase in safety - if the population doubled (increased 100%) but deaths only rose 25%, for instance. Similarly, I anecdotally observe that cycling is more popular than it was 20 years ago. So it would not be surprising (to me) to observe that cycling deaths are higher as well. But without quantifying any of these factors, the significance of these statistics is difficult to evaluate.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- david-gpu 2y ago
  > If the US population has doubled since 1980, then it wouldn't be surprising that some population-level statistic (total pedestrian deaths) is at an all-time high! Indeed, it is per capita deaths that have increased since 2013 or so [0]. Why speculate when you can Google? [0] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes...
  - telgareith 2y ago
    Because its not the readers job to support a writers position.
    - david-gpu 2y ago
      Criticizing that the article I posted doesn't contain rates is understandable. Nevertheless, in the same amount of time that it took them to write a shallow dismissal they could have googled the raw data and shared a link. They didn't provide any sources whatsoever for their own claims.
      - 2y ago
illwrks 2y ago
Pedestrian safety is already accounted for in a cars exterior design (American cars and ‘trucks’ being the exception). Most of pedestrian safety is about pedestrian awareness. I can only speak for myself but when I’m driving, cycling or walking I’m always on the alert for idiots, there are plenty around. In almost all contexts it is people distracted by music and phones and are not paying attention to their surroundings. And I think cyclists who don’t already have a driving license should have to do a basic provisional theory test. It’s for their own safety to understand the rules of the road.
- tom_vidal 2y ago
  The "rules of the road" argument here assumes that giving up huge amounts of public space for car infrastructure is inevitable and right, and that it's the fault of people walking or riding bikes if they get injured or killed since the system is not built for them. Roads in the US are designed almost entirely around the speed and convenience of cars, and don't account for the externalities they impose on everyone else. As cars get larger and more dangerous, and as drivers get more careless, the cost borne by society is only going up. Asking people walking and riding bikes to be even more extra careful not to get killed is not the right solution. Changing the design of our roads and public spaces to make them safer for everyone is.
  - illwrks 2y ago
    Sorry, I’m speaking from a European perspective (UK/London). When driving I’ve had idiots on e-scooters dressed in black with no lights zooming towards me on a one way street at night, I’ve had people walk out in front of me when distracted by their phones. When cycling I’ve often seen other casual cyclists with headphones on, in their own dreamland, no helmet either, and I’ve seen the same when walking about. People are too careless and distracted thinking others are going to look out for them, everyone needs to pay more attention.
- AcerbicZero 2y ago
  A simple "what color is this traffic light?" test would go a long way towards saving cyclist lives thats for sure, but when you're that exposed to 4,000lbs vehicles moving at ~50+ MPH operated by people who took at best, 8 hours of instruction from their health class teacher, well, a lot of the issues you run into are not going to be your fault.
r_hanz 2y ago
How much of that increase can also be attributed to distracted driving (ie driving under the influence of mobile phones)?
- AcerbicZero 2y ago
  As a motorcycle commuter, who sits about 3 feet higher than most sedans in my area and can see into all the cars around me as I drive, I can confirm that at least half of the ones I see every morning on the road have the driver either staring at their lap using their phone, or rolling giant vape clouds out their window, and are probably high. Often, I see someone doing both. We need to nurture a culture of competency on the roads and excellence in automobile operations. My personal fav idea to help with that is build more race tracks :)
  - Velofellow 2y ago
    Another moto / cycle rider here. Recent phenomenon that makes me weep for road going competency: Phone or tablet on a suction cup mount playing YouTube, Netflix, whatever. Preferably at night with the screen 4" from your face to really make visual acuity dicey. I thought this was a one-off, but I see probably 5-10 of these idiots a week.
Scoundreller 2y ago
The joke in flyover provinces/states, is it’s difficult to cause an accident, because it’s flat and there are few trees, people, boulders or buildings to crash into. If you fall asleep while driving, you’ll just ruin some corn/wheat crops until you get stuck in a rut or get yourself back on the road. Tried to google for the longest distance anyone drove asleep at the wheel but only getting results about semi-conscious sleepdriving, but I bet it’s quite a distance.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  [flagged]
joshlemer 2y ago
I would also like to understand why the most basic regulations aren't in place on cars to limit their maximum speed, and maximum acceleration and/or power? It seems like the general public all agrees that it would be insane to allow arbitrarily powerful e-bikes, and so they are limited to (depending on your jurisdiction) 500 watts and 32km/h. This, despite that there are nearly 0 deaths from e-bikes per year. Cars and motorcycles on the other hand, are orders of magnitude more dangerous and we have no restrictions whatsoever. There are street-legal cars with 1000 horsepower and top speeds of over 400km/h.
- cenamus 2y ago
  In most jurisdictions they're limited to that power because they're ebikes. Above that you just have an electric motorcycle, which mandates different brakes and so on, but you can still do that. Just need a another license, more taxes, etc.
  - BytesAndGears 2y ago
    Couldn’t you also require a higher tier license for large and dangerous cars, just like motorcycles require extra privileges? Allow anyone to own a sedan or compact SUV with up to 200hp. If you want to own something larger, you need an “oversized vehicle” endorsement. And if you want to own something more powerful, you need a power-level endorsement. And maybe you need to pay extra to have those endorsements, and they can be taken away if you are reckless. It could be a grandfathering system too, so not to disrupt the entire market. Automatically grant partial endorsements to people who already have those vehicles when the law goes into effect, but require testing within 5 years or when registering any new vehicle that meets those criteria. But cars and trucks are incredibly dangerous and it’s ridiculous society has basically zero restrictions. (I own a “small” truck and would be happy to have it restricted if it means the roads start to become safer for cycling and walking)
    - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
      What evidence do you have that vehicles over a certain size and power are inherently more dangerous? And what about the problem would an endorsement solve?
typewithrhythm 2y ago
Pedestrian safety, because it's a benefit to society and not the specific owner of the car, should be handled by regulations and government tests. I don't want the independent kinds of safety rating, like what's included in the article to include anything other than what benefits the purchaser of the car. I am in an adjacent industry where it's getting increasingly common to hear that these ratings are becoming less trustworthy, and part of it is they include points for gadgets and things seen as irrelevant to the end user.
- wtallis 2y ago
  > I don't want the independent kinds of safety rating, like what's included in the article to include anything other than what benefits the purchaser of the car. You may not want independent safety ratings to take pedestrians into account, but your insurance company may have other ideas, since pedestrian safety matters to their bottom line. Whose interests do you think matter more to an entity like IIHS?
  - typewithrhythm 2y ago
    The problem is one of how to create something that purchasers trust, and you can only do that by creating a rating that addresses the desires of whoever is making the purchasing decisions. I want to avoid a case where people return to "just buy the biggest x, x make safe cars".
    - wtallis 2y ago
      If a consumer is unwilling to trust safety ratings because the consumer doesn't care about pedestrian safety, the problem is not that the safety ratings don't match the consumer's priorities, the problem is that the consumer's priorities are wrong. The consumer should care about pedestrian safety, and making pedestrian safety part of the safety ratings and using those ratings to determine insurance premiums is a reasonable way to give the consumer a financial incentive to care about pedestrian safety.

grecy 2y ago

Pedestrian safety is a very big part of European car crash testing - some cars even have front / hood airbags that will deploy for pedestrians.

foooorsyth 2y ago

https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained... NCAP has a dedicated test battery. Pedestrian figures are alarming, but I doubt vehicle mass and shape are the largest factor contributing to their rise. The numbers have increased since 2009. Smart phones and distracted driving are a huge factor here. That combined with NA’s terrible pedestrian infrastructure is a terrible combination. The fastest way to curtail pedestrian deaths is to build real pedestrian infrastructure and get serious about anti-cell phone technology for the driver’s seat. Edit: Oh, also several NA cities just stopped enforcing all traffic laws post summer 2020. Can’t ignore that in the post pandemic spike.

close04 2y ago
> I doubt vehicle mass and shape are the largest factor contributing to their rise. Distracted driving might be the biggest factor but it's hard to prevent a human from being distracted. It's easy to make smaller cars, we used to have them. The shape most definitely has a large impact (pun intended). The visibility from recent SUVs and trucks is abysmal without extensive assistance, like sensors and cameras. [0] Sometimes those cameras and sensors are another source of distraction and increase the cognitive load for what used to be "just look ahead", leading to the distracted driving. > examined that front visibility with a group of elementary school children, ages 6 to 10, and several adults of different heights in the driver’s seat of four tall, square-hooded vehicles: Ford F-150 and Toyota Tundra pickup trucks and Cadillac Escalade and Jeep Wagoneer SUVs. With the kids seated in a line stretching forward from the vehicle’s front bumper, it took nine to 11 of them before a 5-foot-2 driver could see a child’s head [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-are-getting-bigger-are-front-blind-zones-children-rcna52109 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...
- infecto 2y ago
  Speaking from a US perspective. I don't believe its hard to prevent a human from being distracted. The problem is these days there is zero enforcement of traffic laws in most parts of the US. Making cars smaller would require new laws that are most certainly impossible to get made at this point. Definitely would be great if cars were smaller but people need to get off their darn phone.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Citing blind spots fullsize SUVs seems misleading at best when their proliferation peaked in the mid 00s and have been waning since while small SUVs have become dominant. Straight ahead drive overs of unseen pedestrians are vanishingly rare compared to people cornering into pedestrians that are hidden behind pillars. From there the lethality of the vehicle takes over. The largest of SUVs that you complain about are not increasing in frequency. What is happening is that sedans re being traded in for taller SUVs of comparable footprint and that's where the changes in statistics are coming from.
  - close04 2y ago
    > Citing blind spots fullsize SUVs seems misleading at best when they peaked in the 00s and have been waning I'm not sure what's misleading, it's based on data which contradicts your opinion. Every link I can find on this points in the same direction. As as summary: cars have increase continuously over the past decades and so have their blind spots, between 2012 and 2021 the total number of large cars has increased by 50% and each segment of large cars has seen 25-100% increase, the design can make even smaller cars more deadly, and the number of pedestrian deaths increased by 80% since 2009. [0][1] > America's cars and trucks are getting bigger, and so are their front blind zones [0] [look for "Getting Bigger"] > Over the past 30 years, the average U.S. passenger vehicle has gotten about 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller and 1,000 pounds heavier [1] > a blunt profile makes medium-height vehicles deadly too [1] > Pedestrian crash deaths have risen 80 percent since hitting their low in 2009 [1] > many safety advocates have also drawn a connection to the growing portion of the U.S. vehicle fleet made up of pickups and SUVs [1] You call it misleading, I call it supported by data. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-are-getting-bigger-are-front-blind-zones-children-rcna52109 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar... [1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...
15155 2y ago
> get serious about anti-cell phone technology for the driver’s seat. How does this work?
- foooorsyth 2y ago
  It remains to be defined, but some of the technology is already there. We have driver monitoring systems. We know which device is paired to the infotainment system. That device could be physically sequestered from driver access while the vehicle is in gear (via NFC, for example). I don’t want my car to be an arm of the nanny state. I don’t want insurance companies spying on my drives or owning my driver monitoring data. But, there could be a simple “place the connected device on this pad and strap it in while you drive” type system, that actually attempts to enforce the policy. Does it get hard once multiple people/devices get in the car? Sure. Could individual drivers just bring a second device along to defeat it? Yes. But for the average solo driver that doesn’t pre mediate their own misbehavior, it could reduce distraction without trampling on privacy or significantly added nuisance.
  - 15155 2y ago
    > But, there could be a simple “place the connected device on this pad and strap it in while you drive” type system Why do I have to comply? Is my phone not allowed to be used while in motion or something? Or is this required just to access the infotainment system (hello, car-only phone!)? If you're putting some kind of radio in my vehicle that tells my (and every passenger's phone) to shut off, I'm going to abuse this signal and broadcast it far more widely than any car would. And then just remove, disable, or block the radio. > Does it get hard once multiple people/devices get in the car? It doesn't just become difficult, it becomes logically impossible. Current, common radio technology isn't good enough to isolate the driver's seat. --- Also: good luck getting any technical chain of trust to work and stay safe/secret between numerous phone and automobile manufacturers. Nobody has been able to achieve this with multi-manufacturer DRM so far - DVD, Bluray, etc. Apple is the exception with regards to key material security: auto manufacturers stand no chance, Xiaomi doesn't care, and my Google Pixel is rooted. Before phones there were DVD playing head units in cars: parking and GPS bypasses have existed for these for at least 20 years.

avalys 2y ago

[0] is kind of a useless article because it doesn't provide a graph and it doesn't provide per-capita statistics. If the US population has doubled since 1980, then it wouldn't be surprising that some population-level statistic (total pedestrian deaths) is at an all-time high! And it could still be at an all-time high while reflecting a substantial increase in safety - if the population doubled (increased 100%) but deaths only rose 25%, for instance. Similarly, I anecdotally observe that cycling is more popular than it was 20 years ago. So it would not be surprising (to me) to observe that cycling deaths are higher as well. But without quantifying any of these factors, the significance of these statistics is difficult to evaluate.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
david-gpu 2y ago
> If the US population has doubled since 1980, then it wouldn't be surprising that some population-level statistic (total pedestrian deaths) is at an all-time high! Indeed, it is per capita deaths that have increased since 2013 or so [0]. Why speculate when you can Google? [0] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes...
- telgareith 2y ago
  Because its not the readers job to support a writers position.
  - david-gpu 2y ago
    Criticizing that the article I posted doesn't contain rates is understandable. Nevertheless, in the same amount of time that it took them to write a shallow dismissal they could have googled the raw data and shared a link. They didn't provide any sources whatsoever for their own claims.
    - 2y ago

illwrks 2y ago

Pedestrian safety is already accounted for in a cars exterior design (American cars and ‘trucks’ being the exception). Most of pedestrian safety is about pedestrian awareness. I can only speak for myself but when I’m driving, cycling or walking I’m always on the alert for idiots, there are plenty around. In almost all contexts it is people distracted by music and phones and are not paying attention to their surroundings. And I think cyclists who don’t already have a driving license should have to do a basic provisional theory test. It’s for their own safety to understand the rules of the road.

tom_vidal 2y ago
The "rules of the road" argument here assumes that giving up huge amounts of public space for car infrastructure is inevitable and right, and that it's the fault of people walking or riding bikes if they get injured or killed since the system is not built for them. Roads in the US are designed almost entirely around the speed and convenience of cars, and don't account for the externalities they impose on everyone else. As cars get larger and more dangerous, and as drivers get more careless, the cost borne by society is only going up. Asking people walking and riding bikes to be even more extra careful not to get killed is not the right solution. Changing the design of our roads and public spaces to make them safer for everyone is.
- illwrks 2y ago
  Sorry, I’m speaking from a European perspective (UK/London). When driving I’ve had idiots on e-scooters dressed in black with no lights zooming towards me on a one way street at night, I’ve had people walk out in front of me when distracted by their phones. When cycling I’ve often seen other casual cyclists with headphones on, in their own dreamland, no helmet either, and I’ve seen the same when walking about. People are too careless and distracted thinking others are going to look out for them, everyone needs to pay more attention.
AcerbicZero 2y ago
A simple "what color is this traffic light?" test would go a long way towards saving cyclist lives thats for sure, but when you're that exposed to 4,000lbs vehicles moving at ~50+ MPH operated by people who took at best, 8 hours of instruction from their health class teacher, well, a lot of the issues you run into are not going to be your fault.

r_hanz 2y ago

How much of that increase can also be attributed to distracted driving (ie driving under the influence of mobile phones)?

AcerbicZero 2y ago
As a motorcycle commuter, who sits about 3 feet higher than most sedans in my area and can see into all the cars around me as I drive, I can confirm that at least half of the ones I see every morning on the road have the driver either staring at their lap using their phone, or rolling giant vape clouds out their window, and are probably high. Often, I see someone doing both. We need to nurture a culture of competency on the roads and excellence in automobile operations. My personal fav idea to help with that is build more race tracks :)
- Velofellow 2y ago
  Another moto / cycle rider here. Recent phenomenon that makes me weep for road going competency: Phone or tablet on a suction cup mount playing YouTube, Netflix, whatever. Preferably at night with the screen 4" from your face to really make visual acuity dicey. I thought this was a one-off, but I see probably 5-10 of these idiots a week.

Scoundreller 2y ago

The joke in flyover provinces/states, is it’s difficult to cause an accident, because it’s flat and there are few trees, people, boulders or buildings to crash into. If you fall asleep while driving, you’ll just ruin some corn/wheat crops until you get stuck in a rut or get yourself back on the road. Tried to google for the longest distance anyone drove asleep at the wheel but only getting results about semi-conscious sleepdriving, but I bet it’s quite a distance.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]

joshlemer 2y ago

I would also like to understand why the most basic regulations aren't in place on cars to limit their maximum speed, and maximum acceleration and/or power? It seems like the general public all agrees that it would be insane to allow arbitrarily powerful e-bikes, and so they are limited to (depending on your jurisdiction) 500 watts and 32km/h. This, despite that there are nearly 0 deaths from e-bikes per year. Cars and motorcycles on the other hand, are orders of magnitude more dangerous and we have no restrictions whatsoever. There are street-legal cars with 1000 horsepower and top speeds of over 400km/h.

cenamus 2y ago
In most jurisdictions they're limited to that power because they're ebikes. Above that you just have an electric motorcycle, which mandates different brakes and so on, but you can still do that. Just need a another license, more taxes, etc.
- BytesAndGears 2y ago
  Couldn’t you also require a higher tier license for large and dangerous cars, just like motorcycles require extra privileges? Allow anyone to own a sedan or compact SUV with up to 200hp. If you want to own something larger, you need an “oversized vehicle” endorsement. And if you want to own something more powerful, you need a power-level endorsement. And maybe you need to pay extra to have those endorsements, and they can be taken away if you are reckless. It could be a grandfathering system too, so not to disrupt the entire market. Automatically grant partial endorsements to people who already have those vehicles when the law goes into effect, but require testing within 5 years or when registering any new vehicle that meets those criteria. But cars and trucks are incredibly dangerous and it’s ridiculous society has basically zero restrictions. (I own a “small” truck and would be happy to have it restricted if it means the roads start to become safer for cycling and walking)
  - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
    What evidence do you have that vehicles over a certain size and power are inherently more dangerous? And what about the problem would an endorsement solve?

typewithrhythm 2y ago

Pedestrian safety, because it's a benefit to society and not the specific owner of the car, should be handled by regulations and government tests. I don't want the independent kinds of safety rating, like what's included in the article to include anything other than what benefits the purchaser of the car. I am in an adjacent industry where it's getting increasingly common to hear that these ratings are becoming less trustworthy, and part of it is they include points for gadgets and things seen as irrelevant to the end user.

wtallis 2y ago
> I don't want the independent kinds of safety rating, like what's included in the article to include anything other than what benefits the purchaser of the car. You may not want independent safety ratings to take pedestrians into account, but your insurance company may have other ideas, since pedestrian safety matters to their bottom line. Whose interests do you think matter more to an entity like IIHS?
- typewithrhythm 2y ago
  The problem is one of how to create something that purchasers trust, and you can only do that by creating a rating that addresses the desires of whoever is making the purchasing decisions. I want to avoid a case where people return to "just buy the biggest x, x make safe cars".
  - wtallis 2y ago
    If a consumer is unwilling to trust safety ratings because the consumer doesn't care about pedestrian safety, the problem is not that the safety ratings don't match the consumer's priorities, the problem is that the consumer's priorities are wrong. The consumer should care about pedestrian safety, and making pedestrian safety part of the safety ratings and using those ratings to determine insurance premiums is a reasonable way to give the consumer a financial incentive to care about pedestrian safety.