5 ms·

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?

david-gpu 2y ago
> What evidence do you have that vehicles over a certain size and power are inherently more dangerous? Basic physics and historical collision data collected over decades. But don't take my word for it! Look up your local official collision data -- how many pedestrians have killed people inside a four-wheel vehicle? What about the other way around? Now repeat for cyclists, mopeds/motorcycles, and other four-wheeled vehicles. The heavier vehicle kills the lighter vehicle, primarily because of momentum.
MisterTea 2y ago
> What evidence do you have that vehicles over a certain size and power are inherently more dangerous? It's not the vehicle but the entitled douche bag who thinks they own the road while wildly speeding around, cutting people off and weaving around traffic like a drunkard. No one needs that power save for insecure men.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Sounds like the driver is the problem. A rampaging driver can do pretty much the same damage regardless of the exact car. Police should focus on driver behaviour with stricter enforcement of "road manners" type rules. Broken window theory.
  - MisterTea 2y ago
    Of course the driver is the problem but you can't fix stupid with police. Also realize that in the USA there has been a reduction in the amount of policing done on the roads for various reasons so don't expect much from the cops.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      With less policing the problems will just get worse. The only alternative is some kind of intrusive digital nannying which is what we're starting to see.
      - david-gpu 2y ago
        > The only alternative is ...or you could look at what is done in countries with a far better safety record and copy it. Hint: street design has a massive effect on the speed at which drivers choose to go. Narrower lanes, curves, intersections with tight corners, raised crossings, speed humps, removing on-street parking next to intersections (daylighting), etc. all reduce fatalities.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        Ah yes the "ball pit" option. Sure it probably works but it costs a lot and reduces the utility of the roads.
        david-gpu 2y ago
        It increases the utility of the streets for pedestrians and cyclists by, you know, not getting them killed. Many traffic safety measures cost very little to implement, or even retrofit. You can look up what has been done in Hoboken, NJ -- no pedestrian fatalities since 2017.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        Fair enough for dense urban areas, I suppose.
singleshot_ 2y ago
My evidence is that you need a special endorsement already to drive things that are more powerful or complex than a car (e.g., taxi, semi truck, ferry, formula one car). This seems obvious.
- david-gpu 2y ago
  > My evidence is that you need a special endorsement already to drive things that are more powerful or complex than a car In Canada, a standard car license allows driving vehicles up to 11,000 kg (24,250 lbs) [0], including pickup trucks and SUVs that are larger than a WWII Sherman tank [1], such as the Ford F-350 or the Cadillac Escalade [2]. Thus, we are allowing people to drive things that are far more powerful than a car without special licensing requirements -- and without a speed governor. So it is already pretty lax in terms of licensing requirements for vehicles that kill and maim our neighbors every year. We should be even stricter than we are. [0] https://drivetest.ca/licences/licences-overview/ https://drivetest.ca/licences/licences-overview/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman [2] https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/cadillac-escalade-2020-suv-lwb-vs-ford-f-350-2016-4-door-pickup-crew-cab/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/cadillac-escalade-2...
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Except perhaps overall length there is no metric by which any vehicle on the roads today is larger than an M4.
    - david-gpu 2y ago
      No need to speculate: links with the actual data were provided; you can check for yourself that the comparison really isn't all that crazy. Both vehicles have comparable engines, but with the F-350 being much lighter it can achieve much higher accelerations and top speeds. In terms of dimensions they are quite similar as well. ChatGPT-produced summary for the lazy: +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Feature | M4 Sherman Tank | Ford F-350 Crew Cab | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Mass | 66,800–84,000 lb | ~7,000–9,000 lb | | | (30.3–38.1 tonnes) | (3.2–4.1 tonnes) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Length | 19 ft 2 in–20 ft 7 in| 20 ft 11 in–23 ft 11 in | | | (5.84–6.27 m) | (6.27–7.28 m) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Width | 8 ft 7 in–9 ft 10 in | 6 ft 7 in–7 ft 11 in | | | (2.62–3.00 m) | (2.03–2.43 m) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Height | 9 ft 0 in–9 ft 9 in | 6 ft 4 in–6 ft 9 in | | | (2.74–2.97 m) | (1.93–2.06 m) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Engine | Gasoline/Diesel: | Gasoline/Diesel: | | | 350–450 hp (260–336 kW)| 385–475 hp (287–354 kW)| +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Power/Weight | 10.46–13.49 hp/ton | ~43–53 hp/ton | | | (8.60–11.09 kW/t) | (36–44 kW/t) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

david-gpu 2y ago

> What evidence do you have that vehicles over a certain size and power are inherently more dangerous? Basic physics and historical collision data collected over decades. But don't take my word for it! Look up your local official collision data -- how many pedestrians have killed people inside a four-wheel vehicle? What about the other way around? Now repeat for cyclists, mopeds/motorcycles, and other four-wheeled vehicles. The heavier vehicle kills the lighter vehicle, primarily because of momentum.

MisterTea 2y ago

> What evidence do you have that vehicles over a certain size and power are inherently more dangerous? It's not the vehicle but the entitled douche bag who thinks they own the road while wildly speeding around, cutting people off and weaving around traffic like a drunkard. No one needs that power save for insecure men.

HPsquared 2y ago
Sounds like the driver is the problem. A rampaging driver can do pretty much the same damage regardless of the exact car. Police should focus on driver behaviour with stricter enforcement of "road manners" type rules. Broken window theory.
- MisterTea 2y ago
  Of course the driver is the problem but you can't fix stupid with police. Also realize that in the USA there has been a reduction in the amount of policing done on the roads for various reasons so don't expect much from the cops.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    With less policing the problems will just get worse. The only alternative is some kind of intrusive digital nannying which is what we're starting to see.
    - david-gpu 2y ago
      > The only alternative is ...or you could look at what is done in countries with a far better safety record and copy it. Hint: street design has a massive effect on the speed at which drivers choose to go. Narrower lanes, curves, intersections with tight corners, raised crossings, speed humps, removing on-street parking next to intersections (daylighting), etc. all reduce fatalities.
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Ah yes the "ball pit" option. Sure it probably works but it costs a lot and reduces the utility of the roads.
        david-gpu 2y ago
        It increases the utility of the streets for pedestrians and cyclists by, you know, not getting them killed. Many traffic safety measures cost very little to implement, or even retrofit. You can look up what has been done in Hoboken, NJ -- no pedestrian fatalities since 2017.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        Fair enough for dense urban areas, I suppose.

singleshot_ 2y ago

My evidence is that you need a special endorsement already to drive things that are more powerful or complex than a car (e.g., taxi, semi truck, ferry, formula one car). This seems obvious.

david-gpu 2y ago
> My evidence is that you need a special endorsement already to drive things that are more powerful or complex than a car In Canada, a standard car license allows driving vehicles up to 11,000 kg (24,250 lbs) [0], including pickup trucks and SUVs that are larger than a WWII Sherman tank [1], such as the Ford F-350 or the Cadillac Escalade [2]. Thus, we are allowing people to drive things that are far more powerful than a car without special licensing requirements -- and without a speed governor. So it is already pretty lax in terms of licensing requirements for vehicles that kill and maim our neighbors every year. We should be even stricter than we are. [0] https://drivetest.ca/licences/licences-overview/ https://drivetest.ca/licences/licences-overview/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman [2] https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/cadillac-escalade-2020-suv-lwb-vs-ford-f-350-2016-4-door-pickup-crew-cab/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/cadillac-escalade-2...
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Except perhaps overall length there is no metric by which any vehicle on the roads today is larger than an M4.
  - david-gpu 2y ago
    No need to speculate: links with the actual data were provided; you can check for yourself that the comparison really isn't all that crazy. Both vehicles have comparable engines, but with the F-350 being much lighter it can achieve much higher accelerations and top speeds. In terms of dimensions they are quite similar as well. ChatGPT-produced summary for the lazy: +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Feature | M4 Sherman Tank | Ford F-350 Crew Cab | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Mass | 66,800–84,000 lb | ~7,000–9,000 lb | | | (30.3–38.1 tonnes) | (3.2–4.1 tonnes) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Length | 19 ft 2 in–20 ft 7 in| 20 ft 11 in–23 ft 11 in | | | (5.84–6.27 m) | (6.27–7.28 m) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Width | 8 ft 7 in–9 ft 10 in | 6 ft 7 in–7 ft 11 in | | | (2.62–3.00 m) | (2.03–2.43 m) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Height | 9 ft 0 in–9 ft 9 in | 6 ft 4 in–6 ft 9 in | | | (2.74–2.97 m) | (1.93–2.06 m) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Engine | Gasoline/Diesel: | Gasoline/Diesel: | | | 350–450 hp (260–336 kW)| 385–475 hp (287–354 kW)| +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ | Power/Weight | 10.46–13.49 hp/ton | ~43–53 hp/ton | | | (8.60–11.09 kW/t) | (36–44 kW/t) | +----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+