4 ms·

This is often brought out as though it should engender gasps, but a moment of thought punctures the whole prospect. We need cars and trucks for a variety of pur

by EA-3167 4mo ago

This is often brought out as though it should engender gasps, but a moment of thought punctures the whole prospect. We need cars and trucks for a variety of purposes, and while I agree that most people don't need a pickup or a Unimog, there are many people and businesses who do. The ability to rapidly travel is a centerpiece of modern life, and has been for quite some time. Mass shootings by contrast are not economic or personal drivers of freedom, they're not an intended output of the system that creates them, they're a relatively modern perversity of it. Of course people are more concerned with seemingly random violence that many other countries seem to live without, or with much less of, compared to inevitable accidents. People also love to present "Vehicle vs Ped" as a de facto accident on the part of the vehicle or the driver, and that can certainly be the case! It's also true that about 30% of pedestrians involved in these accidents have a BAC over the legal limit. There are also issues with poorly designed and maintained lights, safety systems on roads, and so on that play a role. None of this is as simple as, "Just bike to work, dummy." I'd also add that recent stats show a REDUCTION in pedestrian fatalities, it's just that it's been on a rise since 2009, but it's going back down again. Possibly that comes down to addressing some concerns I've mentioned above, some comes down to fewer megamonsterSUV's, and some comes down to smartphone and in-car tech no longer promoting using said phones on the road. https://www.ghsa.org/resource-hub/pedestrian-traffic-fatalities-2024-data https://www.ghsa.org/resource-hub/pedestrian-traffic-fatalit...

UtopiaPunk 4mo ago
Nothing in the article is suggesting that we do not need cars and trucks. It does make a compelling case that specifically large trucks and SUVs are causing preventable deaths. And I certainly find no reason that we need very large trucks or SUVs.
- giantg2 4mo ago
  Having any car or truck is a choice. People lived before the automobile. They do provide benefits, just as SUVs and trucks provide benefits. The Amish live without cars, so too could we if we chose to. In fact, the Amish could make the same claim about all automobiles that you make about preventable deaths attributed to larger vehicles.
  - UtopiaPunk 4mo ago
    Is your point that taller trucks and SUVs provide considerable benefits over shorter ones? What are those benefits? Or do you mean simply that trucks and SUVs, regardless of their height, provide benefits? I don't doubt that and do not mean to imply otherwise.
    - jandrewrogers 4mo ago
      > Is your point that taller trucks and SUVs provide considerable benefits over shorter ones? What are those benefits? Ground clearance. In some parts of the US and for some use cases this is non-negotiable. It would be like buying a car in Texas without an air conditioner. There is a Japanese automaker (Subaru) that traditionally caters to this market almost exclusively in the US. I won't buy a vehicle with less than 8 inches of ground clearance for safety reasons.
      - UtopiaPunk 4mo ago
        Sorry if I'm being dense, but what parts of the USA? Or, I guess more specifically, what is it that you are needing to clear?
        jandrewrogers 4mo ago
        The mountainous parts, particularly if you aren't driving on the interstates. You can end up in a freak blizzard in the passes from September through May. Some roads do not have frequent, regular snow clearance in winter. Localized torrential rains from thunderstorms temporarily dump debris on or wash out the road surface. In the western US, unpaved highways are relatively common in some areas. Random unexpected road closures can send you down ranch or forestry trails intended for 4WD trucks because there are few practical alternatives. When I lived in the area, I regularly rescued people stranded on roads in the Sierra Nevada mountains around Lake Tahoe that found out the hard way that their vehicles were unfit for the changing road conditions. Nearly getting stranded myself a couple times over the decades informed my vehicular requirements. I currently live in the city and but rarely drive there. Almost all of my driving is done across the western US. I require the vehicle I own to be able to safely navigate all of the road conditions I am likely to see there. A less common reason is that the nice paved roads are not always the fastest way between two points. I used to regularly commute to a town in Nevada where using the nice paved highway around the mountains took 30 minutes longer than taking an old mining road straight over the mountains. Everyone that lived in the area took the old mining road. That would have been sketchy without decent ground clearance. A lot of locals just drove old Subarus.
- EA-3167 4mo ago
  I believe that you don't need one, and I know that I don't need one, but I think it's a little rich to make that a blanket statement for the species. There are people who have jobs, lives, and live in places unlike your own experiences.
  - UtopiaPunk 4mo ago
    Ugh, ok. Most people do not need one. I'm not sure what the need is for a very tall pickup truck that can also hold a family five? But maybe there is one. Perhaps there is also a need for an excavator that holds a family of five, idk. If a real need is demonstrated, then sure, please do not ban the manufacturing of an excavator that has the necessary hook-ups for modern child carseats simply because I, a commenter on HackerNews, made a statement that was a little too sweeping for the needs of past, present, and future human beings on Earth and across potential settlement across the universe and dimensions beyond. But most people do not need a very large truck or SUV. Vehicles with hoods closer to the ground and better lines-of-sight are safer for those around them, while having practically no impact on the utility of said vehicles as they drive on roads and highways in the USA.
- ryandrake 4mo ago
  Yea, depending on where you live in the USA, you practically need a car of some sort. Yes, there are cities where you can get away with not having one, but the vast majority of Americans would have to make a huge lifestyle sacrifice to not have a car. Some people need trucks to haul things, but NOBODY needs giant-grilled zero-visibility monster trucks or monster SUVs where you can't even see a person standing in front. You could get rid of these atrocities and not kill cars/trucks in general. Maybe that's where effort should be focused.
  - crooked-v 4mo ago
    Removing the 'light truck' hole in CAFE standards would be a good start.
drtz 4mo ago
I think you're take is a bit off for multiple reasons. First, people need transportation, not cars. For the vast majority of people, if you truly need a car, it's because your infrastructure was built in a way that doesn't provide any other modes of transportation. Second, mass shootings aren't the intended effect of guns in the same way pedestrian fatalities aren't the intended effect of cars. Both cars and guns are providing some perceived value (personal transportation freedom and self-defense/safeguard against tyranny/national defense) with a significant number of deaths as a tradeoff. Third, implying someone with a BAC over the legal limit for DRIVING is somehow responsible for getting killed while WALKING instead of driving is comical and darkly ironic considering drunk driving accounts for almost a third of traffic deaths in the US [1]. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/impaired-driving/facts/index.html#:~:text=Overview%20Alcohol%20In,an%20alcohol-impaired%20driver https://www.cdc.gov/impaired-driving/facts/index.html#:~:tex...
- lobf 4mo ago
  I would argue that cars provide a tangible value, and guns only provide a perceived / emotional value. Guns make you objectively less safe, and at enormous social cost. Cars are (unfortunately) necessary in a lot of cases for the economy to work, there is really no comparison to guns.
  - llbeansandrice 4mo ago
    Cars are not necessary nearly as much as most Americans think they are. It is a difficult problem to untangle, but not impossible. Accepting this level of tragedy and violence because cars are sometimes “economically necessary” is very sad. And again they are not nearly as necessary as is perceived. I drive my car maybe once or twice a week now and I live in a suburb of about 40k people, not in a major city.

by EA-3167 4mo ago

UtopiaPunk 4mo ago

Nothing in the article is suggesting that we do not need cars and trucks. It does make a compelling case that specifically large trucks and SUVs are causing preventable deaths. And I certainly find no reason that we need very large trucks or SUVs.

giantg2 4mo ago
Having any car or truck is a choice. People lived before the automobile. They do provide benefits, just as SUVs and trucks provide benefits. The Amish live without cars, so too could we if we chose to. In fact, the Amish could make the same claim about all automobiles that you make about preventable deaths attributed to larger vehicles.
- UtopiaPunk 4mo ago
  Is your point that taller trucks and SUVs provide considerable benefits over shorter ones? What are those benefits? Or do you mean simply that trucks and SUVs, regardless of their height, provide benefits? I don't doubt that and do not mean to imply otherwise.
  - jandrewrogers 4mo ago
    > Is your point that taller trucks and SUVs provide considerable benefits over shorter ones? What are those benefits? Ground clearance. In some parts of the US and for some use cases this is non-negotiable. It would be like buying a car in Texas without an air conditioner. There is a Japanese automaker (Subaru) that traditionally caters to this market almost exclusively in the US. I won't buy a vehicle with less than 8 inches of ground clearance for safety reasons.
    - UtopiaPunk 4mo ago
      Sorry if I'm being dense, but what parts of the USA? Or, I guess more specifically, what is it that you are needing to clear?
      - jandrewrogers 4mo ago
        The mountainous parts, particularly if you aren't driving on the interstates. You can end up in a freak blizzard in the passes from September through May. Some roads do not have frequent, regular snow clearance in winter. Localized torrential rains from thunderstorms temporarily dump debris on or wash out the road surface. In the western US, unpaved highways are relatively common in some areas. Random unexpected road closures can send you down ranch or forestry trails intended for 4WD trucks because there are few practical alternatives. When I lived in the area, I regularly rescued people stranded on roads in the Sierra Nevada mountains around Lake Tahoe that found out the hard way that their vehicles were unfit for the changing road conditions. Nearly getting stranded myself a couple times over the decades informed my vehicular requirements. I currently live in the city and but rarely drive there. Almost all of my driving is done across the western US. I require the vehicle I own to be able to safely navigate all of the road conditions I am likely to see there. A less common reason is that the nice paved roads are not always the fastest way between two points. I used to regularly commute to a town in Nevada where using the nice paved highway around the mountains took 30 minutes longer than taking an old mining road straight over the mountains. Everyone that lived in the area took the old mining road. That would have been sketchy without decent ground clearance. A lot of locals just drove old Subarus.
EA-3167 4mo ago
I believe that you don't need one, and I know that I don't need one, but I think it's a little rich to make that a blanket statement for the species. There are people who have jobs, lives, and live in places unlike your own experiences.
- UtopiaPunk 4mo ago
  Ugh, ok. Most people do not need one. I'm not sure what the need is for a very tall pickup truck that can also hold a family five? But maybe there is one. Perhaps there is also a need for an excavator that holds a family of five, idk. If a real need is demonstrated, then sure, please do not ban the manufacturing of an excavator that has the necessary hook-ups for modern child carseats simply because I, a commenter on HackerNews, made a statement that was a little too sweeping for the needs of past, present, and future human beings on Earth and across potential settlement across the universe and dimensions beyond. But most people do not need a very large truck or SUV. Vehicles with hoods closer to the ground and better lines-of-sight are safer for those around them, while having practically no impact on the utility of said vehicles as they drive on roads and highways in the USA.
ryandrake 4mo ago
Yea, depending on where you live in the USA, you practically need a car of some sort. Yes, there are cities where you can get away with not having one, but the vast majority of Americans would have to make a huge lifestyle sacrifice to not have a car. Some people need trucks to haul things, but NOBODY needs giant-grilled zero-visibility monster trucks or monster SUVs where you can't even see a person standing in front. You could get rid of these atrocities and not kill cars/trucks in general. Maybe that's where effort should be focused.
- crooked-v 4mo ago
  Removing the 'light truck' hole in CAFE standards would be a good start.

drtz 4mo ago

I think you're take is a bit off for multiple reasons. First, people need transportation, not cars. For the vast majority of people, if you truly need a car, it's because your infrastructure was built in a way that doesn't provide any other modes of transportation. Second, mass shootings aren't the intended effect of guns in the same way pedestrian fatalities aren't the intended effect of cars. Both cars and guns are providing some perceived value (personal transportation freedom and self-defense/safeguard against tyranny/national defense) with a significant number of deaths as a tradeoff. Third, implying someone with a BAC over the legal limit for DRIVING is somehow responsible for getting killed while WALKING instead of driving is comical and darkly ironic considering drunk driving accounts for almost a third of traffic deaths in the US [1]. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/impaired-driving/facts/index.html#:~:text=Overview%20Alcohol%20In,an%20alcohol-impaired%20driver https://www.cdc.gov/impaired-driving/facts/index.html#:~:tex...

lobf 4mo ago
I would argue that cars provide a tangible value, and guns only provide a perceived / emotional value. Guns make you objectively less safe, and at enormous social cost. Cars are (unfortunately) necessary in a lot of cases for the economy to work, there is really no comparison to guns.
- llbeansandrice 4mo ago
  Cars are not necessary nearly as much as most Americans think they are. It is a difficult problem to untangle, but not impossible. Accepting this level of tragedy and violence because cars are sometimes “economically necessary” is very sad. And again they are not nearly as necessary as is perceived. I drive my car maybe once or twice a week now and I live in a suburb of about 40k people, not in a major city.