https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/21/us/trucks-suv-pedestrian-crashes.html
xnx · 17 days ago
Unlocked: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/21/us/trucks-suv...
Related: ttps://www.thedrive.com/news/75-more-pedestrians-have-been-killed-since-2009-giant-trucks-and-suvs-are-why
88 comments
kelseyfrog · 17 days ago
These are gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men. Taking them away is a direct attack on their masculinity. When we say, "Men are under attack," it refers to things like this.
Regardless of any safety claims, for that reason alone, I don't see it as a politically viable issue.
TacticalCoder · 17 days ago
> These are gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men.
I think people simply do find SUVs (which I don't like) convenient. Many women, including a huge number of moms, do happen to just love SUVs. Both in the US and in the EU.
In the EU SUVs are now approaching 60% of all cars sold (59.25% or so, latest numbers). You don't get such a market share by being mostly cars sold to men needing to "gender-affirm".
tapoxi · 17 days ago
I drive an SUV. It's convenient!
A Ford F150 is fucking ridiculous in comparison, and larger than any truck I remember seeing growing up, and there's people with F350s for personal use.
One of them ran over and killed a kid outside a nearby children's museum. Those things are not safe.
bjt · 17 days ago
"SUV" is too broad a category. A RAV4 is an SUV. It's similarly sized to most of the SUVs I've seen in Europe. And a pedestrian getting hit by one would have a similar experience to getting hit by a sedan. It's nothing like the big Rams, GMCs or F250s with the high front grilles that are becoming more popular while also being far deadlier to pedestrians.
marek77 · 16 days ago
A RAV4 in Europe is just a "SUV" (and one on the larger side). In the US, it's a "compact SUV"...
lojban · 16 days ago
What are the benefits of an SUV over a minivan though? They seem objectively worse in practically all regards: worse fuel efficiency, worse doors, less cargo space, worse visibility.
sublinear · 16 days ago
Not all "SUVs" are equivalent. The best ones have AWD and are basically just a beefier sedan/wagon.
They more or less have the capabilities of a small pickup truck, but exchange the bed for more passenger space and inside cargo room. A minivan does have more space, but cannot tow and would immediately get stuck in the first mud patch it sees.
I have no idea why people in the city buy them though (other than snowy regions).
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
Despite the fantasy manufacturers are selling, large pickups and SUV are terrible off-roaders. Visibility, weight, and approach, break-over, and departure angles are almost universally atrocious. Most don't even have live front axles, and the vast majority of SUV are unibody. I'm convinced locking differentials only continue to exist because the vehicles are so corpulent they'd be unable to move off-road without them.
groundzeros2015 · 15 days ago
I noticed that your home is a little bit bigger than it absolutely needs to be to sustain your life.
kelseyfrog · 16 days ago
Sure, people can love SUVs, and trucks can be gender-affirming vehicles for a large number of men. Both can be true.
Watch a US truck commercial. The market and the motivating themes are immediately obvious. Besides, drivers literally adorn trucks with prosthetic testicles. That's something that cannot be unseen.
bediger4000 · 17 days ago
You're right, I don't know why you're getting down voted. You e got my admiration for being brave enough to write this on HN
sublinear · 17 days ago
You might be the one saying this right now, but how old is this comment?
I don't think I've ever heard any man ever say that in real life, but even online it's probably been almost a decade since this was memed into the ground.
kelseyfrog · 17 days ago
> I don't think I've ever heard any man ever say that in real life
Um, because men get weird when you point out the gender-affirming actions they do? Try it irl and see what the reactions are. There's a reason the only place free of physical intimidation is where this can be safely said.
Besides, how old is the privacy comment or the "parents should parent" comment we see dragged out on every kid's social media ban? It's almost like the age of the sentiment doesn't have any bearing on its relevancy.
roarkeful · 15 days ago
I exhaled through my nose when I thought of reversing your upset sexism. Let's start calling cosmetics "gender-affirming" and mock women who use them.
kelseyfrog · 15 days ago
Go ahead?
edbaskerville · 16 days ago
I can't tell if you think this is a good thing or a bad thing that men use big trucks to compensate for a masculine sense of inadequacy. But I think this is a good point, and I think we need to fight against it.
I don't think it's politically impossible. These things are killing children (among many other people). "Giant trucks and SUVs are killing children" seems like a pretty powerful line.
RIMR · 15 days ago
I 100% agree with you, but I do sorta get the other point being made here.
Assault rifles have been used to slaughter classrooms full of children in some of the most bone-chilling acts of violence imaginable, and people have such a weird identity complex around guns that they go to outrageous lengths to avoid any meaningful action. We've even seen parents of murdered children accused by gun-rights activists of being paid actors and deliberately threatening 2nd amendment rights.
Car culture in America is similarly toxic, with people having strong automobile-centric identities. The culture surrounding giant trucks is the most extreme, and there's a mountain of dashcam video online suggesting that the kinds of people who buy these massive truck are also quite reckless behind the wheel and do intentionally aggressive things with them, including deliberately harassing behaviors like "rolling coal". These aesthetics and behaviors are enshrined by popular political establishments on the right, meaning that challenging any of it becomes a partisan fight.
The backlash of banning these kinds of vehicles would be straight out of the movie Idiocracy, but there are enough jerks in this country that it would completely block any progress from ever being made.
ortusdux · 17 days ago
Does the added risk translate proportionally to increased insurance costs? Or is there an imbalance? When I was a teen getting insurance for the first time, certain vehicle colors were significantly more expensive to insure, and that fact factored into my car buying decisions.
xnx · 17 days ago
There are almost never consequences for hitting someone with your car.
protocolture · 17 days ago
I have 360 degree cameras (at toddler height), auto braking, every conceivable safety mechanism. I really think that once these are implemented, any hatred of large vehicles is just jealousy.
downrightmike · 17 days ago
None of that fixes an inattentive driver flying down the road playing with tiktok on their phone
doubled112 · 17 days ago
Agreed. It definitely fixes backing over a toddler in your driveway though.
I have a newer crossover. I put a hitch mount cargo box on and went to back out of the driveway. It slammed the brakes on harder than I ever have.
protocolture · 16 days ago
>None of that fixes an inattentive driver flying down the road playing with tiktok on their phone
Automatic braking does alleviate this, but also, inattentive driving is already illegal?
asdff · 15 days ago
Yup, since it is illegal everyone pays perfect attention.
ungreased0675 · 17 days ago
My normal sized car is at a significant disadvantage in a collision with a full-sized SUV. This creates higher injury risk for me and my family.
Larger vehicles also cause more road damage over time, which raises my taxes or reduces the quality of roads I drive on.
For those reasons, I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, to encourage more smaller, lighter vehicles.
protocolture · 16 days ago
>For those reasons, I think vehicles should be taxed by weight, to encourage more smaller, lighter vehicles.
I pay higher insurance and registration fees already, I think its covered where I am.
tinyplanets · 15 days ago
And I guess anyone who doesn't want to buy a brodozer can go to hell, right?
bobbytables1 · 17 days ago
Jealous of what exactly? Sounds like you are trying to justify your needlessly large/heavy vehicle. Plenty of accidents still occur with vehicles that have all those features. And accidents involving large/heavy vehicles are deadlier. It’s not rocket science. On top of that they have other downsides, like increased pollution and road degradation.
protocolture · 17 days ago
>Jealous of what exactly?
Wish I knew.
>Sounds like you are trying to justify your needlessly large/heavy vehicle.
I drove a Honda Jazz until I literally couldn't fit everything in anymore. I found I could carry 4 1.2 meter galvanised steel poles at an angle before I ran out of capacity. Which worked fine for me, I wouldn't be anxious unless they were literally scraping the windshield. I could carry half a rack of servers in the back with the seats folded down, before the back of the thing would start to scrape pavement. I needed something that could do better than that when I upgraded. Most hatches and sedans were a backwards step, and Honda stopped selling the Jazz in Aus. But for whatever reason, people feel the need to comment on the large vehicle.
>Plenty of accidents still occur with vehicles that have all those features.
With reduced impact.
>like increased pollution and road degradation.
I get better distance per litre out of the big one, and if its more polluting then I don't understand why I struggle so hard with the DPF which is literally designed to bring the thing down to our honestly egregious emissions standards, I literally dream about getting it illegally removed. "Road Degredation" seems marginal at best, wider tires spreading the load out further. Seems like another engineering problem if it is a problem. The poms figured out how to prevent their CVR light tanks from causing road damage, I am sure big utes aren't that much of an issue.
rjrjrjrj · 17 days ago
Doesn't fix braking distance, doesn't fix the increased chance of serious injury if a collision with a pedestrian occurs.
protocolture · 17 days ago
>auto braking
The thing literally starts braking before my brain can process whats happening.
rjrjrjrj · 17 days ago
And finishes long after a similarly-equipped lighter vehicle would.
protocolture · 16 days ago
Ok and?
My vehicle is as safe or safer than older lighter vehicles currently permitted on the road.
Why should the goalposts run off into the distance? Surely I have now met the common definition of "safe". At what point is it enough? This just brings back to Jealousy or some kind of Tall Poppy syndrome again.
rjrjrjrj · 16 days ago
A larger vehicle is more of a hazard to others than a smaller vehicle, and the safety features you describe don't change that.
But, as you're in Australia, I'm not sure your definition of "large" matches the story's or mine. North America has a whole class of huge ass vehicles that are relatively rare elsewhere in the world. Are you driving an Escalade, F-150, or similar?
tinyplanets · 15 days ago
You're wasting your breath. This guy isn't going to give up his brodozer.
arbitrary_name · 17 days ago
no, it's the fact that in accidents (where you are not the cause), people die disproportionately under your giant vehicle. it's safer for you, but almost no one else.
and don't get me started on the environmental/political aspects.
why would someone questioning your selfish (I'm not targeting you personally, just voicing a general perspective) decision have anything to do with jealousy?
protocolture · 16 days ago
Political?
>it's safer for you, but almost no one else.
No its safe for everyone else too. It wont even let me run into a tree.
>have anything to do with jealousy
Wish I knew, its just the only thing left when driving an efficient, safe vehicle that just happens to be large.
adamsb6 · 17 days ago
No mention of CAFE standards? How can you write this article without mentioning the policy that incentivizes larger vehicles?
technonerd · 17 days ago
No mention of the 1964 chicken tax either.
dlcarrier · 17 days ago
I'm excited that EVs get to avoid CAFE standards, so we get to have small vehicles again. Even though legacy domestic car manufacturers aren't going to be involved, as they practically wrote the CAFE standards that eliminated small vehicles, and there's bipartisan support to tariff EV imports out of existence, there's still enough market demand for multiple domestic startups.
toomuchtodo · 17 days ago
Unfortunately, we still get abominations like the GMC Hummer EV (~9000 lbs, classified as a class 3 medium duty truck). Rumor has it the model has been cancelled after 2026 luckily.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/11/driving-the-biggest-lea...
https://www.torquenews.com/17998/i-leased-hummer-ev-because-...
dlcarrier · 16 days ago
As long as I get to buy a small vehicle, I don't mind if someone else buys something inefficient. It's better that oversized EVs be on the market than just oversized diesel trucks.
toomuchtodo · 16 days ago
Bigger vehicles kill people in smaller vehicles in accidents.
Heavy Toll: America's Huge, Heavy Cars Are Killing More People - https://www.motortrend.com/features/why-americas-roads-keep-... - September 24th, 2024
> More than 40,000 people die on America’s roads every year, making them nearly twice as dangerous per mile driven than those in other rich nations. What’s more, the death rate has increased over the past decade, despite the adoption of more sophisticated passive safety systems and advanced driver assistance systems such as lane keep assist and automatic braking. The number of pedestrians killed by motor vehicles has almost doubled since 2010. Why? “Weight is to blame,” The Economist insists.
> Using data for 7.5 million two-vehicle crashes in 14 American states in 2013–2023, The Economist found that for every 10,000 crashes the heaviest vehicles killed 37 people in the other car, compared with 5.7 for cars of a median weight and just 2.6 for the lightest. The publication estimates that if the heaviest 10 percent of vehicles on America’s roads were roughly 1,000 pounds lighter, fatalities in multicar crashes would fall by 12 percent, saving 2,300 lives a year, without compromising the safety of the occupants of the heavier vehicles.
> “For every life the heaviest one percent of SUVs or trucks saves in America,” The Economist wrote, “more than a dozen lives are lost in smaller vehicles. This makes traffic jams an ethics class on wheels.”
> Of course, what’s behind those grim statistics is simple physics. Force equals mass times acceleration: The heavier a vehicle, the harder it impacts an object at any given speed. The core issue in America is the massive differential between the lightest and heaviest vehicles on its roads (and to be clear, The Economist’s reporting is focused on cars, SUVs, and light-duty trucks, not heavy-duty commercial trucks or semis).
adolph · 15 days ago
> I'm excited that EVs get to avoid CAFE standards, so we get to have small vehicles again.
I don't see evidence for EVs stimulating small vehicle production (but it would be awesome if it were the case). The one smaller vehicle bright spot is perhaps Tesla's Cybercab, which is compared to the Honda Civic, which itself has grown very large over the years. In order to get to that size the passenger mass capacity of the Cybercab is roughly 2/3 of the Civic. [0]
warmwaffles · 15 days ago
CAFE isn't all they have to deal with. NTSB has stricter safety requirements now and we will probably not have small vehicles again. I just want a damn Hilux.
avalys · 17 days ago
There are many factors driving this:
1. Fuel economy regulations that scale regressively with vehicle size, that incentivize automakers to build and market larger vehicles that are easier to hit regulatory targets.
2. Rollover and crash worthiness regulations that require thicker A-pillars and more robust roof structure.
3. Towing performance. The large pickup manufacturers are in an arms race to beat each other’s power and towing capacity numbers. This requires a large, upright grille to provide adequate cooling for a large engine.
4. Consumer demand. The idea that marketing is telling people what to buy is silly. People are spending $80k+ on massive vehicles because they like them. Simple as that. The industry puts lot of marketing effort behind vehicles that are flops. They can’t make people buy a product they don’t want.
Disclaimer: I own a huge diesel pickup, along with a Tesla Model Y and a Porsche 911. Why? They’re fun! I use the pickup to tow an RV, but it’s also just fun to drive.
I have definitely noticed the visibility problem though. Forget pedestrians, sometimes entire cars are hiding behind the A-pillar! You have to move your head to the side to clear the blind spot safely.
tinyplanets · 15 days ago
Okay, then sell your huge diesel pickup. Or is it just too much fun!
tasty_freeze · 17 days ago
Recent Climate Town video on the move to trucks and SUVs: https://youtu.be/JPm4de6-eTg?si=Eu1y3uQIeCGnkR_2
If you don't know Rollie Williams, Climate Town videos are informative but suffused with a lot of humor to prevent it from being too preachy.
frimmy · 15 days ago
++ -- Rollie Williams == for edutainment. His channel is responsible for me becoming a patreon subscriber
recursivedoubts · 17 days ago
all we want are 70-series land cruisers, prados and suzuki jimnys
end the idiotic chicken tax and make small trucks and utes legal again
while we are on the topic, full size vans make a lot more sense than "suvs" for most families
aeortiz · 17 days ago
Yeah, but no one want's to buy a mom van </s>
tinyplanets · 15 days ago
That's right, gotta buy that brodozer and show everyone what a real MAN you are!
xnx · 17 days ago
Unfortunately, in the car size arms race, bigger and heavier cars are safer for their occupants.
"Everyone outside the car be damned" is the expressed preference of US buyers.
Eddy_Viscosity2 · 17 days ago
I don't think the US consumers are buying the bigger SUV/trucks because they are safer. At best it might be a minor contributing factor. It's primarily a status/identity thing.
toomuchtodo · 17 days ago
n=1, I dated a low empathy woman who specifically drove a Chevy Tahoe due to mass for safety reasons and transporting her only child in the vehicle frequently. “Good luck to the other driver.”
defrost · 17 days ago
On the flip side, there's a lot to be said for a low centre of gravity and it's still the case that US "trucks" get smushed by actual trucks (road trains and heavy haul outmass a tahoe).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TskUzmg6Sk
(Site safety video, engine and transmission removed in example vehicle .. still ..)
toomuchtodo · 17 days ago
Great video. She was sophisticated enough to understand the risk profile, anecdote shared to demonstrate that some folks do decision their purchase around winning the potential tonnage battle. Very “tragedy of the commons” that can only be solved with regulation. Otherwise, some will buy big because they can.
pseudohadamard · 16 days ago
Early SUVs were actually extremely unsafe, high wheel base made them more prone to tipping over (rollover), no crumple zones and similar safety measures because we'll just make it big instead, and so on. This is why newer SUVs have thicker A-pillars and other measures, because the earlier ones before safety regs were enforced were deathtraps.
chneu · 17 days ago
They're only "safer" to the driver. Large vehicles put everyone else at a higher risk.
This is "race to the bottom" logic. The only end to this logic is everyone driving giant vehicles in bubbles because "it's safer for meeeeeeeee" as they hit children in a school zone cuz the blind spot in their Ford fuck550 is a football field long.
Race to the bottom logic is rampant in this form of capitalism that we're experiencing. Everyone's excuse is valid and only shifts the baseline to more excess and extreme behavior.
seabird · 15 days ago
Thumb through IIHS numbers and you'll see that "bigger is better" doesn't pass a sniff test.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...
xnx · 15 days ago
Good data point. I'd assume that drivers of big cars are often worse/more dangerous drivers. Hard to control for in statistics, but a good driver in a big car is more protected against other bad drivers. For reference, I drive a compact car.
seabird · 15 days ago
There's a lot of sociological observations you can make. RWD Challengers and Hemi Chargers are obviously going to be death magnets. The Altima gets the exact type of numbers you would expect. The WRX is surprisingly low. The Outback is no surprise considering your average Outback driver. Most of the chart toppers are the type of car you would buy if you're looking for trouble or you don't know how to drive. People with more expensive cars seem to be making an effort to not die in them.
A good road driver just generally positions themselves to not get hit by other cars, regardless of whether or not they're in something pretty nimble or a fat pig boat.
RickJWagner · 17 days ago
Yes, this is a problem. Look at a typical truck from the 90s or so, they are tiny compared to today’s trucks.
The same thing is true of cars. Today’s civic is as big as an accord used to be. There is no Del Sol.
We need to turn the incentive knobs that worked so successfully on consumption so we now work on vehicle size.
Also, about the center of gravity discussion: I used to have an old friend that spent decades in business running a body shop. I asked him once what was the worst animal for causing vehicle damage. ( This was in rural South Dakota. I was thinking cow, horse, maybe bison. ) Nope. He said most animals would go up and over the hood, just like the people in the article. He said pigs were the worst. They stay low, going right into the car and not bouncing over. Often resulting in a total loss for that car.
tinyplanets · 15 days ago
Yeah, but who's going to get those incentives in place? In the US, it sure ain't gonna be the Republicans.
mcdow · 15 days ago
there’s another thing that started to get quite popular in the late 2000s… smartphones
soperj · 15 days ago
Almost like we need a study to figure out what the actual cause is. Oh, that's what the article is about, the study.
ericpauley · 15 days ago
Per tfa vehicle size “ represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths” so the title is really a distraction from the (likely) root cause that GP brings up.
estebank · 15 days ago
Could it be that the other differences are driven by differences in the built environment? Like narrower roads making people drive slower, or bollards, or alternatives to driving making it less likely to have people that shouldn't be driving doing so?
Also, 10% is a huge effect.
buellerbueller · 15 days ago
that's called a hypothesis. now go author a study to test it, like the study being reported on. hypotheses without evidence don't stand up to hypotheses that have been tested.
kortilla · 15 days ago
And how did this study rule out smartphones?
amanaplanacanal · 15 days ago
You could compare rates to other countries that do have smartphones like the US, but don't drive the large vehicles like Americans. That might be illuminating.
Sayrus · 15 days ago
Then surely Europe shares that trends and shows growth in pedestrian death.
But that isn't the case at all, maybe Europeans are immune to smartphones: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download...
redwall_hp · 15 days ago
Sedan hits you, you get hit in the knees and fall on the hood. Brodozer hits you, it strikes your chest/head, pushes you over and drives over you.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
>Sedan hits you, you get hit in the knees and fall on the hood. Brodozer hits you, it strikes your chest/head, pushes you over and drives over you.
You just made that up. Pedestrians are mostly killed by head onto solid object.
Your two most common options are pavement and windshield. Pavement is worse because cars have a fair bit of engineering that goes into preventing head onto windshield. At the end of the day it's mostly a question about getting hit above or below center of mass.
Modern (ie. larger than they were 20yr ago) crossovers and midsize SUVs are doing a lot of heavy lifting in these stats. But the people who want to talk about this problem tend to drive Rav4s and not Chevy 2500s so the latter gets complained about even though the former outsold it 2:1
Relatedly, minivans are kind of bad no matter how you cut them because it's hard to stay true to the form factor and not have pedestrians go straight into windshield in fairly low speed crashes.
hackingonempty · 15 days ago
TFA addresses this.
> The issue isn’t mass alone, but also height. Yes, spreading impact over a greater area reduces the force experienced by any given part of your body, but when that surface area rises further and further from the ground, the impact point on your body rises with it. If you’re hit below your center of mass, you’re likely to fall toward the vehicle. If you’re hit at or above that point, you’re likely to be knocked down in front of of the vehicle instead. The latter becomes less survivable due to the poor visibility offered by taller trucks and SUVs.
> “We see a lot of devastating collisions even at lower speeds because the pedestrian gets punted forward,” said Shawn Harrington, whose company, Forensic Rock, conducted crash testing for the report. “Before the driver knows what’s happened, the pedestrian’s head is under the wheel.”
sottol · 15 days ago
Afair, e.g. Land Rover stopped producing the classic Defender due to more stringent pedestrian protection regulations in the EU. They introduced strict front-end safety requirements for cars and SUVs whereas the US does not. So vehicles designed and sold in European (in numbers) are probably safer for pedestrians because it is tested for and required - but there are exceptions for some US trucks somehow.
> You just made that up. Pedestrians are mostly killed by head onto solid object.
Not to be combative, but I'd also like to see stats on that - that sounds just as made up. I'd expect a lot of pedestrians to strike the hood (about just as likely as windshield) as most pedestrian accidents happen in parking lots, drive-ways, traffic lights and vehicles exiting across a sidewalk (under 25mph).
kalleboo · 15 days ago
> Pedestrians are mostly killed by head onto solid object
Several EU car models literally pop up the hood on impact so that the head hits a hood that buckles instead of the engine underneath.
From Wikipedia:
> The hood of most vehicles is usually fabricated from sheet metal, which is a compliant energy absorbing structure which poses a comparatively small threat. Most serious head injuries occur when there is insufficient clearance between the hood and the stiff underlying engine components
> Some models, like the Citroën C6 and Jaguar XK feature a novel pop-up bonnet design, which adds 6.5 cm (2.5", C6) extra clearance over the engine block if the bumper senses a hit. In 2012 and 2015, the Volvo V40 and the Land Rover Discovery Sport have an under-the hood airbag designed to operate if the hood senses a hit
saool · 15 days ago
Anecdotally...
Having spent time driving in both Europe and Southern California, I'd say that European drivers are more attentive to their driving and way less likely to be looking at their phone while driving, since it's policed. You can often see drivers in SoCal holding their phone for a video call.
tomjakubowski · 15 days ago
In downtown LA I routinely spot on-duty police officers, who are usually cruising in large SUVs, texting while driving.
FireBeyond · 15 days ago
Hah, near me the Police Chief claimed this was fine as they were professional drivers who'd had "special training".
I wonder why this "special training" to allow people to be able to safely text and drive isn't available to all of us... but I think I can hazard some theories...
asdff · 15 days ago
Never know when there might be a snorlax around
trollbridge · 15 days ago
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen drivers in the Bay Area conducting a full blown Zoom call, video and all.
(I used to have a corporate laptop I put a 4G WiMax chip in, and would boot it and connect to corporate VPN, open Lotus Notes, and then start my one hour commute. Then at work my Notes would be fully sync’d which otherwise took a half hour.)
shermantanktop · 15 days ago
Everyone around the world seems to eat cereal while driving:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-614...
https://www.cbs42.com/news/crime/ohio-woman-caught-eating-ce...
https://www.carthrottle.com/news/cyclist-berated-woman-eatin...
arjie · 15 days ago
One thing I was surprised by when driving in Coquitlam where I have cousins is that drivers there would start moving right after the green. This is strange to me because drivers in San Francisco will frequently be stationary for seconds afterwards. Looking at the rough statistics, it appears the RCMP police for smartphone usage in a stricter manner than SFPD does (or at least they write more citations) which makes me think that drivers in that region have adapted by not using their smartphones as much.
I wonder if this metric of "traffic light change to driver action" delay is a thing we could use as a performance metric for how well cities are ensuring smartphones aren't used by drivers.
goda90 · 15 days ago
It could be Europe has stricter driver's license requirements resulting in fewer people who might succumb to distractions getting behind the wheel. And more availability of walking and public transit options meaning more of those people don't need to drive in the first place. Giant vehicles certainly don't help regardless.
shermantanktop · 15 days ago
Sure, it could be that.
But when we cast around for other explanations, for some reason it's always interesting to zero in on an uncontrollable factor that means we aren't responsible for the situation we find ourselves in.
Btw Europe is full of the same dumb humans that live everywhere else. Granted, they have better bread, cheese, and health care.
kortilla · 15 days ago
maybe there are other confounding factors that make smartphone utilization much less likely in Europe. Specifically no daily long commute in a car where people get bored and are tempted to use them.
trinix912 · 15 days ago
There’s plenty of people spending hours commuting by car each way over here too.
swarnie · 15 days ago
Our cars are getting pretty big too.
A BMW X5 is only slightly narrower than an F150, a range rover vogue only another inch off that.
All fun and games with road infrastructure built for 108s and clios.....
trollbridge · 15 days ago
My 08 X5 is bigger than my 01 F150. Heavier, too. Also requires premium fuel.
trollbridge · 15 days ago
Aren’t the laws in Europe about phones actually enforced?
kev009 · 15 days ago
Possibly American drivers are more reckless? Compare intoxicated driving deaths in the US vs Britain for instance.
floralhangnail · 15 days ago
Anecdotally, it seems to me that most Europeans aren't as consumed by their dopamine delivery devices in day to day activities as most Americans are.
asdff · 15 days ago
The roads in a lot of places in europe will punish you with death or destruction for being distracted. They might be single laned, windy, and narrow, maybe following a cliff of certain death below.
The US however builds a lot of roads that lure you into thinking its safe to take your eyes out. Even countryside rural roads are dead straight for dozens of miles. We take our narrow certain death cliffside roads and replace them with highways with embanked generous turns and other features like that.
TulliusCicero · 15 days ago
Other countries have smartphones too.
cpursley · 15 days ago
They generally don’t have brodozers
TulliusCicero · 15 days ago
Exactly.
trollbridge · 15 days ago
Australia had plenty, yet mysteriously has far fewer deaths.
cpursley · 15 days ago
A Hilux is hardly a lifted 1500.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
You're either grossly misinformed or you're being disingenuous; try installing 40" mud tires and a 6" lift kit on your truck in Australia and see what happens. In the U.S. it's just another brodozer and no cop will ever bat an eye.
trollbridge · 14 days ago
Australia has plenty of crossovers which are the bulk of these deaths.
Vehicles with 40s on them and a 6” lift are so rare in America they have no statistical significance in regard to accidents.
alamortsubite · 14 days ago
You wrote that Australia has plenty of brodozers. Crossovers are not brodozers, nor is it possible to operate a brodozer on public roads in Australia. Clearly, you're misinformed, if not entirely disingenuous, but your commitment to stay the course is admirable.
> Vehicles with 40s on them and a 6” lift are so rare in America they have no statistical significance in regard to accidents.
Do you have a source for this? Asking as someone who recently narrowly escaped death with a loved one as victims in a highway rollover crash caused by a dimwit operating a brodozer with 40" mud tires and a 6" lift in America.
trollbridge · 14 days ago
I’m from Australia and lived there off and on. People can and do alter vehicles including lifting them. Your assertion you can’t drive with a 6” lift is flatly false, although 3” is more standard. Many people exceed the statutory limit and simply get away with it. You’re right that 40s are rare, but they’re also rare in America.
Vehicles with 40” wheels and 6” lift are extremely rare. I haven’t seen one in at least a year, but I’ve personally witnessed multiple accidents in the last year.
If you’d said something like 35s with a 3” you might have made your case a little better.
You can complain about this all you want, but the main problem in terms of vehicle shape is crossovers which are widely available in both America and Australia.
alamortsubite · 14 days ago
If you've lived in Australia, I'm back to thinking you're being wholly disingenuous, and certainly evasive. I'll steer clear of engaging with you in the future.
danielmarkbruce · 15 days ago
Other countries take it way more seriously. The US has way more deaths per capita than Australia (just one example) simply due to lack of enforcement of speeding, drunk driving, smart phone use.
trollbridge · 15 days ago
In Australia I would get a speed camera ticket for 2kmh over. 15+ kmh over and I’m getting pulled over, mandatory court appearance, minimum license suspension of 90 days.
I would get a random breath test every 2-3 months. Pulled over, breathalyser handed to me, blow, and then on my way. Very fast and efficient.
Smartphones are an absolute no no. May e you’d touch one in the outback where you can see clearly for 20 miles in every direction that nobody else is around. Everyone sets up hands free operation through a car Bluetooth. If you can’t do it hands free you simply don’t do it. You program in your GPS maps before you release the parking brake.
In America… people are annoyed when they get a $150 fine for going 30kmh over the limit.
mc32 · 15 days ago
Surely someone somewhere will bring to bear a solution that will disable all but voice calls on smartphones while the smartphone is paired to the car and the car is moving but allow for the devices of minors in a moving vehicle to still function like smartphones. They might also use interior cameras to ascertain who is driving and which device should be neutered but for emergency communication.
Yes, people would be annoyed at first but they also will experience a sigh of relief that they don't have to reply to a boss's or co-worker's text in the middle of a commute or running deliveries, etc.
trollbridge · 15 days ago
Won’t happen. Self driving AI is the only way out of this. Until then, we will have mass carnage on the roads because that’s what people choose.
bell-cot · 15 days ago
Yep. The linked NYT article has this weak-sounding line -
> Most other wealthy countries haven’t seen similar increases, suggesting that possible culprits like smartphones don’t tell the whole story.
- but it is so focused on telling a long-winded story that I didn't bother checking whether they'd really tried to correct for that. (My cynical guess is "no" - since if they really cared and had ruled phones out, they'd clearly say so.)
mc32 · 15 days ago
At the same time avoidance systems have become much better on those large new cars… so would it have even worse had collision avoidance not come into being?
Also interesting that often people tend to imagine F-150s, Silverados ,etc., but if you see what people drive they are large Bentzs, Toyotas and of course Suburbans and F-150s. But everyone is building them not just American manufacturers.
estebank · 15 days ago
> But everyone is building them not just American manufacturers
But for, and driven by, the American market.
I would hazard a guess that Silverados sold outside of US, Canada, Mexico and Australia can fit in a single parking lot.
mc32 · 15 days ago
The homemarket websites for Mecedes (Geländewagen), BMW (X series), LandRover (defender), Toyota (LandCruiser, Lexus LX), etc. have the large SUVs for sale. They are not as popular as they are in the US but they are available.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
"Not as popular" or "nowhere near as popular?"
Also, our absurd pickups effectively don't exist in those markets. Occasionally you'll see one and it stands out like a sore thumb.
mc32 · 15 days ago
Parent suggested or intimated that their sole market was the USA.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
Maybe I misinterpreted, but I think they meant that if the American market didn't exist, neither would most of those models.
threetonesun · 15 days ago
Avoidance systems aren't that much better, some just make an angry beep before plowing into something. Also you can't fix the fact that a heavier car is going to take longer to stop and will impart more force even at lower speeds.
sottol · 15 days ago
Hard to find reliable data, but could only find (shared) data for 2022 for large SUVs - whatabout doesn't quite cut it imo, feel free to look into midsize SUVs but imo the really large ones are more problematic:
Ford Expedetion: 81,988 in 2021, 71,648 in 2022
Mercedes GLS: 24,482 in 2021, 12,395 in 2022
Chevy Tahoe: 106,030 2021, 109,032 2022
Chevy Suburban: 48,214 2021, 52,459 2022
Dodge Durango: 65,935 2021, 58,627 2022
GMC Yukon: 84,242 2021, 80,731 2022
Nissan Armada: 22,814 2021, 17,551 2022
Toyota Sequoia: 8,070 2021, 7,066 2022 (but about 25,000 after refresh in 2023)
* Ford F-150 [2] *: 726,004 2021, 683,633 in 2022.
The Large SUVs are all linked here: https://carfigures.com/us-market-segment/large-suvs
I'm sure the mix is different and skews a lot more Japanese for mid-size (which are probably also dangerous), but these large SUVs and trucks with huge hoods and no rear visibility are getting quite problematic [1]. The front blind zones are pretty ridiculous, to the point that people advocate for front cameras: https://youtu.be/NDH3FDfVQl0?si=o0uvSEmKZrn2gHSN&t=205 (with timestamp).
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar... [2] https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/ford/f-series
tonmoy · 15 days ago
While their conclusion is probably correct, I would have liked to seen the number of fatalities normalized by population, miles driven, number of pedestrian increase, speed limit change etc
MoonWalk · 15 days ago
I find any conclusion that doesn't focus on TEXTING to be suspect.
By focusing on the wrong things (especially the endless caterwauling about "speeding"), people are letting legislators off the hook for abetting murder. Texting while driving should be a DUI-level offense, with the same penalties. But year after year, they refuse to do anything about it.
estebank · 15 days ago
What would make non-Americans text less?
MoonWalk · 15 days ago
Why non-Americans?
estebank · 15 days ago
Because the effects are explicitly called out for US roads and not other locales.
MoonWalk · 15 days ago
Not only does that not have anything to do with texting, but it has nothing to do with the roads. That's about giant vehicles hitting people above the waistline. If you hit someone with a tall-ass truck in Portugal, I'm pretty sure he's going to fall over just like he would in the USA.
estebank · 15 days ago
> Not only does that not have anything to do with texting, but it has nothing to do with the roads.
From both the NYT video and their article:
> And that increase is unique to the US. Most other wealthy countries haven't seen a similar surge, suggesting that possible culprits, like the raise of smartphones, don't tell the whole story.
---
> If you hit someone with a tall-ass truck in Portugal, I'm pretty sure he's going to fall over just like he would in the USA.
How popular do you think the tall-ass trucks are in Portugal?
MoonWalk · 15 days ago
I didn't see that statement in the (door-shaped) video, so I'll take your word for it.
> How popular do you think the tall-ass trucks are in Portugal?
Not very, which is why I was mystified by your question. Why would we NEED special sanctions for non-Americans?
Not addressed (as far as I saw) are the penalties for texting & driving in different countries. In the USA, they're basically nonexistent.
But let's say there's no difference, and no difference in the prevalance of this behavior. Texting is still going to be far more deadly behind the wheel of a giant barge. In fact, the vehicle difference serves as a multiplier for the deadly outcomes of it.
trollbridge · 15 days ago
This study didn’t nearly enough to disambiguate for widespread phone use while driving, which IMO is the biggest factor.
Self driving AI is the answer.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
Would've been trivial to just run the same calculations on 1990s numbers when SUVs first became popular but long before smartphones.
I think it speaks volumes that they didn't.
trollbridge · 15 days ago
This stuff wouldn’t bother me so much if I didn’t regularly get reports of an acquaintance’s daughter who is now almost brain dead (can’t speak after a serious accident).
Phone is 99% likely the culprit.
Self driving AI or putting the #%£€ phone down would have prevented it.
hamdingers · 15 days ago
1990s SUVs were different vehicles than 2026 SUVs. A 2026 4Runner Hybrid weighs 1500lbs more than a 1996 and is 19 inches longer, 12 inches wider, and 6 inches taller. This is significant.
tzs · 15 days ago
SUVs started becoming popular in the 1990s but there is significant lag between becoming popular among new car buyers and becoming a significant fraction of cars on the road.
For example SUVs and light trucks rose to 30% of new sales in 1990 but it wasn't until 2003 that they were 30% of vehicles on the road.
hamdingers · 15 days ago
They have phones in Europe and their numbers are going down.
trollbridge · 15 days ago
Yeah, but Americans would not tolerate Euro style driving laws and enforcement.
So… we have the technology to fix this problem. Let’s just do it!
tzs · 15 days ago
It's not the biggest factor. Phone use tends to increase accidents but not to change the severity of the accidents much. Tall more vertical fronts change the severity of accidents, which changes the ratio between fatal and non-fatal accidents. The data shows that since ~2010 the ratio has changed significantly towards more fatal.
californical · 15 days ago
Normalizing by miles driven will take you to the wrong conclusions. It underestimates the extra deaths directly caused by the fact that we’ve built exurbs farther and farther away from where people work over the last 20-30 years.
So maybe deaths per mile would be similar, but we’ve pushed people further and further so they have to drive more miles, increasing the deaths due to poor design.
Building society in a way that we increase deaths due to poor planning, like making driving the only option for the majority of people, gets hidden by statistics like “per mile” or even speed limit changes, which are also more necessary as people need to go further to get to their daily activities, rather than everything being within a short walk or safe bike ride
hluska · 15 days ago
Not at all. Demonstrating that miles driven increases pedestrian deaths would be tremendously useful.
Karrot_Kream · 15 days ago
? The correlation is trivially demonstrable. You can probably ask an agent to pull the relevant datasets for a state, run a linear regression, and demonstrate this. It's the entire reason traffic crash statistics in the US are normalized per mile.
drnick1 · 15 days ago
> Building society in a way that we increase deaths due to poor planning, like making driving the only option for the majority of people
It's not poor planning, it's what Americans want. Americans, by and large, do not want to live in dense neighborhoods or tiny homes like in many parts of Europe. You get that in places like NYC and quality of life in those places is atrocious.
__float · 15 days ago
There are millions of people in American cities, and tons of people move from the less dense suburbs to these cities.
There are probably even more people who would move if they could, but our cities are expensive (because housing is expensive when you don't build it) and so they stick with the "default". Staying put, getting a car, and finding a way to make it work.
You can't conflate "this is what Americans want" and "this is largely the only choice most Americans get".
wat10000 · 15 days ago
Yes, that's why people pay the ridiculous cost of living to live in NYC, because the quality of life is atrocious.
At least around where I live (DC suburbs), every dense neighborhood becomes tremendously popular. The limit is that planners are very reluctant to allow them to be built. No problem getting permission to build an 8,000sqft house on a 1/4th acre lot though.
octernion · 15 days ago
sometimes i just really enjoy comments that are just so amazingly breathtaking in their stupidity. it's such a treat.
boelboel · 15 days ago
He's right though beside the point about NYC (if it were awful why do people pay for it). Americans love the suburbs, i'd imagine most non Americans would like them .
Americans are just rich enough and lucky with geography to be able to have them.
octernion · 15 days ago
... his whole point was that people don't want to live in cities, which is just factually incorrect. just baseless, pointless idiocy that is just par for the course on HN these days.
jofla_net · 15 days ago
Quality of life is very subjective though. Americans by and large are anti-social, so these sparse layouts/nimbyism are a result of that. This in turn reinforces living patterns which may or may not be optimal for any given person. Again, they may be social enough on their own terms, but insufficient to want to live closer to others for a variety of factors, manifesting in very real differences in civic planning. I would look to this behavior need to change before any substantive zoning/transportation changes are really adopted.
tzs · 15 days ago
It is not clear to me that exurbs would increase deaths, at least if we are still talking about pedestrians, because isn't most driving between the city and homes in the exurbs on freeways which generally do not have pedestrians?
TulliusCicero · 15 days ago
WA state recently passed a law about e-bikes/e-motorcycles to deal with the issue of younger teens on these kinda moped-style e-bikes going very fast around town (and often riding quite recklessly).
The law is reasonable, but it strikes me what a double standard there is for biking vs driving. For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders.
Meanwhile, everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people, but we do basically nothing. Even on the off chance that we passed a law about them, existing vehicles would certainly be grandfathered in, we would never outright ban current vehicles/motorists. If we banned existing SUVs and trucks, millions of people would be screaming bloody murder about their right to drive pedestrian-killing cars.
functionmouse · 15 days ago
that's because lobbyists own our souls :)
unixuser7104 · 15 days ago
How would you react if told you could no longer drive your primary mode of transportation?
nimih · 15 days ago
I agree. We should legalize drunk driving so that no one can be denied their god-given right to drive a car.
mothballed · 15 days ago
~No one in the US is letting their "god given right" be denied. They are driving their car anyway even when the government says they can't.
So to answer the question, they would act in insubordination, and anything harsh enough to stop the insubordination won't be practically implemented.
epistasis · 15 days ago
How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths? Isn't that a more relevant question?
giantg2 · 15 days ago
"How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths?"
I'd ask to see the data since TFA shows only a 7.5% increase due to size. The rest of the 75% increase is due to other factors.
Edit: why disagee, is my data wrong?
gf000 · 15 days ago
Is that not a significant enough number in and of itself?! Like it even begs the question, how were they allowed to go onto the roads in the first place, when it's not even a hard to reach consequence.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
200 out of 350M is a small number. There are plenty other things we could address that makes a bigger impact. The bigger factor is pedestrian alcohol consumption, but nobody wants to address that.
postflopclarity · 15 days ago
"only" a 7% increase in deaths
giantg2 · 15 days ago
200 out of 350M is a small number. There are plenty other things we could address that makes a bigger impact. The bigger factor is pedestrian alcohol consumption, but nobody wants to address that.
jstanley · 15 days ago
Complete indifference.
That's the same class of argument as telling people they shouldn't use Signal because criminals use Signal.
nathan_compton · 15 days ago
I think there is a difference here. Signal qua signal isn't dangerous. Its purely what one does with it that might constitute a criminal act. In particular, using signal is unlikely to cause problems accidentally.
Driving a giant truck for no good reason entails a certain risk because of both the inevitability of human error (on the part of the driver but also others) and basic physics.
Furthermore, one might argue that the right to private communication is more important than the marginal improvement in life that you get from driving a big car for no particular reason.
Like consider a person who wants to drive a car filled with TNT. By its very nature this is a danger to others regardless of the intent of the driver or other drivers. Society might be argued to have an interest in regulating such behavior. I think there is a good case to be made that unnecessarily large vehicles differ in degree only from the TNT case, but differ categorically from using signal.
I'm not making the case that the differences justify banning big cars, but there are differences between the two situations.
asdff · 15 days ago
It is nothing like that argument and I think you know that.
goatlover · 15 days ago
Complete indifference to a big increase in deaths?
jstanley · 14 days ago
Complete indifference to the implication that I am in some way responsible for crimes committed by others just because I use a similar tool.
Zigurd · 15 days ago
I suppose you'd have to sell it, possibly at a loss, just like you'd have to sell a restaurant that failed a food safety inspection.
TylerE · 15 days ago
> just like you'd have to sell a restaurant that failed a food safety inspection. reply
Oh my sweet summer child...
At the absolute most they might get shut down for a shift or two.
hashmap · 15 days ago
i would be upset that i had bought a murdertruck
gonzalohm · 15 days ago
Are you talking about the bike or the SUV?
slaughtr · 15 days ago
This question is the exact point they’re making about the biased response to/willingness to create bike vs car laws.
Ylpertnodi · 15 days ago
Utter disbelief. (will that do?)
mitthrowaway2 · 15 days ago
My primary mode of transportation is an e-bike; how should I react?
ErroneousBosh · 15 days ago
Why would that be happening? No-one is preventing people from driving.
epistasis · 15 days ago
I don't know the particulars, but if what's going on in WA is like what's going on in my California town, I don't think it's reasonable.
I see teens going around on ebikes, and people freak out over them in ways that seem completely inappropriate to the kids scooting around. I think it's mostly a reaction to seeing young people being young people, as far as I can tell.
Same thing happens on NextDoor, a few kids hanging out and joking around makes people think there's a gang problem, I've seen it happen in my own neighborhood and it's ridiculous.
It is true that violent death and maiming from SUVs and large trucks is a crisis, that society generally ignores. When I once called these hoods "gender affirming" a reply chastised me for being inflammatory and claiming that stating the plain obvious would get in the way of convincing others, but I think it's exactly the opposite: unless we start talking about the truth of these things nothing will happen.
seanmcdirmid · 15 days ago
When the kids decide to take their E-bikes on I-5, you know something is wrong with their decision making skills: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1sjv7ua/teens_on_e...
Yes, people freak out when they see a kid on an e-bike on a crowded freeway.
estearum · 15 days ago
Reasonable people freak out when they see that on a freeway
There are also plenty of unreasonable people who freak out when they see that on a not-freeway
epistasis · 15 days ago
Do they really need a new law to prevent bikes on freeways? I think that's already highly illegal.
mothballed · 15 days ago
It's legal in Oregon and Montana as long as you stay in the shoulder. You can walk there too. I can't remember the law in Washington.
In western states with a lot of rural places only serviced by interstate they sometimes never passed blanket prohibition against non-motorized traffic on the interstate property.
wiredfool · 15 days ago
It is/was legal on rural interstates in Washington. I've cycled down I90 in roughly the North Bend area (in the late 90's).
ghaff · 15 days ago
Yes, sometimes the interstate is the only reasonable route through a pass in the western US.
seanmcdirmid · 15 days ago
You can bike at some places on I-90 in Washington state where better options aren't available. I don't think it applies to E-bikes though, or at least the ones that can go faster than 15 MPH.
toast0 · 15 days ago
> I can't remember the law in Washington.
I'd bet I-5 in Seattle is bicycles prohibited, but there's no blanket prohibition of bicycles on freeways. Like you said, there's a lot of parts of Washington where the freeway is the only reasonable road, so you can't prohibit bicycles or pedestrians.
Bikes that have motors and don't fit the e-bike tiers are motorcycles ... and could potentially be legal to operate on a bicycle prohibited freeway, but they'd need to be registered and it looks like these don't have plates, and the operator would need a DOT motorcycle helmet which was not present, and I'd bet these are also missing out on the lights and stuff you need too.
seanmcdirmid · 15 days ago
You know, the law banning kids from driving vehicles that can go over a certain speed is also already on the books. The new law is just a clarification that no, you can't be an 11 year old going 40 MPH with an unlicensed E-bike.
The big problem is just Seattle being incredibly underpoliced and really no laws under homicide are really enforced or punished.
brendoelfrendo · 15 days ago
Ok, but riding an ebike on the interstate is already illegal. If the problem you're trying to solve is kids taking ebikes onto the interstate, then you don't need any new laws
brailsafe · 15 days ago
Surely this isn't as stupid as an SUV trying to take light rail though right?
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/how...
Maybe Seattle is the problem ;)
PaulHoule · 15 days ago
I remember hearing about that kind of problem in Europe all the time 20 years ago.
expedition32 · 15 days ago
I'll never forget that time my mom accidentally drove straight into a tram tunnel. One of the "we can laugh about it now" stories.
wat10000 · 15 days ago
People freak out about non-car transportation in general. Someone on my Nextdoor has been freaking out over temporary bus lanes, because nobody takes the bus but it's going to cause horrible traffic. They posted about rush hour gridlock on that street the other day caused by this grave injustice. The bus lanes haven't been put in yet....
There's constant vitriol about bike lanes, as if it's some huge sacrifice for drivers. And of course heaven forbid you roll a stop sign on a bike. Never mind that drivers do this constantly and are a far greater threat.
A lot of people fear anything that's not what they're used to, and they'll come up with any reason they can find to justify that fear.
fullstop · 15 days ago
There's a few traffic circles / roundabouts near me now. I love them -- they are safer and greatly reduce traffic if I'm headed out that way. The number of people who blame them for serious accidents is nuts, even if the accident is several miles away from the circle.
infecto · 15 days ago
My anecdote only but the contraptions being sold as “e-bikes” are actually motorcycles. Like all things a few bad apples ruin it for everyone but in what I have seen it’s more than just a few bad apples. From maintained mountain bike trails, to riding at speed on walking paths. They are far more than just some kids being kids. It is ultimately a lack of parenting these days but I don’t believe the new laws coming into place are out of line. A vehicle that can hit 30mph within a few seconds is a lot different than a kid peddling at 20mph sustained.
epistasis · 15 days ago
Your description is not accurate for my state, California, there are clear tiers of ebikes with regulations on when and where they can go, with very clear explanation at purchase, and no weird marketing like you're talking about. I've tried to go buy them, I have experienced the lectures!
Perhaps we can let the few bad apples killing lots of people with their massive hood height lead to better regulation of such hood heights?
We have literal deaths on one hand, and on the other, fears that are already heavily covered by regulation. I don't know Washington, but the laws around the speed regulators, etc., for e-bikes are extensive. People still demand "laws" because they overreact and get fearful.
I just wish people would be more fearful of killing others with their cars. It's the biggest cause of death of children, yet there's no action. Yet here we are, discussing ebikes rather than the real causes of child deaths.
paddy_m · 15 days ago
I'm as anti-car and pro-bike as they come. Cars and trucks are a much bigger danger than e-bikes...
But California's clear tiers of ebike regulations are meaningless without enforcement. Over the past half decade blue states have become unwilling to enforce almost any laws. when they do enforce the laws it is sporadically. This matters for ebikes, it matters more for cars. Running a stop sign is absolutely not enforced any more.
WarmWash · 15 days ago
In NJ there was a string of teen ebike deaths, all of which were cars hitting teens riding on the side of the road.
The solution the state came up with was regulating the living hell out of ebikes.
saltcured · 15 days ago
I'm in the SF Bay Area and see small kids pre-adolescent or barely adolescent riding e-bikes with insane acceleration and speeds. The kind of performance, that in my youth, would come from a 250cc four-cycle motorcycle or 125cc 2-cycle motocross bike. And they are riding with absolutely no sense of traffic rules nor that they themselves are part of the same traffic. It's a really bad combination.
It doesn't matter what tiers there are when parents are negligently providing their kids with these kinds of "toys". I don't know if they are totally ignorant and think "it's just a bicycle" or if they know exactly what it can do and just can't see that their kid isn't ready for the responsibility.
Aurornis · 15 days ago
> Your description is not accurate for my state, California, there are clear tiers of ebikes with regulations on when and where they can go, with very clear explanation at purchase, and no weird marketing like you're talking about. I've tried to go buy them, I have experienced the lectures!
The people buying the hackable e-bikes aren't walking down to their neighborhood e-bike store and paying full retail.
It's an internet phenomenon. They're ordering them online. There are subreddits where you can go and figure out which ones to buy that can be easily hacked or modified.
There are companies addressing this demand by making bikes that are technically capped to a specific tier of performance when sold, but any kid with the internet can find the instructions to "unlock" it to remove all of the limits and use the full power of the bike, not have to pedal, and so on.
infecto · 15 days ago
I am not arguing for one over the other but that these e-bikes are motorcycles and I know from experience nobody actually enforces those rules.
crooked-v · 15 days ago
Here in San Francisco, there a huge number of "e-bikes" that are designed, built, and sold as de facto illegal motorcycles, with only the paper-thin wink-nudge of a speed limiter that can be easily removed by the user, sometimes with online listings literally advertising the top speed without the limiter up front.
The city's treatment of traffic danger is comically bad, but these "e-bikes" aren't kids gallivanting around, they are traffic danger - usually by way of gig workers without insurance ignoring all traffic laws because they're riding "e-bikes" (with the speed limiter pulled out).
kevinob11 · 15 days ago
I live in WA (south of seattle) and your description is accurate, there are kids riding around on sidewalks in the area around my house on electric motorcycles that are sold as e-bikes. While I don't personally love it, they kept their distance from my small kids so I figure "let kids be kids". The one instance that frustrated me was they also show up at local mountain bike and skate parks. There they ride up the down trails and destroy a lot of the trail edges, a couple of times I've asked folks to leave.
I was hopeful when I saw the new law that it'll be used as a tool to take action on actual problem usage without punishing those using them safely. Unfortunately I'm aware of the history of laws like this, so I'm worried it'll just be used against lower income / privilege folks. We'll see.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
>I see teens going around on ebikes, and people freak out over them in ways that seem completely inappropriate to the kids scooting around. I think it's mostly a reaction to seeing young people being young people, as far as I can tell.
It's kind of a hilarious yardstick for societal decline if you think about it.
70yr ago the boomers were drunk crashing sports cars so frequently that laws got passed.
Now late teenagers can barely afford an e-bike and mostly aren't causing problem, but laws still get passed, by the literal same cohort who were drunk crashing muscle cars back in the day.
vondur · 15 days ago
In my area kids are doing street takeovers and assaulting people in cars and pedestrians. Laws have been passed to deal with it but there is very little on the enforcement side. Plus kids are riding around in effectively what are electric motorcycles that can hit highway speeds which would normally require licensing and registration like any other motor vehicle. Recently I know of a 15 year old who crashed on one of these bikes and died. Having said that, 15 year old me would have absolutely loved having one of these kick ass ebikes.
lowbloodsugar · 15 days ago
Stepped out of a coffee shop, got text from wife, grabbed my phone and got missed by inches by a kid on a scooter easily doing 25mph on the sidewalk. The text possibly saved my ability to walk in future by having me to pause just for a moment.
macintux · 15 days ago
I was 3-4 feet from a building corner when someone raced around it on a scooter. Amazing to me the complete lack of both self-preservation and respect for others.
On the other hand, kids have always been stupid. We've just given them new, more powerful ways to abuse that lack of awareness.
dualvariable · 15 days ago
Okay, now do the times when some reckless driver nearly got you killed...
macintux · 15 days ago
I don't disagree cars are more dangerous. But I can manage to be concerned about two things simultaneously.
dualvariable · 15 days ago
I'm way more concerned about getting run over or T-boned by a distracted driver in a huge pickup, and literally nothing is getting done about that.
throw4847285 · 15 days ago
But this post is about SUVs and somehow the biggest thread is about the danger of ebikes and scooters. It sure does make you think...
ambicapter · 15 days ago
on the sidewalk? Never.
frollogaston · 15 days ago
The rate of people running stop signs and red lights is way higher on e-bikes. And cars usually aren't driving on sidewalks.
vkou · 15 days ago
> We've just given them new, more powerful ways to abuse that lack of awareness.
Automobiles for 16-year olds have been around for a very long time.
Anyways, it's quintessentially American to be talking about oversized landship SUVs and trucks killing people, only to have someone derail it into kvetching about kids and bicycles.
Aerroon · 15 days ago
The problem is with bicycles being relegated to either the sidewalk or the main road with cars. I'm really not a fan of how cities create bikelanes by putting a line through the sidewalk and then nobody respects it.
I see the appeal in trying to ride fast, but it gets kind of scary. When I rode a bike I went fast outside the city specifically to avoid pedestrians.
hansvm · 15 days ago
And the main road with cars wouldn't be an issue if people had a little common sense and respect. I was descending down a mountain road on my bicycle once, definitely speeding (enough so that I caught up to the traffic ahead of me -- really just trying to get off the mountain quickly though since I know people like the following exist), and some giant truck decided it was up to them to show me a lesson for riding in the road -- tailgated me the entire way down the bloody mountain, and there was no safe way for me to pull over (no shoulder, trees and steep drop), to speed up (I was already booking it, and there was a car in front of me anyway and no safe way to pass), or slow down (IME, slowing down when in a car sends people like that into a rage, so I wasn't comfortable bleeding off any speed with this guy a few feet behind me). If I had any equipment failures or had to slow down for any reason it would've been a nasty accident.
fullstop · 15 days ago
There's kids who go around on ebikes in my neighborhood, and it's only a matter of time until one of them is hit. I don't mind kids on bikes, and encourage it. I do, however, encourage them to stop at stop signs and to actually look for traffic at intersections, and that's something that these kids are not doing.
To be fair, most cars go too fast in residential areas. I drive like a grandma in them and there's a good chance that someone is up my ass and annoyed that I'm not exceeding the speed limit.
hombre_fatal · 15 days ago
> there's a good chance that someone is up my ass and annoyed that I'm not exceeding the speed limit.
Same with not going right on red when it's impossible to see if anybody is coming without pulling way past the crosswalk.
Sometimes the car behind me honks to show their support.
eigenman · 15 days ago
Cars do go too fast through neighborhoods: one ran into a house and killed someone inside.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/1-person-killed-tesla-a...
ghaff · 15 days ago
There's a restaurant in a city near fairly near where I live where I often eat at the sidewalk city in the summer. And the (protected) bike lane is this somewhat horrifying combination of bikes, e-bikes, escooters and things like motorcyles together with pedestrians crossing. And, because many people are on bikes, a lot just blow through red lights at the nearby intersection because it's a bike lane.
simplyluke · 15 days ago
There's some of that, a lot of it though is e-dirtbikes that can pretty easily do 35+mph stock and 50+ with light modifications. A friend of mine has one and I've ridden it. It's a motorcycle with mountain bike brakes. I don't think they're bad vehicles, but I do think they should be treated as motorcycles as opposed to bicycles, and 13 year olds shouldn't be riding them on public roads.
TulliusCicero · 15 days ago
To be clear, the "e-bikes" in question aren't what you usually think of as e-bikes. Not only do they look different, they're faster and typically don't even require pedaling (and may not have pedals at all). Hence why I said they were kinda like mopeds.
Aurornis · 15 days ago
> I see teens going around on ebikes, and people freak out over them in ways that seem completely inappropriate to the kids scooting around. I think it's mostly a reaction to seeing young people being young people, as far as I can tell.
I thought it was all fun at first, but they've since invaded the bike paths and parks near my house. It seems like more common they become, the more emboldened the riders are to drive 40mph down the bike path and weave around people.
It's so bad now that I have to be on high alert on the mixed-use path to grab my kids and pull them in when I hear the unmistakable sound of a Sur-Ron coming at us from behind at high speed. Usually a group of several kids.
They've also taken to riding through the parks and fields we go to, treating the little hills as jumps. The grass is getting destroyed. Parks have to put up temporary fences and gates to keep the electric motorcycles from destroying the fields.
It's not just kids, either. I've had several close calls this year while I'm riding my (pedal) bike and middle-aged people riding modified e-bikes (not pedaling, just zooming along at high speed) have zoomed around corners and almost hit me. They jump from the road to the sidewalk to the bike path as convenient and everyone else has to avoid them.
It's bad. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not a problem. I spend a lot of time outside with my kids and the problem is getting worse by the year.
ghaff · 15 days ago
I'm tempted to say nothing some baseball bats won't help. But the real problem is that you have bicycles increasingly morphing into things that look more like motorcycles and, if they can't be legally sold that way, someone will sell them or they can be modded.
not_a_bot_4sho · 15 days ago
> I don't know the particulars, but if what's going on in WA is like what's going on in my California town, I don't think it's reasonable
I was driving on a WA highway going ~47 mph (I made note of it for reasons soon to be clear!) when a group of 3 tweens on ebikes, none wearing helmets, passed me up in the bike lane going at least 10mph faster, and I watched them run through a red light up ahead. They got lucky.
I don't have a problem with kids being kids but this is over the top dangerous. To be clear, it's a few small groups of kids. There have been crashes, and they sent a Bellevue woman to the hospital in a hit and run, but as far as I know there's been no fatalities yet.
We don't need to drop the hammer on kids. We just need some common sense.
bloqs · 14 days ago
I had never heard of NextDoor until I read this post. UK based. I just spent 20 minutes reading Wikipedia and associated articles. They are really old too... Wow
pjc50 · 14 days ago
Like a lot of these things, it's all fun and games until someone gets injured. This happened the other week in Edinburgh: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/woman-knock...
Previously, there had been a lot of complaints about intentional antisocial riding on pavements etc. Close passes as a form of harassment. If that's tolerated, it's a matter of time before someone gets hit.
As an extra punchline, while the injured woman was surrounded by police and medics, two other idiots on Voi rental bikes ran through the cordon and got arrested.
srustagi · 14 days ago
I mean are you in the hood or not?
Easy for you to say this if you're from Happysville, CA, USA, but if you're near Oakland or SF you know these kids DO form "gang"-like groups and block traffic, the bridge, swerve through traffic.
It's chill if the kids near you are respectful but the reason Gen Z as a whole ride these bikes is because they actively want to ride fast like motorcycles without license or registration.
forshaper · 14 days ago
As a teenager in 00s suburban Texas, all you had to do is gather in a playground or stripmall parking lot for someone to call the cops.
kingkawn · 15 days ago
Cars are a major domestic industry for production, sales, and service. E-mopeds aren’t. That’s all.
seanmcdirmid · 15 days ago
People under 16 probably shouldn't be driving vehicles very fast period. That doesn't feel like a double standard since we've already banned them from driving cars.
It seems orthogonal to SUVs.
dylan604 · 15 days ago
A 15 year old on a bicycle can easily do 15mph, and even 20mph is easy enough if they are willing to pedal for it. The real problem is that something capable of doing 15mph+ shouldn't be on the sidewalk in the first place.
There are multiple things going on in these situations, and rarely is it just one thing a quick simple ban on ___ will actually fix
saltcured · 15 days ago
Not sure if this is regional or another sign that I'm old.
When I was in elementary school, we were already taught that we ride a bicycle in the street and follow traffic rules. That included things like traveling in the correct lane for the direction we are going and observing stop signs and traffic lights. Also, as we got older, using things like turn lanes just like a motorcycle should do.
We were also taught tp walk it on the sidewalk/crosswalks as a pedestrian when the conditions were too complex for us to safely ride with traffic.
Even ignoring the peril to actual pedestrians, I have seen so many near-accidents in more recent decades from people violating these rules. Riding on sidewalks and/or against traffic flow (wrong side of the road) so that they "come out of nowhere" into traffic, ignoring traffic control lights, etc. Adding the electric speed boosts has just made these reckless things wildly more dangerous.
echelon · 15 days ago
Cars >>> Bikes + Rail + Pedestrian infrastructure
More money flows atop highway and road infrastructure than on biking, rail, and scooter infrastructure. By orders of magnitude.
Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways.
Biking infrastructure is actually deleterious as it doesn't serve the pregnant, elderly, sick, frail, doesn't work well for rain/snow/high heat/weather, doesn't transport high volumes of goods, etc. etc.
Lots of cities are tearing up road infra to cater to this, and in doing so, they're reducing the economic corridor capacity and throughput of roads. Roads are simply much more valuable and flexible for logistics, people, and business.
The value of roads is going to become even more apparent when we have widespread autonomous vehicles.
Bikes are popular for 20-40-something men, mostly yuppie, mostly upper middle class. But they're not doing the economic heavy lifting.
__float · 15 days ago
> Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways.
Ok, and what fraction of investment has it gotten?
We've underfunded rail/bike infrastructure for decades, of course money is going to flow on the cheapest route. Roads are cheap because we've subsidized the shit out of them.
echelon · 15 days ago
Bikes are not going to deliver your packages and food and medical services. They're not going to take you on vacation, haul your gear, or provide shelter.
There's a meme that bikes will solve everything and that cars suck, but it's dismissive of the orders of magnitude more value that road infra can and will always provide.
mitthrowaway2 · 15 days ago
Yes, they are, and they do.
echelon · 15 days ago
The bike meme is unrealistic, and you're dismissing all of my arguments.
You're ripping up infrastructure for yuppie pickleball.
How do you transmit tons of material on bikes? How do people move in the rain or when they're on their period? How do they move multiple small children or being home furniture? What do old and sick people do?
Every lane taken away is centuries of economic activity destroyed.
triceratops · 15 days ago
You'd be ok with restricting automobile traffic to delivery vans and trucks then? With regular checks to ensure they're actually delivering stuff.
ErroneousBosh · 15 days ago
> How do you transmit tons of material on bikes?
How do you transmit tons of materials with these crappy oversize pickup trucks? Their towing and payload capacity is pathetic.
Why does someone who is not literally a builder or joiner need to drive something as big as a full-size Ford Transit to take their child to school?
mitthrowaway2 · 15 days ago
Have you ever been to China? They haul huge amounts of stuff with bicycle trailers.
But yeah, you got me. It's impossible to ride a bike in the rain, or on your period. Checkmate, I surrender.
spidercat · 15 days ago
Could you kindly explain to me how being on my period would in any way shape or form affect my ability to ride a bike? I'm all ears.
bdangubic · 15 days ago
I've heard from the same sources that woman on their period cannot drive a car or even ride in one so that's a wash... :)
chrisnight · 15 days ago
I think you’re suffering from a false dichotomy. The average car capacity is 1.1 people per car, and 90%+ of the time, a normal individual is not hauling more than a backpack. Just imagine how much less traffic would be on the road if the people who could just biked. They get 1 protected lane (out of 6), and you get 50% less traffic? Hell yeah, that’s be awesome, right?
In terms of economics, consider how terrible car parking can be. A bike rack can park 20+ people in the space of 1 car parking spot (1-4 people). Do you really think a business would be better off with 1/10th the number of customers who can actually enter their building at once?
Bikes and rail should exist as options, not requirements. And when done well, like in Amsterdam, people will like using them. And driving will be even better, because of so much less traffic.
to11mtm · 15 days ago
> How do people move in the rain
I mean Historically when I did that sort of thing I'd have a change of clothes if necessary, but otherwise I never really minded riding in the rain. Or light snow.
> or when they're on their period?
I'm sorry, what? (I actually do have anecdata based answers for this but I don't want to risk offending your sensibilities.)
> How do you transmit tons of material on bikes? > How do they move multiple small children or being home furniture? What do old and sick people do?
Cool! There's more room on the road for that to happen.
But in general you're implying a dichotomy where none exists.
drtz · 15 days ago
Bikes actually deliver a lot of packages and food in areas where car infrastructure hasn't made other forms of transportation practically impossible, and they do it much more cost-effectively.
On the medical front, that's quite a strawman. I doubt you'll find much of anyone opposed to using cars for medical and emergency services.
__float · 13 days ago
I live near a very congested area and watch ambulances and fire trucks (which are also too big) get stuck in heavy traffic all the time.
Bikes do a lot of package and food delivery here, but fewer people commuting by car would make it easier for ambulances to get where they need to.
ErroneousBosh · 15 days ago
Counterpoint: there are four Blood Transfusion Service motorbikes parked outside the doctor's surgery across the road most days of the week, because cars are no good for delivering urgent and time-sensitive medical supplies.
Symbiote · 15 days ago
Here's a bicycle used for transporting blood tests/samples in Copenhagen.
I see these go past my office fairly often. A Facebook photo (I won't link) shows there's at least 8 of them.
https://www.dreamstime.com/official-blood-test-transporting-...
And one from a private analysis company. It's obviously a fake photo, as we all know it's impossible to ride a bike when there's snow.
https://dbio.dk/nyheder/nytaenkning-cykelbud-med-friske-blod...
hydrolox · 15 days ago
that literally happens in NYC right now
ambicapter · 15 days ago
Bike couriers in shambles to discover this.
selfsigned · 14 days ago
Light ~110cc scooters in most of South East Asia are used for just that actually, and a lot of Western European cities have a rather large cargo e-bike push. Reducing heavy road traffic also makes it easier for EMS to get around.
vbernat · 15 days ago
Biking is not meant to replace everything. More people biking means more room for people that cannot bike. Bike-heavy cities like Amsterdam show that most of your "facts" are incorrect (bikes can be used to transport goods, are usable when it rains, are used by a large part of the population). That's a trope common when bike displaces cars, but studies show the reverse (for example in Madrid: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02642...). Also, biking is good for health despite the risks (for example https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521).
wffurr · 15 days ago
Wow there is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to start.
Widespread car usage has caused an enormous amount of harm. It has destroyed American cities, killed thousands of people directly, tens of thousands more with sedentary lifestyle diseases, and burned a truly enormous amount of fossil fuels into CO2, and locked in the infrastructure to continue to do so for decades. It's an absolutely enormous tragedy.
Cars are also useful and have helped a lot of things, but they should not be the default choice of transportation.
matheusmoreira · 15 days ago
Thank you for posting this. Don't be discouraged by downvotes.
alexose · 15 days ago
I suspect the loudest voices would be from the automakers and dealerships, who make their biggest margin from SUVs and oversized trucks. They have powerful lobbyists and spend a lot on PR, so it often seems like their anti-transit, anti-pedestrian positions are more popular than they are.
I'd love to see a real grassroots effort to tax (toll?) based on GVWR or vehicle length. It would be met with tremendous opposition by special interests, but I could see it succeeding in the right environment. Maybe it could be framed as a rebate for small vehicles, rather than a tax on large ones.
dylan604 · 15 days ago
SUVs have the power of bigAuto behind them to ensure no "undue" legislation is made against them. There is no bigEbike, so legislation is free to be made so that those legislators can then pat themselves on their back and have action they can point to being pro-safety.
bluedino · 15 days ago
The e-bikes aren't that annoying, it's the kids (and adults) riding all over the city on 4 wheelers and UTVs. The cops chase them around but it doesn't do much good.
caconym_ · 15 days ago
Trucks and guns have a free pass to cause thousands of deaths yearly. It's that simple. Anybody else doing anything that might be viewed by certain hand wringing hysterical persons as dangerous will be smothered in onerous regulation, despite statistics showing relative (or absolute) harmlessness, but trucks and guns will keep on killing.
Recurecur · 12 days ago
Neither trucks nor guns cause a single death. The people using them may cause deaths.
It also should be pointed out that in many cases, both large vehicles and guns save lives.
There is absolutely no denying that larger vehicles are safer in an accident. Anything to the contrary that you have read is propaganda.
In the case of guns, defensive gun uses have actually stopped a tremendous number of crimes. Those statistics were altered by the FBI to make gun ownership less appealing. Note that many of those uses did not involve firing the firearm.
Please educate yourself before you spread more propaganda.
This has been a public service announcement.
caconym_ · 12 days ago
Trucks and guns pose outsized risks to bystanders, and if you don't agree with that, you are either being grossly disingenuous or you're just extremely stupid. In the case of trucks, you can literally just go read OP's article if you want to learn more about the risks they pose, but I suspect you have no interest in doing so.
However, to help you understand this complex issue more broadly (since you're already here), let me present an analogy. A framing saw is a dangerous tool. It has legitimate uses (e.g. cutting lumber) that may outweigh the risks of having it in your garage, but, critically, that ceases to be true if you don't make an effort to mitigate the risks. If your 5 year old kid gets into the garage and manages to cut his foot off with your framing saw because you left the door unlocked with the saw plugged in, you have fucked up bigtime. That's a risk you could have mitigated, and would have mitigated if you weren't a negligent fuckup, but you are, now your kid has a lifelong disability.
And in this situation, maybe you would say nuh uh, the saw didn't cause the injury, and I'd reply that if you want to frame it that way then no, the saw didn't cause the injury. You caused the injury by failing to recognize and effectively respond to the risk the saw presented.
Similarly, trucks and guns are tools. They obviously have certain legitimate applications whose utility outweighs the risks they pose to bystanders with appropriate mitigations in place. But if society makes no effort to mitigate even the basic obvious risks, innocent bystanders end up being needlessly harmed as a result, via the frivolity, negligence, and sometimes downright malice of others.
This is the situation with trucks and guns in America. We demonstrate no will or capacity to place reasonable restrictions on their availability to and usage by people who really have no legitimate need for them, nor the skill and temperament to use them safely, and as a result people are needlessly hurt and killed by them every day. Some people think this is fine, I guess, but I don't.
Recurecur · 9 days ago
>Trucks and guns pose outsized risks to bystanders, and if you don't agree with that, you are either being grossly disingenuous or you're just extremely stupid. In the case of trucks, you can literally just go read OP's article if you want to learn more about the risks they pose, but I suspect you have no interest in doing so.
I did read the entire article. One point you may have missed is the same increase in frontal height happened in other countries, but didn’t result in the same increases in pedestrian fatalities. It’s likely that other factors are in play in the USA.
Various tools represent varying levels of risk to bystanders. Every auto or truck is a potentially lethal weapon.
Guns and large vehicles are similar in that both increase the safety of the owner. There’s no downside as long as the owner is responsible. One flaw in the NYT analysis was around the “A column” blind spot. No competent driver will look for pedestrians without moving his head enough to eliminate that blind spot.
There is no denying that large vehicles are safer for their occupants, the statistics are clear. Regardless of whether large trucks and SUVs are in play, the major offenders will remain…those being delivery trucks, busses, and semis.
On a final note, everyone in the USA has the legal right to own firearms for self defense, as it should be. Many in Europe are wishing for the same thing about now…
caconym_ · 9 days ago
> I did read the entire article. One point you may have missed is the same increase in frontal height happened in other countries, but didn’t result in the same increases in pedestrian fatalities. It’s likely that other factors are in play in the USA.
I am not sure where you are getting this in the article, but yes, obviously other factors are in play. Transit engineering, driving culture, and other demographic factors affect the likelihood of a pedestrian collision happening in the first place, as well as vehicle design factors. But once the collision occurs, vehicle speed and vehicle design are the primary factors determining the outcome for the pedestrian. Competent regulators will attack the problem from all sides, and improving vehicle design standards (or at the very least not incentivizing larger vehicles) is low hanging fruit.
> Guns and large vehicles are similar in that both increase the safety of the owner. There’s no downside as long as the owner is responsible.
You could say this about literally anything. I would have no problem with personal nuclear weapons for self defense as long as the owner(s) were responsible.
In practice, we know that the owners of guns and large vehicles have (to a first approximation) the same capacity for irresponsibility as anyone else.
> One flaw in the NYT analysis was around the “A column” blind spot. No competent driver will look for pedestrians without moving his head enough to eliminate that blind spot.
Makes me think you've never tried to negotiate e.g. a busy unsignaled four way stop with protected cycle tracks on three of the four incoming roads, and no raised sidewalks, at night and/or in the rain.
When a driver's attention is split 5+ ways, there is only so much they can do. As above, intersection design takes a lot of the blame in these situations, but making blind spots smaller will always improve safety. As somebody who has been walking, riding, and driving in a mid sized American city for 20+ years, the most frequent type of near-death experience I've had has been crossing the street with the signal and almost getting hit by left-turning cars who didn't see me, in precisely the same kind of situation highlighted in the article.
> There is no denying that large vehicles are safer for their occupants, the statistics are clear.
Nobody is debating this, because it's totally irrelevant here except insofar as it's insane for us to encourage people to insulate themselves from the consequences of collisions while reciprocally increasing the risk for others involved.
I seriously don't understand the mindset that focuses on the safety of occupants of the largest vehicles involved in a collision, especially when the context is pedestrian safety. It's even more frustrating that our regulators seem to have adopted the same mindset.
edit: And the current mix of vehicles we have on the road distorts the safety statistics even more. Is it really surprising that when a Yukon XL collides with a Corolla, the people in the Yukon walk away while the Corolla's occupants get closed casket funerals? Since the protection larger vehicles afford their occupants is dependent on their size and weight, it's not independent of the outcomes for others involved in a collision.
ggreer · 15 days ago
The law doesn't ban them. It classifies fast e-bikes as motorcycles (which require registration, insurance, and a motorcycle endorsement).[1] This seems reasonable to me. The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology.
I do think it would make more sense to simplify (and future-proof) the law to just say, "If it can go >30mph on level ground and has a motor, it's a motorcycle." But similar to code, it's easier to add legislation than it is to modify existing rules.
1. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6110&Year=202... text: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Se...
TulliusCicero · 15 days ago
True, it's not exactly the same situation, but it does ban them for the riders (the teens) who were previously on them.
You could make it more analogous by saying that we could enforce stricter regulations on big SUVs and trucks in terms of, say, driver licensing, and you'd still have a huge outcry if we tried that.
mothballed · 15 days ago
It blew my mind the first time I rented a 35' long 26,000 GVWR diesel truck and drove it right onto the interstate. What you can accomplish on a simple US driving license is something special you can't get almost anywhere else in the world unless you count places where bribes work.
The EU cuts you off at like 8,000 lbs.
KetoManx64 · 15 days ago
Gotta love regulation stifling the living daylights our of your society.
mschuster91 · 15 days ago
Or: Gotta love regulation keeping our societies alive.
The US averages 14.9/100k traffic fatalities, Europe 6.7 [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Scoundreller · 15 days ago
Canada beats the euro average at 4.7 but similarly allows regular Joe’s to drive a moving truck and trailer a car behind it with a general license.
+ Canada’s rates are better on a per km basis (even beating the Dutch).
Annual/biannual safety inspections are only required in 3 of 10 provinces and those 3 are on the smaller side (PEI, NS and NB).
Motor vehicle infraction enforcement is… an afterthought for Canadian police (they don’t think/care that their salary/town depends on it). But admittedly, even lighter than I’ve experienced in Europe.
It’s gotta be some other factor behind excess US road fatalities.
tinyplanets · 15 days ago
American drivers are also entitled assholes (I say as an American driver). How DARE you tell me I can't do what I want, when I want, or change my behavior in the slightest to benefit my society/local community?
to11mtm · 15 days ago
God forbid a commuter wants to do the speed limit in the righthand lane without being tailgated!
Scoundreller · 15 days ago
> the righthand lane
sadly, that's very often the passing lane
to11mtm · 12 days ago
It gets complicated depending on the highway, at least around me.
Heck even some of the non highway roads.
Cause I'm in MI, where we have Michigan lefts, and somewhere between surges of out-of-state transplants and COVID everyone has lost the plot on...
But overall around here, we have lots of 3/4 lane highways.
From left to right on a 4 lane...
Left lane is prettymuch always fastest traffic, with a occasional trucker stupidity around failing to not use the leftmost lane unless part of the actual route.
Next lane on a 4 lane is more faster traffic, possibly more trucker stupidity because typically they are supposed to be in the right two lanes unless there is a split incoming where they have to go left.
Next lane on a 4 lane is all of the wimpy trucks and the freight drivers following state law (i.e. we often have a higher speed limit for 'not-truck' than 'truck')
Last lane, is entering/exiting traffic; may go faster than prior lane at times but is more likely to have slowdowns from people who had at least a quarter mile to see what traffic was and attempt to match speed...
On a 3 lane, it's similar, except trucks in general will stay in the middle or right, but usually the middle.
---
Where it gets ugly though, is that my state is Michigan, so we have 'Michigan Lefts'.
i.e. on many roads, to do a left turn you take an intentional turn-around through a median, then take a right back at the intersection.
This normally works but sometimes it means for such roads that the left lane is not in fact the fastest lane overall.
to11mtm · 15 days ago
I think the majority of Canada's GWVR limits can be a factor; i.e. outside of Ontario it's less than half what the US limit is for a standard license.
I think also the lower number of lanes on routes like the 401 help, usually[0].
Even though it's been a while, every drive in Canada just felt more leisurely. Speed limits in general are lower, there's more stop signs where they should be.
[0] - Except when a whiskey truck tips over and it's now a 2 hour delay to the next exit...
scottyah · 15 days ago
Nothing better than being alive! We should ban all forms of transportation that aren't walking, which will be heavily permitted.
TulliusCicero · 15 days ago
And you can literally fall asleep at the wheel and get away with a $300 fine: https://komonews.com/news/local/sleeping-tesla-driver-speedi...
cogman10 · 15 days ago
Those sorts of codes do exist already. The problem is that bike manufacturers will put on a "go fast" switch with a "Don't flip this or you'll be breaking the law" note in the manual.
Of course, a lot of people flip that switch because 20mph can feel pretty slow.
verytrivial · 15 days ago
The Dutch seem to just do the sensible thing and have mobile e-bike dynos. If they suspect the bike is not properly regulated, they'll test it and keep it if it fails.
bryanlarsen · 15 days ago
AFAICT, lots of people in the Netherlands also complain about kids on fat tire ebikes that look like motorcycles.
OTOH people in 80's complained about kids on BMX bikes terrorizing the neighborhood, and those things were slow.
baron816 · 15 days ago
Well, probably the right thing to do for large trucks and suvs is to reclassify them so that you need a commercial license to drive them.
forgetfreeman · 15 days ago
omfg I would love that. Like literally force manufacturers to put air brakes on anything above a certain weight limit and demand additional certification to operate one. Full Disclosure: I own four vehicles that would trigger this requirement, each for different reasons, and would be whistling and smirking in the DMV line to take the commercial test.
briffle · 15 days ago
A commercial driver has a physical every year, severe restrictions on how they can drive, hours behind wheel, etc. But if you have 2 cataract surguries, oncoming dementia, and a body full of arthritis that can barely move, you can drive a 50' Class A Motorhome to your winter home in the South.
loloquwowndueo · 15 days ago
That person clearly can’t walk so that’s why they have to drive, right?
forgetfreeman · 15 days ago
Sounds utterly ridiculous I agree but there's something to be said for 60+ years of muscle memory, otherwise olds rocketing motorhomes off of cliffs or augering into the side of the local walmart would feature more prominently in the local news. Quit picking on paw paw and keep the fight where it belongs: suburbanite pavement princesses must die.
ValentinPearce · 14 days ago
There are also countries that reduce the time a license is valid starting at a certain age and that require a medical test for renewal at all ages. IIRC Spain does that.
forgetfreeman · 14 days ago
Or you know you could just veer entirely off-topic and turn this into some kind of ageist food fight. That's an option too I suppose.
Der_Einzige · 14 days ago
No paw paw can go to hell where they belong.
forgetfreeman · 13 days ago
I hope you live to be 90. :)
encrypted_bird · 13 days ago
Exactly. A lot of these people forget that they will be old too someday. Treat the elderly like shit now, you'll be treated like shit later.
(Also, I love the Half-Life reference in your username btw. ;) )
sokoloff · 14 days ago
My class D (most typical) driving license is good to 26K pounds.
That seems crazy high to me, but then again, I’m hard-pressed to choose exactly the right lower value that would “perfect”.
mikestew · 14 days ago
You know you can go buy a 45’ motorhome that weighs multiples of the heaviest SUV, and drive it home on a standard driver’s license? Last time I renewed my WA license, it was online and the eye test for my retirement-aged eyes consisted of a checkbox that asks, “your eyes aren’t shit, are they?”
I’m not arguing, but more pointing out that what you want will never happen.
ultrarunner · 14 days ago
Yeah, my dad has one. It's terrifying. Even for him. These are commercial vehicles with a residential façade, but they are not maintained like commercial vehicles. If they weren't such a money hole I imagine they'd get popular to a point where they'd be restricted. As of now, they're not enough of a problem across a wide enough geographic for people to notice.
jorvi · 15 days ago
You do realize e-bikes only go 25 km/h? You're confusing them with speed pedelecs. Those go around 50 km/h, although that's still a far cry from scooter speeds, let alone motorbikes.
bee_rider · 15 days ago
Are these categories very widely recognized in the e-bike community or in legislation? I’ve never heard of a pedelec (but I’m not well informed).
complex_pi · 15 days ago
Where I live (western EU) it's simple. If the speed is limited to 25 km/h it's an e-bike. Above it's a speed pedelec and requires registration plate + insurance.
ninalanyon · 15 days ago
In Norway e-scooters don't require registration plates but do require liability insurance. It's less than 100 NOK per month (~10 EUR).
gambiting · 15 days ago
Just to be clear - it's not the speed that is limited, it's the assistance that is. You can still pedal above 25km/h on your ebike just fine and it's legal, but it has to stop giving you assistance above it(in contrast to say, mopeds, which have to be speed limited to 45kph).
kube-system · 15 days ago
Most US states allow 28 mph e-bikes. Some limit it to 20 mph. E-bike laws -- like all traffic laws in the US -- are set by the states. (as you may notice, even our cars do not have "united states" license plates)
Pingk · 15 days ago
In some European countries, yes, but other countries like the US have different laws. The UK doesn't have a classification for a speed pedelec, just the 25kph class.
Sohcahtoa82 · 15 days ago
What defines an "e-bike" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It also changes when talking in a colloquial context.
There are electric riding devices that are bicycle-shaped that go up to 45 mph (72 km/h) that are being sold as "e-bikes".
It's why it's hard to talk about e-bikes and regulation surrounding them because you can say "e-bike" and people think you're talking about entirely different things.
For example, in Oregon, for something to be an e-bike, it must be only pedal-assist and only up to 250 watts, which really will only take you to about 15-20 mph. If it has a throttle button so it doesn't require pedaling, then it's classified as an e-motorcycle, regardless of power rating, and so is licensed and registered like a motorcycle.
But enforcement is weak, and parents often don't know, so they'll buy their kids what is legally an e-motorcycle and they'll rip through neighborhoods at 45 mph, not even aware that their kids even riding one at all is illegal.
crooked-v · 15 days ago
The basic problem that causes laws like these to be passed is companies selling technically-legal "e-bikes" that are, in practice, electric mopeds you can remove the speed limiter and useless-but-technically-functional pedals from with fifteen minutes of work, converting them into illegal motorcycles.
TulliusCicero · 15 days ago
You do realize e-bikes exist beyond Europe? In the US, e-bikes can go up to 20mph (32 kmh) or 28 mph (45 kmh) depending on classification.
bootlooped · 15 days ago
I think it does ban them, effectively.
There is what some people say is a gray zone (I don't actually think it's that gray) where a device is too fast or powerful to be a legal e-bike, but also doesn't meet the requirements to be a road legal motorcycle. Will Progressive give me motorcycle insurance on my DIY e-bike without a VIN? Will the DVM register it? I don't think so. In most states there is no path to legality, at least as far as operating the thing on public streets goes.
I don't think that's necessarily a problem that needs solved. I'm fine telling the person that bought a Sur-Ron, "too bad, off road only".
sarchertech · 15 days ago
People get VINs and insurance for DIY vehicles all the time. There are companies that specialize in custom vehicle insurance.
Aurornis · 15 days ago
> I don't think so. In most states there is no path to legality, at least as far as operating the thing on public streets goes.
Not true. It's common to convert dirt bikes into street legal vehicles with conversion kits that add the required pieces. Depending on the state, that means turn signals, a mirror, headlight, and tail light.
I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for private property use only until they add the same equipment we require every other street legal vehicle to have. I also think it's reasonable if we tell them their electric motorcycle doesn't belong on the bike path.
mothballed · 15 days ago
>I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for private property use
If only that were actually the law. My roads are 100% private with absolutely zero tax payer funding yet the dumbass registration laws and requirement to display a plate even apply on my private road (only exempt if the owner white-lists traffic, which cannot be done under my easement rules which at best would only might allow me to black-list abusers). In fact pretty much all the roads in my town are completely privately funded and privately owned yet you still need registration/plate along with the legal mumbo jumbo to obtain it.
Pretty soon you realize the laws have nothing to do with the fiction of the laws being there to protect the public roads or public land or taxpayer funding or some such, it's a sham pretense that falls apart upon inspection of how they work.
lobf · 15 days ago
>If only that were actually the law. My roads are 100% private with absolutely zero tax payer funding yet the dumbass registration laws and requirement to display a plate even apply on my private road (only exempt if the owner white-lists traffic, which cannot be done under my easement rules which at best would only might allow me to black-list abusers). In fact pretty much all the roads in my town are completely privately funded and privately owned yet you still need registration/plate along with the legal mumbo jumbo to obtain it.
It sounds like your roads are accessible by the public though, which means unregulated public traffic, which means all of the tools necessary to ensure a basic level of safety and accountability need to be followed. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, does it not to you?
Like, you still have to follow building codes, pay property taxes, and not murder people on your private property and that doesn't seem outrageous.
zardo · 15 days ago
> I think it's completely reasonable if we tell people that their Sur-Ron is for private property use only.
Anywhere an ORV can be legally used. That's not just private property.
michael1999 · 15 days ago
Hard to get a plate if there's no VIN.
Aurornis · 15 days ago
A VIN is assigned as part of the registration process.
This happens all the time. Even trailers need a VIN. If you build a trailer and get it registered, they will assign a VIN for it.
jeffbee · 15 days ago
People who say this is a "gray zone" are practicing motivated reasoning. It is not gray, they are just illegal. There doesn't have to be a "path to legality" for illegal motorcycles. The only "path" necessary is the one straight to jail for the guy who imports these from China and sells them to the public.
gnarcoregrizz · 15 days ago
Which is too bad... They are great practical and reliable vehicles. You can't even ride them off-road either (CA), since the majority of _accessible_ off-road trails require a highway-legal vehicle, or are otherwise limited to hiking and biking.
So, the only real alternative is a dual sport, which is louder, heavier, faster, and has more emissions. The latest (only?) loophole is to find a plated, clapped out Honda or Yamaha dirt bike and do an electric conversion.
sidewndr46 · 15 days ago
well by 'more' emissions you'd mean infinitely more since most dual sports will be a 4 stroke engine.
throw0101d · 15 days ago
> The law doesn't ban them. It classifies […]
The Shifter cycling channel recently polled viewers and came out with a pretty good classification system:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z35F2R7FeE&t=17m20s
"E-bike" is pedal assist only/mostly with max speed of 30kph/20mph (only while pedalling) and throttle cuts out at low speeds (7kph: basically just there to get some inertial); treated as just another bicycle (perhaps limit age to ≥14 yo). Everything else is an "e-moto" with the same rules as mopeds and motorcycles.
Of course enforcement is key: importing, selling, on the road.
Also worth noting that in some places in the EU a automobile Category B also gives you Category AM allowances:
> In some countries, holders of a B driver licence are also entitled (sometimes with special conditions) to ride motorcycles <= 125 cubic centimetres (7.6 cu in) and power <= 11 kilowatts (15 hp) and ratio power/weight <= 0.1 kilowatts per kilogram (0.061 hp/lb)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_driving_licence#Since...
consp · 15 days ago
Most of the AM allowance is grandfathered in if you had an A or B license, some still combine them though. For some countries (like mine), while AM has those maxima, but the only vehicles allowed in the AM category are low power mopeds (sub 45kph). So it's arranged via vehicle allowance, not drivers license requirements. Any ebike with a throttle would fall under that category.
to11mtm · 15 days ago
> "E-bike" is pedal assist only/mostly with max speed of 30kph/20mph (only while pedalling) and throttle cuts out at low speeds (7kph: basically just there to get some inertial); treated as just another bicycle (perhaps limit age to ≥14 yo). Everything else is an "e-moto" with the same rules as mopeds and motorcycles.
I'm going to respond to this pragmatically.
Realistically, the current Class 1/2/3 system more or less works.
Class 1 is pedal only, max 20MPH (but lots of bikes are sold as class 1 with lower limits, I think the one I got for my chosen sister is 10, maybe 15 tops.).
Class 2 is Pedal+Throttle, max 20MPH. Again, sometimes the manufacturers will have a lower cap (Wife's e-bike has a throttle cap between 12-15.)
But 7KPH is too little, at least for the US if you want to get more than low rate adoption of E-bikes as a mode of transportation [0]. At bare minimum you need something where the person can maintain balance and it's faster than a brisk walk.
Class 3 is, well I thought it was Pedal-only 28MPH but I think there's some conflicting data and hand-waving. i.e. some claim that Class 3 is 'throttle up to 20MPH, pedal assist up to 28MPH' but last I was aware a Class 3 shouldn't have a throttle.
But again, the confounding factor [0] means that some compromises may have to be made.
The worst part about all of this, is everything was more or less OK, until these e-motos and overpowered e-bikes went on the market, and parents bought them for kids without any thought of risk/etc or even paying attention to the 'offroad use only' disclaimers. I also put it that way because (sadly) if it was just adults getting splattered it would probably just get treated like any other motorcycle/cycling accident as far as actual action.
[0] - As a confounding factor, I'll give the example that in my state, an electric scooter qualifies as an 'electric skateboard' and thus so long as it has a throttle cap of under 25MPH, sure, go nuts unless there's a restriction via muni (e.x. some munis may ban use on roads with a speed limit over X mph) or DOT (e.x. public highway restrictions.)
throw0101d · 14 days ago
> But 7KPH is too little […]
The 7kph is a throttle-based boost for pedal-assist to help you get going: think of something like a Urban Arrow where overcoming the stopped inertia may be difficult for a petite person:
* https://www.urbanarrow.com/family-bikes/familynext
Once you're moving it's not hard, and the 'regular' pedal assist keeps you moving, but starting from zero is a challenge. That 7kph limit would be sufficient to start, after which the throttle (boost) gets deactivated and you're using the 'traditional' pedal assist that is 30kph/20mph max.
to11mtm · 12 days ago
.... I get what you're saying but I'm saying you need a better minimum for when people are tired [0]
I.e. "I have a mild disability and it would be nice to at least be able to limp home while just having to worry about balance and steering".
Personally? I don't need it, I can pedal fast or pedal long...
But I know people that have achieved much better mobility thanks to the ability to be able to travel a bit easier in my part of the states.
But restating, I'm talking about the bigger picture for adoption. Instead of forcing the pedaling, just wait for people to use it to enhance mobility and when someone inevitably forgets to check the charge level and start putting in some effort they realize... "Hey, that wasn't so bad".
When we think about alternative transportation in the US, we have to remember the starting point:
You are asking these people to give up air conditioning. You can't force them to make actual physical effort right away, they are worried that will make them get even more uncomfortable.
In the states, 10-15MPH throttle limited ebikes/tries/quads[1] would help a lot of people so long as the thing can stop reasonably well around here.
Heck, I'd wager, if someone could come up with a cheap-enough 'e-trike-ish' semi-suitable for grocery getting[2] in the more urban side of american suburbia, they could make a decent amount of sales quick enough given the current concerns around gas prices versus the oversized guzzlers so many people drive 1-2 miles to a grocery store and back with, and the traffic reduction that would result.
But it would Have to have that E-throttle at a decent speed option for the consumers that would make a difference from an environment/traffic standpoint to even dip their toes into.
I want to be clear; I've done proper to heavy commutes on everything between Chicago Schwinns and Tandems, sometimes carrying 30-50$ of 2007 era USD between rack bag and handlebars for grocery trips... I don't need to be won over.
I'm talking about winning over a critical mass. I'm talking about enough people adopting non-car transport that I can feel safe in my suburban shithole[3].
[0] - Again, at least personally, It is impossible for me to keep balanced on any bike I've owned under 5-6MPH... I do have inner ear balance issues however.
[1] - I dream of something along the lines of a Sun Recumbent side-by-side, mid-rear bumper seat with canopy and all... Maybe a little more upright-ish...
[2] - At minimum needs some sort of cooler mount, they can use ice packs etc. If tech gets cheaper you could say 'The delta-V of having a powered cooler is fine because it means we have more weight to balance and make fast stops safer'.
[3] - I am currently trapped between one of the most historically accident prone and one of the most historically deadly accident intersections in the state... Part of the whole 'had to unlock 28MPh assist' thing....
ajuc · 15 days ago
Id we wanted to do sth similar for SUVs and Trucks it would be a special driving licence required, with additional requirements and more expansive insurance.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
Back in the 20th century, before electric bikes, when I was but a wee lad the neighborhood Karens screeched until the local PD dropped one of those mobile "your speed is" trailers onto my street for about a month.
It turns out 12yo me could go 29mph on a mountain bike.
30 is too low IMO. Make it 35 or something. 25 is a joke.
ggreer · 15 days ago
I picked 30mph because that's the current threshold for what is considered a motorcycle in the state of Washington. Until recently, e-bikes were exempt from this because the old law was made back when e-bikes were rare and couldn't go much faster than regular bicycles.
I've gone >50mph on a bicycle, 40mph on level ground. Yes it's possible, but it requires significant effort and you can't accelerate as quickly as an e-bike. That's why I said, "and has a motor". Heck, a fast runner can endanger people on the sidewalk. When I'm running, I often slow down in crowded areas so that if someone does randomly veer into my path, I'll have time to avoid them.
If lots of people (who I assume are very fit) were riding bicycles dangerously, maybe the legislature would make some laws about that. But until it becomes a problem, there's really no need.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
> that's the current threshold
The current threshold is dumb. The whole premise is dumb. Ebikes don't need legislating beyond enforcing existing laws about cycling on sidewalks and the like.
>I've gone >50mph on a bicycle, 40mph on level ground. Yes it's possible, but it requires significant effort and you can't accelerate as quickly as an e-bike.
It's also pretty clear that the geometry of the vehicle was not really optimized for such speeds. I don't think anyone going 30+ (commuting, the spandex crowd who rides for fun is a different story) thinks it's ok to be doing that around pedestrians or anything else sketchy. Most of the problems seem to simply be correlation to accessibility of speed to problem demographics, teenagers and the like. You'll have that problem regardless of form factor. 70yr ago the boomers were drunk crashing muscle cars because those were accessible.
>If lots of people (who I assume are very fit) were riding bicycles dangerously, maybe the legislature would make some laws about that. But until it becomes a problem, there's really no need.
Depends wholly on other unrelated demographic factors IMO. What can these people do for the government vs what problems do you cause it is the primary driver of whether you get stomped or pandered to.
kube-system · 15 days ago
I like going fast as much as the next guy, but lets be real, the safety profile of someone pedaling 30 mph is not the same as someone pressing a button to go 30 mph.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/1tu6v9d/scooter_...
When you're pedaling at 30 mph, you're much more likely to be engaged, paying attention, and under ideal conditions. Folks who cruise at 30 at the press of a button, tend to actually do so consistently. Anyone who rides on a bike path anywhere today can obviously observe the differences in behavior.
bastawhiz · 15 days ago
Counterpoint: why am I able to buy a Ram 2500 and drive it without a CDL? I rented one recently to help a friend move some furniture and it's an unbelievably big vehicle.
The example of the standard you suggest could equally apply to large motor vehicles: you need special training above and beyond the status quo for vehicles that meet a certain standard. To your own point, motor vehicle laws were largely written based on outdated assumptions about the size of trucks and SUVs.
tayo42 · 15 days ago
You can rent and drive a truck bigger then that at uhaul
bastawhiz · 15 days ago
Arguably you shouldn't be able to, at least without being qualified to drive it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean someone made the active choice for it to be legal.
bs7280 · 15 days ago
There are already mechanisms in place to hold SUV and Truck drivers accountable and track them down (via their license plate).
The problem with ebikes is any unlicensed driver can get one, and go 40mph on a sidewalk without any practical way to hold them accountable.
I live near one of the busiest biking + walking trails in the country, and the egregious disrespect and recklessness of ebike's and scooters is insane to me. Even on the parts of the trail that are split into two or three sections (walking, running, and biking sections) I see people going 20-30mph weaving in and out of walkers. What's crazy is it would be safer if they were operating gas motorcycles, because atleast you could hear them coming.
whatisthiseven · 14 days ago
Those mechanisms don't work. Unless the driver was a hit and run or DUI, even fatal crashes almost never result in any charges if the driver claimed they "never saw them", especially so against pedestrians.
Large vehicles are killing people, even with sober drivers and nobody is being held responsible. This is well investigated at this point. Only recently are we finally getting some traction on the awareness front of how bad it is getting.
simplyluke · 15 days ago
As people are correctly pointing out, WA is reclassifying certain e-motos as motorcycles, which is to say they'll require a license and insurance to be used on public roads - two things that are already required for all SUVs and trucks on public roads.
Being local to WA and spending a lot of time on bikes, the easiest thing we could do to improve the situation would be for law enforcement to aggressively enforce existing distracted driving laws. The number of drivers with their face buried in a phone during any kind of slow traffic is terrifying if one looks around.
imglorp · 15 days ago
Maybe not so much "ban" giant vehicles as stop subsidizing, rewarding, and encouraging them.
There's safety and emissions loopholes that brought this on: https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-lo...
We also subsidize fossil fuels to some $900B/yr, not counting foreign wars for oil, climate damage, health impacts etc. Fuel should be MUCH more expensive, around $15/gal. If priced right, the market would weed out these giant vehicles for personal/entertainment use. https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/in-gasolinegate-the-true-...
japhyr · 15 days ago
When vehicles were starting to get noticeably bigger about 20 years ago, I asked some family members why they were buying vehicles they had to climb up into.
"On the highway, I'd rather kill someone than be killed in a wreck."
They would not recognize that while that might work for a while, it wasn't going to lead anywhere good for our society. A generation of people thinking like that has filled our roads with vehicles that protect their occupants while making it more dangerous for everyone else.
oaweoifjwpo · 15 days ago
I agree, but in order to effect change in an arms race, you need a higher power that deletes the arms. Otherwise you just lose the arms race and die.
mschuster91 · 15 days ago
> Meanwhile, everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people, but we do basically nothing.
Too much money is tied up to giant trucks and SUVs being the norm. These vehicles only came into widespread existence due to the infamous "SUV loophole" [1], accelerated by them being much more profitable for manufacturers as there was (and is) far less competition in the truck/SUV space from non-American manufacturers and, with that, less competitive pressure that tends to eat up margins.
[1] https://www.distilled.earth/p/the-loophole-that-made-cars-in...
solid_fuel · 15 days ago
I agree about large vehicles, but does an individual state even have the authority to ban a given kind of car from their roads? I suspect that is more under a federal authority than state-by-state.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
Not ban but states can implement stricter licensing requirements for larger vehicles, and raise registration fees, gasoline taxes, and penalties for their misuse. See how Paris is handling SUV in the city center. It's very effective and other cities are likely to follow.
Aurornis · 15 days ago
> For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders.
This is not true. The law didn't ban anything. It just clarified what's classified as a bike with requirements like "must have pedals" and "you have to pedal it".
There wasn't a ban. Previously there was a gray area where people were taking full on e-motorcycles, which should have been on roads, and trying to ride them in spaces meant for pedal bicycles.
bryanlarsen · 15 days ago
They weren't full on e-motorcycles, they don't meet the legal requirements for motorcycles. As one example among many, some jurisdictions require a motorcycle have turn signals.
So if they can't be operated as an e-bike and they can't be registered as an e-motorcycle, they've been banned.
Aurornis · 15 days ago
> they've been banned.
No, they're not allowed on public roadways or bike/pedestrian paths. Which I think is fair and good, because they're not designed for either space.
There are a lot of different types of vehicles that aren't allowed on the roads of bike paths, but people still use them recreationally on private property. You can find retrofit kits to add the necessary mirrors and turn signals to many dirt bikes if you want to ride on the road.
If someone wants to ride on a bike path, they should have something that meets the definition of a bike. We've stretched the definition to include reasonable e-assist bikes, but we're not stretching it further to include everything with 2 wheels and a motor.
If someone wants to ride on the roads, they need turn signals and a mirror.
We don't have to allow everyone to ride everything on every public shared space.
bryanlarsen · 15 days ago
Sounds like a ban to me.
I agree that some of the more egregious big motor e-bikes should be banned, but whenever you shift the requirements like this you're going to be taking away somebody's only means of getting to work. There are people out there driving big motor e-bikes because they can't afford a car. Or because they can't get a license.
Aurornis · 15 days ago
> There are people out there driving big motor e-bikes because they can't afford a car.
Unfortunate for them, but we can't be shaping the laws for everyone around a couple people who already bought a big-motor e-bike to ride on the bike path.
I'm not really persuaded by this argument either, as they can sell their big-motor e-bike and buy a lesser model, or trade someone straight across.
> Or because they can't get a license.
This just raises more questions. If they can't get a license, they shouldn't be driving on the road. That limits them to bike paths, where they shouldn't be driving high powered vehicles anyway. Again, not really persuaded.
kube-system · 15 days ago
Surrons et. al. are dirt bikes, according to their own marketing material. A dirt bike is another word for an off-road motorcycle.
smusamashah · 15 days ago
I recall that an SUV killed a 7 year old and his parents were charged with manslaughter and jailed, not the driver. https://globalnews.ca/news/11214748/parents-charged-death-so...
As an outsider (from a fairly corrupt country), this reeks of corruption and that law favours rich.
allthetime · 15 days ago
I think at the very least owners of these vehicles should be made to undergo more rigorous licensing education and testing.
simpaticoder · 15 days ago
>everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people
The number of things I believe "everyone knows" has tended to zero over time.
dzonga · 15 days ago
banning big SUVs & Trucks is insurmountable not impossible - since you're trying to have people/organizations act against their own interests.
it's one of those cases of stated preference vs observed preference:
for individuals big SUVs/Trucks feel good to drive, are fast enough & come with street cred. Notice I put the word "feel".
for cities/state governments - big SUVs/Trucks mean increased taxes since they consume more gas - thus increased revenues from gas taxes
for the automakers as the article stated - 90% of their profits come from big SUVs/Trucks that American automakers have stopped making sedans. Profits from big co's is a bragging point for the federal government too.
Now legislation would've to try for all those people to act against their own interests ? Unless some geopolitical event happens - that's unlikely.
stouset · 15 days ago
Yep. And the refrain is always about “dangerous” behavior by cyclists, despite the fact that deaths and injuries to others from those on bikes are essentially a rounding error. The vast majority of what danger there is is borne by the riders themselves and not by bystanders.
Meanwhile, nobody bats an eye over the fact that motor vehicles are a leading cause of death in this country and the brunt is often borne by others.
progmetaldev · 15 days ago
I'm definitely not arguing that SUVs and trucks are killing people, and as someone that drives a Ford F-150, I wouldn't mind having to be licensed for a commercial drivers license (although would like that to be based on skill, rather than charging more for that license).
I am constantly having to dodge these e-bikes in the streets, mostly driven by children/teenagers, who do not follow traffic laws (I'm in upstate NY). They don't even follow standard bicycle traffic laws. Driving in the city, I regularly have e-bikes coming at me against traffic in my lane. I would be absolutely devastated if I hit someone with my truck, and I honestly usually drive lower than the speed limit in these areas. It's even worse in the suburbs, because these people don't have the same survival instincts when riding these e-bikes as those in higher traffic areas. It's constantly on my mind that if I hit one of these children, not only will my conscious be filled with guilt, but I will probably be charged with manslaughter charges.
Upstate NY is starting to create laws and restrictions around e-bikes, but that is not stopping parents from being uninvolved. In the cities, there are rentable e-bikes being used everywhere, and it only requires the ability to pay to use it. I'm all for making transportation easier for those of lower income, or that prefer to use something that doesn't spew emissions like a gas-powered vehicle, but beyond being able to pay for the e-bike there is little being done to regulate or enforce how they are used.
matheusmoreira · 15 days ago
> For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders.
From my perspective it's the other way around. Bikers don't pay taxes, don't follow traffic laws, they generally do whatever they want with total impunity while the law actively protects them. Meanwhile drivers pay taxes, get ticketed for violations and have to bend over backwards in order to avoid killing the bikers.
platinumrad · 15 days ago
Pretty much none of your entire comment is true.
mips_avatar · 15 days ago
Everyone I know who bike commutes also owns a car and pays taxes on it.
matheusmoreira · 15 days ago
And I know plenty who don't own any actual vehicles, don't pay any taxes and yet they get to be a nuisance on the road with total impunity just because they are "smaller" than cars.
Pedestrian enough to use pedestrian crossings without even getting off the bike, weave through people on sidewalks and generally be immune to traffic laws, yet vehicular enough to use the road and slow everybody else down, but not enough to get taxed, require traffic law education, licenses. Everything about bikes is a contradiction.
platinumrad · 15 days ago
You seem upset.
mips_avatar · 15 days ago
As someone who bike commutes my highest risk of dying this year is from biking. I've been hit twice biking in Seattle.
matheusmoreira · 15 days ago
Yeah, because it's an inherently unsafe vehicle which will drop you to the ground and cause major trauma at the slightest provocation. Just like motorcycles.
mips_avatar · 15 days ago
It wasn't a slight provocation that injured me, it was a car hitting me
isthatafact · 13 days ago
> "Bikers don't pay taxes"
That is obviously false -- just ask any biker who is not a little kid or a billionaire.
flakiness · 15 days ago
I hope that law comes to CA soon. The trail walk has become a deadly adventure in the past few years because of these reckless ebikes.
Manuel_D · 15 days ago
The new WA basically did nothing except re-state existing laws. Ebikes cannot be more powerful than 1 horsepower (750 watt) and cannot go faster than 20 mph on throttle or 28ph on throttle + pedal assist.
"Moped-style ebikes" like Surrons were already illegal on public roads.
iugtmkbdfil834 · 15 days ago
Meh, standard attempt at mollifying the biggest opponents by offering them exemptions and exceptions does not move me at all. Boring.
Lets make it better.
After all, after the nanny state representatives succeed with this, they will move onto some other cause to ban another thing they deem unnecessary and an affront to their sensibilities. They will not be content until everyone does exactly as they say ( but not do ). And that is fine for them. Where I stand, I will keep on trucking and my child, god willing, will own a veritable tank that will crush anti truck infidels under its mighty heels. The gods of molten metal have spoken. Your sacrifice is deemed acceptable -- bike enjoyer.
chazzalpha · 14 days ago
I would 100% be in favor of banning these oversized vehicles. European countries are doing the same precisely because these trucks and SUVs are ridiculously effective at mowing down pedestrians. They are a public health issue like cigarettes, drunk driving, and guns. And most of these large trucks on the road are driven by insecure suburban men who work office jobs and haul maybe a couch once a year. The US needs to have a reckoning on its deadly addiction to automobiles.
hackingonempty · 15 days ago
In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1]
It is a massive problem that receives a disproportionate amount of attention.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
0xbadcafebee · 15 days ago
We never invest effort in things that provide the most value; we invest in what we're the most emotional about. The number of people killed in 9/11 and every plane hijacking is dwarfed by any single year of deaths due to either vehicle accidents or gun shootings. But we do nothing about either of those things, and instead spend $180B on TSA, to save zero lives. We then roll back things like vaccine mandates, to kill more people (mostly kids).
coffeemug · 15 days ago
That’s a very uncharitable way to interpret public opinion. A more charitable way is that people have different ethical intuitions. Some of us lean more utilitarian than others, and almost no one is a pure utilitarian. It isn’t merely a matter of being more emotional; people very reasonably have different views on this stuff.
N_Lens · 14 days ago
I think it’s rational to lean more utilitarian if you’re administering a city, state or country.
EA-3167 · 15 days 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-fatalit...
UtopiaPunk · 15 days 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 · 15 days 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 · 15 days 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 · 15 days 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 · 15 days 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 · 15 days 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.
lobf · 15 days ago
>A lot of locals just drove old Subarus.
AKA a large SUV or truck is not necessary.
jandrewrogers · 14 days ago
For normal people AWD and high ground clearance will work. Good range also strongly recommended but these vehicles usually have that by default.
A large 4WD will handle conditions a Subaru will not but a Subaru is fine for getting around the area if you typically stay off most ranch/mining roads. It is illegal to maintain the ranch/mining roads for historical reasons, so they get a bit spicy.
EA-3167 · 15 days 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 · 15 days 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 · 15 days 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 · 15 days ago
Removing the 'light truck' hole in CAFE standards would be a good start.
drtz · 15 days 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#:~:tex...
lobf · 15 days 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 · 14 days 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.
throwaway219450 · 15 days ago
The standard of driving in most places I've lived in the US is very low for a developed country. People blow through pedestrian crossings, get-there-itis, crawling through stops, don't use their turn signals, make illegal U-Turns, ignore overtaking conventions. Compare to most countries in Europe where a driving test is a rigorous 45 minutes and you can fail for all sorts of minor stuff. I live in a place with decent pedestrian infrastructure fortunately. I'm more worried about being involved in a random fatal crash when I'm driving than on foot.
Making right-on-red illegal wouldn't be bad either. The number of times I've almost been run over when a car is stopped in the middle/straight lane and blocks line of sight to a right-turning car that doesn't look.
DUIs are at least treated seriously. It's one of the few offenses that will get a visa instantly revoked. Same in Canada I think.
mcntsh · 15 days ago
45 minutes? In Germany getting your license takes most people around a year and costs thousands of euros.
eltrain · 15 days ago
I assume he meant the actual final practical test.
mcntsh · 15 days ago
my point is, in germany it takes longer than a test to get your license, unlike the US.
carefulfungi · 15 days ago
Is it common in other states that you only need a test for a license. Where I live (in the US) if you are a new driver (under 18) you need 30 hours of classroom instruction, 18 hours of trainer-driving time, a 6 month learner permit period with many restrictions and then a finally test, iirc.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
And if you're over 18? In my state it's 1) an easy written test, 2) a few minutes driving around a parking lot, and 3) here's your license kid, have at it.
daemonologist · 14 days ago
Only Florida, Maryland, and New York require adults who are new drivers to take any kind of class/instruction. (Most states require it under 18, with a few under 21 or 25.) Everywhere else you can just walk in and take the test.
The perhaps greater problem though is that those tests are completely trivial.
throwaway219450 · 14 days ago
Florida is a declaration of experience for minors and nothing(?) for adults except a (computer) knowledge exam. If you turn 18, you can go and sit the knowledge exam and do a lap round the DMV.
For kids, it's 50 hours of road experience, and 10 at night, but a parent can sign that off. Maryland looks the same? You've got to do a knowledge test to get a learner's permit, 6 hours behind the wheel + 30 class, and then you get a provisional which can be upgraded to full. NY is also a 50/15 hour parent declaration and maybe(?) a supervised course for a few hours.
https://www.stateofflorida.com/drivers-license-steps/ https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/complete-pre-licensing-req...
vitro · 15 days ago
In Czech Republic as well. You need to have driven certain amount of hours, have attented theory lessons, then test, followed by a test drive with a policeman.
NoImmatureAdHom · 15 days ago
Mass shootings kill almost no one. They're a red herring. Even with a really stupid, inclusive "3 or more people injured" criterion. If you use that criterion for defining what a mass shooting is, the modal number of people killed is...one.
tzs · 15 days ago
Wait...is the massive problem that it should be more than an order of magnitude more people killed than those killed in mass shootings, or is it that it should be less than an order of magnitude more?
They are such completely different categories of ways to die I'm having trouble understand how to compare them in any sensible way.
uberex · 15 days ago
That I guess is the problem they are highlighting. It is more complicated still when comparing to ill health, war, poverty, terrorism. But OTOH we should strive to make transport safer like we do with commercial flight.
decimalenough · 15 days ago
Neither. The OP's point is that shootings consistently make headlines and occasion a lot of passionate debate, while grandma or toddler getting mowed over by a SUV or monster truck doesn't and as a consequence nobody really cares.
ryandrake · 15 days ago
Hence the saying: If you want to kill someone and get the lightest possible punishment, kill them with your car!
hackingonempty · 15 days ago
Best time to get them is when they are riding a bicycle.
analog31 · 15 days ago
But to be fair, mass shootings get no policy changes.
scottyah · 15 days ago
What state are you in? Mine banned anything that "looks scary", limited the number of rounds (and made anyone who didn't read the memo and discard the standard one s a felon), prevented any ear-protection from being mounted to the gun, and found a few new ways to make buying ammo more expensive and difficult. It's hard and expensive to buy a gun just to keep the 2A alive even if you never fire it, and you're put on who knows how many government watchlists.
hackingonempty · 13 days ago
Schools and Corporations now have "active shooter drills."
Instead of trying to make our streets safer, the USA has responded by not allowing kids to walk or bike to school and have insane lines of cars and elaborate drop-off/pick-up procedures. Paradoxically, all of the additional vehicles on the road makes our streets more dangerous.
IshKebab · 15 days ago
8000 pedestrians killed by cars and 762 in mass shootings. Obviously in raw numbers 8000 is bigger than 762, but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is! 762 is an absolutely astoundingly crazy number and it definitely deserves the most attention.
avianlyric · 15 days ago
> but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is
You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones.
The US is the only developed country that has seen a steady increase in the number of pedestrian deaths per 1000km driven over the past 10-15 years. And 10-15 years ago it was one of the worst performing developed countries for pedestrian deaths. Every other developed country has seen decreases in pedestrian deaths over the same time period, which means the US is an extreme outlier when it comes to pedestrian safety, or lack there of.
IshKebab · 15 days ago
> You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones.
I mean, yes? Society has decided that cars are worth the convenience because of all their advantages. Now is America too obsessed with cars, and totally ignorant of pedestrian safety? Yes of course. But other countries aren't so bad on that front and they still accept some deaths. It's easy to see the utility of cars.
Less so for guns.
> it was one of the worst performing developed countries for pedestrian deaths
How's it performing on the mass shooting front?
llbeansandrice · 14 days ago
Actually many cities aren’t accepting traffic deaths at all and are adopting Vision Zero. I believe it’s Norway that adopted it for the entire country and was able to go over a year with exactly zero traffic related deaths.
This problem is solvable and people in this thread saying that it’s not are absurd.
IshKebab · 14 days ago
It was just Oslo actually, but I do agree with you. I wasn't saying 8000 is good, just that it's less insane than 762.
hackingonempty · 13 days ago
All of the time and money put into trying to reduce mass shooting deaths would save more people if it went into trying to reduce vehicular pedestrian deaths. No enumerated rights are involved in driving, making it vastly easier to implement legal solutions.
allarm · 14 days ago
This comparison seems bizarre to me, but what do I know about the US?
like_any_other · 14 days ago
Not that I object to the findings, but the Center for Disease Control getting involved in traffic safety is massive scope creep. Especially since we already have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.
srustagi · 14 days ago
more europeans are killed from not having AC/heat-related deaths than both of those.
I don't think any of these are apples to apples comparisons tbh your point still stands without the extreme analogy.
carlosjobim · 15 days ago
Took less than 5 seconds of reading the article to find out the title is a total lie:
“That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”
Edit: The title of the OP has been changed after I made this reply.
tantalor · 15 days ago
Okay. What's the correlation coefficient?
srdjanr · 15 days ago
So this is only one of the reasons, and a relatively small one:
“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”
giantg2 · 15 days ago
Sadly, most will ignore your common sense just as they are ignoring the data.
sandeepkd · 15 days ago
Came here to highlight the same. The fact that only 10% are being attributed to bigger cars, but the exact reason isnt being discussed. More than likely its the addiction to technology, the smart phones, and somehow its not part of discussion in the article.
Fricken · 15 days ago
If ignored, it would imply that the sense you're referring to is not a common one.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
Yes, the old joke about common sense not being common anymore. But of course it was always meant as a figure of speech to indicate plainly logical items.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
Common perhaps, just not in this particular filter bubble.
advisedwang · 15 days ago
Sometimes safety comes from lots of little adjustments. So perhaps we should see 10% as large, not small.
b112 · 15 days ago
It could be why.
It could also be from people staring at their cell phone and walking down the road. I see it all the time. I've seen people walk right into intersections against the light.
Maybe, it's even both, because while I can believe large cars aren't helping... I surely know staring on your phone, walking, and not paying attention is just plain dumb.
ack210 · 15 days ago
The NYC DOT did a study on this a few years back and found it not to be the case:
> Reports of device distraction are scarce in the New York City and national fatality data, and estimates of annual mobile device-related injuries are dwarfed nationally by pedestrian injury estimates where pedestrian distraction was not cited. In short, despite growing concerns, DOT found little concrete evidence that device-induced distracted walking contributes significantly to pedestrian fatalities and injuries. https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/distraction-shoul...
bluecalm · 15 days ago
You know what's way worse: drivers using their phones when driving. If you drive in a way that you kill a careless pedestrian it's a problem. It's cars and drivers almost exclusively.
izend · 15 days ago
Vehicles accelerate a LOT faster on average than years ago, EVs and Turbo Engines...
everdrive · 15 days ago
People spend a lot of time on Trucks, but I don't see why SUVs get a pass. Every single car is an SUV now. They're higher up, heavier, and have a higher beltline all so that drivers can "feel safer."
joe_the_user · 15 days ago
It's an arms race. My older SUV (Lexus 3XX) is worrisome in it's size and blindspots but it's still dwarfed by current trucks. Moreover, once most SUVs were basically built over a pickup chassis but it seems like pickups have gotten so large that it's unusual to see an equivalent SUV.
Marsymars · 15 days ago
The equivalent SUVs still exist, e.g. Toyota Tundra -> Sequoia, Ford F-150 -> Expedition, Nissan Titan -> Armada, etc.
Zigurd · 15 days ago
Anything with a hood that's so high primarily because it's gender affirming care is paid for with the deaths and injuries of innocents. Regulate the shape of the front end of any vehicle, as I'm sure any honest regulator would.
everdrive · 15 days ago
It's quite sad, the old 1997 F-150 (the first year of the quite-ugly-but-practical "bubble" aesthetic) specifically advertised its low front hood as an intentional measure to improve visibility. And that thing had better visibility than nearly any modern car. It was incredibly despite still being a relatively large truck.
rpcope1 · 15 days ago
It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks. I understand they were at least marginally less safe in a crash, but I think changes could have been made to get them safer and more efficient without compromising the ease of repair and generally more pleasant driving experience. It's amazing how much more divorced from the road and the outside world a new truck is compared to even the late 00's pre financial crash trucks, especially as any additional utility they provide is unchanged at best, and frankly so far as I can tell grossly net negative (i.e. how many 8 foot beds have you see recently? How many flatbeds have you seen that weren't on obvious fleet trucks? The Suburban is also frankly grossly less utilitarian now).
Marsymars · 15 days ago
> It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks.
The Ford Maverick exists!
NegativeLatency · 15 days ago
It's about the same size as an old f150 though
Marsymars · 15 days ago
Sure, if you go back far enough, but this was in response to the older Ford Ranger being no longer available - the Maverick is fairly comparable in size to a 90's Ranger.
CoffeeOnWrite · 15 days ago
It's quad cab only though, unlike the S10 or O.G. Ranger.
Marsymars · 15 days ago
Yeah, that's true, regular cab not available in anything other than a full size in North America now.
Though the Tacoma does come in extended cab.
And the Maverick has a clever bed that fits 4x8 sheets with the tailgate halfway.
themaninthedark · 15 days ago
You can thank the CAFE standards for setting emission limits of small vehicles below what was technically possible, driving manufacturers to the larger sizes.
CalRobert · 15 days ago
Well maybe we'll get small cars again because the fine for violating CAFE is now... $0.
https://environmentalhealthsafetybrief.sidley.com/2025/07/08...
themaninthedark · 14 days ago
I would like that. I drive a smaller size hatchback, I dislike that I am surrounded by larger vehicles but also don't want to give in to the trend.
But to move back, the best thing would be to loosen regulation on the smaller class and tighten + enforce for the larger class. Too much time has passed with everyone getting in the larger vehicle arms race for it just to flip back. The manufacturing would also have to gear back up and as we are discovering with the attempt to re-shore, it take time and isn't easy.
Also an additional thought for some of the comments that are talking about the selfishness of those who drive larger vehicles. On one hand it is personally selfish and makes it less safe for pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles. On the other hand, those people have families and friends. My wife wants me to get a larger car because she is worried I will be killed if there is a traffic accident. I have a duty to help provide for my family and I certainly don't want to die, so doing so would not be an irrational choice.
Similarly to the choice of driving a pickup truck, often it is not needed most of the time. I have a family member who doesn't own a car, which is great! They always talk about the options available (Uber, Rental, etc) but anytime they have to travel to the airport for a business trip, they borrow a car from us or another family member to get there and use the airport parking. Which is fine because collectively we have it available but it can also be a slight inconvenience as well but it is less then them having to deal with Uber/Rental/Public Transit.
bijowo1676 · 15 days ago
this is part of the subsidy to American car companies.
American Big Three cannot compete with Asian/European cars, so they gave up and erected a regulatory barriers to protect their market:
1. chicken tax 2. Section 179 Deduction - allows writeoff of Vehicles Over 6000 lbs for people non-W2 people (self-employed and small business owners) 3. CAFE footpring and "light truck" loophole and CAFE exemtpions for US trucks
everything designed to protect Big Three's highest margin products at cost of human lives
Tangurena2 · 15 days ago
The fuel economy figure that a vehicle needs to achieve used to be a set figure. Lobbyists got that changed so that now vehicle fuel economy is a function based on the width and length of the vehicle. And that's why the roads are full of fatmobiles.
ayhanfuat · 15 days ago
It is worth reading the interactive Times article. Amazing piece of work https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/21/us/trucks-suv...
jabroni_salad · 15 days ago
Glad they spent half the article on the a-pillar issue. As a recent recipient of a bit of back pain I'd be real happy if my next car didn't require me to try and peer around those things at every intersection.
jakub_g · 15 days ago
The animations and comparisons of current vehicles with two-three decades ago are extremely informative indeed.
bluescrn · 15 days ago
What also happened around 2009?... Smartphones taking off in a big way.
Distracted pedestrians must be a significant factor too. Especially if they've got noise-cancelling Airpods or similar in their ears while looking at their phone.
knuppar · 15 days ago
if that was true, we'd see the same pedestrian mortality rise everywhere, which we don't.
trollbridge · 15 days ago
Other countries enforced not using phones when driving.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
GP is blaming the victims (pedestrians), not the distracted drivers.
NopIdoN · 15 days ago
Yeah fuck those inattentive pedestrians not leaping out of my way
abathologist · 15 days ago
The inevitable march of progress.
jmward01 · 15 days ago
I have long held that larger vehicles should have higher licensing requirements purely based on stats. We see it in the stats that large vehicles are disproportionately dangerous to other vehicles and people so licensing should catch up. We have motorcycle licenses, why don't we have SUV licenses? Similarly, the penalties and limits should be higher. BAC should be lower. Fines higher. Etc etc. You want to drive a big vehicle, fine, pay for it and do what is needed to protect other people from your choices. I shouldn't have to pay for your decisions. This is a fundamental principle that big vehicle drivers conveniently ignore when they believe 'their freedom' trumps my right to life.
dnemmers · 15 days ago
Larger vehicles do have different licensing standards:
"Driving a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) requires a higher level of knowledge, experience, skills, and physical abilities than that required to drive a non-commercial vehicle. In order to obtain a Commercial Driver's License (CDL), an applicant must pass both skills and knowledge testing geared to these higher standards. Additionally CDL holders are held to a higher standard when operating any type of motor vehicle on public roads. Serious traffic violations committed by a CDL holder can affect their ability to maintain their CDL certification."
- I wonder how things compare for a pedestrian embracing a large SUV vs. a Semi.
retired · 15 days ago
In most of Europe you can drive a 4250kg EV with a simple drivers license you got after taking six lessons in 1972. Madness.
Anything over 2000kg should require a truck license including retesting every five years imho.
baq · 15 days ago
A reasonable range small EV weighs more than that. 3500kg is reasonable. Regenerative braking and brakes in general are much better than when those weight limits were imposed.
retired · 15 days ago
A Tesla Model 3 is under 2000kg. Anything above that is either an SUV or a poorly designed car. 2000kg+ is a lot of weight if it plows into a group of people or the back of a car. There should absolutely be an incentive for manufacturers to produce lighter cars.
The EU is working on the M1e car class that has a weight cap of 1500kg. It would be great if cities would only allow cars under M1e to enter.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
Licensing is mostly based vehicle operating characteristics. We already have large vehicle licenses like class B and A for heavy vehicles. Motorcycles have a separate license due to different operating concerns.
If you're actually following the stats you will see that vehicle size only accounted for 10% of the increase. You would want to focus on the other 90% to make the biggest difference. And using that logic, you should increase the education and testing requirements for all drivers because that will provide gains over the whole driving population instead of a single segment.
Penalties should remain the same for whatever the outcome is - doesn't matter if a bicyclist kills me or a semi truck.
Lower BAC limits are opposed even by groups like MADD. The data shows the current level is good and lowering it further will result in more people ignoring it.
Nobody is asking you to pay for others' decisions (unless we want to go down the rabbit hole of insurance, for which sports cars and high priced electrics are costing all drivers more). Nor is a large vehicle an infringement on anyone's right to life (someone's recklessness could be).
jmward01 · 15 days ago
- Nobody is asking you to pay for others' decisions (unless we want to go down the rabbit hole of insurance, for which sports cars and high priced electrics are costing all drivers more). Nor is a large vehicle an infringement on anyone's right to life (someone's recklessness could be).
Large vehicles increase the risk of death for other people. The article was about pedestrians but the stats are clear about collisions with these vehicles, same size = same death rate. Small vs large = major increased risk. The argument that ownership of these vehicles doesn't infringe on my right to life or have costs to the public as a whole is ridiculous when the stats show clearly the impact. I'll even branch out to true monetary and other costs, if we extend further these vehicles have secondary impacts due to the resources they consume. Parking lots and roads are bigger making cities worse. Pollution in cities is worse impacting my health and my enjoyment of the city I live in. And, yes, they kill more people. The decision to own a big vehicle like this and drive it around everywhere has direct and major negative impacts on me at multiple levels. So, yes, I am tired of paying for other peoples decisions and just accepting it.
I will agree that in general professionalism on the road should be higher. In general we need to take driving more seriously. It kills tens of thousands each year and has a tragic impact on younger driver stats. These large vehicles though clearly represent a significant fraction and just because there are other areas that could help it doesn't mean we should ignore this one.
When you look around at people in the US there is a strong chance that most of them know personally someone that has died in a car accident or has a friend that knew someone that died. Almost universally everyone knows multiple others that have been in significant accidents or themselves been in major accidents. Just last week my cousin was struck when crossing a street (luckily just a bit banged up but mostly fine). If we can reduce deaths on the road or pedestrian deaths significantly by licensing, even if it just did it by minimizing the number of these vehicles since the bar was higher, I'd take the win.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
"The argument that ownership of these vehicles doesn't infringe on my right to life or have costs to the public as a whole is ridiculous when the stats show clearly the impact."
Really, can you show me ownership of these kills people? You aren't looking at this from a systems thinking perspective but just comparing numbers on the surface. Owning a vehicle isnt killing anyone. It's a tool. If used responsibly, the negative affects are minimized. What you are actually comparing is the irresponsible use of a car vs the irresponsible use of a truck. I would rather address the irresponsible use than the marginal difference in fatalities caused by the two. Can you show the stats you talk about, or are we still on the 7.5% from the article?
"Parking lots and roads are bigger making cities worse."
Source? Lane size and parking space width is pretty standard.
"Pollution in cities is worse impacting my health and my enjoyment of the city I live in."
Source? Gas mileage is lower, but emissions standards are pretty strict for most pollutants. The bigger issue would be large diesel trucks.
"The decision to own a big vehicle like this and drive it around everywhere has direct and major negative impacts on me at multiple levels."
I have yet to hear you provide a direct negative impact to yourself - they're all theoretical or n-order indirect.
Education and testing would be the best approach as it would cover multiple issues and the entire population.
timw4mail · 15 days ago
More mass = more momentum = harder crash. That's physics.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
And this applies to EVs, not just trucks. It will be the reality across all new vehicle types.
jmward01 · 15 days ago
- It's a tool. If used responsibly, the negative affects are minimized.
This argument gets me all the time. By this argument we should get rid of all regulations on vehicles and requirements for licensing. I too would rather people suddenly woke up and were responsible. Using the 'its just a tool' argument ignores the reality of the impact of that tool and denies their right to life.
-"Pollution in cities is worse impacting my health and my enjoyment of the city I live in."
Here is a forbes article saying everything I said with links. Traffic is worse and deaths are higher because of these things. [1] and here are some facts about road deaths involving suvs and light trucks. The key point [2]:
'Conclusion In the case of a crash, SUVs and LTVs cause more severe injuries to pedestrians and cyclists than passenger cars. This effect is larger for fatalities than for KSIs, and the fatality effect is particularly large for children.' [2]
- I have yet to hear you provide a direct negative impact to yourself - they're all theoretical or n-order indirect.
So, yes. They are directly impacting me daily by impacting my city in major negative ways and also increasing my risk of death. I am paying for the decisions of others and it isn't right. The stats show it.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2025/05/07/suvs-... [2] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/early/20...
giantg2 · 15 days ago
"I too would rather people suddenly woke up and were responsible"
Then raise the standards for licensing. The difference between the lethality of an idiot with a civic and an idiot with an F150 isn't significantly different in practice.
dahart · 15 days ago
> can you show me ownership of these kills people? You aren’t looking at this from a systems thinking perspective
It seems like you’re the one ignoring the system and demonstrated end-to-end results. Ownership of larger vehicles is posing a greater risk to the people outside those vehicles. It can’t be waved away with an imaginary responsibility argument; the drivers of larger vehicles would need to act more responsibly than drivers of smaller vehicles in order to compensate.
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2294
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2277
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2293
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...
lonelyasacloud · 15 days ago
> If you're actually following the stats you will see that vehicle size only accounted for 10% of the increase.
It's a paper that will make money automobile advertising.
Implicitly if there were any other single larger cause for the deaths then the article would be about that.
The sensible thing to do would be to carry on investigating the 90%, but in the meantime get on with saving the 200 to 400 people by removing largest factor - the _unnecessarily_ large vehicles - that are _known_ to be killing them.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
"Implicitly if there were any other single larger cause for the deaths then the article would be about that."
Then show me explicitly what the breakdown is.
"the _unnecessarily_ large vehicles"
Define unnecessarily. Do I get to buy one because I'm tall, have a big family, haul stuff?
lonelyasacloud · 14 days ago
> Define unnecessarily. Do I get to buy one because I'm tall, have a big family, haul stuff?
Give or take inches around the waist we are the same size and shape. We have roughly the same mental faculties. Afaik we are no lesser than our parents and grandparents who all managed to do just fine without huge vehicles.
If a situation was fine before and changing something either does nothing or makes that situation worse e.g. kills 200 to 400 people, then that change is?
giantg2 · 14 days ago
"If a situation was fine before and changing something either does nothing or makes that situation worse"
But it's not. You forgot the size and weight of vehicles from previous generations. You forgot the higher fatalities of the past. You're ignoring that people today are taller. You're also ignoring that pedestrian fatalities have gone down over time when looking at the parents and grandparents timeframe to today, despite the more recent uptick.
lonelyasacloud · 12 days ago
Just what from that list requires something that kills and maims other people because of its size to deliver it? Are their deaths worth it?
Tangurena2 · 15 days ago
New CDL licensees have to take a rather expensive training course before they can get their class A/B CDL (things with a GVWR of >= 26,000# or school bus). There are some online theory only sites that charge up to $300, but in many (maybe all?) states (mine for sure) you still have to take an accredited behind-the-wheel (plus theory) class that runs $4k-5k. Everyone getting their CDL after Feb 2022 has to take this course.
https://tpr.fmcsa.dot.gov/content/Resources/ELDT-Applicabili...
> BAC should be lower. Fines higher.
This is already the case.
For sure big trucks don't pay the costs of the damage that they do to road surfaces. Road damage is proportional to the cube of speed and 4th power of axle weight. So an 80,000# semi does 4096 the damage of an 4,000# SUV, both driving the same speed.
Math:
80,000 / 5 = 16,000# per axle 4,000 /2 = 2,000# per axle
(16/2)^4 = 4,096.
Disclaimer: I used to work for my state's version of DMV & Highway Department.
rpcope1 · 15 days ago
You could start by pushing for RVs (both bus and gooseneck) to have to conform to the same standards as a commercial driver would. That seems like one of the most immediate and obvious places where it seems crazy (IMO) that we allow people to get behind of the wheel of stuff they have no business driving.
WorldMaker · 14 days ago
We could in theory replace gas taxes with per-axle weight taxes (again; most US interstates were originally built on per-axle weight taxes prior to the switch to gas taxes for maintenance funding). Per-axle weight is a much more direct number to road wear and tear than gas taxes have ever been (especially because it's exponential, road wear and tear is related to per axle weight to the fourth power).
ixtli · 15 days ago
Ban private vehicles tbh
ApolloFortyNine · 15 days ago
>“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”
Am I crazy? The article itself points out that only 10% of the increase would have been 'saved' if cars had remained the same size. This goes directly against the title no?
There's certainly more than one reason, my gut would point to more smart phone use both by drivers and even by pedestrians themselves.
I wonder if one day using a smart phone while driving will have the same stigma as a DUI (and similar punishment). I struggle to argue it shouldn't, its sometimes a little crazy to think about that if the person in the other lane gets distracted on their phone, I might be involved in a head on collision at 60+mph.
joeyhage · 15 days ago
> “While vehicle safety is critical, blaming larger vehicles for pedestrian deaths overlooks systemic issues” including the design of roads, said Mike Levine, a spokesman for Ford.
This is from the NYT article
jmaw · 15 days ago
I do think the article title is a bit misleading.
"75% More Pedestrians Have Been Killed Since 2009. Giant Trucks and SUVs Are *One Reason*" would be a more accurate title based on my reading.
petcat · 15 days ago
And it doesn't quantify how many other lives have been saved specifically because the accidents involved bigger, sturdier, safer cars/trucks/SUVs. That has to be a significant statistic.
timw4mail · 15 days ago
For the bigger vehicle, perhaps, but a smaller vehicle, even if up to modern standards, is less safe due to the larger one.
b0rtb0rt · 14 days ago
unfortunately it’s an arms race at this point and the only correct choice is to get a bigger vehicle to protect yourself
gf000 · 15 days ago
E=1/2mv^2
The energy of a crash at the same speed is linearly scaled with mass though. Especially when you have two such monsters collide, it's significant.
Marsymars · 15 days ago
I expect energy dissipation scales in a similar way... e.g. I'd expect a head-on crash of two light cars to be roughly comparable in severity to occupants to a head-on crash of two heavy cars. Is my intuition off here?
LearnYouALisp · 15 days ago
For the same speed, the total energy would be Car-v^2 vs SUV-to-Car-v^2
But the smaller cars are probably more carefully designed for "crunch" zones, preserving their occupants by maximizing the effect of available material. The nominal energy involved vs Cars would simply scale as Mass of SUV in Cars.
Marsymars · 14 days ago
Right, I'm aware of the energy the calculations give, but I don't see a good reason to assume that smaller cars have more efficiently designed crumple zones. I'd expect crumple zones on larger cars to scale in energy dissipation roughly linearly with mass. (Assuming similarly structured cars - e.g. I'd expect cars with safety cages and body on frame vehicles to perform differently from unibody vehicles.)
carlosjobim · 15 days ago
This is how modern online influencing works.
10 000 people will see the headline here on HN or somewhere else and form their opinion based on it only.
1000 people will open the article
Out of those, 200 people will understand that the title is completely false relevant to the data.
Out of those 200 people, 150 people will still deny that the title is a lie, down vote, or try to sidetrack, because even a lie has to be supported if it supports their own political agenda.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
Whatever society figures out how to solve this behavior will mop the floor with us.
NamTaf · 15 days ago
> I wonder if one day using a smart phone while driving will have the same stigma as a DUI (and similar punishment).
Thankfully, it is beginning to, in some places outside the US.
> You can be fined $1,251 and have 4 demerit points recorded against your traffic history for using a mobile phone illegally while driving. [1]
> 0.05 and over, but under 0.10
Disqualification: 1 to 9 months
Fine: $2,336 [2]
[1]: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/mobile-p...
[2]: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/drink-dr...
throwworhtthrow · 15 days ago
The quote you've selected is an unfortunate example of the NYT poorly summarizing the findings of their own study (not your fault, they're the ones who wrote it). You can find a more precise explanation at the end of the article in the Methodology section.
"200 to 400" is from their model of decreasing hood height for existing collisions. But from the article:
> There are two reasons bigger vehicles are deadlier: They have taller hoods. And they tend to have larger blind zones.
It doesn't appear that NYT included in their model the larger blind zones and how that causes more collisions. So they shouldn't have said their 200-400 estimate covers the increase in vehicle "size" when it only models one dimension of size growth.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
The headline is wildly incorrect. Large vehicles are only responsible for about a 7.5% increase. Odd they aren't talking about the bigger issues at play and chose to mislead us.
“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”
"According to the report, pedestrian deaths have not only increased by 75% since 2009, but the fatalities have been correlated with the hazards presented by the physical heft, height, and blind spots inherent to today’s big trucks and SUVs."
Rover222 · 15 days ago
NYT editors are so subtly deceptive. It's disappointing.
tumdum_ · 15 days ago
I think that in Europe the trend is in the other direction: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_... - e.g. -15% since 2019.
thrownaway561 · 15 days ago
"Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century"
They're making loud noise about nothing. 200-400 people in a country of 200+ million is nothing.
Yes... big trucks and SUVs might have something to do with it. Could also be that people are not paying attention more because of their phones. Could also be that the people in these vehicles suck at driving them.
The data doesn't account for particular instances, it's just a guess at what is the cause.
ChrisArchitect · 15 days ago
non-paywall link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/21/us/trucks-suv...
rayiner · 15 days ago
Data shows that introduction of iPhones in 2007 is a better explanation for the increase in pedestrian deaths than heavier trucks and SUVs: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ubbfrv/oc... (All the credit for this analysis goes to the reddit user, I’m just summarizing.)
Trucks and SUVs have been getting heavier consistently since 1980 while pedestrian deaths consistently decreased from 1980 to 2009. Truck sizes went up much more from 1980 to 2009 than from 2009 to present. But pedestrian deaths dropped almost in half from 1980 to 2009.
The NYT study on which this article is based acknowledges that pedestrian deaths dropped in half from 1980 to 2009, but then does nothing with this information.
pm90 · 15 days ago
If the issue is distracted drivers, I don’t see how heavier trucks is still not the issue. With lighter vehicles you would likely have a higher chance of surviving.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
They can both be factors, just one is much more influential than the other. Alcohol is involved in about half of all pedestrian deaths. So it seems that's the issue, but people would rather talk about vehicle size.
nkrisc · 15 days ago
Drunk driving is already criminalized, generally socially unacceptable, and has received lots of attention over the decades.
Vehicle size is a relevant factor in vehicle-pedestrian collisions regardless of the cause of the collision.
giantg2 · 15 days ago
Alcohol is also a factor on the pedestrian side, not just the driver side. This has not been addressed. It is still a relevant factor on both sides. Yes, vehicle size/design is another factor.
triceratops · 15 days ago
> Alcohol is also a factor on the pedestrian side... This has not been addressed.
What is there to address? Unless you enforce that people only drink in private homes there will always be pedestrians who've had a few. Walking is probably the safest mode of transportation when you're impaired.
giantg2 · 14 days ago
Actually, many places have a drunk in public law because walking is not the safest thing when impaired. Taking a taxi or Uber is safer.
nkrisc · 14 days ago
> Alcohol is also a factor on the pedestrian side
Absolutely true, but what are you proposing? I’d propose banning most vehicles from city centers where people congregate.
Vehicle size and weight will always be a relevant factor as long as people and vehicles exist in the same spaces.
giantg2 · 14 days ago
You could propose serving limits, which would help limit drunk driving, reduce drunk pedestrian deaths, and potentially reduce alcohol related health issues. Or enforce drunk in public laws.
Just as vehicle size and weight will always be a factor, so too will alcohol, drugs, phones, etc.
rayiner · 15 days ago
Yes, but on the whole we got much heavier trucks from 1980 to 2009 while pedestrian deaths went down.
There’s also the issue that heavier vehicles are inevitable due to EVs. Our bz4x won’t get tagged as a “big evil truck,” but it’s about the same weight as a base model Ford F150. And heavier than a Toyota Tacoma double cab.
boelboel · 15 days ago
The article acknowledges that rise in vehicle height is only part of it and might explain 10% of the rise. I'm not sure how exactly they measured things but there's no reason things could've gone down while car height simultaneously slowed down the decline.
tzs · 15 days ago
Pedestrians will be a lot safer getting hit by you than by an F-150 because of this: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-bz4x-2022-su...
xp84 · 15 days ago
Minor quibble: I don't know if 'heavier' is as important as 'taller,' though. I have seen someone hit by an actual sedan, be thrown onto the hood, fall on the ground after the car stops, and survive. Being hit is not the same as being run over, which is much harder to have happen with a car-shaped car.
dualvariable · 15 days ago
Weight of SUVs/Trucks isn't really the right metric to use though.
The proportion of them which have a grill height which impairs visibility of the average height pedestrian would be a "better" metric, except it isn't as easy to cleanly define that.
With me driving in my 2000s Ranger, I can at least see adults walking in front of it just fine, even though it is bigger than a 1980 Toyota pickup.
cogman10 · 15 days ago
It's any easy to measure metric, the article even shows it.
What we need is a "distance from the front of the car a 4' person is visible." metric. Car manufactures should be penalized for poor visibility.
dualvariable · 15 days ago
It is doable, but it is harder for the average redditor to compute something reasonable than just looking at GVW.
You should really take into account driver height, pedestrian height and hood slope and length and height.
not_the_fda · 15 days ago
It doesn't help the truck size is usually inversely proportional to driver height.
simplyluke · 15 days ago
The times article hand-waves away distracted driving by saying that other countries haven't seen a similarly large increase. The problem with that is that vehicle sizes in all other countries have also been increasing, and other countries like Canada and Australia have seen almost identical market shares of those large vehicles without the surge in pedestrian fatalities.
The large factors are phone use (more prevalent among american drivers and there's data to show this), and homelessness - the homeless are dramatically overrepresented in US pedestrian deaths and the population has increased dramatically in the US over the past decade. Even more so though it appears to be attitudes, Americans are twice as likely as Europeans or Canadians to say using a phone while driving is acceptable. Though no single factor is a smoking gun, vehicle size is one of the least convincing. Getting hit by a 4000lb car or an 8000lb truck matters much less than how fast the vehicle's going (let's all remember our high school physics class).
This blog post is the best deep dive I've seen on the data: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/more-on-us-pedestrian...
rayiner · 15 days ago
Thank you, I hadn't even considered that smartphone use may differ between drivers in developed countries.
HDBaseT · 14 days ago
Australia has both smart phone and seat belt cameras. These are "portable" (mounted high on a road side trailer) which peep into your cabin from above to detect phone usage.
Being caught using a phone whilst driving imposes a $1,251 fine. In fact, even a phone off, but touching any part of your body (including on lap/leg) will incur this fine.
johnofthesea · 15 days ago
> vehicle sizes in all other countries have also been increasing
Yes SUVs are more common in Europe now but still size is much smaller than in US.
kalleboo · 15 days ago
> Getting hit by a 4000lb car or an 8000lb truck matters much less
It's not the weight of the vehicle but that the front of a US truck is a big flat brick wall, whereas vehicles more common in Europe have a lower-shaped hood you fall on which is engineered to dent (some even having an actuator to pop up and increase the distance to the engine) and save the life of the pedestrian (as tested by Euro NCAP)
simplyluke · 14 days ago
The times article goes very in depth on this. Yes, it is an issue, but it explains at most 10% of the increase in fatalities.
Getting hit by any vehicle over 20mph is going to be a very bad time, it is going to be somewhat worse if it's a large vehicle with a high bumper.
Americans are twice as likely to think it's fine to use a cell phone while driving than Canadians or Europeans, and while illegal in most places it's effectively unenforced - our cops spend half their shifts driving around messing around on a mounted laptop. If you want to improve outcomes, start holding American drivers to the standards that peer nations do.
tzs · 15 days ago
From the late '70s through 2009 there was a huge drop in the number of people who walked or bicycled, and there was also a significant drop in drunk driving over that time. Those explain most of the pedestrian fatality drop.
As far as truck sizes go, yes they have steadily increased, but the bigger trucks did not have as much effect on pedestrian fatality rates in the '80s or '90s because they were a much smaller percentage of vehicles on the road. In 1980 trucks were only about 1/5 of new vehicle sales. It was up to about 1/3 in 1990. By 2000 it was a little under 50%. By 2010 it was a little over 50%. Sometime around 2017 it was 2/3 trucks, and about 4/5 by 2023. (SUVs are counted as trucks in these numbers).
Remember those are figures for new sales, so changes in the percent of trucks on the road will lag changes in the percent of trucks in new sales.
You can get an idea of whether phones or size was the more responsible factor by comparing injuries to deaths. Phones would increase deaths mostly by increasing the number of accidents. Big trucks/SUVs would increase deaths by making accidents more fatal. In the phone case injuries and fatalities should rise at about the same mount. In the big vehicle case fatalities should rise more than injuries.
Fatalities have in fact risen more than injuries (80% vs 15%), suggesting that size is the much more significant factor.
genxy · 15 days ago
Why do you focus on the old data and not the new data? It is 2026 and hood height for trucks and crossovers (which didn't exist in 2009) has be getting higher and this is what the research talks about.
It isn't weight, it is hood height and blunt fronts. But the Great Bluntening didn't happen until recently.
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...
kev009 · 15 days ago
To make a stronger case of their graphic "you go under vs over" you'd only need to sample coroner reports and find evidence of crushing, which shouldn't be that hard given the sample size. This seems a bit correlation != causation pushing hard into p-hacking given the bounds from the 1980 data long before the hood-height hypothesis could carry and other obvious hypothesis like smart phone adoption curve.
thegrim33 · 15 days ago
"200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died"
Or, put another way, 0.000058% to 0.0001159% of the population.
estebank · 15 days ago
Or, put another way, 1% of every traffic fatality, or 8% of every pedestrian killed by cars. Those are not a small number being affected by a single variable.
jandrewrogers · 15 days ago
2009 coincides with the invention of the smartphone. I've lost count of how many times I've nearly been run over because people are staring at their phones while driving.
The attribution to larger vehicles while ignoring smartphones seems misplaced.
sparrish · 15 days ago
And I'm sure some of these stats are caused by pedestrians staring at their phones as well.
cryptoegorophy · 15 days ago
Self driving cars can’t come soon enough. Can’t believe there is debate between Waymo tesla and others while completely missing a goal.
dudeinhawaii · 15 days ago
Weird question that popped into my mind (not a judgement on this), but is there a similar jump in prosecutions for vehicular manslaughter or are these "whoopsie'd" away?
Seeing today's distracted drivers, driving their mini armored troop carriers around in parking lots, makes me wonder what happens when someone "didn't see the person" and runs them over.
Edit (after some research): "Philadelphia review found only about 16% of drivers who killed vulnerable road users were charged; 30% were closed with no charges, and 46% had no data provided."
So that's a bit concerning but I'm not sure what I'd want if I or a loved one were personally on the end of "making the mistake" vs being a victim of a mistake.
petcat · 15 days ago
> Pop quiz: You’re going to get hit by something coming at you at 50 miles per hour; given equal mass, would you rather that be a small object, or a large object?
> Whap! Time’s up. What did you get hit by? If you picked small, you might be dead. If you said “large,” your odds are lower. Why? Two reasons. First, F=ma and second, P = F/A. OK, I suppose that’s really just one reason, and it’s called “physics.”
I drive a big SUV because I have a better chance of surviving if something hits me. That has to be a significant statistic somewhere too, right? How many lives were saved because of big cars?
matchbok3 · 15 days ago
Are you joking? Your huge SUV class kills more people than saves by easily 10x. What happens when you hit a car?
Selfish behavior is ruining our streets.
topaz0 · 15 days ago
You decrease the risk to you but you dramatically increase the risk to other people, especially pedestrians. The total deaths go up.
petcat · 15 days ago
> You decrease the risk to you
Yes, that's the point. No offense to other people, but I'm trying to not die when I drive to the store. Driving a tank with a sun roof is a good way to do that.
BrenBarn · 15 days ago
Do you also run around firing bullets at random people just in case they might decide to attack you at some undetermined point in the future?
petcat · 15 days ago
No I just safely drive my SUV to the store and then back home.
topaz0 · 15 days ago
It's an antisocial, even solipsistic way to do that. Offense evidently intended, even if you convince yourself it's not.
petcat · 15 days ago
No offense to other people, but I couldn't give two shits about whether they're safely walking to the store or not. I only care about myself and my family.
matchbok3 · 15 days ago
Being proud of selfish behavior is something that is embarrassing to see. What a great role model you are.
b0rtb0rt · 14 days ago
he’s not wrong, why should i choose a less safe vehicle for my family to ride in? large heavy vehicles are safer for the occupants in a multi vehicle collision, and in order to protect yourself from large vehicles(including bigger trucks/semis) you should be in a large vehicle too. it’s suicidal to choose a smaller car because trucks make you mad
topaz0 · 13 days ago
Road safety is a social good -- it depends on the cooperation of everyone on the road. Choosing to put down your phone or slowing down make everyone safer, including you. Choosing a bigger car makes everyone less safe except you, who get marginally more safe. It's obviously antisocial and the kind of choice that makes the world worse for everyone.
flerchin · 15 days ago
I don't know the answer to this, and I don't know how to find it. The stats seem to mirror Bird and cohort uptake. Are these datapoints muddied with escooter death and injury?
PaulHoule · 15 days ago
“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not
have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over
the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents
about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”
genxy · 15 days ago
The Grille Trend that Kills 509 People per Year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU video discussed previously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584166
These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
The original designer wanted the truck to feel like you were driving a fist, punching through the air. So we are killing people so that the driver can have an aggressive aesthetic. And the design has spread like a contagious meme, even BMWs have it now.
bob1029 · 15 days ago
A major aspect of this are side effects of "safety-first" obsession over the occupants of the vehicles themselves.
Mandatory airbags in the A-pillars is probably the single biggest killer out of everything. The blind spots are massive compared to cars before these regulations. I've seen some models where it seems bad on purpose. Why don't federal regulators want the drivers of these gigantic vehicles to be able to see where the hell they are going?
simplyluke · 14 days ago
US standards are bad at considering everyone outside the vehicle in general. Headlights are another great example. I've seen videos of headlight designers bragging about how they can put a dim spot in the exact place the regulators measure glare to cheat the test. Most pedestrian deaths are at night.
With many new vehicles on the road with their low beams on coming at me head-on I have no chance of seeing a pedestrian for hundreds of yards because I'm so blinded.
earleybird · 15 days ago
I can't take the argument seriously when they ask "Pop quiz: You’re going to get hit by something coming at you at 50 miles per hour; given equal mass, would you rather that be a small object, or a large object?"
Either way you're dead.
expedition32 · 15 days ago
I take my 7 year old daughter to learn how to ride a bicycle You take your 7 year old daughter to the gun range
We are not the same.
verytrivial · 15 days ago
The article keeps mentioning "unintended consequences" but I'm not convinced these are. Trying to come across as scary (perhaps because you are yourself scared) seems to be the whole point. "Get out of my way, look at how little I care about your safety, look at the size of this thing." The article mentions machismo but I don't think that quite covers the (profitable) pathology here.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
Yep. Automotive grille design became sharply more aggressive over the last 20 years (not just in terms of hood height). It says a lot about the psychology of consumers.
ElijahLynn · 15 days ago
I recently visited Portugal and it was so refreshing not to see huge near monster trucks on the road. Which have a very intimidating vibe to them.
I was like oh look at people can actually function without big trucks, wow! What a surprise!
9cb14c1ec0 · 15 days ago
Very urban perspective. If you are a contractor or farmer in rural America, there is no way to survive without a good sized truck.
trinix912 · 15 days ago
There’s plenty of rural Europe too, but Europeans mostly use vans (tradesmen) or tractors (farmers) instead. Both have much better visibility than those tall trucks with a long hood, at least from my experience.
tumdum_ · 15 days ago
Did you know that only 1,6% of US population works in agriculture compared to 5% in Portugal? See https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/employmen...
LearnYouALisp · 15 days ago
Uh huh, and how far away is everything? What kind of work?
tinyplanets · 15 days ago
Plenty of oversized trucks and SUVs in urban areas. The majority of the population in the U.S. is considered urban, so why exactly is the "urban perspective" not legitimate?
ElijahLynn · 15 days ago
Well from my experience visiting Portugal, there's tons of farming there and they didn't have all these oversized trucks. I wonder how they do it...
It seems uniquely American to have these huge trucks and most of the people here don't even farm. They just use them to flex.
Marsymars · 15 days ago
I dunno, my dad was a farmer when I was a kid, and he did fine with a series of compact pickups. (Some 80's Toyota thing, then a Nissan hardbody, then a Chevy S10.)
ErroneousBosh · 15 days ago
So why do they they have these useless American pickups like Ford F150s?
You can't put anything in them. They've got a load bed that I could *just* about fit a couple of sandwiches in.
Everyone here in the UK uses Ford Transits. How do you use something like an F150 to move plasterboard sheets?
simplyluke · 15 days ago
The problem is that other countries have seen nearly identical trends in vehicle market share trending towards larger vehicles and have seen sustained declines in pedestrian fatalities. John Burn-Murdoch went deep on this in the FT a couple of years ago (archive link at bottom).
> Most of the explanations commonly put forward for why US roads remain so deadly focus on broad structural factors such as vehicle size or time spent on the road, but a review of the evidence suggests this may be mistaken. Last year’s improvement is a case in point. Two reasons often cited as key causes of poor US performance both worsened: the total number of miles driven by Americans increased, and US cars continued to grow larger. Yet fatal collisions still declined.
> Adding to the evidence that this is not a dominant factor, car sizes in Canada, Australia and New Zealand have traced similar paths to the US without resulting in a spike in fatalities.
> Another theory is that the rise of homelessness in the US may be pushing pedestrian deaths higher. A recent study found that there had indeed been a marked rise in traffic-related deaths among the homeless, but this, too, can only explain a small portion of the overall rise.
> Instead, an underrated factor seems to be not American cars but American drivers [...] The determining factor seems to be different attitudes to safety, with Americans twice as likely as Canadians or Europeans to say they find it acceptable to use a phone while driving.
1970-01-01 · 15 days ago
I too am unconvinced bigger truck/vehicle means things are getting of control. It's terrible how the NYT article has no facts on overall road deaths, so here I state one for everyone: Occupant deaths have a clear falling trend. So while pedestrian deaths are climbing, the overall deaths are still trending downward, and I shouldn't have to defend that the overall count is more important than the pedestrian subset.
PoignardAzur · 15 days ago
That can be very easily explained as "bigger cars are safer for their occupant and deadlier to the person getting hit by them".
I do think you need to defend your assertion, because the difference between a driver and a pedestrian is that the driver "knew the risks" while the risks were imposed on the pedestrian.
qup · 15 days ago
Many accidents are single vehicle and the vast, vast majority don't involve pedestrians.
michael1999 · 15 days ago
You do need to justify it. There is a great moral hazard prioritizing the driver's safety over pedestrians, since the driver is most in control of the danger. There is very little a pedestrian can do to protect themselves from a driver on their phone who mounts the sidewalk.
1970-01-01 · 15 days ago
Fixing on the pedestrian safety yields higher death counts overall. It is justified in quantity.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
How do you reconcile your viewpoint with the non-pedestrian vehicular death rate in Europe? Do you think the reason deaths are so much lower there is because Europeans are unconcerned with pedestrians?
1970-01-01 · 15 days ago
Apples and oranges. EU roads and cities are not US roads and cities and never will be.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
I see. So you believe that if Europeans designed their streets to be less safe for pedestrians, like they are in the U.S., then their overall vehicular death rate would go down. Is that right?
1970-01-01 · 14 days ago
You made a stupid jump and conclusion there mate. EU streets are nothing like US streets. Go lookup the rates in every EU country and come back with some data and we can compare it to the top and bottom US states. Apples and oranges.
alamortsubite · 14 days ago
Sorry, I'm just trying to understand your point of view. I live in the US and spend a lot of time in the EU. I'm a citizen of both. It couldn't be more obvious to me that our street designs differ (as implied by my previous comment). I'd genuinely like to know where you're coming from, but your responses so far are shallow tautologies. I initially responded to your comment, "Fixing on the pedestrian safety yields higher death counts overall" (I assumed you meant "fixating on pedestrian safety," but perhaps this was a mistake). I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. Can you please elaborate, and what was my stupid "jump and conclusion," precisely?
avianlyric · 15 days ago
> So while pedestrian deaths are climbing, the overall deaths are still trending downward, and I shouldn't have to defend that the overall count is more important than the pedestrian subset.
A better question is why is the US the only developed country that’s seen pedestrian deaths increase over the past 10-15 years. Every other developed country has seen both occupant and pedestrian deaths decrease over the same time period, and has seen a larger combined drop in deaths than the US. And to be clear, I’m talking about deaths per mile driven, not absolute counts, so the size of the US is already factored into the numbers.
uberex · 15 days ago
Where I live you don't touch a phone while driving. Heavy fines and both human and camera based survellience. I think it is excellent and has surely saved lives. Driving is the thing you don't need to multitask.
decimalenough · 15 days ago
While vehicle sizes are indeed trending upward in Australia and Europe, giant SUV and especially giant truck penetration in both countries is still far behind US levels, and particularly in Europe are unlikely to ever reach the same figures (good luck parking your Ford F-9000 Testosteroneo in Rome or Paris).
marcyb5st · 15 days ago
It is not just the big cities. You go downtown even in small towns and the roads tend to be so narrow that a big SUV becomes a liability more than a vehicle. Without mentioning that I'm not even sure parking stalls fit big US cars lengthwise and they barely do widthwise
Swizec · 15 days ago
> While vehicle sizes are indeed trending upward in Australia and Europe, giant SUV and especially giant truck penetration in both countries is still far behind US levels
Many big SUVs are flat out illegal in Europe, you’d need a small truck license. It’s hard to comprehend how large American cars are unless you’ve lived in both places.
For example:
we took an Uber to the airport for our annual pilgrimage back home. We had 4 suitcases this time because new babies need gifts. In USA we got picked up by a sedan and everything fit in the trunk. In Europe we rented an SUV and had to break down the rear seats to fit everything.
locallost · 14 days ago
I'm not sure that's true, although I don't know which SUVs you mean. I don't know all regulations in all countries in Europe, but think in principle they're all the same. So with the B permit, which is for basically cars, you can drive a vehicle up to 3.5 tons, which can be something like Iveco Daily 35S. It's basically a small truck, a popular rent a car option when moving to a new apartment/house.
simplyluke · 14 days ago
I can't speak to Australia, and yeah, western Europe has a lot less big trucks, but Canada has as many large 4x4 trucks as anywhere in the US in my experience and has seen decreasing deaths. The times article touches on this but the most they can explain of the increase in deaths from vehicle size is 10%. It's a problem, but it's far from being able to explain the full issue.
asdff · 15 days ago
Smartphone use is a compelling case:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ubbfrv/oc...
iknowstuff · 15 days ago
Nah thats the same everywhere. Stroads and piss poor urban design, largely due to objections from stubborn fire departments chasing the wrong metrics and refusing to downsize, are a compelling case.
asdff · 15 days ago
I think it is a combination of both really. If you drive around europe, especially southern europe, it is a white knuckle driving situation a lot of the time. Narrow roads, windy with no embankment, unprotected cliffsides with a pile of hatchbacks on the bottom. Pulling out a smartphone is a death sentence. In the us everything is wide, straight, and embanked, leading to a false sense of confidence where you might open up that smartphone for a minute thinking it is fine. Then we get those dashcam recordings on reddit of people slowly driving off the road and realizing it about 5 seconds too late when all four wheels are already off the pavement and the car is about to flip end over end.
doctorpangloss · 15 days ago
i'm not sure why you're being downvoted. there is a lot of research on this, the "natural experiments" have shown that road design explains a lot of the difference in injury rates between US and EU cities.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
>Stroads and piss poor urban design, largely due to objections from stubborn fire departments chasing the wrong metrics a
Save some blame for the shortsighted environmentalists. They are a huge part of why everything is so stupidly spaced out. Most of the site plans that were normal until the 1970s are just outright illegal now. These people would rather see you impoverished by rent driven sky high from scarcity than let a filthy landlord develop the whole lot without "expensive to the point of nonstarter" mitigations or accept that maybe the municipality will have to upgrade a culvert here or there. I work in a skyscraper and even it has token green space that's clearly just bullshit they chucked in to make the runoff calcs work. You can't even use it for anything because it's a planter/ditch, so the whole place is still effectively concrete jungle and they have a fence around it so nobody falls.
simplyluke · 14 days ago
Read the linked article (or even the quoted portion). Americans have a very different attitude of the acceptability of using those phones.
paulsutter · 15 days ago
Human drivers are killing people, not the cars.
Weirdly NYC just blocked Waymo again.
groundzeros2015 · 15 days ago
Isn’t Waymo a guy driving a car remotely (or at least supervising)?
rpmisms · 15 days ago
Blah. It's a regulation problem. Allow powerful trucks to be small again and they will. Perverse incentives are a bitch.
whall6 · 15 days ago
I believe that as self-driving cars become more ubiquitous, these deaths (and other traffic-related deaths) will decrease. I was driving on a 4 lane road at 5 in the morning and all of a sudden my Tesla model 3 slams on its brakes, missing a deer that jumped across the road by ~2 feet. Its path was completely perpendicular to the road and I couldn't see it until a few seconds after my car started braking.
Imagine a future when a much larger proportion of drivers have 360 degree vision with no blind spots, infinitesimally small reaction times and a human failsafe in the driver seat.
neves · 15 days ago
They also drink a lot more fuel and contributing for co2 emissions. Thank you Americans for destroying Earth
whatever1 · 15 days ago
Deadly for the rest. Not the owners. We need more trucks. Be the good guy in a truck.
baq · 15 days ago
Precisely. Want to cross the street? Get in the truck. Want to walk to that Starbucks next door for a quick espresso? Take the truck. Are you a newborn in a stroller? Your fault for not being in a truck and putting yourself at risk.
whatever1 · 15 days ago
City planners need to rethink from scratch. Imagine how many parking spaces we would save if everything was drive through for trucks. Restaurants, office work, cinema, hospitals, schools etc
And now with self driving, newborns can also have their truck
piker · 15 days ago
Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them.
On a number of occasions I have nearly hit people who I simply could not see crossing in my Volvo XC90 due to these pillars. I've been driving for nearly 30 years in the US and UK and have never felt anything like it.
[edit: for future readers, please note that I am not saying it would be legal or correct to hit these people.
I am saying precisely that the A pillars on the XC90 are dangerous as they introduce blind spots that I've never experienced before. We test drove the vehicle, and they weren't apparent during that test drive. I am now responsible for them.
Down in this thread you will read some responses that seem confused about that point. No, it is not legal to run people over in the road. You will be at fault. No, that doesn't make it smart to jump into the road until it's clear that the traffic has yielded you your lawful right of way. IAAL]
bijowo1676 · 15 days ago
I like Teslas Forward Collision Warning system which alerts me if it sees the obstacle such as car, a corner, or pedestrian on a path.
there is also Active collision avoidance that will adjust vehicle if it senses a car on the nearby lane about to hit my side
I think these safety systems need to be mandatory
ErroneousBosh · 15 days ago
> I think these safety systems need to be mandatory
Why do you think that?
iknowstuff · 15 days ago
because there are a lot of externalities resulting from car crashes, the burden for which is not paid by the driver, manufacturer, or even their insurer.
ErroneousBosh · 14 days ago
Have you considered looking out of the windscreen once in a while?
How many crashes do you think these prevent?
iknowstuff · 13 days ago
40k deaths per year in the US. A million a year worldwide. A world war worth of deaths every decade.
bijowo1676 · 15 days ago
Because its cheaper to install these systems (a simple sensor and a chip), than try to resurrect dead pedestrians
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
There have been several studies showing driver assistance systems cause a psychological shift that leads to drivers not paying attention. I guess we have to ask ourselves if we want to encourage people to pay attention while driving, or just leave it up to the latest vibe-coded OTA update Tesla's pushing out.
I'm glad backup cameras are mandatory, though.
bijowo1676 · 14 days ago
Nothing that cant be solved with another sensor inside cabin )))
alamortsubite · 14 days ago
Kafka was way ahead of his time when he wrote Der Bau!
cjs_ac · 15 days ago
> Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them.
Those pedestrians do have the right of way; you need to have another look at the Highway Code.
piker · 15 days ago
This is such a British response.
Obviously that's what the law says, yes. But if they hop into someone's blind spot, it won't matter to their family much that they were in the right.
cjs_ac · 15 days ago
It will matter to you when you’re sentenced, though.
Speaking as a fellow immigrant, your attitude is what gives immigrants a bad name worldwide.
piker · 15 days ago
Of course it would! That's the whole point.
People shouldn't enter the road until it's clear they've been seen.
I'm not sure what you're missing here guy.
I've said the A bar is a liability because of the blind spot it introduces.
Your response was that the person in the road has the right of way. This is known.
Somehow I give immigrants a bad name because I acknowledge that it is difficult to manage people who assert their right-of-way into blind spots.
It's called a blind spot for a reason. How can one yield to something they by definition don't see?
cjs_ac · 15 days ago
You chose to buy the car with the big blind spots. You’re responsible for checking your blind spots, by moving your head as necessary. This is part of the driving test.
Your poor consumer choices do not absolve you of your responsibilities and obligations.
piker · 15 days ago
I think I've just lost 10 IQ points in this thread.
YES! OF COURSE. I SAID IT'S A LIABILITY. I AM SHARING INFORMATION, PERHAPS TO AFFECT FUTURE CONSUMER CHOICE.
fch42 · 15 days ago
the sad thing, in a way, is that the law entitles the pedestrian here but doesn't protect them. One could make an argument that cars which take the "visual" away from the driver should simply be illegal. Why can they even be sold ?
(ok ... trying to be pointy. As a rarely-driver and not-car-owner I do not feel much sympathy for drivers-of-hazards; because you can't care since you drive a car that makes it impossible to care means others should "do your job" ? That's victim inversion)
331c8c71 · 15 days ago
Well the onus is obviously on a driver to make sure they see what they need to see. And that they drive a vehicle that allows them to see things.
That doesn't mean the pedestrians should not be careful...
piker · 15 days ago
Yes, I agree with both of those statements. If you read the original statement before the "tut tut" response, you will note that I was only suggesting the A pillars introduce dangerous blind spots. I understand how that could be confused on other platforms, but I expected folks on HN to extend the benefit of the doubt that posters are not generally oblivious to the law. So the conversation derailed.
alamortsubite · 15 days ago
You led with "people just hop right out onto zebra crossings expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them." I think framing it this way was a mistake and the cause of your frustration. People in zebra crossings do have the right of way, regardless of whether they hopped there or what there expectations are, full stop.
Your point about modern A pillars is right on the money.
piker · 14 days ago
Yes, that's right. The folks in this thread just got really worked up thinking that I disagreed with that point, which distracted from my message which was about the A pillar.
baq · 15 days ago
Can’t see if there are pedestrians at the crossing? Slow down
piker · 15 days ago
It's not a speed issue. They're in a blind spot. Your brain tells you that you can see everything, but it's incorrect.
My experiences have been under slow circumstances only. And that makes sense because the individual "lingers" in the blind spot (and perhaps matches your speed) if you're going slow. If you were going fast, the blind spot would be moving much faster and you would see them.
baq · 15 days ago
Not being able to see is a blind spot issue. Not slowing down because of it is… something else. Irresponsible is the most polite I can come up with.
piker · 15 days ago
My experiences have been at around 5mph. Again, it's not speed.
If you watch the video in the post you will understand. The person is just invisible to the driver and they're travelling around the same very low speed.
quickthrowman · 15 days ago
I move my neck, head, and eyes to look around the A pillar in my vehicle to verify I don’t hit anybody. Yes, every time I start moving forward and there’s a pedestrian crossing in front of me.
I suggest doing the same thing unless your cervical vertebrae are fused together. If that’s the case, I understand your concern.
piker · 15 days ago
Yes, obviously this is what is required.
> and there’s a pedestrian crossing in front of me
This is wrong. You have to do it every time because the pedestrian is in your blind spot.
ErroneousBosh · 15 days ago
> Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them.
They're also just MASSIVE.
I keep hearing about how "SUVs" are dangerous for pedestrians because you can't see them, but I've got a far better view out the front of my elderly Range Rover than I do in for example the nice little Kia Niro EVs or Renault Zoes we had at work.
Modern cars have so much crap with sensors hanging off the middle of the windscreen you basically can't see anything that's not immediately in front of the driver, and then they have these huge thick door pillars that block the rest.
neves · 15 days ago
What a marvelous piece of visualization. Best in class
dinkblam · 15 days ago
All of the problems (high hood, bad visibility downwards) are fixed by sports cars and especially mid-engined and rear-engined sports cars. Plus, the brake distance is much lower.
andrepd · 15 days ago
It's really astonishing how virtually every single quality of life indicator is negatively correlated with number of cars in the road. One of the most effective things you / your city / your nation can do do improve your live in every dimension is to take measures to reduce the number of cars.
elektronika · 15 days ago
We all know how much local PDs like collecting traffic fines, but I wish they would enforce the laws around yielding to pedestrians with the same enthusiasm as speed limits. I walk a lot and pretty much every day someone blows by in front of me while I'm in the crosswalk or takes a right on red into me because they're not looking. It'd be trivial to set up a sting for this sort of driving, just have one plain clothes officer cross back and forth with another cop parked on a side street ready to flash their lights.
kccqzy · 15 days ago
In Sunnyvale the police definitely does this! At one point the sting was a small child crossing the road repeatedly while an officer observed nearby.
yboris · 15 days ago
Super relevant: Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? by Douglas Husak
One of my favorite philosophy papers. The author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility of SUVs, they are immoral - imposing needless harm on others. It's also ironic that on average, there is no net safety benefit to those who drive them -- because of higher rollover risks!
rconti · 15 days ago
We've already lost the war on outward visibility. Virtually every bit of our safety regulatory system encourages or demands vehicles that you can't really see out of anymore. Side impact standards and higher door sills all around, curtain airbags, etc. Hell, they encourage (more profitable) SUVs because they don't have to be built to passenger car safety standards. And the market's doing the rest.
The only response from the safety industry is more doodads. Auto braking, backup cameras, lane departure warnings, blind spot warning.
Cars going too fast in your neighborhood? Build huge speed bumps you need an SUV to navigate to navigate at any speed over 5mph!
I don't think there's actually any hope for human-driven cars, long-term. The system doesn't want them.
cucumber3732842 · 15 days ago
We've lost a more general war against the social acceptability of demanding something must be done while simultaneously being stupid to think a few steps ahead.
All these concerns were raised back when vehicles were getting crappy to see out of in the late 00s but "something must be done" and "the statistics say" screeched the exact same demographics if not literal individuals, and so, things were done, and now here we are.
And this is just the tip of the goddamn iceberg. Seems like every axis of discourse and policy is afflicted by this. I have no idea how we fix it.
tinyplanets · 15 days ago
As I'm sure the commentors here from outside of the U.S. can plainly see - it's going to be a long road to get regulations in place to somehow incentivize smaller vehicles (and that's assuming we ever have a functioning government again). For Americans, a lot of our self-image/worth is tied up in the vehicles we drive. I suppose it's a combination of cultural history (hyper-individualism) and decades of marketing and advertising from auto manufacturers.
NegativeLatency · 15 days ago
And a lack of other good options, so anything other than a personal vehicle just doesn't compute for lots of people.
bfrog · 15 days ago
Sitting in a modern pickup is worse than a school bus for visibility. You cannot see in front of the truck at all. Real blue collar work seems to mostly have moved to work vans like the sprinter which have much better visibility, much more friendly height for storing, can still tow, etc.
Pickups are 1000% pointless now
chris_money202 · 15 days ago
I drive a 2004 truck, it's not as big as the newer trucks but it's still pretty big. My 2004 truck also has 0 sensors on it and no cameras. If I were driving a newer truck, I believe pedestrians would be safer because of the added safety sensors and cameras.
RIMR · 15 days ago
Well, the statistics say otherwise, so I don't get the argument you're making. That you would trust the car's sensors over your own observations and judgments might actually mean you'd be a more dangerous driver in a newer truck.
chris_money202 · 15 days ago
Don't recall saying I would trust them over my own judgement, they are an additional layer of perception
RIMR · 12 days ago
What you did say, anecdotally, is that pedestrians would be safer, in direct response to being presented with empirical evidence that pedestrians are, in fact, not safer...
So my point here is that, whatever argument you are making, it is already debunked. You're arguing against statistics with platitudes.
realo · 15 days ago
No problem with big SUVs ...
Just cap their top speed at 40 mph, use thin A pillars to better protect pedestrians and make them ugly as hell.
But make damn sure they comfortably transport the family to the soccer game, yes...
aucisson_masque · 15 days ago
There was an excellent documentary on it in France from cash investigations.
Not only it kills more pedestrians, but also when you get an accident with one of the people driving these monstrosity, you get a lot more chance of dying.
So if either you want to be safe, you got to buy an even heavier car.
This is a race to the bottom.
Hopefully with the rise of gas price, people will start to rethink buying SUV.
washbasin · 15 days ago
Very thankful for Reader Mode.
Scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll.
Just no.
WalterBright · 15 days ago
There needs to be tax incentives to put truck trailers on rail cars.
tills13 · 15 days ago
Beyond just being dangerous, it's also incredibly frustrating to go down to my local grocery store and 50% of the stalls have these massive trucks and SUVs sticking out over the sidewalk / into the through-road / taking up literally the entire width of the stall. It boggles me that people buy these things and then use them for puttering around town 99% of the time.
Rover222 · 15 days ago
You sound like a good candidate for EU citizenship.
tills13 · 15 days ago
I'm Canadian so that would be an honour.
Rover222 · 15 days ago
Wouldn’t mind it myself
akouri · 15 days ago
I'd like to start or contribute to a philanthropic effort to see the pickup truck and SUV arms race fought somehow. I think the strongest avenue, at least in the USA, would be better litigation and direct criminal responsibility for those that own them and are negligent in their operation (cell-phone use, speeding, illegal lift-kits, etc).
Does anybody know of such a nonprofit or organization that is currently making meaningful progress here that I can contribute to?
deadbabe · 15 days ago
I propose a radical solution where the US government pays people by buying back their big trucks, after which they are scrapped for raw materials.
suralind · 15 days ago
I was in US three times for work events. Every single time I would try to walk somewhere and would be forced to navigate around pickup trucks stopped in the middle of a freaking crosswalk. Sometimes those cars were so large that I could stand right in front of it and I’m convinced the driver would not be able to see me. It was by far the worst thing about my time in the US. Like you have so much space, why do you need to block the damn crossing?
Rover222 · 15 days ago
The solution is not to ban large vehicles. Self-driving vehicles are what will solve this problem (slowly, as the current fleet of human-driven vehicles phases out). In general, having humans drive vehicles is incredibly dangerous. Small cars too.
Rover222 · 15 days ago
Datac enters bad, big cars bad, nulcear bad (yeah those were people of the same ilk that ruined that industry).
Keep it up. China will win, as we flagellate.
schaefer · 15 days ago
> The deadly rise of giant trucks and SUVs...
safety stilts.
CapitalistCartr · 15 days ago
For work, I drive an F-350 diesel with a work-bed full of tools and supplies, and a ladder rack. It's a bit nerve-wracking driving through city side streets, especially with pedestrians. It's 22 feet (6.7m) long. Across the tow mirrors is 8.5 feet (2.6m). It probably weighs 4 tons. Yet people happily choose to drive bigger vehicles as commuter cars!
antonymoose · 15 days ago
What common commuter vehicle do you imagine here exactly? I’m riding 2.5 Ton full-frame SUV and struggle to see anything much more than a solid 3-ton vehicle.
brikym · 15 days ago
These are the epitome of individualism. It's a Fuck you I'm safe. They're even designed to look like fists. Here is a quote from General Motors truck designer Karan Moorjani:
“I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
... we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer."
The design of these things is deliberately antisocial. The huge hood is not even needed since it's possible to stand inside the mostly empty engine bays of these things as FortNine showed: https://youtu.be/YpuX-5E7xoU?t=431
But it's not just the hood heights wrong with modern vehicles. Multiple design trends are hostile to other road users and reduce safety equality if you will.
- Headlight hues are white and blinding
- Headlight positioning has increased with the hood height which tends to blind people.
- The pillars in vehicles are really thick and raked which is safer for the occupants but also means visibility is reduced. Great, so now people in bigger, newer, safer vehicles are more likely to hit pedestrians and people in older, smaller vehicles.
- Windows are more tinted and often smaller meaning vehicles are opaque walls now which hinders visibility and communication at intersections.
Gene5ive · 15 days ago
I've always hated trucks for all of these reasons. Thanks for doing the science to help me explain why, NYT.
by_the_bay · 15 days ago
apparent · 15 days ago
Weird that this article did not mention the Chicken Tax [1] and the differences in CAFE standards and safety standards applicable to passenger vehicles and light trucks/trucks. Basically, the latter were more profitable for automakers, so they shifted toward selling SUVs that qualified as light trucks. This was a crucial step in the arms race toward larger/higher vehicles.
While I don't disagree with what the article says, it is surprising that they have completely missed these aspects of causality, which have been well-known and discussed by policymakers for decades.
1: https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/jlpp/2024/11/25/t...
ishankunam · 15 days ago
i really enjoyed the interactive elements / visualization in this post.
LandenLove · 15 days ago
Seems like they put a lot of time and effort into this article. It's a shame that I cannot read it because it is covered by, "Sale ends soon. $0.50/week for your first six months year. Subscribe!", on my screen.
GarnetFloride · 15 days ago
Wasn't there a case of a F-150 running over a Lamborghini in a parking lot a few weeks ago, because the driver of the pickup couldn't see the supercar?
LandenLove · 15 days ago
I hate everything about modern vehicles. Built cheaply, yet cost a fortune. Are filled with laggy infotainment computers that requires subscriptions and replace reliable and easy to locate climate controls. They are the size of tanks despite having a smaller bed size than a Japanese kei car. The list goes on and on.
yanhangyhy · 14 days ago
https://carnewschina.com/2026/06/05/chinas-passenger-cars-ga...
China’s passenger cars gained 392 kg in 12 years as the EV era hits a heavy turning point, report says
Dig1t · 14 days ago
A huge number of people in the US use these cars for transporting large items like plywood and drywall (4 feet by 8 feet), a full sized truck or SUV are the best options for this type of work. Additionally, most tradespeople need these types of vehicles for their work, ask any carpenter, plumber, electrician what they drive. A non-trivial portion of the US economy relies on these types of vehicles.
Safety can dramatically be improved just by focusing on the design of our infrastructure. For example adding bike lanes to a road can dramatically improve safety for both pedestrians and cyclists. The vast majority of the US road network has no bike lanes. Instead of trying to regulate the types of vehicles people are allowed to own even more, why isn't the focus on improving the design of our infrastructure? The amount of taxes we pay is a staggering sum, there's more than enough room in the government budget to spend on roads.
linzhangrun · 14 days ago
Look at those BEVs in the Chinese market — they're truly scary, 3-ton heavyweights running all over the streets.
aristofun · 14 days ago
How easy it is to put all tge dogs on a vehicle, rather than on drivers.
If you ban a truck - the asshole driving it will just buy bmw instead.
Don’t you see? Why all the good people have to suffer?
cieslak · 14 days ago
Besides the news being very concerning, this article is beautiful. NYT really delivered on this one.
meristohm · 14 days ago
One way to reduce the speed of such large vehicles in urban areas is cyclists to conspicuously use the wider lane. I do this regularly with my Class 1 ebike (assists to 20mph), in part because the wider lane is smoother (I often carry a child whose disability means they don't handle bumps well), there's less debris, and especially because I'm so much more visible. Yeah, I get honked at (which means drivers see me!), but the speed limit is an upper limit, not a minimum, and I'm usually going close to that (yeah, I know that doesn't matter when we get splattered by a road-rager in a toy tank, but I will not sit idly by). The normalization of massive climate-controlled lazy-boxes is both bonkers to me as a person who thrives on moving under my own power, and understandable: we like getting something for ~nothing, and it's so easy not to consider the long-term consequences of regularly spending fuel to move a couple tons of metal and plastic to drive two miles to pick up some groceries.
nacozarina · 12 days ago
Blaming inanimate objects instead of drivers is just gaslighting.