Reminded me of this video by Not Just Bike.
These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us [35:26 | Mar 6, 2023 | Not Just Bikes] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
I’m from the EU and sadly this has become more and more the norm here. I remember a time when we had very little SUVs here but now they seem to be everywhere. And it’s a really busy capital city, so the streets are narrow. I can’t understand why people would buy big cars here…
Sadly, we cannot really ban them as they are utility vehicles that a small portion of the population needs. However, I still see freakin’ ads that frame them as fancy cars.
“The new Amarok V6. Pick-up truck for every day. Powerful and comfortable”I suggest making it illegal to have them in any color other than matte excavator yellow (for construction) or green camo (for hunting and forestry).
Lmao at the color limits. I’m 100% sure that would get people not to buy them hahaha that’s genius
In the US, the camo option would only make them cooler to the kind of people you really don’t want behind the wheel of them.
Camo trucks already exist.
That being said, this idea is largely a joke, and I don’t mind @Waker@lemmy.world being sarcastic about it.
Ah crap you’re right… I didn’t account for the American factor.
One other measure that could easily be taken is to ban advertising for these.
There are smaller trucks with the exact same bed size though. Like how the hell do people think European trades people haul stuff?
Ummm… vans of all sizes are way more common than flatbed trucks here.
Or those small isuzu trucks. When the load is too awkward for a van.
forcing a “this vehicles kills pedestrian” warning on top, making it similar to sigarettes: all same boring packaging and a warning on top.
And beeping when reversing of course.
why beep when it can be a voice yelling WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! or ACHTUUUUNG!! if it’s a German made car
Deer can’t see orange, so one colour fits all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m ok with them being all orange instead of fucking blacked out.
Its not just SUVs in western Europe, EU crash regulations for cars hitting pedestrians have forced cars to be higher and taller at the front. Unless the seating position also rises then you lose visibility of the very front of the car. If the seating position has to rise then so does the roof and this often means the floor rises too.
Sure, these ridiculous American trucks are far far worse, and SUVs are just generally bad, but its normal cars as well.
As someone with a utilitarian need for a truck in the US, you are correct. I m7ch rather drive a Fiat Panda than my 2013 Tundra. However, I try to keep my lights low (they are adjustable from inside the cab) so as not to blind others when on the road.
Still, there should be a federal ban on these stupid things, annd these, not to mention a federal law regulating how high headlights can be from the road (looking at you Ford F-250)
Gonna be great seeing Cybertrucks mow through pedestrians with their ridiculous blind spots and sharp stainless steel corners all over.
Honestly the thing is starting to remind me of the homer car, what a fucking joke
The Homer Simpson car, while it has its faults, is unironically better than everything in the SUV market.
-
Sure it’s got the pop up logo triangle, but the front is still overall better.
-
Great viability, check out that dome. The design choices naturally focus the server outside the car rather than on instruments.
-
Back seats also have a big dome to look out and realise there is a world outside the car, it’s not just an iPad screen to fast-travel. Again, the focus is on what’s outside the vehicle, not in it.
-
On screens, there in not a single screen in that car.
-
Low-loading height, height clearance, deep truck. Probably more on par with a van than an SUV.
-
Low laying headlamps with standard incandescent bulbs, nothing that can temporarily blind people.
Sure it has rear-view viability issues, and the horn (and multitude of horn buttons) is problematic. But the Homer Simpson car is a good people and stuff mover. Could probably do without the shag carpeting though.
HAHA I stand corrected. Musk wishes he had the Tesla Homer.
-
deleted by creator
Ok I’m gonna need a list of car models to not get run over by
Ohhhh So the title of the article was directed towards pedestrians, not car murder enthusiasts
Well everyone should have a hobby
Vehicles
with higher, more vertical front endsposegreaterrisk to pedestriansI think that’s more accurate. Vehicles big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered… makes no difference. There’s no greater risk to pedestrians than multi-ton moving vehicles.
EDIT: Guys, I didn’t mean one size car vs another doesn’t make a difference to the safety risk of pedestrians. It absolutely does. I mean that vehicles around pedestrians are a risk to pedestrians, regardless. This is #fuckcars, right? Stop all the down voting.
This is defintely true but id still much rather get hit by a toyota corrola than by an f150, chevy tahoe or other 4+ foot high hood height vehicle.
Shorter hoods a person will roll onto the car, taller hoods push people under the car.
I get where you’re coming from, but without context your point comes across as more of a “all cars are dangerous therefore we shouldn’t bother regulating oversized SUVs” rather than the “Yes SUVs are particularly dangerous but let’s keep in mind that all cars are dangerous” that you were aiming for.
“all cars are dangerous therefore we shouldn’t bother regulating oversized SUVs” rather than the “Yes SUVs are particularly dangerous but let’s keep in mind that all cars are dangerous” that you were aiming for.
Oh, geeze. Yeah, I really didn’t intend for it to sound like the first part. I 1000% believe that larger vehicles NEED to be regulated, like yesterday.
makes no difference
Not true, there’s a lot of differences between a car and a ute/suv. The high, square bonnet of a ute both makes it harder to see pedestrians and makes it much worse when they do hit. Cars are designed to hit people on the lower legs and toss them onto the bonnet, while utes hit people on the upper body and knock them over so they end up underneath a moving vehicle.
Cars aren’t great, but they’re so much better than utes and suvs.
Of course, a larger vehicle is more dangerous, but all moving cars and trucks are still a risk to pedestrians.
People were being hit and killed by regular cars way before these monstrous SUVs and pick-up trucks became more popular.
Pedestrians shouldn’t be hit by either.
You are correct, and I agree with you, but it’s still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is. I understand what you’re trying to go for, but stating false information won’t help to convince people.
Even if the number of cars on the road remains the same, but utes and SUVs were swapped to lower vehicles (when possible), then there would still be positive outcomes of fewer pedestrian fatalities (even if the number of accidents remains the same) and reduced carbon emissions.
Removing most cars would reduce these even more, which I assume is your desired outcome, but even just reducing the proportion of utes and SUVs would have positive effects
but it’s still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is.
Just to clarify, I said “no difference” in that “big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered” vehicles ALL cause severe injuries and death to pedestrians.
I’m not trying to argue that there’s no measurable difference in the amount of damage a larger vehicle can cause vs a smaller one, as I completely agree that there is.
My point is that they are all too dangerous to be around people, so a fatality by a car is “no different” than a fatality by an SUV.
I agree that a fatality by a car is no different to a fatality by an SUV. But I would say that there is a difference in accidents involving cars vs SUVs because the fatality rates differ, which is what is being discussed.
I might be misinterpreting your argument, but my understanding is that you’re saying because both cars and SUVs can cause fatalities, they are all too dangerous to be around people. But many things can cause fatalities, even bikes. We’ll never be able to reduce accidents entirely. But there’s a rate at which the fatalities become too high compared to the benefits. So that’s why I believe talking about the rates of fatalities is more useful than talking about whether something can cause a fatality at all. In this case, I think your acceptable rate for fatalities is at a level where all motorised vehicles clear the threshold, so that’s why you’re saying there’s no difference. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Replacing tall-fronted vehicles with short-fronted vehicles would reduce fatalities, which is why I believe there is a difference and we should try to do that where possible.
It does make a difference. A high frontend vehicle increases the severity of the injury in a low speed hit.
That’s actually surprising. I would think damage to lower extremities (delicate knee joints) would be far more severe from a concentrated impact area than a large area impact distributed over the entire body - when it occurs with a low speed impact.
Lower-fronted cars may cause more severe lower body injuries, but likely cause less severe injuries overall because the point of impact isn’t the torso (which is where humans keep a lot of their important bits and bobs).
I guess that’s the question. For low speed impacts the body is pretty well protected compared to the lower extremities because the energy of impact is more readily absorbed without serious damage.
There’s nuances here, but in principle you are incorrect. A car can be assumed to be infinitely heavier than a pedestrian. That means that every part of their body that’s in contact with the car will be accelerated to car speed. So it’s not that with a larger area the force is spread out, there’s actually just more places that have force applied. In other words, a low car will break your legs, a high car will break your legs and torso.
I tend to agree with you, of course, but I wonder if the large study were re-run with mass as the cause it would show similar distribution against the 6000lb+ vehicles. Mass tends to reduce braking deceleration and I didn’t see that as an explicit parameter. The “cause” is more salient to the second, smaller study which shows the “kneecap and hood carry” physics reduced hip and head injuries compated to the “body block and throw” mechanics of the flat- fronted cars.
Not to defend the Mack-Truck styling - I don’t disagree at all with the smaller impact study - I question the original implied hypothesis that the prevalence of large flat fronts as the cause of increase in deaths following the nadir in 2009. Of course anecdotes are not evidence, but I live in a college town and have since 2000 and the actions of pedestrians have changed substantially over the years. Specifically, the advent of smartphones has resulted in risky behavior both in pedestrians and behind the wheel. In 2009 less than 20% of phones were “smart.” Few of those were connected to the internet and fewer still to social media and entertainment services. Since then, the prevalence has increased to 80% and the consumption of media by orders of magnitude (measured by data usage and hours engaged). The original study implies the increase in pedestrian death solely due to nose geometry, but the quantity of impacts and conditions may not be as causative as the article seems to claim.
It makes a huge fucking difference.
A train fits that statement too. So do planes. And boats.
Big thing move fast hurt when hit. Thats not whats being discussed, tho, cause we all inherently understand physics.
A train fits that statement too. So do planes. And boats.
Trains run on tracks, and you can’t get hit by one unless you put yourself on those tracks.
I’m not aware of pedestrians and cyclists getting hit by planes. I’d be interested to hear about this trend.
Boats aren’t typically found on city streets, and pedestrian fatalities involving boats is how common?
City and suburban streets should have fewer cars on it, not more. These are pedestrian areas, and perhaps we can learn a thing or two about how to actually prevent pedestrian fatalities by looking at European city planning and design.
Is this the fuck cars sub? Or the fuck reading sub?
Why the fuck would you come into a community called ‘FuckCars’ and try to defend cars?
If you think anything about my comment defends cars, you need to find a community called “kindergarden reading lessons”
deleted by creator
why drive a car that makes that priority harder to fulfill?
deleted by creator
Shit happens. No one means to hit a pedestrian. Sometimes people with actually clean records hit pedestrians. It’s not called an accident because it was on purpose…
had one speeding ticket
Squeaky clean driving record
deleted by creator
So your record isn’t “squeaky clean” then, is it?
hasty generalization
As is the case with every sane driver on the road. All the same, pedestrians are hit by vehicles every day.
With the volume of car travel in the world, it is a statistical certainty that people will make mistakes, be it distraction, complacency, fatigue, whatever the cause. An abundance of these high up, flat-fronted vehicles create a scenario such that WHEN those mistakes DO happen, they’re far more likely to end a life. To suggest that people should just be better drivers is essentially just wishing the problem will solve itself.
