Hacker News Reader

Comment by noodlesUK | Hacker News Reader

This is something I really strongly agree with. There is no justifiable reason why we should be buying vehicles that are so much bigger than in previous years. Pedestrian fatalities are up big time in the U.S., and it’s largely thought that the reason is bigger cars with more lethal designs. Bigger cars also require more parking space and a larger amount of fuel/electricity. Smaller vehicles are a win all around. In the rare occasion where people need a large vehicle, we should aim to find ways to encourage them to rent one temporarily, rather than haul a huge vehicle around for the 99% of trips that don’t require one.

View on HN

> There is no justifiable reason why we should be buying vehicles that are so much bigger than in previous years.

Regulations (at least in the US) around car seats have made it more difficult to have three children without buying a larger car.

I dislike huge cars (I actually love tiny cars like the Nissan Figaro) but I may have to get one.

Agree, it is bizzare how all this discussions completely ignore the children and families that have to get decent sized car.

Parents with 3-4+ kids can’t get a “decent sized” car. (And, I’d point out that given how % childlessness has skyrocketed, we do need some larger families to balance them out.)

Our truck seats five adults, but only two kids plus two adults. Our old truck seated 5 adults, but no more than two adults and one car seat.

Instead of just requiring latch anchors, they should mandate that using all the latch anchors doesn’t reduce the max number of passengers.

Also, I wonder if they could eliminate booster seat requirements by mandating seatbelts that can be adjusted for short people.

As it is, we can’t take public transit, since the last few miles of most trips involves an illegal ride for the kiddos in an uber (so we have the kids walk those miles instead, which gets old fast).

If you get narrow car seats you can get three across in the back in almost any car. You don’t have to use the latch anchors. The seatbelts work fine.

Uber is a problem with really little kids, but you can get portable and even inflatable car seats and boosters that aren’t too bad to carry around.

How many families have more than 2 kids? For family with one kid a small car is enough. My friend drives a 5d Mini Cooper and it fits his family of 2+1.

Would be great if the US could have something like the Multimac https://www.multimac.com/home

https://diono.com/ Is moderately close

This still is for a huge car. If you need to carry two adults and 3+ kids - buy a minivan. Easy solution.

According to the fitment page, the 4-across model fits in a Corolla. I think it's unfair to call a Corolla "huge" in the context of the U.S. market, and it's certainly a lot smaller than a minivan.

A Toyota Sienna is larger, sure, but it carries as many passengers (8) as the typical obnoxiously-proportioned SUV and gets 35 mpg doing it. Also, if you've ever driven one, it's a really nice ride.

My family has a Toyota sienna. Nice minivan. Our previous '08 Sienna died for good a few miles over 300,000. Plus it only got oil changes (not the cheapest oil though) every 10,000 miles or so.

I loved my Sienna. It was cavernous. The SUV that's even bigger, has much less cargo space. I wish we'd gotten another van.

Yup. We had to replace our extended cab pickup with a crew cab so we could fit two car seats (which is just criminally bad misdesign; the old cab certainly had enough volume to accommodate everyone).

To add insult to injury, the crew cab weighs more, reducing usable towing and bed capacity, so now, about a quarter of the time I need a truck, I end up borrowing or renting a smaller, but higher capacity one.

Out of curiosity, why a pickup at all? I so rarely need to haul things with kids in the car that I've taken to just renting or borrowing as needed.

We live on a farm, so we end up using the bed multiple times a week.

The main competitor would be a car with a nice cab and car seat, and then a second beater truck with a single row of seating.

Alternatively, if someone made such a thing, but of course they don't, I'd like a little brick of an EV sedan that could tow as much as a large pickup (> 12,000 lbs), with no bed but a nice cab. The Rivian truck gets close to the towing requirement at 11,000 lbs, but for some reason their SUV only hits 7700. The BMW X5 hybrid is also close to what I'd be looking for, but still only hits 7700 lbs.

Nickerson, J. and Solomon, D. "Car seats as Contraception", SSRN (2020).

https://assets.super.so/6b4b5d92-904a-4e7b-95bd-914dd1d1528f...

> We estimate that these laws prevented only 57 car crash fatalities of children nationwide in 2017. Simultaneously, they led to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births in the same year, and 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of this decline being since 2000.

Wow!

Look around: I am sure 3 out of 4 SUVs you see have just one person inside.

Don't forget bigger cars also produce more abrasion of the asphalt and of the tires.

I wish we could ban SUVs.

As much as I liked my old volvo station wagon, it’d be illegal to put two adults and two kids in it for safety reasons (no room for modern car seats).

I hate the fact that cars have bloated out so much, but there’s a reason people end up with SUVs (they’re smaller than minivans, at least)

> Pedestrian fatalities are up big time in the U.S., and it’s largely thought that the reason is bigger cars with more lethal designs

Almost all of the difference since 2009 in likely attributable to smartphones [1]. (Almost all of the increase in deaths occur around sunset.)

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/11/upshot/nightt...

I think you're equating the likely cause of the crash with the severity of it. If I'm going to be hit by a car whose driver is distracted by their phone, I'd prefer to be hit by a smaller rather than a larger vehicle.

> If I'm going to be hit by a car whose driver is distracted by their phone, I'd prefer to be hit by a smaller rather than a larger vehicle

Sure. Big cars are a safety problem. I'm just challenging the claim that "it’s largely thought that the reason...pedestrian fatalities are up big time in the U.S....is bigger cars."

I really do not understand this perspective. You are just as dead past a certain speed no matter what the vehicle size is and the difference in speed between a large vehicle’s ability to kill you and a smaller vehicle’s ability to kill you is not that great.

You don't understand the mindset of preferring better survival odds where possible? OK, I guess.

If you as a pedestrian is in a place where a vehicle can strike you traveling at a speed fast enough to kill you, the size of the vehicle isn’t the problem to fix, the problem that needs fixed is finding a way to decrease the opportunity for the two of you to come together.

So no, I don’t understand the mindset of why someone would focus on and propose radical solutions that apply to a very narrow window of opportunity as opposed to proposing not so radical solutions that apply to a wide area of opportunity.

Do Europeans not have smartphones? Because pedestrian fatalities are down something like 20% there over the same period that those in U.S. have skyrocketed.

It's a curious puzzle, since "in places like Canada and Australia, a much lower share of pedestrian fatalities occurs at night, and those fatalities — rarer in number — have generally been declining, not rising."

Yet in America "total pedestrian deaths from ["smaller vehicles (like sedans, coupes and station wagons)"] are up more than 70 percent, suggesting the bulk of the problem cannot be attributed to increased car size alone."

Well, that's interesting. I can also imagine that Europeans and Australians are less likely to use their phones while driving, for more than one reason.

Perhaps bars and other nightlife tend to be more walkable in non rural areas in those countries.

Canada and Australia are also pretty car oriented.

I did notice that in parts of the US nighttime lighting of even some major urban and suburban roads can be nonexistent. I wonder if it’s more common in Canada and the US.

Could also be because police actually enforce (traffic) laws in some countries, and less so in others

I was getting coffee this morning and walked by a parked truck of some new model of Chevrolet. I was aghast at the front end. It was (guessing) four or five vertical feet of chrome. And then the hood above that. Basically a pedestrian death sentence as far as I can tell. These things don’t need to be on the roads with regular traffic.

I think there should be a requirement for a CDL instead of a regular license if you can't see over your hood and know if you're going to run over a child.

But that said, it's not even really a commercial requirement. We have safety guidelines for humans inside cars, but no safety guidelines to protect people who are struck by cars. Both commercial and emotional companion vehicles like those with 5 foot grill heights should be forced to be designed for safety in collisions. Otherwise the vehicle doesn't belong among normal traffic.

First EU SUVs are smaller than US ones (night and day). 2nd, the problem is not really the size of the car but engine does it un on. A Rivian, while being a huge SUV is still more eco friendly than my smaller Discovery 5 diesel…

Yep, as this discussion from a month ago resonates: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38267588

The cause is distracted driving with cell phones and pedestrians becoming more emboldened in complete street designed areas.

Well, there is a justifiable reason. Red Queen.

As this HN user put it[0](eloquently, I thought):

> Yield to gross tonnage.

I think it's a great slogan. I was thinking of getting a bumper sticker like that but forgot about it. Everyone driving small cars must understand: cemeteries are full of people with the right of way, yield to gross tonnage.

Specifically, my gross tonnage.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38268232

Go directly to jail.

Most women agree with you and feel safer in a SUV…

> Pedestrian fatalities are up big timein the U.S.

The problem with this statistic is it might have teeth viewed in isolation, but loses its impact if you broaden the statistics to account for who and how many are dying in vehicle related fatalities. If larger modern vehicles provide greater safety to the passengers within, and if passengers are more likely to die by vehicle accidents than pedestrians, a small move of the needle in vehicle passenger safety due to larger vehicles might cause significant improvement number of total vehicle related fatalities despite pedestrian deaths increasing.

Heavier vehicles are deadlier to occupants of other vehicles, as well.

This is a hypothetical scenario. Larger cars impose more risk to both pedestrians and smaller cars.

Even if it was an overall reduction, as the IIHS puts it, "The models that rank among the best and worst performers on both lists point to the unfortunate fact that vehicle cost remains a factor in road safety".[1]

Optimizing public safety in this way may--even if it were true--leads to deeply inequitable safety. Large cars are safer for richer people while disproportionately affecting poorer people and children.

[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/latest-driver-death-rates-h...

I doubt that this is a rich vs poor situation or some sort of societal inequity. Where I live there is virtually no apparent difference between the size of the vehicles driven by folks at the various income levels. It’s not even a new vs old. I see plenty of newer SUVs and trucks in lower income areas.

Overall vehicle related fatalities are decreasing even if pedestrian fatalities are increasing. Perhaps the solution to the pedestrian fatality increase isn’t due to the vehicle, it’s due to the opportunity for the two to come together.

You're coupling anecdotes ("where I live"), hypotheticals ("perhaps the solution"), and confounding variables (improved overall vehicle safety isn't just due to vehicle size).

The evidence is clear. Increased pedestrian deaths are largely due to vehicle size.

Perhaps the underlying thought is there must be a way to make cars safer for passengers and pedestrians. One demonstrable way to achieve this is better infrastructure [1][2] rather than just building bigger cars.

[1] https://www.vox.com/23784549/pedestrian-deaths-traffic-safet... [2] https://www.strongtowns.org/

Edit: added the link

What a strange response. You are critical of my comment yet you post links discussing ways to improve infrastructure speaking directly to my point about the best way to avoid fatalities is to mitigate the opportunities for vehicles and pedestrians to come together?

The evidence is clear, overall vehicle fatalities are decreasing. If you want to avoid pedestrian fatalities caused by vehicles literally the best way to accomplish this is to minimize the opportunities for pedestrians and vehicles to come together at speeds in which fatalities are likely to occur.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2023-Q2-traffic-fatalit...

Would you agree with making "heavier" people paying more for flights?

It is interesting that discrimination is OK when based on "things" but not when applied to humans. After all "heavier" humans also use more resources just as "heavier" cars do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

So drawing parallels is no longer allowed? Is lateral thinking also banned?

Or do heavier people not use more resources then skinnier humans? What's wrong with drawing a parallel to cars?

> do heavier people not use more resources then skinnier humans?

You’re arguing as if charging heavy people more to fly isn’t a thing. It is. And I don’t think that’s abhorrent nor even unfair.

I didn't know, I didn't know it was a thing.

And yes, it's very murky as you say. There is a difference between genetic and chosen unfortunately the difference isn't obvious from just the optics.

> difference between genetic and chosen unfortunately the difference isn't obvious from just the optics

Okay, so let's get back to the actual topic. Help me understand how buying an SUV is fundamentally—beyond optics—similar to being genetically predisposed to obesity.

If you have a large family and use this SUV as a transporter for your children or if use this SUV as a status symbol, an outsider cannot differentiate between these two use-cases.

The genetics, in this case, is money: is the owner wanting to protect their family, has taken on debt to purchase this SUV just because they wish to have a "safer" car for their family. Or is the owner on their fourth SUV and it's just-another-car purchase. One owner is struggling, the other was born with a silver spoon.

Not everyone is born to be able purchase an SUV, being born with or without money can influence peoples life, just as their genetics.

Both are random attributes that are assigned upon birth.

Aren't some US carriers charging plus-size people 2 seats if they don't fit now? I think it's banned in Canada. But waist and weight limit seems reasonable without some sort of medical exemption.

It seems reasonable to me that to occupy two seats costs the fare of two seats.

If I want to eat two pizzas, I have to pay for two pizzas, regardless of medical condition… If I want two gallons of gas instead of one… If I want two months of Netflix instead of one…

It’s unclear why people expect that some should consume two seats and pay for only one…

Some do. About 15 years ago I was doing a regular weekly commute and due to my size at the time, Southwest would ask me to purchase two seats. If the flight was not full they would refund one ticket. Since Southwest uses first come first serve seating, you would get preboard status and a little card to place in the second seat.

I was ok with that accommodation, it seemed reasonable and with a little research into the flights and how often they were truly full it was rare that i didn’t get a refund.

Humans are discriminated all the time: by passport, by place of birth, by sex, by wealth, etc.

Maybe some airlines will come eventually with new fare where total weight with all clothes and luggage would be billed with different tiers, let's say 5: <20, 20-50, 50-100, 100-150, 150+ kg.

Probably the only thing stopping them are privacy concerns. On the other hand, for frequent flyers it could be a great thrill to be told that they had lost weight since their last flight.

Maybe. Many countries in the EU already place heavy taxes on engine displacement, so a curb weight tax or vehicle size tax wouldn't be something entirely new.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com