Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmward01 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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).

- 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.

"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.

More mass = more momentum = harder crash. That's physics.

And this applies to EVs, not just trucks. It will be the reality across all new vehicle types.

- 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...

"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.

> 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...

> 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.

"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?

> 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?

"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.

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?

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/

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.

Larger vehicles do have different licensing standards:

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/cdl

"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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com