Hacker News Reader

Those 3 wheeler's are considered motorcycles. They're also death traps.

Those onerous federal regulations keep 10s of thousands of people from dying and probably 2-3x that from being seriously injured or permanently disabled. They are a good thing. You want fun small cars to be 'safe' again? Figure out a way to do away with huge trucks and SUVs (ehem, carbon tax anyone?)

They are probably safer than a motorcycle, but you still need to wear a helmet and don't even think about splitting lanes. Also too low for serious street driving (unlike a motorcycle).

SUV and huge trucks are not necessarily safer. At the very least it's more energy and momentum that must be dealt with.

They are safer for the people inside.

I don't think they were suggesting that. I think they were suggesting that being wrecked into by a heavy vehicle while in a light vehicle is dangerous for the people in the light vehicle. Which is true.

The fact that cars need to resist getting hit by a loaded dumptruck that got lifted by a tornado, while motorcycles are legal, is one of the great studies of "practical laws without principle". If we 100% cared about freedom, we would let cars be designed in any particular way. If we 100% cared about safety, we wouldn't allow motorcycles on the road (or allow vehicles to be any larger than required for personal transport).

It's just a mishmash of laws that kinda make sense. Most people use cages, so make the cages safe and let the motorcyclists die if they like.

The rules are very much based on principle. General passenger vehicles are regulated to the standards we expect for general passenger transportation, and special cases are regulated with those special cases in mind.

Different people have different concerns. I don't own a motorcycle because I demand higher safety standards. I sometimes consider giving up my bicycle because those are equally dangerous on roads (I have separated bike paths to where I want to go, but when those cross a road I'm never even looked for - bikes are normally much worse), but my doctor ensures me that the health benefits make up some of the danger.

Cars are dangerous too, but lacking transit options it is the safest choice I have.

I'm not necessarily complaining about the decisionmaking of being practical. It strikes a balance.

I was riding my bicycle four days ago, and while turning on a street, ran over some loose gravel from road construction. The bike went out from under me, and I slammed my face into the concrete. Concussion, possible sinus fracture, and sore teeth/nerves. I'm seeing some specialists this week.

Shit happens. Would I mandate full-face helmets for weekend bike rides? No. Would I sue the city for not properly sweeping a road after they patch a part of it? No. Shit happens.

That said, I hope my brain doesn't deteriorate too much more - this is head injury #4 that I'm aware of.

> I guarantee almost every truck owner could have a Ford Maverick instead of a Ford F-150 and they wouldn't lose an ounce of the needed capacity for their lives. Heck, the 2024 compact pickups are larger and heavier than full-size trucks from 25 years ago.

Trucks have become pieces of consumer flair. I'll probably end up with a van at some point because of it. I won't buy an F-150 because they're comically large, but if I could get a Maverick without a back seat in the cab, I'd have bought one instantaneously.

They very much have. Perhaps exaggerated for the sake of example, but it makes a point.

In Europe, a woman rides her horse every weekend for dressage/fun/whatever. So she hooks a horse trailer up to her Audi station wagon and takes it.

In America, a woman rides her horse every weekend at her home. But she needs to move it to a different paddock twice a year (summer, winter). So it's obvious she will require an F-350 dual wheel truck as a daily driver...

Very true, but that Audi with a horse trailer will get along just fine with other traffic at speeds <= 80km/h which are mandatory for that configuration on much of the continent.

Industry trends suggest that there isn’t much of a need for capacity in the first place

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/23/pickup-trucks-f150-size-wei...

The image on that article really makes me miss my '79 Ford that as a teen I bought not running and fixed/replaced just about everything including the straight-6 300 engine. I tracked my MPG by hand and remember I got 16 in town and 21 on the highway. It blows my mind that something like a modern Tacoma can't blow that away, even while gaining 1,000 pounds over the old Ford.

The Tacoma and small trucks in general are odd. The engine is small but the truck is still quite heavy and is geared to handle it's own weight plus any towing or bed load. This gearing makes them inefficient.

I was wondering why Toyota Tacoma mpg was worse than the F-150. Now I know, the reliability took a nose dive and it will take a while to match mpg and quality/reliability. Toyota is stubborn about reliability.

> Biased messenger, but correct message. CAFE and crash standards are the example to teach "bad knock-on effect". Make strict efficiency requirements, but exempt huge trucks? Everyone makes huge trucks!

I agree, Tesla is clearly self-interested here but I'll take any ally in this fight I can find. Just like it's notable (but unsurprising) that all of the big manufacturers of ICE vehicles are opposed to this change.

There's going to be a place for ICE vehicles on our roads for quite a while longer yet, but in this transitional phase there's absolutely no reason that we should be incentivizing manufacturers to create larger / less efficient vehicles, which is what our existing regulatory framework has inadvertently done for decades now.

> Just like it's notable (but unsurprising) that all of the big manufacturers of ICE vehicles are opposed to this change.

I don't think it's notable at all. Companies opposing (potential) legislation that will cost them large amounts of money aimed at them lobbied for by a competitor isn't exactly shocking.

> but in this transitional phase there's absolutely no reason that we should be incentivizing manufacturers to create larger / less efficient vehicles, which is what our existing regulatory framework has inadvertently done for decades now

The truck market is one thing (and I tend to agree there), but uh, car manufacturers are making their vehicles more and more efficient, just in general.

A 2010 Toyota Camry 4-cylinder, 2.5L automatic gets 26MPG (22/32). A 2023 with the same specs gets 32 (28/39) [1].

A 24% increase in fuel efficiency for an ICE in just over a decade is something that should be lauded. Can they become even more efficient (and recognizing there is more to fuel economy than just the engine)? Sure. Does it require Tesla lobbying to try to force it? I am a lot less sure.

[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=26422&...