[addicted]

You’re right. It’s not so much the cars are larger that lowers visibility. It’s the design with the massive fronts and massive grilles that are higher than the average male’s height.

Some of these cars are really insane and it really worries me for the kids in these people’s houses.

[giantg2]

"It’s the design with the massive fronts and massive grilles that are higher than the average male’s height."

This seems sensationalist unless you're talking about class A or B vehicles. Especially with your think-of-the-children remark. Do you have data to back it up?

[ketzo]

I don’t mean this rudely — have you been around many trucks recently? They’re fucking massive. The newer F-150s, while maybe not 6ft tall at the front, easily obscure a child or a short person.

I have personally seen extremely close calls at gas stations/grocery store parking lots multiple times because of this.

[silisili]

Just keep getting bigger. My first truck was an 88 ranger. That thing is smaller than most new sedans today.

I have a newish 'midsize' truck that is as large as or larger than fullsizes of the 90s.

[throwaway0a5e]

You're not wrong, they're massive.

But the person he was replying to was being over the top sensationalist.

[giantg2]

"The newer F-150s, while maybe not 6ft tall at the front, easily obscure a child or a short person."

Which is not what the parent is claiming.

Edit: people are really downvoting factual statements now?

[ketzo]

Okay, so new trucks don’t exclusively have a hood height of 5’9”+.

I still think the broader point of “it’s really hard to see people, even adults, right in front of you” is 1) demonstrably true 2) extremely scary.

[giantg2]

“it’s really hard to see people, even adults, right in front of you”

Then they should say that instead of sensationalizing it.

"1) demonstrably true"

Do you have some evidence of this? 1) If you have awareness, you should see objects before they move into any blind spot. 2) Driver height in relation to the hood height plays an important role in visibility, which means that you can see things shorter than the hood height depending on the distance from the vehicle. 3) Many new larger trucks come with 360 degree cameras now, so the blind spots are not an issue.

[jkelleyrtp]

I own a Dodge Ram 2500 and I can say that it's much harder to see things in front of you simply because the vehicle is so large. It's tough to park, tough to take through a small town, and hard to see out of in short-sight conditions. But it hauls a trailer, so it has a purpose.

[igetspam]

Except they have front, rear and side cameras. Our new F150 has 360° of visibility at low speeds. There are also proximity sensors that tell me if something outside the field of vision is coming my way from behind. It's also very liberal with the automatic braking, trying to stop in situations I'd barely slow for. And the automatic cruise changes based on GPS and stored speed limit data. It's by far the safest car I've ever driven, for both my family and those around us.

My friend's new Chevy 3500 has twice as many cameras as our F150. We both tow heavy things (I move large pets and rescue animals in various trailers.) and my bed is often filled with dirt or rocks.

What are you driving and how many pedestrian detection and collision avoidance systems does it have?

[anigbrowl]

That's all great but it's of little help with a driver that is zoned out looking out the window in the wrong direction. About once a week I have a close call stepping into a crosswalk while a driver is in a hurry to make a right turn but is looking out to the left at the (stopped) traffic and ignoring people trying to cross the street. I live near a freeway on-ramp and as soon as the light goes green many drivers seem in such a rush to take off that I wonder if they are already mentally imagining themselves pulling onto the freeway.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

> That's all great but it's of little help with a driver that is zoned out looking out the window in the wrong direction.

That will be the case with any vehicle, no matter the size. All the visibility in the world won’t help if the driver is looking in the wrong direction.

[wpietri]

Thanks to peripheral vision, that's not true.

If I'm riding a bicycle, I am unlikely to hit a person coming up on my right no matter how focused I am on the traffic from the left. The bigger the vehicle, though, the easier it gets because there's less and less visibility of the pedestrian to pull my attention back.

[throwawaysea]

The proximity sensors make a loud sound that’s hard to ignore so I don’t think the zoning out is as much a problem in newer vehicles. In many vehicles the car also takes action automatically to brake.

As a frequent pedestrian I also show some caution around vehicles. For instance I don’t charge out in front of a vehicle unless I’ve made eye contact with the driver. I don’t walk right behind vehicles while they’re pulling out in a busy parking lot. And so on. If you’re worried about safety there are many strategies to keeping yourself safe.

[anigbrowl]

I can't make eye contact with a driver who's not looking my way, and it's not my responsibility to delay crossing the road for drivers who DGAF. Perhaps the proximity sensors do make a loud sound, but I've found that yelling 'hey' or hitting the car is sometimes the only means of getting some drivers' attention. It seems to me that if someone wants to operate a large heavy machine on wheels it's their responsibility to be alert while they're operating it.

[giantg2]

I'm really curious why you are being downvoted...

Edit: and now this is being downvoted...

[ineedasername]

If there was going to be a regulatory move in this space, it's proximity & awareness systems and better visibility that seem to make more sense, than a tax of some kind. These will actually contribute to safety, while a tax would at best be a very minor and indirect influence on market forces.

[giantg2]

Generally, trucks do get taxed more through higher registration fees, and indirectly through fuel taxes.

[ineedasername]

That's all pretty irrelevant because most of that ends up going to various sorts of highway maintenance or general operating budgets for states, not making cares safer.

Regardless, let's see how that plays out in actual taxes: Where I'm at the difference between registering an F150 and a Honda Accord is about $20. (personal, non commercial) Looking at California it's not much different. In Texas they're the same cost, but let's say the average is $20 and do some back-of-the-envelope math:

Registration Fees:

--About 11M vehicles sold each year classified as a light truck (pickup/SUV) = $220M in reg. fees.

--About 40M used cars sold each year. About 50% of Carvana use cars are pickups or SUVs, so that's another $400M.

--Total: $640M

Fuel taxes:

--Average tax of $0.35/gallon

--average of 13,500 mile/year driven

--MPG for Honda Accord = 38, 26 for an F150 for a difference of about 164 gallons/year.

--About 230M eligible drivers in the US. About 88% own a car. About 30% of all vehicles on the road are SUVs/light truck = 61M on the road.

--61M * 164 gallons * $0.35/gallon = $3.5B

Total taxes: $4.15B in taxes extra collected on larger vehicles across the entire country, but none of it goes towards making large vehicles safer.

Even if that was doubled, what would the government spend it on to make cars safer? I can't think of much.

Meanwhile it's becoming harder & harder to find cars that don't have various automatic sensors & safety features, and all manufacturers have agreed to add AEB by 2022. Browsing manufacturer site & dealer inventory, a very large # also have rear-park-assist (which detects pedestrian) either by default, or as an upgrade that is already included on most vehicles in dealer inventory.

If we combined these trends with requirements for greater visibility as well, the combination would do a lot more than an increased tax .

[crooked-v]

It's hyperbole, but not by much. For example, a current model GMC Sierra HD Denali straight from the factory floor, before even considering aftermarket lift kits, has a hood line about 55" off the ground. Someone in a wheelchair or an average 10-year-old would be completely hidden from the view of the driver.

[anonfornoreason]

I own one of these and it's past ridiculous, and it's purely cosmetic. Yes the vehicle is large, but the styling is clearly responsible for a solid 6-12" of that height. Unfortunately if you need a vehicle to tow heavy loads, all new large trucks have this imposing front end.

I will also say I am rather disappointed in the technology at least on the GMC. For example, it has 360 degree cameras, but they don't show what's in front of you when you put it in drive for the first time. With the hood height of the thing, there's real risk that my kid is in front of the vehicle when I first start out. If GMC gave two shits about pedestrian safety they'd at least have an option to flash the front camera for 10 seconds after initially shifting into drive.

[giantg2]

The parent said F150, which is a different level of truck and lower. They were also talking about full size adult males. Their statement was factually inaccurate.

Edit: why downvote? Should we just leave fake information circulate?

[vitus]

It's pretty close, though.

The closest proxy to this that I could find ("inside height" of the truck bed plus "open tailgate to ground") is 57.4-57.7" for a 2015 4x4, while the average adult male in the US is 5'9".

https://www.fordfseries.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-...

I don't know about you, but if you looked at the top 1.3" of my head, you'd just see hair.

edit: as pointed out, I am bad at math apparently.

[giantg2]

I think you need to check your math. 5'9" comes out to 69", giving you about 12" visible inches (more dpending on driver height and distance from vehicle).

[anigbrowl]

It's OK to point someone is being hyperbolic but you are nitpicking many posts on the topic, with 16 comments so far. Maybe just ease back the reply button a bit.

[giantg2]

Can you give me an example of the nitpicking? Mostly I've been pointing out incorrect information or explaining my prior comment because someone misread the comment or didn't read how it relates to the context set by the parent.

[anigbrowl]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28272188

[klyrs]

I don't know where you live, but in north america, trucks are getting ridiculously huge. They aren't sold like that, but aftermarket lift kits are extremely common; I fear that there's nothing sensationalist about GP. I live in Vancouver and trucks like this are quite frequent. In places like Texas and Alberta, they're downright common.

Speaking of children... little ones can walk directly under these trucks without bonking their heads

[giantg2]

"They aren't sold like that, but aftermarket lift kits are extremely common;"

The parent was talking about the design of new trucks. Aftermarket modifications would be a different topic.

[klyrs]

I'd agree, if they weren't so damned prevalent. Their dominating presence on the road absolutely factors into the real and perceived safety that is driving the race towards ever larger cars

[giantg2]

But then we would be discussing a different topic - forbidding or further restricting aftermarket modifications instead of the current discussion about all trucks and larger vehicles. It seems the stock designs are reasonable and pass various safety considerations (stability, braking, etc) that the extremely modified versions would not.

[klyrs]

No, that's not a different topic at all. If tax is based on vehicle size, then that tax should increase with aftermarket modifications to the vehicle's size.

Likewise, if an aftermarket modification violates vehicle regulations, that should be punished accordingly.

[stefan_]

I think you should strap a GoPro to your belt some time and walk around a city. It's not think-of-the-children, not being able to see past vehicle fronts is what life is like for children.

[giantg2]

"not being able to see past vehicle fronts is what life is like for children."

This wasn't being discussed. Driver visibility was the topic. How do you feel children not being able to see past the front of a vehicle affects their safety? Presumably they are crossing at crosswalks and intersections which would not have cars parked immediately around them and provides visibility.

[crooked-v]

> which would not have cars parked immediately around them

Something tells me you haven't visited an urban downtown lately. Vehicles are often parked right up to the edges of blocks, and that can make safe visibility difficult for adults, let alone children.

[giantg2]

Well then maybe the police should do their jobs and start towing people parked within 15 feet of the intersection. It's a bit ridiculous to advocate for more laws when the current ones aren't enforced.

Edit: why downvote? In my opinion city design has more of an impact on safety than vehicle design.

[zten]

But that parking is usually legal. Nothing to tow over, unless the intersection specifically has markings ("daylighting") prohibiting parking.