Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's a separate problem here, which is that large heavy cars are not required to be designed in a way that takes the injury to people outside the car (pedestrians, cyclists, or in other cars) into account. This results in people buying heavy cars in order to be "safe" from other people buying heavy cars.

And while we can't build thousands of miles of new bike lanes overnight, we can definitely start the process of making new vehicles more safe to other road users today. Both are necessary, IMO.

re: injury, sure getting hit is not great, but the SUV is substantially more likely to injure or kill the pedestrian in the same collision. There's lots of data to show this.



How likely do you find to be an acceptable level of likelihood?

For me it's zero, or at least very, very close to it. We're never going to get to zero by complaining that cars are too heavy. It's an ideological dead end. I mean, hell, a tesla, not commonly seen as a large car, weighs over 2 tons. Chassis alone is close to 2 tons by itself. How are you going to make that not kill someone on a bike? Or take, say, the world's lightest production car, the absolutely tiny Caterham Seven 170, which weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000lbs. You and an absurdly heavy bike, a real value brand steel frame special, is like a quarter of that, and, it's not really feasible to say that everyone should drive a small, two seat open cockpit, open wheel roadster.

F=MA is unavoidable, you should stop pretending it is, you'll live longer. Then write your local government, or better, show up to the public forums they hold, and lobby for bike paths. Partner with bike shops, get in with the mom groups, have them make donations to pro-bike path politicians. That's how the world works now.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: