The size of things.

Wally (Forum Supporter) said:

 

In reply to 93gsxturbo :

Depends on your commute but parallel parking downtown or driving through narrow streets are annoying in a big car, then again some people think door dings and bumping into the cars around them are "normal wear and tear."

 

I don't really understand this part. I drive a suburban, which is comically large, in lower Manhattan and parallel park several times a day. It's never been that difficult to do, especially now that there's electronics monitoring everything. I can't think of a street that can't accommodate a fire truck or garbage truck, so the largest of cars should fit as well. 

I have parallel parked my 78 F150 with my Hobie Cat on it's trailer without banging into anything. I received some looks of what the berkeley as I started that turned into damn look at that as I finished

I think the parallel parking comment isnt necessarily that big cars are more difficult to park... they are more difficult to find spaces for.  My daily is ~162 in long and it's way easier to find a suitable spot for that than a suburban, minivan, etc. 

ProDarwin said:

I think the parallel parking comment isnt necessarily that big cars are more difficult to park... they are more difficult to find spaces for.  My daily is ~162 in long and it's way easier to find a suitable spot for that than a suburban, minivan, etc. 

Touche 

DirtyBird222 said:I don't get why people feel like they need to make others conform to their lifestyle.

I don't see anybody doing that

In day to day driving, a modern larger vehicle isn't much different to drive than a small vehicle. Acceleration, braking, and handling of large trucks and SUV's has improved so much Vs. old trucks. Gone is the sloppy steering and balky brakes. The size itself is easy to get used to. It's not like they don't fit on the road. I'm surprised how small my wife's Expedition Max drives. Heck, even my 20 year old Nissan Titan drives much better than it's size would lead you to believe. The only real downsides in regular driving are economy, finding parking, and some drive thrus can be tight. While the sweet spot for me is a midsize wagon, I can see why large vehicles are popular. 

Maybe I'll just start stockpiling Mazda 5s so I can have one of those to drive for the rest of my life.

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

In reply to DirtyBird222 :

I have four cars here that I have actually measured interior width....2003 MINI,1999 Miata, 1972 Corolla and my wife's 2006 Scion xB. The old Corolla is actually the widest of my cars, but the xB is 3 inches wider inside. Along the same vein, the xB has more leg and headroom, front and rear, than my Canyon crew cab. the truck seats feel narrower and it has a large console. Also, I think a lot of our belief that vehicles are bigger is just perception, driven by the increase in numbers of large vehicles. A 99 Chev truck isn't all that much smaller than a 2023, but there are far more of them at the grocery store these days. There are also a lot more 2500 trucks in the general population than 25 years ago. We had a couple of Taurus wagons when the kids were little, today that would be an SUV that is much bigger on the outside with comparable interior room. I'll just keep driving my Miata and keep my head on a swivel.

My point was in how they feel.

Peabody: I wasn't pointing my finger at anyone in here. However, if you want to point the finger at anyone for the uptick in size of vehicles, you can point it at the USG and the legislation they keep pushing to make cars conform to certain standards. I don't see EVs fixing that problem anytime soon either, especially as people clamor for long ranges and towing capacities for them. 

Trent said:

Toyman! said:

Tom1200 said:

93EXCivic said:

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

1. Height, mainly full size trucks and SUV's.  It's nuts, when 7-8-9 year old kids are completely invisible to the driver even when they are not directly in front of the vehicle.
2. Weigh, and funnily enough one of the biggest offenders here is electric vehicles.  No, I'm not anti electric, they offer massive benefits in many ways, but when things like the electric Hummer have a battery pack that weighs more than a turn of the century hatchback, that's a serious problem from safety and resources.

100%. We have seen a large increase in pedestrain and cyclist deaths over the past few years and I can't help but think vehicle size massively plays into this.

I can only speak locally but around here 75% of pedestrian fatalities are the pedestrians fault.

Everyday I watch people get off the bus (100ft from a crosswalk) and walk directly into traffic. They also dart across busy 6 lane roads at night wearing dark clothing.

With the increased enforcement of motorists; pedestrians no appear to think they are invincible.....even when they do use a crosswalk they cross against the light.

QFT.

There have been 2 pedestrian fatalities within a mile of my house in the past year. Both easily avoidable by not crossing a street in dark clothes at night. Or easier yet, not walking out in front of a car. 

What you two are missing here with your victim blaming is that the amount of pedestrian/cyclist to vehicle collisions is not going up but the amount of fatalities is, by 43%! and it is directly a result of the the vehicles hitting them.  

US Federal safety standards do NOT have regulations for pedestrian safety like euro NCAP does, and even if we did I am sure there would be a loophole because Truck not car.

 

Exactly. This.

The average weight of a car in 1981 was around ~3100lbs and now is 3,500lbs. The average truck has gone from ~3750lb to ~4750lb. So lets say a truck is going 25mph (40kph), the kinectic energy in a crash with a pedestrain in a 1981 truck is 1360kj compared to a current one where it is going to be 1723kJ so the energy in the hit is increased by 79%. Also the percentage of trucks on the road has increased versus cars since 1981. I am not saying it is the only factor people are increasing distracted while driving and urban design is basically only set up for cars.

RE: Pedestrian deaths, I dont think vehicle size/visibility is as big a factor as suggested

Here's an interesting listen on it:  https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-the-u-s-so-good-at-killing-pedestrians/

I'm not sure car weight is significant at all.  If you get struck by a truck that weighs 4000lb or 6000lb I don't think the weight has a considerable effect on your likelyhood of survival.  Not all of that energy is transferred to the passenger.  It just means the "bump" slows down 1 truck by x mph, and the other by 2x mph.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I'll say it again. 

If a person is going to step out in front of a speeding car, they are not the victim. The poor soul that mashes them flat is the victim. My kids figured it out when they were barely old enough to walk because I busted their asses when they ran out in the street or parking lot without looking. 

You are trying to solve the problem from the wrong direction. Trying to save the idiots after they are hit is backward. A better use of resources would be to teach people to look both ways before stepping out into a road with 4000 pound machines running down it. Right of way is pretty useless after the car smashes into you. I don't know about most people but I'm much more interested in being alive instead of demanding my right of way or insisting people drive cars that won't kill me. Interestingly enough, I don't step out in front of cars and consequently haven't ever been hit by one. 

Toyman! said:

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I'll say it again. 

If a person is going to step out in front of a speeding car, they are not the victim. The poor soul that mashes them flat is the victim. My kids figured it out when they were barely old enough to walk because I busted their asses when they ran out in the street or parking lot without looking. 

You are trying to solve the problem from the wrong direction. Trying to save the idiots after they are hit is backward. A better use of resources would be to teach people to look both ways before stepping out into a road with 4000 pound machines running down it. Right of way is pretty useless after the car smashes into you. I don't know about most people but I'm much more interested in being alive instead of demanding my right of way or insisting people drive cars that won't kill me. Interestingly enough, I don't step out in front of cars and consequently haven't ever been hit by one. 

I'm going to quote the article/podcast I posted above.  I agree with it 100%

I am 100 percent against the killing of people by cars. Is it true that pedestrians are sometimes at fault? Of course, but mostly not — and even if so, you could argue that the penalty for stupidity should not be death.

I think pedestrians should absolutely not step out in front of cars.  But sometimes people make a mistake.  I think we should absolutely be working toward environments that minimize the opportunity for that mistake, or minimize the consequences. 

BlueInGreen - Jon said:

Maybe I'll just start stockpiling Mazda 5s so I can have one of those to drive for the rest of my life.

That's my plan with Sparks. I'm just waiting for the prices to come back down to earth

Toyman! said:

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I'll say it again. 

If a person is going to step out in front of a speeding car, they are not the victim. The poor soul that mashes them flat is the victim. My kids figured it out when they were barely old enough to walk because I busted their asses when they ran out in the street or parking lot without looking. 

You are trying to solve the problem from the wrong direction. Trying to save the idiots after they are hit is backward. A better use of resources would be to teach people to look both ways before stepping out into a road with 4000 pound machines running down it. Right of way is pretty useless after the car smashes into you. I don't know about most people but I'm much more interested in being alive instead of demanding my right of way or insisting people drive cars that won't kill me. Interestingly enough, I don't step out in front of cars and consequently haven't ever been hit by one. 

You eloquently explained why I believe bicycles should be riding on sidewalks and not car lanes.

In reply to calteg :

While I don't disagree , a cyclist almost T-boned my MINI last week. He was peddling furiously down the sidewalk and neither of us saw the other as I pulled out of a strip mall lane. Luckily, he almost stopped in time and dumped the bike. Maybe we need to start doing like the Dutch and have separate bike lanes as well as sidewalks. 

In reply to calteg :

Three of the last four times I got hit by a car, I was (illegally) riding on the sidewalk.  Either cars turned right in front of me without looking, or blew out of a driveway without looking.  Getting piledrived into the street is fun.

The fourth time, I was riding my old French bike on a very low travel side street, after I had spent a few weeks painstakingly cold setting/truing/riding/cold setting etc. the irreplaceable 630 rear rim, an old lady very gently and deliberately hit me, destroying the wheel, yelled at me for riding in the street, and drove off.  Still mad that I didn't get her license plate and report a hit and run.

Riding on the sidewalk was a $100 fine, and points on your driver's license if you had one.

In reply to calteg :

One of my pet theories is that a lot of societal friction arises from our tendency to try to work out *relatively* specific rules ("where do bikes ride, who has right of way?") without first working out more general questions ("are bicycles a meaningful mode of transportation for people trying to get around?")

Riding on sidewalks is a nonstarter for actually getting anywhere. You have to ride slowly enough to not get collected by someone backing out of their driveway and not clobber a pedestrian stepping off their porch, and you'd have to come to a stop at the end of every block because drivers couldn't see you until you were basically entering the cross street.

Which is why my first impulse was to take "bikes should be on the sidewalk" to mean "bikes shouldn't be ridden." I don't actually know what your complete understanding of cycling is, but it seems implicit in your stance that if there is any inconvenience or imposition to be made in having bikes and cars in the world, they should be imposed on the bikes. And that takes us back to the bigger question.

Even this motorsport forum has a lively bicycle subcomponent. I don't think it makes sense to suggest they just go away (or go to spectacular lengths to appear not to exist to other road users).

Now I need to go make a meme comparing rude and lawless cyclists with coal-rollers as groups who've done so much to bring unwanted scrutiny and disdain for activities I love.

In reply to ProDarwin :

I think what Toyman is trying to get across is that it's not about fault, it's about consequences and control of your own outcome. Pedestrians have the most control of their own safety. Cars hitting people on sidewalks is incredibly rare. People getting hit at intersections is also a small percentage- less and 20%. So the vast majority of collisions don't happen in areas where pedestrians are expected. If you are a pedestrian- anywhere- the number one person looking out for your safety should be you. If you are relying on car manufactures to keep you safe, you are doing it wrong. If you are walking, especially in an area where pedestrians aren't expected- by the side of a road without a sidewalk or crossing the road not at an intersection- you need to have your head on a swivel and assume no driver sees you. That's not victim blaming, that's good advice for self preservation. This is an easy problem to solve on an individual basis. While changing cars to mitigate the effects of a collision can help, that strategy is much less effective than avoiding the collision in the first place.

In reply to calteg :

I don't mind bikes on the street. It's not the size of things, it's the speed of things. They are faster moving than the walkers, and I look for them there instead of on the sidewalk. Frequently you have to cross the sidewalk without being able to see down the sidewalk. I'd much rather the 20 mph bike be out on the road instead of where I can't see them. I do wish cyclists were more willing to work with cars than most of them are. Unfortunately, many of them are more interested in asserting their rights.  

I didn't feel sorry for the group of 10 I had to blast past on a twisty road in the mountains the other day with the RV. I followed them for 5 miles with 10+ cars piled up behind me with them taking the entire lane. Their average speed was about 15 mph but on a twisty road with a 30k-pound vehicle, there was no way for me to get around them. They showed no sign of being willing to work with me so I could get by, so I showered down on it on a short straight stretch to get by. Since my motorhome is pre-emissions it smokes a little under full throttle. With the 6" exhaust on the passenger side, they ended up with faces full of diesel exhaust. With a little working together, I could have eased by without smoking them out under full throttle. Something as simple as getting in a single file to the right of the lane would have been an immense help but I honestly think they were enjoying bottling up traffic. So berkeley'um, suck diesel shiny happy people. When I'm the slow guy on a mountain road, I pull over to let the faster traffic pass. The last stretch up to the farm is about 20 miles of pretty twisty mountain road. I can only average about 25 mph for most of it so I pull off 4-5 times to let traffic pass. I often wonder why cyclists aren't willing to do the same. 

Despite its size, I found our old Pontiac wagon fairly easy to drive and park. Awesome visibility in all directions and that wonderful GM power assist. It was long but didn’t park long, if that makes any sense. Konis and good tires definitely helped, too. 

In reply to David S. Wallens :

The Bentley is pretty easy to drive as well. The greenhouses on older cars are frequently huge so visibility isn't a problem. It's easier to parallel park it than it is the Mustang and the only reason the Touareg is easier is the rear camera. 

ProDarwin said:

RE: Pedestrian deaths, I dont think vehicle size/visibility is as big a factor as suggested

Here's an interesting listen on it:  https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-the-u-s-so-good-at-killing-pedestrians/

I'm not sure car weight is significant at all.  If you get struck by a truck that weighs 4000lb or 6000lb I don't think the weight has a considerable effect on your likelyhood of survival.  Not all of that energy is transferred to the passenger.  It just means the "bump" slows down 1 truck by x mph, and the other by 2x mph.

The only time vehicle weight comes in to pedestrian deaths is maneuverability. A lighter car might be able to avoid the pedestrian more easily. But the actual force of impact? It's not going to matter how much the vehicle weighs, it's already enormously heavier than the person.

The solution to pedestrian deaths is definitely going to be primarily road design. Same with cyclists.

Jesse Ransom said:

In reply to calteg :

One of my pet theories is that a lot of societal friction arises from our tendency to try to work out *relatively* specific rules ("where do bikes ride, who has right of way?") without first working out more general questions ("are bicycles a meaningful mode of transportation for people trying to get around?")

Riding on sidewalks is a nonstarter for actually getting anywhere. You have to ride slowly enough to not get collected by someone backing out of their driveway and not clobber a pedestrian stepping off their porch, and you'd have to come to a stop at the end of every block because drivers couldn't see you until you were basically entering the cross street.

Which is why my first impulse was to take "bikes should be on the sidewalk" to mean "bikes shouldn't be ridden." I don't actually know what your complete understanding of cycling is, but it seems implicit in your stance that if there is any inconvenience or imposition to be made in having bikes and cars in the world, they should be imposed on the bikes. And that takes us back to the bigger question.

Even this motorsport forum has a lively bicycle subcomponent. I don't think it makes sense to suggest they just go away (or go to spectacular lengths to appear not to exist to other road users).

Now I need to go make a meme comparing rude and lawless cyclists with coal-rollers as groups who've done so much to bring unwanted scrutiny and disdain for activities I love.

Read this thinking about nude and lawless cyclists, then read it a few more times and it's less great as a band name.

Agree, though

I think I would be less bothered if car makers were still offering the smaller cars. I agree with those talking about stock piling Sparks, Mazda 5s (small for a van), etc.

And I like driving my 7500 lbs E250, it's just that I like having the option of driving something small, simple, fun, and easy on fuel/tires. 

Used my 23 year old, lowered mini-truck to haul about 950lbs of landscape rock yesterday. The lowered tailgate was at knee height, and I could easily step into the bed to grab bags as needed.