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

> Sure - but the point is everything is tradeoffs and we're working on what tradeoffs to focus on. A train hitting someone imparts way more force than a bike, but that doesn't necessarily mean we ban all trains.

No one is advocating for this.

> And if the incidents of vehicle/pedestrian collisions are directly attributable to reduced visibility, then they should be resolved (the "school bus arm" in North America). But if the collisions would have occurred even with a perfect visibility bike, then changing the vehicles won't solve the desired issue.

Which is exactly what you were responding to: a massive vehicle with low to no visibility of pedestrians in front of it.

> For example, there is no way to have any vehicle traveling safely through a school yard at 70 miles per hour; no change to the vehicle makes that work. You have to separate or reduce speeds to crawling.

This is false. Smaller, older vehicles were designed with exactly these issues in mind. That's why pedestrians would be lifted over and on top of the hood, which would reduce the total surface area of impact and prevent pedestrians from being pulled under the vehicle (which is drastically worse). And even worse, some designs of cars will outright shear pedestrians when they hit them at high speeds.





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

Search: