Actually, The SUV-Defeating Rock Is Good

[Jason]

Quote

 

Yesterday, my esteemed colleague Erin Marquis ran a blog about a rock in an Omaha parking lot that has claimed multiple SUV victims. The rock, plainly visible in a landscaped median, has been run over by more than a dozen SUV drivers who, some say, could not see the boulder because SUVs have notoriously poor visibility by the front wheels.

 

To which I say: good for the rock.

 

Once upon a time, the drivers of these SUVs presumably demonstrated some ability to pilot a motorized vehicle to the satisfaction of a Department of Motor Vehicle test-taker person, granting them a license to operate a motor vehicle. I will also go out on a limb and say none of them, during that test, jumped a curb and ran over a giant fucking rock. Had they done so, they would have flunked on the spot.

 

https://jalopnik.com/actually-the-suv-defeating-rock-is-good-1839669833

[CitizenVectron]

I am of the firm belief that you should only be able to drive the type of vehicle you test in. There is no good reason why there is a single class of license (across most of Canada/US) that allows you to take a test in a Toyota Echo and then be legally allowed to drive a Ford F350. 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I am of the firm belief that you should only be able to drive the type of vehicle you test in. There is no good reason why there is a single class of license (across most of Canada/US) that allows you to take a test in a Toyota Echo and then be legally allowed to drive a Ford F350. 

 

In the US it's especially absurd because in terms of emissions, SUVs and pickups are regulated as light duty vehicles because of some assumption about them being likely to be used for commercial purposes. A really easy way to put a lid on people driving those things as single occupancy commuting vehicles would be to require a commercial driver's license to operate one. 

 

Oh, and U-Hauls are another example of being absurdly dangerous because they handle really unlike any normal type of car, yet you can rent and drive one with a normal license. IIRC that one is very explicitly about U-Haul and similar companies lobbying to prevent stricter licensing requirements to operate one.

[CitizenVectron]

Just now, Jason said:

 

In the US it's especially absurd because in terms of emissions, SUVs and pickups are regulated as light duty vehicles because of some assumption about them being likely to be used for commercial purposes. A really easy way to put a lid on people driving those things as single occupancy commuting vehicles would be to require a commercial driver's license to operate one. 

 

Absolutely. Create weight classes. You could likely allow the small crossover-style car/SUVs into the light weight class, but there is no way that the giant Escalades should be included. Any modern truck should be in its own class as well. 

[Ghost_MH]

Good for the rock. I've seen way too many full-size SUVs clip every corner. I wan to petition for every corner to feature a nice rock, if only to protect pedestrians trying to walk on sidewalks.

[CitizenVectron]

10 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

Good for the rock. I've seen way too many full-size SUVs clip every corner. I wan to petition for every corner to feature a nice rock, if only to protect pedestrians trying to walk on sidewalks.

 

Need some little czech hedgehogs.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I thought the rock retired

[legend]

Yeah, I think I'm pro rock. Adding some non-dangerous negative feedback to these shit drivers seems like a good thing.

[Dodger]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I am of the firm belief that you should only be able to drive the type of vehicle you test in. There is no good reason why there is a single class of license (across most of Canada/US) that allows you to take a test in a Toyota Echo and then be legally allowed to drive a Ford F350. 

 

I got my license 20 years and 4 cars ago. Are you saying every time you buy a new car you need to take the drivers test again in that new car? Because good luck with that.

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Are you saying every time you buy a new car you need to take the drivers test again in that new car?

 

That's clearly not what he said but this reading comprehension fail sure does explain a lot...

[Dodger]

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

That's clearly not what he said but this reading comprehension fail sure does explain a lot...

 

 

Well define car class. If I pass in my Ford Fiesta am I good for a Honda Accord? Those are bigger. Or we going to break it down by coupes/sedans/Trucks/Suvs? OR by weight class? Also, I had a honda 1991 honda accord when I was 16, and then a 2017 Honda accord later. That 2017 had over double the horsepower over my first car. Am I still safe? Even though it was in the same class, it's a way different car 26 years later. Good thing I actually ended up taking the test in my dads Urban Assault vehicle (suv) so I'd be cleared to operate a heavier class despite the fact I never drove it again. 

 

 

 

Also, at least in CA they do require you to re-take the written test for various reasons, which isn't the same as the driving test but really, the driving test is like 10 minutes and only a monumental moron wouldn't be able to pass some bs driving test in a suv versus a regular car, and it wouldn't say anything about their ability to drive either.

 

Then again I'm constantly amazed at how many people manage to fail the driving test multiple times as it is...

 

I came to AZ and was given a license until I'm 65 with no testing whatsoever. So maybe let's not get that lax. 

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Well define car class. If I pass in my Ford Fiesta am I good for a Honda Accord? Those are bigger. Or we going to break it down by coupes/sedans/Trucks/Suvs? OR by weight class? Also, I had a honda 1991 honda accord when I was 16, and then a 2017 Honda accord later. That 2017 had over double the horsepower over my first car. Am I still safe? Even though it was in the same class, it's a way different car 26 years later. Good thing I actually ended up taking the test in my dads Urban Assault vehicle (suv) so I'd be cleared to operate a heavier class despite the fact I never drove it again. 

 

He gave a very clear example:

 

Quote

There is no good reason why there is a single class of license (across most of Canada/US) that allows you to take a test in a Toyota Echo and then be legally allowed to drive a Ford F350. 

 

"Learning to drive an Echo does not qualify you to drive an F350" seems like a pretty clearly reasonable starting point.

[Dodger]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

He gave a very clear example:

 

 

"Learning to drive an Echo does not qualify you to drive an F350" seems like a pretty clearly reasonable starting point.

 

Yes using the absolute extreme edges of vehicles makes a great point, and I bet every year millions of Toyota Echo owners become dangerous monsters when they trade the echo in for a 7000+ pound truck. 

[Jason]

1 minute ago, Dodger said:

Yes using the absolute extreme edges of vehicles makes a great point, and I bet every year millions of Toyota Echo owners become dangerous monsters when they trade the echo in for a 7000+ pound truck. 

 

 

3 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Absolutely. Create weight classes. You could likely allow the small crossover-style car/SUVs into the light weight class, but there is no way that the giant Escalades should be included. Any modern truck should be in its own class as well. 

 

[Dodger]

18 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

 

 

So we just wasted all this time to say that people basically only need a separate driving test for trucks and suburbans, and that the guy with 90,000 posts will argue about anything. 

[Jason]

28 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

Dads in minivans need retesting every 2 years, however.

[Dodger]

90000 posts, over half them probably spamming emoticons. 

 

[PaladinSolo]

5 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I am of the firm belief that you should only be able to drive the type of vehicle you test in. There is no good reason why there is a single class of license (across most of Canada/US) that allows you to take a test in a Toyota Echo and then be legally allowed to drive a Ford F350. 

F350 is small, you can drive a 40 ft RV with a regular license in the US. 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

90000 posts, over half them probably spamming emoticons. 

 

[Jason]

lol, it has Google reviews 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+West+Maple+Omaha+Rock:+World+famous./@41.2896396,-96.1589255,127a,35y,45t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8793ef3a50f9c139:0xf13b428d30679bfc!8m2!3d41.2906132!4d-96.1590271

[marioandsonic]

2 hours ago, Dodger said:

 

I got my license 20 years and 4 cars ago. Are you saying every time you buy a new car you need to take the drivers test again in that new car? Because good luck with that.

Unless you decide to go from a sedan to a heavy-duty pick up truck, no. 

[DarkStar189]

21 minutes ago, Jason said:

lol, it has Google reviews 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+West+Maple+Omaha+Rock:+World+famous./@41.2896396,-96.1589255,127a,35y,45t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8793ef3a50f9c139:0xf13b428d30679bfc!8m2!3d41.2906132!4d-96.1590271

I didn't expect that many pictures lol. And they weren't all big suvs either. Some were either cars or just small/mid size suvs that are really just taller cars. 

I feel like there must be some visual illusion going on when you are driving in that spot that's throwing people off. Like people come in too distracted looking at the stores/parking spots, out of the corner of their eye they see where the grass ends but those little rocks around the boulder do kind of blend in with the pavement and the natural brown rock of the boulder just becomes a blur. As they smash into it.... I don't know. Maybe it's just stupidity. 

[SilentWorld]

 

6 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I am of the firm belief that you should only be able to drive the type of vehicle you test in. There is no good reason why there is a single class of license (across most of Canada/US) that allows you to take a test in a Toyota Echo and then be legally allowed to drive a Ford F350. 

I really can't agree with this. Firstly, there's nothing particularly special about an F350 compared to a half ton except it has heavier duty suspension and tires. It's generally going to be the same exterior dimensions as any other full size truck and therefore not any harder to handle... but saying "you can take your license in a hatchback and then drive a pickup truck" wouldn't really make it sound like such a problem.

 

The problem isn't really that someone takes their test in an Echo and then can drive an F350 IMO. The mechanics of driving an F350 are the same as the mechanics of driving an Echo. I'd argue it's actually easier to handle an F350 in some ways because the increased viewing distance (due to the higher seat height) should give you more awareness of what's going on further ahead.  The problem is that a driver's test in no way establishes that you can competently handle your own vehicle. 

 

The test only really shows that you understand the traffic laws to a basic level and that you have a very, very, basic competency in maneuvering a vehicle. The problems start showing up when people get into a vehicle that is much bigger than their used to. Someone goes from a small hatchback to a full size pickup truck and now their vehicle takes up almost an entire parking space instead of only a third. Now they have to be more precise and they struggle because they never had to before, and they don't have the skills to fall back on to be more precise. 

 

If it were up to me I'd add several other reversing exercises on top of the parallel parking exercise for a road test. Perhaps for example reversing for roughly 100 feet in a straight line without weaving while maintaing a speed of roughly 10 km/hr, navigating some sort of S curve in reverse and maybe a low speed slalom in reverse. I'm sure someone that has studied driver training could come up with better ideas but my main point is this: To do a good job reversing your vehicle requires a good understanding of the exact physical space your vehicle occupies and how turning the steering wheel causes your vehicle to change position, and most people just struggle at truly grasping that. Many people never grasp that. But once you grasp that, you shouldn't have much problem going from a hatchback to even a 40 foot travel RV (and definitely no problem going to a F350). 

[SilentWorld]

1 hour ago, PaladinSolo said:

F350 is small, you can drive a 40 ft RV with a regular license in the US. 

The thing that I DO have a problem with is a the guys pulling 40 foot fifth wheel trailers. I'm not 100% sure about the USA, but here you can pull a camper trailer with a regular license and I think that's just stupid. There's absolutely no education on how to handle a trailer in driver's ed, and no one gets tested on that. I think that's freaking stupid because pulling a trailer requires a whole different skill set that you CANNOT learn until you start pulling a trailer. I've watched my brother in law try to back up a trailer (fortunately he was just pulling one of those tiny pop up campers) and it's just sad. I would go as far as saying that I think to pull any sort of trailer should require some sort of extra endorsement on your license. 

[Jason]

2 hours ago, SilentWorld said:

I really can't agree with this. Firstly, there's nothing particularly special about an F350 compared to a half ton except it has heavier duty suspension and tires. It's generally going to be the same exterior dimensions as any other full size truck and therefore not any harder to handle... but saying "you can take your license in a hatchback and then drive a pickup truck" wouldn't really make it sound like such a problem.

 

The problem isn't really that someone takes their test in an Echo and then can drive an F350 IMO. The mechanics of driving an F350 are the same as the mechanics of driving an Echo. I'd argue it's actually easier to handle an F350 in some ways because the increased viewing distance (due to the higher seat height) should give you more awareness of what's going on further ahead.  The problem is that a driver's test in no way establishes that you can competently handle your own vehicle.

 

There are several problems with gigantic pickup trucks and SUVs that make them significantly more hazardous than a normal car and thus should have require much stricter licensing standards (to ensure that people have been trained to deal with these factors of driving these vehicles).

 

Forward visibility: these vehicles make it harder to see pedestrians directly in front of the vehicle, especially children.

 

Pedestrian safety: when these vehicles strike pedestrians, they hit higher up and have a tendency to drag people under the vehicle. Whereas a normal sedan strikes people in the legs and throws them onto the hood of the car; throwing people on top instead of dragging them under is European pedestrian safety standards for cars (which the US doesn't have) actually specifically mandate. And if you're a child you're basically having your head hit by the front of the vehicle. https://www.curbed.com/2018/9/27/17909270/pedestrian-deaths-suv-car-design

 

 

Other motorists: these vehicles have a tendency to ride on top of other cars in a collision, crushing the people in the other car.

[SilentWorld]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

 

There are several problems with gigantic pickup trucks and SUVs that make them significantly more hazardous than a normal car and thus should have require much stricter licensing standards (to ensure that people have been trained to deal with these factors of driving these vehicles).

 

Forward visibility: these vehicles make it harder to see pedestrians directly in front of the vehicle, especially children.

 

Pedestrian safety: when these vehicles strike pedestrians, they hit higher up and have a tendency to drag people under the vehicle. Whereas a normal sedan strikes people in the legs and throws them onto the hood of the car; throwing people on top instead of dragging them under is European pedestrian safety standards for cars (which the US doesn't have) actually specifically mandate. And if you're a child you're basically having your head hit by the front of the vehicle. https://www.curbed.com/2018/9/27/17909270/pedestrian-deaths-suv-car-design

 

 

Other motorists: these vehicles have a tendency to ride on top of other cars in a collision, crushing the people in the other car.

This sounds like a design issue to me. My Freightliner m2, despite being a legit “gigantic truck” as you put it, has as good (maybe even better) visibility than half ton trucks. If Europe has such regulations and USA doesn’t, then they should be changed. I’ll also note that @DarkStar189 pointed out that it wasn’t just big trucks/SUV’s hitting the rock in OP but it was people with smaller cars as well — this seems to suggest less an issue with big vehicles and more likely an issue with people lacking the visual spatial awareness to understand where their vehicle is in relation to their surroundings. We don’t need more rigorous testing for pickup trucks — we need more rigorous testing for ALL vehicles. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

We need vastly fewer SUVs for a multitude of reasons.

[CitizenVectron]

11 hours ago, SilentWorld said:

The thing that I DO have a problem with is a the guys pulling 40 foot fifth wheel trailers. I'm not 100% sure about the USA, but here you can pull a camper trailer with a regular license and I think that's just stupid. There's absolutely no education on how to handle a trailer in driver's ed, and no one gets tested on that. I think that's freaking stupid because pulling a trailer requires a whole different skill set that you CANNOT learn until you start pulling a trailer. I've watched my brother in law try to back up a trailer (fortunately he was just pulling one of those tiny pop up campers) and it's just sad. I would go as far as saying that I think to pull any sort of trailer should require some sort of extra endorsement on your license. 

 

You want to hear something even crazier? In my province (SK) you can pull a 40-foot 5th wheel trailer plus a boat behind it...all on a class 5 (normal) license. No one should be able to test in a Prius and then drive a 60-foot double-hitched vehicle train.

[ThreePi]

Like with that Uber self-driving car killing someone, SUVs being more dangerous is ultimately a problem that will be solve by insurance companies. At some point they'll get enough data to show that these vehicles are a higher risk/liability and adjust premiums to represent that. Hopefully.

[AbsolutSurgen]

There is no data showing SUVs being more dangerous than other vehicles.  The vast majority of deaths in vehicles are to the passengers of the vehicles -- and every study I have shown suggests that larger vehicles are significantly safer than smaller vehicles.

 

However -- bad drivers are bad drivers.  And, I can say I see bad drivers in all size of vehicles (including the idiot doing a test drive of a Volkswagen Golf, who almost lost control while weaving between vehicles on the exit ramp of the highway while passing me yesterday.)

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

24 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

There is no data showing SUVs being more dangerous than other vehicles.  The vast majority of deaths in vehicles are to the passengers of the vehicles -- and every study I have shown suggests that larger vehicles are significantly safer than smaller vehicles.

Quote

The GHSA reported that the number of pedestrian deaths involving SUVs increased by 50 percent from 2013 through 2017, while the number of pedestrian deaths caused by passenger cars increased by 30 percent over that same period. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestrian-safety-crisis-deaths-ghsa/2993321002/

 

And also

Quote

Our investigation found: 

 

Federal safety regulators have known for years that SUVs, with their higher front-end profile, are at least twice as likely as cars to kill the walkers, joggers and children they hit, yet have done little to reduce deaths or publicize the danger.

A federal proposal to factor pedestrians into vehicle safety ratings has stalled, with opposition from some automakers. 
The rising tide of pedestrian deaths is primarily an urban plague that kills minorities at a disproportionate rate.

It is most prominent in cities both in the industrial heartland and warm-weather spots on the nation’s coasts and Sun Belt. Detroit; Newark, New Jersey; St. Louis; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Miami, San Bernardino, California, Birmingham, Alabama; Tampa; Fayetteville, North Carolina; and Phoenix had the 10 highest per-capita death rates among cities with populations of at least 200,000 in 2009-16.

Quote

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration made the connection in 2015 that SUVs were deadlier for pedestrians than cars, referenced on page 90 of a 195-page report. That report, citing 12 independent studies of injury data, said pedestrians are two to three times “more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup than when struck by a passenger car.”

 

That report also noted that SUVs and trucks were involved in a third of pedestrian injuries but 40 percent of deaths, indicating that injuries “may be more severe when sustained in collisions with these vehicles.” The proportion of SUVs on the road has only grown in the three years since. 

 

The point being made, that SUVs are more dangerous to pedestrians than sedans, is absolutely backed up by the data

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

40 minutes ago, ThreePi said:

Like with that Uber self-driving car killing someone, SUVs being more dangerous is ultimately a problem that will be solve by insurance companies. At some point they'll get enough data to show that these vehicles are a higher risk/liability and adjust premiums to represent that. Hopefully.

Nope. If you hit someone and tell the cops the sun got in your eyes or whatever, you didn't see them, it's more likely than not you will get off Scott free, especially if you don't flee the scene

[Jason]

20 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

There is no data showing SUVs being more dangerous than other vehicles. 

 

As I sourced, SUVs are objectively more dangerous for pedestrians. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Pedestrians are only 17% of the fatalities.