I recently visited NYC and I can’t help but feel the city has a wide culture of laissez faire unenforcement. So many grocery and convenience stores in the city have no posted prices for any items, even in the airport. As a foreigner I was pretty shocked but the people I talked to said it was pretty much normal and there’s nothing really that can be done. Mind you we checked and it is actually not legal to have no visible pricing. I’m not sure what it is that’s stopping the city from actually doing anything about it, like the truck issue it seems it would be trivial to enforce.
> I’m not sure what it is that’s stopping the city from actually doing anything about it, like the truck issue it seems it would be trivial to enforce.
Law enforcement in NYC has a revanchist attitude towards the actual citizens of the city. Most of the city's police live outside of the city[1][2] and drive into work, which puts them directly at odds with the average resident.
This attitude extends into every facet of NYC's law enforcement, which is why most of the city's actual petty crimes (illegal parking, dangerous driving, obscured plates) go unreported: everybody knows that the police simply don't care.
Edit: So that I'm not just kvetching, here are some things that I think would improve the situation:
* Allow citizens to report 53' trailers and other illegal vehicles (e.g. obscured plates) in exchange for a cut of the fines, similarly to how the city uses citizens to report idling violations[3].
* Require all uniformed NYPD to attain a post-secondary decree (rather than a partial degree at a rock-bottom GPA, as currently required). Similarly, require them to pass a fitness test similar to the NYFD's.
* Require all uniformed NYPD to live in the city, and restructure their patrols to emphasize the neighborhoods they live in. Minimize in-car patrol time in favor of foot patrols and Japanese style police booths.
[2]: Notably, civilian employees of the NYPD (and most NYC civil servants) are actually required to maintain residency in the city. This is purely a carveout for the police.
A local firefighter and I were volunteers for our kids' soccer club. He said that he specifically worked on the other side of town because he didn't want to respond to fires or health emergencies that involved his neighbors.
There are definitely some tradeoffs with having police officers or firefighters live and work in the same neighborhood. Does being familiar with the local troublemaker help or hurt the police response? Does going to the grocery store and seeing the family of someone you couldn't save make you feel like staying home? Or maybe you do see the people you did help.
> A local firefighter and I were volunteers for our kids' soccer club. He said that he specifically worked on the other side of town because he didn't want to respond to fires or health emergencies that involved his neighbors.
This is a good point. I think it demonstrates a pretty drastic difference in scope between (ordinary) police and firefighter job requirements: a cop might go their entire career without firing their weapon, while a firefighter's job is almost entirely defined by situations where multiple people might die.
Put another way: I think it's perfectly reasonable for fightfighters to not want to work in the neighborhood they live in, given the severity of the average incident they respond to. I don't think this applies to beat cops, any more than it does to mailmen.
(The other point is also great: there's an argument that cops are more likely to feel territorial or even more violent if they live in the same area as someone they've branded a "troublemaker." I don't have a good answer to this.)
As someone who has lived in NYC, there's a ton of crime there [1]. It's not at all similar to being a police officer in a town. It's also part of why police don't seem to care about petty crime in the city.
A pandemic-related uptick (that has affected the country as a whole) doesn't change the fact that the cops from St. Louis are dealing with a murder rate about 20x what we have in NYC.
I’ve lived in this city my whole life. News cycles notwithstanding (there’s a “crime wave” article every single year, using whatever cherry-picked month-to-month statistic proves the point), it’s only gotten safer with each decade.
My brother was standing next to a cop in Manhattan when he saw a person get mugged and have their bag stolen about 100 yards down the road (next block over, specifically). He alerted the cop to what he was seeing as the perpetrator ran off around the corner. The victim had a badly bruised face, and was standing but clearly in distress.
The cop shrugged, asked “what am I supposed to do about it?” and walked the other way.
I’m sorry if this seems anecdotal, but this story has had a lasting impact on my opinion of the NYC police. I vouch that there is no hyperbole on this story, neither my brother nor myself want this to be true, and we couldn’t think of any justification for the officer’s apathy. I consider this single incident to be a stain upon the NYPD, and an embarrassment to any American - I don’t usually get worked up about systemic injustice or what it’s worth.
Anecdotes are fine. Here's the thing: NYC is a massive city, and we do have crime. You're describing a crime that you have indirect knowledge of; I could similarly relate any number of stores about acquaintances, friends, and family members suffering from crimes (and the NYPD doing very little about it).
It's also true that the city is safer. The city was already "safe" relative to the 1970s and 1980s by 2000, and it's only gotten safer since[1]. You can see that some crimes ebb and flow and that assaults, in particular, haven't changed that much over the last 20 years.
To conclude with my own anecdote: on the year I was born, the city's murder rate was over 3 times higher than the current rate (our supposed "crime wave of 2022"). The neighborhood I grew up in was considered a bad one; it's now one of the most expensive in the city. The neighborhood I live in now was considered "too dangerous to enter" by the city's "respectable" population; it's now gentrified and "hip." Crime hasn't disappeared! But it is much, much less common.
> He said that he specifically worked on the other side of town because he didn't want to respond to fires or health emergencies that involved his neighbors.
It's totally normal for smaller towns and villages across Germany (and Austria and (?) Switzerland) to have mostly volunteer fire services.
"the predominant number of Germany's 1,383,730 firefighters are members of voluntary fire brigades" [0]
How is getting a degree going to help them enforce a ban on big vehicles? It seems to me that requiring a higher education level is only going to shrink the pool of potential cops and/or increase the amount they have to be paid while doing nothing for the issue under discussion.
> Require all uniformed NYPD to live in the city, and restructure their patrols to emphasize the neighborhoods they live in.
In addition to the concern of other commenters of how this could affect their interactions with the community for the worse, I'd be really worried about how our law & order could be affected by intimidation of off-duty police.
There's 100,000+ arrests per year in New York City [1], thousands of them for extremely violent or dangerous crimes. I can only imagine the retaliation that gangs could have on officers who make arrests, or refuse to turn a blind eye.
> AKA standard trailers. Enjoy having a logistics framework where you are incompatible with the primary mode of semi freight in the rest of America.
Every major city in the US places length restrictions on vans and trailers; most are even stricter than NYC's. Here are Newark's, for example[1]. Most cities actually enforce these laws to no perceptible detriment.
If you actually lived in NYC, you would know that the current absence of enforcement is the exact opposite of pragmatism: these trucks simply cannot safely navigate most NYC streets (even the modern ones that go in straight lines). Even if you ignore unnecessary accidents and injuries, they're just plain inefficient due to their size and unwieldiness on the city's streets.
Standard trailers deliver into the outer boroughs where it is pragmatic and then smaller vehicles go into places like Manhattan. Of course nowhere can you make a trailer completely 'safe' in your own words. But not every borough is Manhattan where navigating a standard trailer is nigh impossible.
If the trailers weren't at all useful then you'd see about as many of them as you see horses. The market would simply flush them out.
Also the code you cited in Newark doesn't mention length that I can find, can you quote where you're referring to? Not saying it isn't there, but I see weight requirements but not length.
>If you actually lived in NYC
Do you live in every borough? If one is not able to speak about somewhere where they do not live, (which is a fallacy I reject) then you recognize you can't speak for the other boroughs and therefore cannot make a sweeping statement that covers all boroughs of NYC.
> Standard trailers deliver into the outer boroughs where it is pragmatic and then smaller vehicles go into places like Manhattan. Of course nowhere can you make a trailer completely 'safe' in your own words. But not every borough is Manhattan where navigating a standard trailer is nigh impossible.
You have this exactly backwards. Manhattan's streets are, on average, much safer for trucks to navigate: they're wider, on a standard grid, and have uniform lights and speed zones. The outer boroughs don't have uniform grid plans (take a look at central Brooklyn or Queens on a satellite map: it's all carriage roads) and have much less consistent traffic light coverage. There are exceptions to this (FiDi in Manhattan, for example), but it's the overall pattern.
The irony is that Manhattan is the best case for trucks in the city, but is also the borough with any enforcement whatsoever. For example: trucks are almost completely banned on West End Avenue, and I never saw one (beyond movers) in the 20 years that I lived there.
And to be clear: I'm not saying that trailers aren't useful. They clearly are. I'm saying that they're not efficient in the sense that the city would be better served by fleets of smaller trucks, and that they're a social harm in the sense of the externalities they bring with them.
> I see weight requirements but not length.
You're right, sorry: Newark's are weight, not length (although I would be remiss to note that an empty 53' trailer truck ways significantly more than 4 tons).
> Do you live in every borough?
I have lived the city my entire life, permanently in two boroughs, and have spent many years commuting in and through the other three. You can treat it as overconfidence if you like, but I feel qualified to make these claims based on about two decades of cycling and car travel.
Hilariously I haven been told the exact opposite by another resident who lives in Manhattan. It's safe to say your viewpoint is hotly contested by some residents of Manhattan themselves.
Living there, it definitely feels as if there's a low key lawlessness about town. I haven't developed a hatred for the cops here yet, but there's an outspoken critique to the point of being a meme that they enforce very little of these everyday things and beyond (like muggings)
Particularly in the realm of traffic, they tend to flout the law as well; go to nearly any police station and there will be both police and personal cars parked on the sidewalk, or illegally parked in spots.
What makes it particularly galling is that they also oppose automated enforcement of traffic laws. Officially it is because it would take away jobs (that they are not doing, since traffic enforcement in NYC leaves a lot to be desired), and unofficially because the police themselves benefit from the discretion exercised by fellow officers refusing to enforce laws on their colleagues.
Oh my. My city recently got a few of those vehicles doing automatic parking fines. They were so good the number of fines was national news. There is something to be said for 100% enforcement of these rules. NYC is a boon for AI powered enforcement in that respect. Imagine all video enforceable traffic violations being automatically and instantaneously ticketed. It would change the city (and the cops).
Mostly it isn’t unless it is one of those jobs that isn’t needed most of the time but sometimes like for example a soldier or rural fire service and some bean counter thinks yeah we can slash that.
Getting rid of the job gets rid of the people with experience, so it can be a one way switch.
Normally solving a problem with a robot creates more jobs. There are speed cameras, but still you have hidden manually operated speed traps and it frees up resources for drug and alcohol testing.
Police is an interesting edge case, where at least in 2022 the people who want to reduce police are firmly on the left, and those firmly on the right want to cut everything except police.
There was an attempt to defund police, and that went down with the electorate like a lead balloon.
There are broad swaths of the left and right that want as little to do with law enforcement as possible.
It's the moralizing religious right and the jackbooted ivory tower left types (both of whom think they know exactly how other people should live) that want lots of policing.
Not to get too far into the weeds here, but Eric Adams, the black mayor of NYC who was formerly a police officer, was certainly not voted in by either the religious right or the ivory tower left.
> Why is “this would take away jobs” an argument that can be made in any non-communist country?
Because a capitalist economy is rooted in self-interest. Labour bodies have power to shape the economy, and they represent the interests of their members, who don't want to lose their jobs.
Plus, people are not perfect market actors with such little empathy that they are willing to abandon their colleagues for a bit more workplace efficiency. So if you know that Bob in your office will be fired due to automation, and you like Bob (and worry you are next), you're going to oppose automation.
Jesus f..ing christ. It's one thing to not crack down on victimless crimes aka people dealing small-time drugs on the street, but that here is a travesty of justice.
I mean... what the fuck is that "yeah we have so many leads to follow up". Dude. Take a hundred officers, cordon off the area and fleece everyone. It isn't that hard. And what the fuck was that "we want police to focus on bigger things"?! Like, camera crews get robbed on highway heists? At gunpoint? Doesn't get much bigger than that!
> it definitely feels as if there's a low key lawlessness about town.
history of police: the NY police force stared when one politician got his street gang made official.
So the police have a cultural heritage.
And on the other side,the city isn't a bunch of people who basically agree (or think they basically agree) on what is right and wrong, then use the law to enforce this. Counter-example, Sweden from circa 1000 to 2000 AD. (Sweden still thinks it is this, but has growing issues with immigrants from non-nordic cultures)
You can do your bit by bringing all the items to the checkout, ask the price of them all, swap half of the “too expensive” ones. Then repeat. Until finally you have purchased what you want while driving them crazy.
It could have an effect on the owner in the current US job market though — clerks may no longer be willing to do crazy checkout item shuffling for minimum wage and decide to quit. Then the store owner has to choose what's in their best interest: add price tags to items so minimum-wage workers won't quit, increase wages to convince the workers to stay, or shutdown the business.
Using malevolent behavior to make someone's job harder so that turnover increases and wage growth causes market effects that induce owners to comply with laws because gov does not enforce their own laws .... God bless America where the exchange of power between consumers and corporations shall not be infringed.
How much time do you have?! Let's be realistic, typically one just wants to buy something, at the right price, and go back to doing something more fun than looking at grocery store shelves.
It seems like the way to go is get someone to inspect the store. Each item with a pricing violation is up to $25 for the first twenty items, up to $50 for each item after capped at a total $2000[0]. Successive inspections can become even more costly.
Looking briefly, it seems owner operated stores with 2 or less full time employees are not subject to the pricing display regulations. Some close family aren't counted as employees.
I very much doubt nothing can be done - this is just a matter of (political) will and appropriate enforcement.
Here in MA we also have a law that says that items for sale must be priced. The law must have teeth, because all big stores have dedicated price scanners spread out through the store. The scanners can be used to check the price of any item, in case a price tag was not applied. In general, price tags are present, even in small corner stores.
Here in California the posted price has to include the price in “natural” units (per oz, or per dozen eggs, or whatnot) for easy comparison. Whole Foods gets around this by often displaying the unit price as “per item” (so the two prices on the shelf are the same).
They’ve been getting away with this practice for decades.
In my experience in MA, in larger stores shelved items usually have a price (and price/pound or price/quart) label on the shelf along with an item description. But it's a lot less common for individual items to be tagged than it used to be. The availability of scanners varies.
Same here. I was supposed to buy stuff from JFK but no price tag = no purchase.
Also, why are US duty free shops garbage compared to European ones? It's double price at the airport in contrast to the local shops, whereas in EU you can often buy things with a heavy discount at the airport.
> whereas in EU you can often buy things with a heavy discount at the airport.
I've browsed the tax-free shops in European airports, it's... disappointing. They will bump up the price from retail anyway because people assume it's a good deal, and they'll focus on premium / luxury goods one wouldn't normally buy.
I mean at the same time, you wouldn't find said premium / luxury goods on the high street either, nor an enthusiastic salesperson having you try fancy whiskeys at nine in the morning, so that's a plus on these tax free shops, lol.
I think they are sold without the duty (the sin tax), but still with VAT for an EU flight. Then add on the cost to run a shop in an expensive location.
Comparing a basic Gordens gin, at Copenhagen Airport it's 6DKK (€0.80) less than at a typical supermarket, 165 vs 171DKK/litre. However, the price in Sweden is about 260DKK/litre, and I assume the target market in that airport is Swedes.
It's even worse: many of the alcohol products for sale at duty free are exclusive to duty free, thus preventing any price comparison. They market this as an advantage (get a whisky you can't get anywhere else!) but at least in the world of Scotch, they're mostly no-age-statement "luxury" whiskies with far more brand than substance.
Except I'm in Texas where we don't have this issue. This is specifically a New York thing and is an issue with enforcement and not with the wording of the law
I'd say especially at the airport you wouldn't expect to find posted prices. The prices on everything there, even water, are "if you have to ask you can't afford it. And if you can, I don't want to sell it to you".
They have a captive pool of customers and can squeeze them for as much as they like. What are you gonna do? Leave through security to go join the real market? All before your connecting flight? Shut up and pay $10 for 500ml of water.
What the above commenter means, is that in the EU (and many countries across the world) if a price tag says €10, you pay exactly €10. In the US, if the price tag says $10, you may end up paying $12 or something random amount on top of the signed price, because it doesn't include taxes, which makes shopping extremely inconvenient compared to taxes-included price tags.
It is still inconvenient for everyone. It like saying "Growing up, and living with the house full of lying rakes, I find it is trivial to deal with". Sure you are, but it is one thing what was solved decades ago and now nothing stops to at least having both prices on the tag.
Literally, no one here cares. Couple this with the fact that some don't pay tax, it can make it more difficult.
(Native Canadians don't pay tax. And as a business, many items are tax exempt, if they are for resale. )
You're trying to solve something that isn't a problem. This is because it is cultural.
All haggling is done on the basis of pre-tax.
You know in Canada, we used to have built in taxes on textiles, levied at the distributor too. We got rid of it, an replaced it (and others) with a tax at the cashier.
This is because, if you buy product from out of province, or out of country, it is easier to decouple the tax.
You may not agree, but so what? We prefer it. It is how we do business.
Every time I buy something from amazon in the UK, to ship to me in Canada, I get told the wrong price, because silly VAT is built in.
So when I Google for competitive quotes, UK businesses appear to have wildly inflated pricing.
No, it is because it is cultural you perceive the lack of the basic information about the item (the price you would pay) as a completely normal situation.
Sure, both US and Canada tax situation is a horrid mess, but at least you could know the final price if you don't have any exemptions and whatever. And if you have them you would pay less than on the full price tag. But no, both Americans and Canadians imagine some silly excuses why they can't (and hence don't want - in this order) at least to have both pre-tax and "default" tax prices on the tags.
And when I say silly - I mean it, the probably the best response I've got was "Because it would be too costly for Walmart to do so, they have too many shops - they would need too many new tags to replace". Literally. On my question how do they manage to replace their tags now (especially when there is special offers, seasonal offers, holiday offers or just a plain price changes) and how this would be a problem for a company with US$13.67 *billions of NET income* I've got just downvotes and silence.
And the most astonishing thing is what many seriously think there is no way to compute the tax beforehand to print it on the tag. On the reasonable question why then it could be computed at the till and how many times a day the tax policy change ("But they would need to change the tags so often!" - same people) I again receive the silence at best or "It is how we do things."
> amazon in the UK, to ship to me in Canada, I get told the wrong price, because silly VAT is built in.
Well yes, Amazon.co.uk is mainly for people in UK so of course they would prefer to see how much THEY would pay, not £249.00 on the tag and suddenly £281.3240 at the checkout.
I didn't buy from UK for a decade, but last time I checked you would see the VAT cost at the total, eg at apple.com/uk/shop just now: £949.00 Total Payments for your device include VAT of approx. £159.00.*
Some world-wide oriented sites just show both VAT and VAT excluded prices.
How so people but anything not knowing the prices? When something on a store doesn't have a price, I ask someone if I want it enough or, more likely, won't but it. If a store near me regularly wouldn't have prices posted, I'd stop going there. It seems like any store posting prices would have a competitive advantage. It's every store holding the line?
The former, and the cashier can also tell you the price of any item before you have to pay for it. However that doesn't help much if you are a foreigner and don't speak English well.
> However that doesn't help much if you are a foreigner and don't speak English well.
Well... welcome to the world? You'll have the same issue traveling to South America, Europe, Asia. When you travel and end up in a country where you don't speak the native language, communication gets more difficult. This is a non-issue.
it's an issue when you are an introvert, or busy, in a large market. shopping would take hours if i had to ask every stall for the price of every item that i want. so i usually ignore stalls that don't post prices.
They don't have a price display on the shelving, or they don't have every single item individually stickered with a price label?
Here in suburban DC, the latter is rare and the former is the norm. That said, we don't have much in the way of bodegas - it's all chain markets from 7-11, Sheetz, etc up to the big grocers.
And it isn't true. There are various things that can be done.
You can shop only at stores that do post prices, even if that means travelling some distance or paying higher prices. You could open your own store and be sure to post prices. You could organize a protest in front of stores that don't post prices. You could form a volunteer service that posts prices for stores.
Obviously, these things require various levels of effort from you. They may or may not be worth it to you.
But "there's nothing really that can be done" usually translates to "there's nothing really I am willing to do."
That's a feature, not a bug. NYC has always been free, free-wheeling, and very pragmatic. Think for yourself, don't worry about what everyone thinks about you, get things done, work it out pragmatically with the people around you. Look at how traffic flows - no laws describe it, lanes are often ignored, etc., but it works. Saying 'you are violating traffic laws' would be misunderstanding the system fundamentally. NYC has always worked very well, the greatest city in the world for generations (despite recent media campaigns that seem to have forgotten it), but it's also not for everybody.
Ah, but I remeber the 1970s and 1980s when the bankrupt hellhole was considered (by outsiders) one of the worst places on Earth and a place you would only go if you had a suicide wish. You would expect to get mugged or shot, bad graffiti covered every surface, and junkies filled every cold-water walk-up that hadn't yet burned down.
The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a reversing trend. Seems like that approach has been dropped again, and the old New York is coming back.
If we write really extreme hyperbole, it's witty (not really anymore) but doesn't actually support the argument. Millions still lived there; it remained the national capital of finance, publishing, business, arts, etc.; the nation's leading city and one of the world's; a magnet for tourism.
> The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a reversing trend.
It's a popular claim but AFAIK here's no evidence of that and it's one of those claims that was repeated without anyone looking at the most basic data: Crime dropped nationwide, both in places that used 'broken window' policing and without it. It's like today, where gun crime has increased relatively evenly everywhere, red states and blue, urban and rural areas, but certain political media campaigns have successfully associated it with a certain political group and cities (and by implication, a certain minority). Also, 'broken windows' often amounted to 'harass and drive away people that wealthy white people don't like'.
> The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a reversing trend.
Yeah, may be, but the bulk of the cost was borne by minorities, poor and otherwise vulnerable people [1]. "Broken windows" only works for everyone in a fair way when police is held accountable for their actions and systemic injustice gets combatted in parallel - otherwise it will only serve to entrench the interests of the White, rich population.
This really has nothing to do with broken windows or probably even approaches to crime at all. Crime went down for thirty years basically everywhere. Now it is going up basically everywhere. Hard to point at a specific policy when it’s so universal across locales
Overall morale is declining. Call it the Trump Effect. Having a leader who behaves like he did normalizes this behavior and immoral behavior becomes more commonplace since people feel its legitimized.
I'm far from being a liberal but that guy objectively didn't show manners, so why should the man on the street..
My theory, for which I have no evidence beyond subjective observations, is that Trump jumped on a burgeoning trend (that behavior was trendy before Trump's election, and similar patterns predate him in other countries) and pushed the country over the edge. Many people I know who despise Trump seem to follow his lead in their behavior.
>The "broken window" approach to law enforcement started a reversing trend. Seems like that approach has been dropped again, and the old New York is coming back.
The "make low effort comments about leaded gas and crime crowd" would take issue with that statement.
Seems like everyone wants to take credit for the crime decrease in the 90s.
Obviously there's much that could be done to make the city safer, and it does seem there was an uptick in certain types of crime during the pandemic (though not localized to NYC in any way). I'm just wary of people's intuitions about things like crime, which have historically been divorced from reality.
The image on this Tweet was from 2019, which likely uses data from even earlier years. The data I showed you, from the NY city itself, illustrates a sharp rise in crime today.
> I'm just wary of people's intuitions about things like crime, which have historically been divorced from reality.
Also, there's a media campaign by conservatives to say that 'liberal cities are dangerous' (and to dog whistle race issues). Somehow, Miami and Texas cities never come up.
With the Econic[1] Mercedes Benz as one of the established manufacturers of utility vehicles already offers a product which implements some of the mentioned advantages of lower position for driver an extended window area. Here in Germany they can be often seen as garbage truck or fire fighting truck[2] in the cities. An BEV version was announced[3].
On the other hand, even tallest semi trucks (here 40 tons class) are allowed to roll through German cities widely. They are often involved in accidents with pedestrians or bicylclists with fatal outcome. The main reason is bad sight when turning right. Therefore turning assistants[3] will become mandatory. However, placing the driver better and giving him more field of view is preferred.
I sat on a citizen's jury about cycling a few years ago and one speaker we heard from (in our lead up to working on recommendations) was from the trucking industry. We knew trucks had poor visibility, that cyclists could get knocked over and swept under the trailer, etc but this guy was an absolute buck-passer and unfortunately he had the rest of the jurors spellbound with irrelevant excuses. He'd admitted that 'skirts' on the side of the trucks would make a difference, but there was zero appetite for that change because obviously it would cost transport companies money.
Even just better visibility with the side windows has to be fairly achievable.
That said, I have a lot of respect for truckers here in Australia. In my experience, they're some of the more responsible drivers on the road, through sheer mileage and consideration of their heft. They'll almost always signal when it's safe to overtake, through necessity they're wary brakers and so on.
If only cities in Canada and the US simply enforced traffic laws that are already on the books. But no, drivers are free to do as they please because the police does nothing. Actually, the police is part of the problem in a lot of places by double parking or stopping on bike lanes and sidewalks when they want a coffee or a donut. Cities are so human hostile in most of NA, it’s really disheartening.
>If only cities in Canada and the US simply enforced traffic laws that are already on the books
Traffic flow is generally outside the bounds of the law. Going full jackboot would just piss a lot of people off in the short term and get the law changed in the medium term.
I see it the other way: They don't enforce laws that aren't pragmatic. Double-parking is essential to getting things done in a city, and IME generally everyone acts reasonably - they don't double park when they block the entire street or in bad traffic. No law says 'you can double park, but not in these situations', but people are social animals and act intelligently. I love cities, which often bring out the best in people.
There's also a reason why it's allowed, because it generally is. Rarely have any of those things affected my day, and I appreciate that people allow me, when I need it, to double park.
In countries that have separation of powers, generally the police don't get to decide which laws to enforce, when to enforce them, and against whom. If they do this, that's police corruption.
I haven't heard of or seen a place where that's true. Where are you thinking of? It would be draconian and unrealistic - laws are not written nearly well enough to not require lots of discretion.
Yes it does block traffic. And if all double parking was completely eliminated then commerce in many dense cities would essentially grind to halt. If you have to make a delivery and literally all the parking spots are taken then what do you do?
Most parking garages can't even accommodate delivery vehicles. And do you seriously expect a UPS or FedEx driver to park blocks away and then bring packages on foot? That's just completely detached from reality.
Moving is one time this is awkward. There's basically no practical way to "legally" move out/into most apartments in Manhattan as it comes to parking and traffic enforcement.
My current building utilizes a bike lane for this purpose, I'm sure much to the dismay of bikers. The only other option is blocking much of the traffic to one of our city's lovely inter-borough bridges.
The cyclists will adjust, like everyone else. In a dense city, you can't avoid other people; you have to work with and around them all the time. There's no possibility of writing rules for it all. It's a beautiful, dynamic thing.
I was waiting for someone to drop the Arrival name. A year or less back, Arrival news seemed to be everywhere but lately they seemed to have dropped off the map. Perhaps they're heads-down, focusing on deliveries and new applications?
They seemed like an exciting company to follow, bar all of the SPAC noise. Hope that all is going well with them, bc they're certainly in a space with, or soon to have a lot of competition.
I'm surprised. This is a cool truck. Trucks hardly get any mention in safety discussions but seeing the visibility differences here its quite astounding how much they were able to improve it.
I wonder if it would make sense to mandate new ICE trucks to have the engine positioned behind the cab rather than under it to get these same improvements on non electric trucks.
The blind zones on regular trucks are absolutely insane. That we as a society let these vehicles drive around in populated areas is crazy.
There’s a lot of construction in my neighborhood at the moment and it’s always a bit scary letting my kids bike to school. I more than once saw a truck backing into a construction site crossing over a side walk. In the dark. And with no guidance, only mirrors and cameras (if any). There’s so many examples of people being killed by trucks backing in populated areas. And probably even more examples of trucks crushing cyclist when turning right over the cycling lane.
I’ve told my kids to stay way clear of trucks and never assume the driver has seen them.
> There’s so many examples of people being killed by trucks backing in populated areas. And probably even more examples of trucks crushing cyclist when turning right over the cycling lane.
Few years back a girl died at a zebra crossing near my house; she started to cross but turned back half-way for whatever reason. Trucker was taking a turn and didn't see her (no way he could have), girl expected the truck to stop at the zebra crossing or maybe just didn't notice it, and ... yeah :-(
Not the trucker's fault as such, no way he could have done better, but it goes to show just how dangerous these things can be. Not the girl's fault either, but any discussion about right of way or what an idiot that driver is or whatever is utterly and completely pointless if you're lying under a truck. Always be careful, and always take responsibility for your own safety, even if you shouldn't have to. It's the smart thing to do.
Most truck drivers are pretty careful/decent in my experience (unlike van drivers or taxis...), but it's just so darn hard to see what's going on around you.
That's because US trucks (the goods carrying type, not the status symbol) still look they time-traveled from circa 1950, just even bigger now. Here is a random one from Wikipedia:
IIRC part of the explanation is length limits put on European trucks (so that they will be able to navigate the tighter design standards of the EU road network I believe) which make the cab-over design (where the driver sits above the engine) pretty much compulsory.
In the US, the cab-behind design (as seen in the image linked) remains the dominant one, both for practical (slightly easier access for maintenance IIRC) and probably cultural (no change here please!) reasons.
> for practical (slightly easier access for maintenance IIRC)
It's mainly this. A ton of truck drivers love the looks of the old Kenworth cab overs, but the issue is definitely maintenance becomes a nightmare. When the cab tilts forward, it makes access to the radiator more difficult.
There is also the inconvenience that the entire cab has to be tilted forward in order to access it. Which sends anything not secured rolling forward and out of place. Minor, but annoying.
However, the cab overs that dominated the 70s and 80s here in the US still don't have the same sight lines that the euro trucks do now.
I was worried it'd be about that Tesla Cybertruck but was pleasantly surprised as well. The added visibility is genuinely smart design that will, hopefully, save lives. Not sure how viable these could be for long hauls but if they're for city use only, I'm very excited.
I think they end up having less living space for the truck drivers. I don't know if that's a design limitation, or just a separate aspect of the European market (where the flat-front trucks are ubiquitous), but it would be bad for the quality of life of a lot of truck drivers in the US if the result would be a less comfortable living space.
Surely there's a huge amount of in-city trucking that doesn't need a lot of "living space" for drivers? Such as trips from a regional distribution centre on the outskirts of a city to supermarkets within it? Obviously the distribution centre would be stocked from further out by larger trucks (or in an ideal world, by rail freight).
With the limiting factor of lorries ("trucks") in most jurisdictions being length, one would think the cab-over design lets you put a bigger sleeping cabin behind the driving space than the long-nose one.
Those big sleepers can do a lot for the quality of life for the long haul drivers. Part of the reason the trucks with big sleepers are in town is because it's not often cost or time effective to drop the trailer at the edge and let a day cab bring it to the final destination. I imagine this could potentially change, though.
Yes. Not everywhere, not all the time, but a lot of logistic companies have their platform on the outskirt of major metropolis where the trucks are parked and emptied. Then delivery within the city is handle via van.
I drove a euro-spec Mercedes cab over truck (complete with the glass that turns to dust if something like a rock, a pipe or pieces of an IED goes through it) when I was a civilian contractor overseas and they are pretty tiny compared to the full sleepers we have over here.
> I drove a euro-spec Mercedes cab over truck (complete with the glass that turns to dust if something like a rock, a pipe or pieces of an IED goes through it) when I was a civilian contractor overseas and they are pretty tiny compared to the full sleepers we have over here.
Oh, so a 1960s vehicle? I'm fairly sure lorries in Europe have had laminated windscreens since about the 1970s.
The lamination keeps the whole thing from coming apart but the actual glass just breaks up into a bajillion little pieces making wearing eye protection a necessity.
It doesn’t all turn into powder though, think it has to do with the velocity of the penetrating object. A piece of shrapnel moving fast enough to put a nice mark in a Kevlar helmet leaves a little hole while a rock thrown into it makes it a big floppy mess. The pipe was kind of in the middle but I think that’s because it bounced off one of the ballistic plates I had on the dashboard instead of going straight through.
Before they put metal mesh screens over the windshield we were going through a lot of them so I’m pretty familiar with how euro-glass reacts to traumatic impacts.
> but it would be bad for the quality of life of a lot of truck drivers
> For the US, Norden plans to follow a similar strategy, starting with a Class 7 variant (equivalent to the 16-ton EU model), with smaller Classes 5 and 6 variants following.
Such a relief comparing it with Musk idea of "daisy-chained" Tesla Semis going down the highway in an autopilot, delivering cargo at "10% of train's cost"
> the railroad doesn't factor in their maintenance either.
Aren't railroads (in the US at least) maintained by the railroad companies? If so, they are almost certainly pricing in maintenance to their shipping costs.
The time before the last time I went through New York City I didn’t have the cash to pay the toll to not be in New York so the toll booth attendant gave myself and another driver directions on how to get to a free bridge by taking city streets. Fun times were had.
And no, as TFA claims, 53’ trailers aren’t designed to be only used on highways. A lot of the places we end up weren’t designed with them in mind (because they’re old or whatever) but if you take your time and use a little caution it is quite possible to get it done without taking out a bunch of baby strollers.
If normal folks knew half the sketchy stuff I’ve gotten up to in a big truck over the years they’d be a little horrified and a lot impressed because you have to be pretty good at this to last — usually it’s around the one year mark people get overconfident and make some stupid mistake that costs them their job. There’s a reason a lot of companies won’t talk to you without a couple years experience.
Always nice to be appreciated by random bloggers though, gives my life meaning.
Is there a term for this phenomenon of becoming overconfident a certain period into learning a new thing, and being able to observe this as a spike in accidents and incidents?
Are flatbed versions of these trucks in the works? Or is there a bare chassis option? As one example: there are a lot of tow trucks here in the US in a size class similar to the Volta Zero, and seeing as how tow trucks are a common occurrence in cities, it seems like it'd be worthwhile for them to get these same safety features. Another example use case: hauling 20' containers in and out of transit hubs, slashing emissions from last-mile freight delivery.
In the Netherlands we have a class of vehicles intended for people with a disability that would prevents them from being allowed to drive a 'real' car. These are very small 2-seater cars, limited to 45km/h.
I’m excited for the Tesla Semi as well, which also has the central driving position and lots of cameras for better situational awareness.
It’s more aerodynamic than the European style buses, so more optimized for travel between cities than inside cities, though.
(Electric trucks in dense cities is already a slam dunk without any extreme battery tech or weight reduction, though. It’s longer duration travel that battery electric needs the efforts like Tesla to prove it’s feasible. Affordable, 500 mile range, less than 1 hour quick charge, no real reduction in payload, etc. That will prove electrification of even heavy long range trucks is doable, one of the last bastions of skepticism of electrification of land transport.)
This is another ill informed piece from a truck hater. We have high visibility low cab forward class 7 trucks already: Mack MR & LR, Peterbilt LCF, Freightliner Condor, etc. Bartlett dairy in NYC runs Mack MR's and DSNY sanitation trucks are all LR's plus the postal service runs MR tractors in the city.
I don't understand why he thinks these Voltas will replace 53's trailers. First problem is 53's are fine for transport outside of NYC meaning the carrier would have to designate NYC a special destination. No carrier is going to send a volta 3000 miles to NYC to deliver a few tons of freight. This means when you get a NYC freight quote you are going to pay for two shipments: from the destination to a local transfer dock and from that dock to the NYC destination. And does each carrier have their own class 7 fleet and hub or is that yet another carrier in the mix? This adds cost and complexity to the supply chain.
Freight cost is insane right now thanks to the global mess humanity is currently in. I had to buy parts for a machine that were light weight but 10 feet long (the wood skid was heavier than the parts.) Parts cost $310, freight was $650 and came on a 53'. If a transfer was involved requiring humpers and a second driver I'm sure it would add another few hundred dollars. Of course mr truck hater doesn't care because he doesn't directly see the impacts from his cushy twitter job.
Would a "truck hater" voluntarily describe a truck as "cool"? I think it is possible to respond to a more charitable interpretation of the post than the one that you are responding to.
Tell me some more about your 10 foot long parts that were outweighed by their wooden skid? Would you still have bought them and had them shipped if freight had cost a few hundred dollars more? Genuinely interested. Were the parts for your business? An employer's business? A personal project? Honestly interested.
A joy shared is a joy multiplied. A pain shared is a pain divided.
Interestingly, this requires a second set of vehicles, as the electrical trucks won't cut it on the long haul.
This evens the ground for rail-based logistics, which also need a second set of vehicles at the target location. Of course, the drivers of these City-Trucks will earn city wages. It will be interesting to see how this works out economically.
A second set of vehicles is required for long-haul anyway. Usually you want to do the long-haul part with a large capacity articulated vehicle (e.g. a double decker) and these will typically need to be offloaded at a depot, and then you will do the next leg with a rigid vehicle if required.
Similarly for Rail you are loading a container which will then probably be handled by an articulated vehicle before THEN being loaded onto a rigid vehicle.
(I'm a logistics / supply chain consultant based in the UK, so aware of how these things usually work over here at least)
Let me clarify - if you are operating a fleet of rigids you are probably not operating those long haul (if you are, you probably shouldn’t be!). This replaces rigid vehicles which already operate in this manor - it’s not a totally different class of vehicle.
This doesn’t also mean that you wouldn’t operate a large articulated vehicle on a short-haul basis, it depends on the load characteristics. You don’t always want the biggest possible vehicle, which is why rigids exist (in cases where a driver day caps out on time or miles before vehicle capacity).
But you probably aren’t operating a rigid long haul, because that load can just be mixed onto the back of a larger trunk.
Sure but the point is that unlike with traditional LGVs, the long-haul can't be done with electric ones because of the weight of the batteries required to serve that kind of distance.
Maybe the cost of stuff in London goes up by a penny or two, spreading it across everyone. Maybe a tiny bit less crap gets ordered online that wasn’t needed.
I have often wondered why no one has developed a multi-wheel steering truck trailer. I know nothing about the engineering difficulties, or the cost penalty, but it seems to me that multi-wheel steering would make a truck, even a long truck, much more manouverable in confined spaces.
Perhaps it makes more sense to have a few big vans over one big truck, when it comes to manoeuvrability in small spaces. A big van is more manoeuvrable than a full-sized truck can ever be, even with multi-wheel steering - you still have a honking big box that can't bend.
This is a thing on some large fire trucks. At least for this application it requires someone steering from the back of the trailer. See this one in Seattle for an example.
Cool trucks, but if one of the concerns is weight, I can’t imagine a BEV truck with any decent range is gonna have appreciably better weight/axle. But perhaps I’m overestimating how much battery they’d need.
Battery electric trucks exist in pretty much any weight class you can think off. This stopped being a theoretical thing about a decade ago. The main issue is cost and even that is starting to look really good. For last mile deliveries in cities it's pretty much game over for ICE vehicles. Electrical vans are selling as fast as they can be produced. They are cheaper to operate, cleaner to drive, more comfortable (no vibrations, quiet), etc. and they get the job done.
Range is fine too. 300-500 miles is plenty for a long distance truck doing 50-60 miles per hour. There are several manufacturers selling battery electrical class 8 trucks now. It will take a while for those to get common of course and for charging infrastructure to ramp up (these things need some serious amounts of juice). They have their required 45 minute break every few hours in any case. Great opportunity to charge the vehicle.
Range anxiety for commercial vehicles is not a thing. You might have personal anxiety but it's an entirely predictable thing that you can plan and budget for from a business point of view. It either is good/affordable enough and adequate or it is not.
In fact, it seems the low range delivery vans are popular because they are more cost effective and more efficient (less unneeded dead battery weight). Why spend the extra money on range you don't need? It seems the sweet spot is around 100 miles range. Some vans do even less than that. But it's more than the average delivery van does in a day apparently. Longer range options are available. Anxiety does not factor into this. It's a simple matter of "do we spend the 10-20k extra and is it worth it?"
It's meant for cities. It don't have to have thousands of km in range.
But as I read for Volta Zero they promises 150-200 km od range with ~9 tonnes payload (but they want also 16-ton variant). For city driving looks okay for me.
Not to mention the idea is to reduce inner city pollution and noise pollution levels. Current trucks are despised in cities for this. It’s worth sacrificing on some other aspects to achieve that.
except for that damn backup "beep beep". Yes, I know the arguments for safety, and few of them are based on studies which show safety improvements
esp vs other options, like backup cameras. Or if the beep only signaled if there was an obstruction behind the truck. That would be a great use for computer vision. Someone standing behind the truck (or even just something which might be a person)? Beep. Otherwise, keep quiet. An alarm which is false 10x more than it is true is not an alarm.
The beep isn't for the driver. I don't want it to beep after I step out behind it, I want it to beep before.
Despite that, there is an alternative which sounds more like a hiss. The main benefit is that you can identify the direction from your hearing. I have to look in all directions to find where the beep is coming from.
It's worth it to you to trade distance for clean/quiet, but it's the companies involved using the trucks that need to be convinced. Telling them that they need to have separate trucks for city use and long haul use will receive push back from sheer momentum of how it's done now. Unless the cities get involved and tax the bejeebus out of them for not switching, they will never switch.
They already often have very large trucks that only go to warehouses, and would be a pain to drive through a city, especially such an old and super-dense one as NYC.
Smaller trucks move smaller quantities around the city from the warehouses.
Maybe sometimes you need to bring something especially large e.g. for a construction; such deliveries may be special-cased and planned carefully, instead of being completely off-limits.
It's not the companies that need to be convinced, it's a matter of the people wanting this enough that politicians act on it or get voted out, and then companies are just forced to follow the regulations that require such trucks.
> has Volta designed a safer truck for urban transport simply because European companies are more enlightened and civilized on these issues than Americans? [...] yes, culture matters
Trucks are not allowed also in my hometown in Italy, and it’s not enforced as people tend to let them work expecting common sense based decisions, but a couple of years ago a truck driver just lacked that and tried to go through a very narrow old street blocking the center for hours and got his license revoked and the truck taken, so I guess everyone just be careful
Lots and lots of stories here in the UK about trucks following GPS directions meant for cars and getting stuck, damaging buildings in small towns or both.
It drives me crazy to see laws like this unenforced. An unenforced law is basically a law that is only used when someone power doesn't like you. It's something they keep in their back pocket to either have you pay them off or for them just to kick you out. They don't like company ABC, enforce the law just on ABC's trucks.
Sure there are some dumb laws, and they should remove them. But, if they have a law it should be enforced IMO.
> Sure there are some dumb laws, and they should remove them. But, if they have a law it should be enforced IMO.
But the dumb laws aren't removed, so now what do we do? There aren't enough resources to enforce all the laws, it would require major tax increases, and it would stifle life in the city for no benefit. Why would we enforce them all? Humans are not robots; we can make intelligent decisions about what is needed in a situation.
The one that gets me the most is Keep Right Laws[0]. I've never been in a state (I've been in a lot) where these are enforced. There's small patches where people do this, but never more than a 50 mile stretch. It's simple: "If you aren't actively passing, stay out of the left/PASSING lane." I really do believe that people think being in the left lane makes you go faster. But these laws, if enforced, can dramatically reduce highway accidents.
Slow people in the left lane can easily make a calm and peaceful drive into a chaotic nightmare as people cut each other off trying to get around. Another bad one is when a big truck is passing a slow car but then the people behind the big truck won't let it move back into the right lane.
I was highly contemplating adding a joke about the autoban to my comment. Didn't take long for someone to mention Germany lol. But even though it is enforced in Germany, it doesn't help that most people (including police) don't know that these laws are even on the books.
There's at least one other type of unenforced law: a law whose opponents were unable to block its passing, but were able to block funding for its enforcement agency or block appointment of a head of that agency.
Would it be possible for a startup to create a product with [positive externalities] and lobby for companies to be required to create their version of the product with [positive externalities], instead of incumbents lobbying to get away with [negative externalities]
Isn't that one of those laws that would basically bring the city to a halt if it were actually enforced? Consider the horrible traffic jams created by Nestoring as another example.
The whole point of TFA is that no, it’s a law that would cause a new type of truck to be brought to market that did comply with the length regulations.
Of course you don’t start enforcing the law overnight, you make a credible firm commitment to phase it in at some point in the future. (I’d be interested to hear how aggressive the phase-in was in London).
London added the "Low Emission Zone" in 2008, phasing it in over 4 years with more aggressive pollution levels, with the "Ultra Low Emission Zone" coming in to effect a couple of years ago.
Polluting vehicles aren't banned, just charged each time they enter the zone, via automated camera based solutions. Aim is to provide a solid financial incentive towards using more fuel efficient vehicles. Large commercial vehicles get charged £100 a day, everything else just £12.50. So not really prohibitive, but also a cost that soon adds up.
It has been highly effective, with a large reduction of pollution in the city, and no doubt the city really appreciates the additional revenue stream (even if it's tied to specific projects)
> Polluting vehicles aren't banned, just charged each time they enter the zone, via automated camera based solutions.
Does that discriminate against people without money, who can't always afford less-polluting cars, can't afford the fines, and thus are excluded from public streets?
According to every non-wealthy Londoner that I've spoken to...yes. Regular folk that live in the city are being squeezed every which way. They don't want to leave because its always been their home but the city is optimizing for the wealthy and well-to-do.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if all the really cheap labor stops showing up (cheap labor from the EU) and working people clear out of London. What good is your million dollar flat if you can't get furniture delivered or a tradesperson in to fit a wardrobe?
I'm a Londoner who's just swapped their car to meet the ULEZ standards and it's not that demanding cost wise. Pretty much any petrol car after 2002 or so qualifies and glancing at Vauxhall Astras for example you can get one from £650 in serviceable state. It's a bit of a pain but not compared to dying early of some respiratory illness.
Yes, but London has fantastic public transport to the extent where if you are living in the Ultra Low Emission Zone you probably don't need a car (if you could even afford a place with a parking space). Now the extension of the Low Emission Zone is a different matter, but its less strict and while people complained a bit before it expanded I've not heard of any major issues from it (but then again, I am probably in a bubble).
It's funny - If I need to go down to London, I'll drive my car to a station just outside of London (where I can park all day relatively cheaply), and then take the train into London and use the underground whilst I'm there.
Kind of just goes to show how crap trains are outside of London, and how great they are inside of London. Plus, I've only driven in London once and it's not something I'd want to do again :D
Well, the poor are supposed to take the efficient public transportation, while the affluent can continue to use their gas-guzzlers (and now their expensive electric cars) to clog the streets
One could argue it makes even cheaper options like walking and cycling into more palatable alternatives. In any case, the vast majority of people in London use public transport to get around.
I'm not sure how it works for tradespeople who need to carry equipment. I'd hope there are schemes to subsidize more efficient vehicles for those sorts of cases, although I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any.
It's like talking about replacing C++ with Javascript. 26' box trucks already exist and could be used, but aren't for a reason. The novel part is really just the visibility and lower noise, which is irrelevant to a 53' trailer ban.
I think you're missing the point of the conversation up-thread. OP is pointing out that 53' trailers are actually already banned, but the ban is not enforced. GP suggested that enforcing the ban would bring the city to a halt. The OP provides a discussion of an alternative that could be used if the 53' trailer ban was enforced.
> 26' box trucks already exist and could be used, but aren't for a reason.
Right, at least partly because the ban on 53' trailers is not enforced. Nobody is claiming that these smaller trucks are strictly better in the current market environment (including the assumption that the ban is not enforced). This thread is discussing what would happen if the 53' truck ban was enforced.
Your analogy doesn't make sense in this context. Neither C++ nor Javascript are banned. To fix your analogy, try this: If you banned C++ (and enforced the ban) in NYC, then you'd expect to see an increase in use of JS and other languages. Programming would not grind to a halt, if you gave enough notice then the pieces currently implemented in C++ would be re-implemented in another language.
They fill different roles. It's talking about replacing something suited for long distance, including intermodal, relays, etc with a short distance truck that has distinct characteristics. If you absolutely can't use 53' trailers, the best alternative is probably 48' trailers.
That’s what business owners want you to think so they don’t have to change what they’re doing. But the entire post is proof that it doesn’t have to be this way. Set a date when the trucks have to be gone. When the day comes, enforce it with the entire apparatus of state power. Two things that government is good at, and the private sector will figure out the rest.
> Consider the horrible traffic jams created by Nestoring as another example.
If people want to speed and tailgate, they are the ones causing traffic. Some random dude, staying in one lane, going the speed limit, is not the problem. It's narcissist jackasses weaving in and out of traffic.
Not because the EU is nice or anything like that, it's just the right level to mandate safety standards so that standard designs can be made cheaply at scale and not be undermined by a race to the bottom.
You've linked to Channel 4's fact check page but not any specific article and I don't see one about the direct vision standard anywhere on the site.
Secondly, the standard was not an EU initiative, it was London's, though the EU and other places are also coming up with standards. From [1]:
> Significantly, the EU is set to follow London’s DVS for trucks
From [2]:
> The Direct Vision Standard was developed by the Mayor of London (Sadiq Khan) as part of his Vision Zero initiative
Sadiq Khan is very pro-EU and I find it hard to believe he'd miss an opportunity to give credit to the EU and give a snide aside towards Brexit and its supporters, but it seems he's not bothered this time.
From [3]:
> "Our world-first Direct Vision Standard has saved lives
> TfL is also working with the EU and other cities to mandate direct vision in vehicle design and safety regulations.
And from the notes on that page:
> TfL's Direct Vision Standard was developed in conjunction with Loughborough University's School of Design and Creative Arts and through extensive engagement with lorry manufacturers
> The See Me Save Me campaign was founded in 2009 by Kate Cairns following the death of her sister, Eilidh, at Notting Hill Gate, London. See Me Save Me challenges industry, policymakers and the justice system to push for faster adoption of measures to reduce HGV danger
> Kate led the call for direct vision lorries at the European Parliament in Strasbourg in 2010, with the See Me Save Me (seemesaveme.org) campaign lobbying alongside MEP Fiona Hall for mandatory cameras and sensors
> Further lobbying followed in Brussels in 2011 for amendment to Directive 96/53 to improve direct visibility of HGV cabs (seemesaveme.org/policy). The DVS incorporates both of these mitigation measures
So it turns out that the real credit should go to a campaigner who has managed, with the help of a charity called Roadpeace, to turn personal tragedy into something positive, and those with the power to make changes in developing and implementing these standards together and in parallel, and not in opposition to each other.
Finally, I think using words like "propaganda" for situations like this is wholly misplaced and unhelpful.
Unpopular opinion: (Not in the context of this article) While I think the new design of the truck is better w.r.t driver's seat position, shouldn't we actually focus on solving the core problem instead? Rogue road users.
(Forget the truck and New York), depending on which country you live in, they can be rogue or law abiding, but, if you take a country like Singapore, it is not uncommon to see rogue bikes riding in the middle of the highway - In fact, it is even illegal in Singapore. I would hate for manufacturers to accept this as reality and modify their vehicles to accommodate rogue road users.
There is a reason for this thinking - Every compromise we make for other rogue road user, we compromise our own safety. Eg. Our bonnets are already weak now due to "pedestrian safety" features - ie. in the event a jaywalker comes into your path out of nowhere.
I would rather the government focuses on infrastructure to solve for these problems than the manufacturers. Everybody wins then.
It's not a either or thing. Both help. I'm a Dutch guy living in Berlin. Berlin in the last few years has upgraded their infrastructure quite a bit to make things safer for cyclists. This is of course something that my home country the Netherlands started doing after the oil crisis in the 1970s. The result of decades of policies and regulations is that that is now a very safe place to move around by bike. There are very few traffic situations where cycling traffic is mixing with normal road traffic. That really cuts down on the accident rate. Berlin has some catching up to do on that front.
Here in Berlin, the leading cause for traffic deaths is trucks taking right turns at speed and not noticing the cyclists in their dead angle. Happens a couple of times per month. The way to prevent that is 1) mirrors/cameras 2) installing concrete curbs to force the trucks to take the turn properly (slow down, take a wider turn so they can actually see what's lurking in their dead angle). In the Netherlands neither of those things are optional. Almost any significant right turn will have those curbs and they really work. Also crossings are super well organized and there's just very little room for misunderstandings. Any place with abnormally high accident rates gets prioritized for a little makeover. And forget about being allowed on the road without the required mirrors.
This Volta truck has a great design that should help enormously in countries with less regulation / established policy on this front. These are designed to go into areas where normal traffic isn't even allowed. So lots of pedestrians and cyclists. Even in the Netherlands they should help. You never get to perfect safety so all little bits help. And I imagine the enhanced visibility is helpful in general for drivers.
> installing concrete curbs to force the trucks to take the turn properly
What do you mean by concrete curbs? How do they compare to other curbs and how do they help? Are they just so large and tough that they damage the truck if it runs over the curb?
In the context that this article is discussing bikes are legal and entitled to use the road. Labelling those people as "rogue" is disingenuous.
Even if they weren't legal under current laws, dedicating the majority of public space to a specific mode of transport has been show to lead to pretty sad results: clogged roads and crowded footpaths.
Why should it be that when I switch from driving mode to walking mode, I lose the right to access that public space?
The core problem is that we have huge bulks of metal driving at high speed through out cities, with drivers that are unable to observe their surroundings, and even when they do take too much time to come to a safe stop.
You are right about solving infrastructure: cities should be people-centric, not car-centric. Ban motorized traffic wherever people need to live. Invest in public transport, sharing services, walkability.
Biking is a weird thing. You're not a car but you're not a pedestrian. It's really not safe for you to be where pedestrians are (and sometimes it is illegal) but cars want you out of their way. Additionally as a biker if you try and be courteous to cars it is almost always at the expense of your personal safety.
> I would rather the government focuses on infrastructure to solve for these problems than the manufacturers. Everybody wins then.
I agree 100% and liked what another user said - we have to imagine the city we want to live in and build backwards.
Large trucks driving through city centers and killing pedestrians who moving around the neighborhoods they live and work in and the pedestrians are "rogue road users"?
Forget the truck, not referring to the truck, but what if these changes are made to cars? So, now to accommodate these road users, your car will be made of tin can instead of thicker Aluminium sheets. As a biker, that is good news to you, but as someone who paid $x0,000 for my car I wouldn't be happy obviously.
Bikers drive like trash in most countries, why should car users take the hit for that?
The people riding bikes you are observing in the middle of the road are obeying the rules and trying to stay alive by preventing close overtakes. Roads were designed for people, horses and bikes - why have we let cars take over?
I am not in favor of lane blocking, blocking an entire lane leading to pile up of vehicles 100x heavier than them so a biker can go on a joy ride in the middle of the road which is actually illegal in most countries, including Singapore.
Let me provide some context. I live in Denmark now which is arguably one of the best places in the world for alternative transport (bikes, trains, walking). Pedestrians and cyclists are an absolute menace. Driving in Copenhagen is harrowing because it means slamming on brakes many times to avoid running over someone. This is in a city with big, dedicated walkways and cycleways. So I can tell you for sure it's not an infrastructure problem. It's a culture problem.
There seems to be a deliberate choice somewhere in this culture "problem" which has favoured pedestrians and cyclists. A belief that drivers should give way to other forms of "better" transport. In Denmark this appears to have developed well before climate hysteria really took off, so I don't think we can ascribe it to that. I think urban planning has intentionally designed infrastructure to relegate drivers to be second class citizens in the Copenhagen. Knowing the Danes, the reason is quite obvious: cycling and public transport is far more efficient than cars. It's also much healthier for the population, and costs society less by several metrics. Every km that someone cycles instead of drives saves the country US$1.41 (https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-infras...).
I imagine there has also been pragmatic research into the stifling effect of public transport and cycling/walking with regards to stricter enforcement of road rules like "jaywalking". The Danish Cyclists' Federation is against mandatory helmet laws because of the reduction in the number of people who cycle (https://www.cyklistforbundet.dk/english/use-of-helmet/). Meaning that it's actually better for society to allow minor traffic "infractions" by the better form of transport, if it means increased adoption of said transport.
These trucks are probably a product of this attitude, which I also see in other major European cities. There isn't an appetite to make the environment for pedestrians or cyclists worse, in any way. So they will continue to jaywalk, and cut in between cars in traffic, and trucks will be expected to yield to them.
If you are 'slamming' on the brakes many times during a normal trip you're probably a really poor driver and you're going too fast for the condition. Please try a new style of driving in future.
Pedestrians and cyclists have right-of-way over cars in the US, too. It's not "climate hysteria," it's to prevent brains from getting spilled on pavement.
If you can kill someone by not stopping, you're ordered to yield for the person you might kill.
> I think urban planning has intentionally designed infrastructure to relegate drivers to be second class citizens in the Copenhagen.
Making dense cities deliberately unfriendly to cars is a pretty standard approach to urban planning and also tends to make much nicer places to live.
The safety benefits of helmets are highly contextual (speed and traffic proximity are the two biggest factors) and the data to back up helmet laws in the Danish context are weak to nonexistent.
