• vivadanang@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Gonna be great seeing Cybertrucks mow through pedestrians with their ridiculous blind spots and sharp stainless steel corners all over.

    Honestly the thing is starting to remind me of the homer car, what a fucking joke

    • Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      They don’t want us to have cool cars anymore. Just ugly, oversized cruise ships that steal our data and try to drive themselves.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s right! Court ruling this week said data theft by car companies is super duper.

    • Dabundis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      As is the case with every sane driver on the road. All the same, pedestrians are hit by vehicles every day.

      With the volume of car travel in the world, it is a statistical certainty that people will make mistakes, be it distraction, complacency, fatigue, whatever the cause. An abundance of these high up, flat-fronted vehicles create a scenario such that WHEN those mistakes DO happen, they’re far more likely to end a life. To suggest that people should just be better drivers is essentially just wishing the problem will solve itself.

      • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It’s not hard to not hit pedestrians.

        I’ve been driving for 30 years and I’ve only had one speeding ticket and never had an accident. Squeaky clean driving record.

        I probably run over a lot of bugs though.

        Wait a minute, why did I join this subreddit? I think it’s because there were five years when I didn’t have a car and I had to walk & run & bicycle everywhere. That was invigorating but exhausting. But I will never forget the humility and gratitude and health of it all and that’s when you really start to notice how most people who drive cars are so arrogant when they’re behind the wheel. So I get it.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    Vehicles with higher, more vertical front ends pose greater risk to pedestrians

    I think that’s more accurate. Vehicles big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered… makes no difference. There’s no greater risk to pedestrians than multi-ton moving vehicles.

    • Evkob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      I get where you’re coming from, but without context your point comes across as more of a “all cars are dangerous therefore we shouldn’t bother regulating oversized SUVs” rather than the “Yes SUVs are particularly dangerous but let’s keep in mind that all cars are dangerous” that you were aiming for.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        “all cars are dangerous therefore we shouldn’t bother regulating oversized SUVs” rather than the “Yes SUVs are particularly dangerous but let’s keep in mind that all cars are dangerous” that you were aiming for.

        Oh, geeze. Yeah, I really didn’t intend for it to sound like the first part. I 1000% believe that larger vehicles NEED to be regulated, like yesterday.

      • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s actually surprising. I would think damage to lower extremities (delicate knee joints) would be far more severe from a concentrated impact area than a large area impact distributed over the entire body - when it occurs with a low speed impact.

        • biddy@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          There’s nuances here, but in principle you are incorrect. A car can be assumed to be infinitely heavier than a pedestrian. That means that every part of their body that’s in contact with the car will be accelerated to car speed. So it’s not that with a larger area the force is spread out, there’s actually just more places that have force applied. In other words, a low car will break your legs, a high car will break your legs and torso.

          • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I tend to agree with you, of course, but I wonder if the large study were re-run with mass as the cause it would show similar distribution against the 6000lb+ vehicles. Mass tends to reduce braking deceleration and I didn’t see that as an explicit parameter. The “cause” is more salient to the second, smaller study which shows the “kneecap and hood carry” physics reduced hip and head injuries compated to the “body block and throw” mechanics of the flat- fronted cars.

            Not to defend the Mack-Truck styling - I don’t disagree at all with the smaller impact study - I question the original implied hypothesis that the prevalence of large flat fronts as the cause of increase in deaths following the nadir in 2009. Of course anecdotes are not evidence, but I live in a college town and have since 2000 and the actions of pedestrians have changed substantially over the years. Specifically, the advent of smartphones has resulted in risky behavior both in pedestrians and behind the wheel. In 2009 less than 20% of phones were “smart.” Few of those were connected to the internet and fewer still to social media and entertainment services. Since then, the prevalence has increased to 80% and the consumption of media by orders of magnitude (measured by data usage and hours engaged). The original study implies the increase in pedestrian death solely due to nose geometry, but the quantity of impacts and conditions may not be as causative as the article seems to claim.

        • Evkob@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Lower-fronted cars may cause more severe lower body injuries, but likely cause less severe injuries overall because the point of impact isn’t the torso (which is where humans keep a lot of their important bits and bobs).

          • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I guess that’s the question. For low speed impacts the body is pretty well protected compared to the lower extremities because the energy of impact is more readily absorbed without serious damage.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      A train fits that statement too. So do planes. And boats.

      Big thing move fast hurt when hit. Thats not whats being discussed, tho, cause we all inherently understand physics.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        A train fits that statement too. So do planes. And boats.

        Trains run on tracks, and you can’t get hit by one unless you put yourself on those tracks.

        I’m not aware of pedestrians and cyclists getting hit by planes. I’d be interested to hear about this trend.

        Boats aren’t typically found on city streets, and pedestrian fatalities involving boats is how common?

        City and suburban streets should have fewer cars on it, not more. These are pedestrian areas, and perhaps we can learn a thing or two about how to actually prevent pedestrian fatalities by looking at European city planning and design.

      • ysjet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Why the fuck would you come into a community called ‘FuckCars’ and try to defend cars?

        • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          If you think anything about my comment defends cars, you need to find a community called “kindergarden reading lessons”