749
131

YSK that in all developed countries, traffic fatalities have been falling. The only exception is the United States. In the U.S., the opposite happened. People die in rising numbers

1mon 5d ago by lemmy.world/u/Wulsko in youshouldknow from www.nytimes.com

cars are getting bigger

drivers are getting stupider

headlights are getting brighter

laws are arbitrarily enforced

drivers are getting stupider

Mostly that last one.

The proportion of bellicose and outright dangerous drivers I'm encountering on a daily basis is way higher than it was a few years ago. People seemingly went insane during the COVID lockdown era and never returned to baseline levels. This isn't just a feeling or a hunch, either. I have a dashcam in all three cars and ride with a GoPro on my helmet pretty much all the time. The number of clips containing insanity I'm saving nowadays far outstrips the ones in the old folders from the beforetimes, by a multiple of about five.

People are also driving much more distracted than ever. It's apparently now socially acceptable to be driving with your phone in one hand Facetiming someone at all times, now.

Mostly that last one.

I think it's mostly their second point.

I think it’s mostly the one that says “drivers are getting stupider”

Some people in my neighborhood run stop signs on their own streets. They almost hit their own family members walking as well as school buses.

Yet everyday I see them continue to drive right through the stop sign.

These ones drive like they’re determined to be violent maniacs so maybe they just somehow grew up without developing a self aware soul

Invariably these are also the selfsame people who will absolutely lose their shit over anyone else causing them any kind of perceived slight in traffic or indeed for running the same stop signs, speeding down the same streets, etc. as they do themselves.

Lack of self awareness is certainly right.

Yep, seems they’re maximally enraged at all times with a degree of entitlement that makes it your fault if they hit you

https://www.jalopnik.com/study-finds-cyclists-are-better-people-than-drivers-1850964103/

Yeah and modern cars are getting worse. The computerized controls, the sound and vibration insulation, low visibility + giant car, constant digital alerts and buttons

They’re practically in a tank and it’s designed to divorce them as much as possible from physical reality

Modern comfort probably doesn't help, but the act of driving turning people into fucking monsters has been a phenomenon for so long that Disney was making cartoons about it 75 years ago.

That's the craziest shit to me. I'll admit, I drove probably like an idiot when I was younger, but I've always been respectful of my neighborhood. Nowadays, if there's a house on the street, I'm treating it like people are out walking. Every road in my town is 25 and I won't go over 25. I watch the walk signal timers and end up stopping instead of trying to catch lights. It's crazy.

I see parents drop their kids at school so I'm walking. There with my kids and they don't look right coming out of the driveway. Yes, it's unlikely that anyone crosses that driveway, as the sidewalk branches off to the left toward the school, but sometimes kids walk along the street to the next school driveway. And these are people with children. It's mind-boggling that you'd drive with anything but the utmost care at the school you just dropped your kids.

I run in town and that's my opportunity to take my liberties. When I reach a crosswalk, I'm going across, I don't give a fuck, and so people better be ready to stop. And no, I don't mean I'm running in front of traffic, but if it's a reasonable distance, I'm going, whether it's the walk on the bookends or the run in the middle. I absolutely can't stand people failing to yield to pedestrians. A woman was trying to cross a street parallel to me and nobody was stopping, so I just pulled my car into traffic. It's insane. And then I yelled at them. I'm going to get myself in trouble but I need people to be aware of pedestrians.

I love strong arming crosswalks and making drivers stop

Like you I’m not trying to ever put myself in real danger but I will just walk into the crosswalk and stare them down and gesture if need be but I will make those assholes stop.

I like the school analogy. People don't give a shit if they run over your kid because the American narcissism has them believing they can do it all on their own and "community" is just there to put rules on them and cramp their style, after all, it's all about them!

I think a lot of people are so busy thinking about themselves and can't reach the simple conclusion you did: if I don't want my kids run over I shouldn't run over anyone else's kids. More simply: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Hell yeah. King of the road. 👑

You also have to look both ways at green lights now because people are selfish and careless enough that they will enter an intersection when the signal is fully red.

Are you reporting the drivers you catch on can? Police here have been asking for footage.

Not here. Our cops refuse to hear it. I've tried and they just keep parroting the hugely spurious argument, "If we didn't see it ourselves we can't do anything." They only care about drugs and guns around here.

Don’t forget the stupid implementation of literally a big touch screen tablet where the radio and AC knobs used to be. Now in most modern cars.

Replace one of the stupider with "more distractions"

The nearly 1:1 of iPhone launch in 2007 to rising accidents and non-vehicular injuries is undebatable.

People are also more stressed and depressed than ever.

Using a phone while driving is being stupid, and there’s not really a good enough excuse to make it anything less and a new opportunity to exhibit that stupidity. Distractions are what get in the way of a good driver’s ability to drive well, like the insane amount of in-car brightness these days or the poorly adjust, ultra-bright headlights.

Soeaking of, I love that my 2015 BRZ has dimmable, red, seven-segment displays for everything and the new head unit I got for it can easily have its screen turned off. No distractions, just darkness and the road in front of me, even with my relatively “dim” headlights.

My car has capacitive buttons to turn on fog lights. That’s what I want, a button forcing me to look down when visibility is at its lowest. I’m sure there are hundreds of other examples of bad design causing driver distraction, but that one really pisses me off!

It’s honestly crazy how that happened. The only capacitive buttons I have are on the new headunit but I’ve muscle-memoried the power button and volume controls are mostly there but, like you say, they aren’t anything urgent so it’s chill. If I really wanted I could probably even buy a 2017+ steering wheel and get the buttons but I prefer the plain-jane one.

And for states with higher electric car adoption (like here in California):

Electric cars are heavy. Really heavy. People do not understand how heavy these cars are. A Tesla Model Y (the smallest one) weighs ~4,500 lbs, while a Model X weighs over 5,000 lbs. For comparison, my all steel body V8 powered 1968 Ford Galaxie 500 (with dimensions physically bigger than all Tesla models(*): 213 in long compared to the longest Tesla, the Model S at 196 in long) weighs just ~3,700 lbs. In a crash involving an electric car, all that kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and sadly that's usually into the other non-electric car in the crash.

Additionally, people are too trusting of auto-pilot. The driver's hands should never be allowed to come off the steering wheel unless they are repositioning their hand in a turn or for comfort, IMO. Turning on auto-pilot and trusting it enough to completely disengage from driving and do something else (like taking a nap or reading a book) is like trusting ChatGPT to give you factually correct information: its possible but pretty unlikely its going to be 100%.

(*) EDIT: Technically, this is wrong as I forgot the Model 3, which is 184 inches. However, the Model 3 weighs about the same or more than the Galaxie at ~3,600 lbs to ~4,000 lbs. The point is just to communicate how heavy these cars are.

Edit: I may have misread that you meant the smallest Tesla, not the smallest Model Y. You're wrong if you meant Tesla, but if you meant Model Y that was my bad.

I don't count the Roadster because A) there are not enough of them to be statistically relevant to this discussion, and B) its just a modified Lotus Elise.

I did totally forget about the Model 3. It does have a length that is smaller at ~185 inches, but the weight is about the same if not heavier as my Galaxie, ranging between ~3,600lbs to ~4,000 lbs.

Also, I should add the Cybertruck at ~6,700 lbs in its normal trim with the Cyberbeast being a staggering 6,900 lbs. It is about 10 inches longer than my Galaxie, but it is literally almost twice the weight. Absolute chonker.

Regardless, my point was just in pointing out how ridiculously heavy they are.

Post critical of the United States ✅

OP's post history is generally anti-USA ✅

OP's comment history = 0 ✅

Boy I sure wonder why you post on Lemmy... /s

You shouldn’t be downvoted, this is yet another account that posts likely for sentiment shaping and immediately deletes their account. This sub is awash with it. I get that there’s a lot to dump on in regards to the US now more than ever but I’d really prefer it be organic posts from people who actually want to engage in the fediverse in good faith rather than whatever the fuck this manipulative bullshit is

its definitely bot behaviour, they do the same thing and then delete immediately on reddit too, usually coming from some kinda propaganda source. its a way to partially evade the filters.

Should people... Not be critical? There's always been so much glazing of the US throughout history

It’s not that they’re being critical, it’s that someone is being shady with some sort of motive. I don’t want the fediverse to get ruined with narrative attack bs, I want to talk to real humans who aren’t trying to manipulate me. If I was cool with that I’d just go back to Reddit.

I agree with you, but this is a link to a New York Times article, not some shady blog just made to push an agenda.

If people didn't find this article interesting, they could just not upvote it.

NYT isn’t exactly much better than a shady blog. Like most media now.

Okay but it's still regarded as a serious publication, even if every publication has some kind of agenda

what is your sources of info than? it better not be blogs, or another opinion article, because those arnt news either. you should do the due dilligence when looking at any news article, or article, verify the source and facts.

That's cute but Lemmy has the same agenda pushing bots that Reddit has.

The posters account is about a day old. For more context. (Voyager shows you an icon and age when accounts are new. Just like Apollo did)

And their account is now deleted. Definitely abnormal behavior.

Edit: it’s possible the voyager account age thing is confused by the deleted account.

Boost does as well, little chick popping out of an egg

Nice. I think it should be a standard feature. And the need is ever increasing, it seems.

i wonder if its these bot spammers im hearing about from another forum that is considering targeting lemmy like they do with reddit, as a way to warm up or drump up thier "eventual linking thier businesses). on the other note, it could be propaganda bots testing the waters.

It's the astroturfing that's objectionable.

Throughout history? Whose?

The USA's international opinion has been on the downtrend for like 20 years, with its precipitous drop like 10 years ago.

It's not the '90s anymore; the only people pushing American exceptionalism are ignoramuses and jingoists who will do that regardless of any facts, not normal citizens.

I've always found the other half of American exceptiolism to be equally stupid;the opinion that America is the worst country ever, ir, exceptionally evil or bad among history.

Yeah, every country that is a world power now is looking down from a mountain of ravaged bodies.

America is only the latest, and doing so in an era where the victims can livestream back the atrocities committed in the name of the country's "empire".

A lot of people in my country used to believe until very recently (and a lot others still believe) that the USA is the best country in the world (or second best because of nationalism) and that everyone wishes they could go there

Critical of bots? Yes. Among other things.

Always be critical of the source. That's not to say you shouldn't ever be critical of the content obviously.

Right but the source would be the article posted

And... deleted.

Lmao they deleted the entire account when called out. Sketchy af.

huh!

Nah dude the world has just grown tired of American Exceptualism.

Sure, but does it make it less real?

Damn, right in the american exceptionalism! Butthurt much that the flaws of the US are being exposed?

You say all of those things as if it were specific to anti-USA posting. Lemmy is ripe and full of anti-China and anti-Russia AstroTurf-seeming accounts:

A post a week ago made a brief list of some accounts (not complete by any means)

anti-China and anti-Russia

Uh huh. Yeah okay.

We've had enough projection for a lifetime this decade.

Is it not humanly possible to portray anti-China or anti-Russian bias? Or is it that you don't care about astroturfing when it's done for such purpose?

Good! These post are a good reminder that this isn't reddit.

Don't like it? You can go back to US propaganda sites.

Don’t like it? You can go back to US propaganda sites.

I don't see the benefit of replacing US propaganda with anti-US propaganda.

Is the argument presented the propaganda or the fact that it was negative?

It's NYTimes propaganda, not exactly Russian or Chinese.

This might be true in Canada too? I thought the death rate was related to the size of the vehicles preferred by the drivers in the measured region. And nobody likes ‘em bigger than Americans. And may Canadians, from what I’ve seen.

How are other countries on drivers not being on their cell phones or watching their phones\browsing? The US is terrible about it. It's not legal most places, but it's also not very enforced. I figured that was a bigger cause than the rise in vehicle size.

In Norway, even though we have a lot of larger SUV's driving around, being caught on mobile is very pricy and police controls are very regular.

Here in Western Australia we've just introduced new cameras to address this.

The penalty has always been very steep if you get caught. Like a third of a weeks wage, and if you got caught 3x in 3x years you'd lose your license for a while.

That said, I dont actually know anyone who had been caught.

6 months ago these new cameras showed up. Its actually on a boxy trailer, hi-vis reflective yellow, a vertical boom going up 5 metres or so, then extending horizontally over the lane.

They've been issuing warnings up to now. "Here's the photo of you using your phone, usually you'd get a penalty but we're waiving that during this introductory phase".

The penalties will start shortly.

Honestly anyone who doesn't notice one of these things on the side of the road has the situational awareness of a spare tyre and shouldn't be driving an e-scooter let alone a car.

I've seen a few other factors that might contribute to increased pedestrian/cyclist deaths on our roads:

  1. e-Bikes. e-Bikes are mostly a goddamn mistake. The ones that don't make the bike go any faster than you yourself can pedal it, just make pushing the pedals easier? Those are fine. Anything else should be classified as a moped, and I don't know why they aren't. People are riding them at 20+ miles per hour on sidewalks and getting backed into out of blind driveways that weren't designed with traffic that speed on the sidewalk. Plus you've just got more people on 2-wheelers mixing with car traffic, which is a game they lost at the character select screen.

  2. Half-assed attempts by DMVs to add bike lanes and walking paths. All the squawking about walkable cities this and fuck cars that you bots have been bitching about has been heard. In my area, where new housing developments or shopping centers are going in, the DOT now requires bike lanes and sidewalks in such places. They connect to nowhere because the main roads aren't all being modified to add such features, not until they need major modifications themselves. So you'll see bikes and pedestrians on highways they didn't used to appear on.

Another problem I've seen is the mixing of bike lanes and turn lanes. Our roads have long been built such that any lane that is allowed to turn right does not have lanes that can go straight to their right. So if you have the right of way to turn right, by green circle or green right arrow signal, it is logically safe for the driver to proceed. Until they added bike lanes to the extreme outside next to the curb. We didn't add signals for these bike lanes, they're supposed to follow the same signals as cars. So. You're sitting at a red light with your right turn signal on. It turns solid green. You go. The cyclist overtaking you in the bike lane also saw the light turn green, he tries to go straight, he is crushed to death under your right rear tire. This didn't used to be a problem, it is now.

  1. Walkers and bikers be out here going full retard. My neighborhood is a grid system full of stop signs. There are two North-South streets a couple blocks apart where all the stop signs are crossing, so these are main thoroughfares through town. Cars go the posted speed limit of 35 along there. Between these two streets is another that has stop signs on most blocks. Cars don't tend to travel down that road because they constantly have to stop. Guess where everyone decides to walk and bike? EVERYWHERE EXCEPT THE ROAD WITH NO CAR TRAFFIC. People go out of their way to play in traffic. I guess you can't earn a living by getting a job anymore, so you've got to get your pelvis crushed to have your day in court.

Terminal car brain

For real, they think the only solution to cars endangering pedestrians and bikes is to ban both bikes and pedestrians... As God intended eagle screeches and flies overhead

Yeah go die in traffic with all the other zealots.

Having a quasi-religious hatred of automobiles only causes people to demand things like bike lanes right the fuck now, paint the lines on the asphalt, NOW. They don't put in traffic lights with dedicated bike lane lights that would stop car traffic to let bike lane traffic safely cross, they don't close some roads to automobile traffic, they paint the lines on the road. And then cyclists think that white line on the pavement somehow keeps them safe when they cross paths with a sedan, when the presence of those lines fundamentally breaks the safety algorithm the roads are built on in the first place.

e-bikes should be outright illegal. We should be imprisoning containership crews for landing with them on board.

So is the problem that there's too much support for non-car infrastructure, or that there's so little they get away with half-assing it, and not slowing the cars down enough that the road is safe?

As far as mopeds in traffic, the problem is obviously the cars running them over, wtf?

It is my assertion that bike lanes, as implemented, are a rock chewing stupid idea.

For about a century now, we've had two kinds of travel lane: Sidewalks, and traffic lanes. Sidewalks are for WALKING, traffic lanes are for all vehicles of every description. Every vehicle is supposed to behave the same way following the same rules, regardless of performance. A bicycle, moped, motorcycle, car, truck, all of them are supposed to follow the same rules.

When there are traffic lanes only, no sidewalks, we have rules for how traffic flows. For example, right-turn only lanes at an intersection are right-most, followed by turn-or-straight lanes, then straight only lanes, then straight or left lanes, then left only lanes. Having a lane that goes straight to the right of a right-turning lane is a recipe for collisions.

We do that all the time with sidewalks. Pedestrians are expected to exercise a lot of caution when entering crosswalks to avoid conflict with vehicle traffic. Pedestrians are expected to treat EVERY intersection as if it has a stop sign for them, or they are expected to obey crosswalks with signal devices that are interlocked with traffic lights.

Bike lanes as I have seen them implemented are a lot like sidewalks; slower traffic is placed to the right of traffic lanes...except they do not expect to treat every intersection as a stop sign, and they interpret green lights for straight through as for them, even in conflict with right turning traffic.

So we have a travel lane positioned similarly to how sidewalks are positioned relative to roads, but without the rules that make sidewalks safe. It doesn't help that, where they do implement lights or whatnot, they increasingly do so in non-standard ways that generations of drivers have not been trained on. There are new kinds of lights at crosswalks, new and weird nomenclature at intersections rather than "No Right On Red 🔴 " signs that have been around for years. It's not implemented well, and it's getting people killed.

As for e-bikes: They're basically not regulated, there's supposedly a classification system for them, which people ignore. There's no enforcement, and they do whatever the hell they want, including riding at travel lane speeds on sidewalks, which causes collisions because no other traffic, vehicle or pedestrian, is expecting 20+mph traffic on the sidewalk. They either need to be regulated like mopeds, or they need to go away. "But the motor is electric not gas" fucks with people's brains. Somehow people aren't riding Honda Metropolitans or Yamaha Zumas on the sidewalks at 20 or 30mph but that's happening with e-bikes.

The issues you are identifying aren't the fault of attempting to add non-car modes of transit, those people are just the victims. The issue is that they add them while fearing slowing down drivers or taking away parking or driver RoW. If drivers are swerving into unprotected bike lanes, you don't go "guess bike lanes can't work", you protect the bike lane. If drivers are hitting bicyclists when there's no bike lanes, build more bike lanes and slow the traffic down. Ride a bike in HCMC or Hanoi some time. There's literally thousands of bikes on the road, swarming cars, trucks, buses, and pedestrians. Serious accidents are very rare in the city, and typically involve texting or drinking. If drivers in your area drive too dangerously for mixed traffic, the problem is the drivers driving dangerously, not their victims.

It’s not implemented well, and it’s getting people killed.

So implement them better, either ban right on reds or start ticketing drivers who don't come to a complete stop.

As for e-bikes: They’re basically not regulated, there’s supposedly a classification system for them, which people ignore. There’s no enforcement, and they do whatever the hell they want, including riding at travel lane speeds on sidewalks, which causes collisions because no other traffic, vehicle or pedestrian, is expecting 20+mph traffic on the sidewalk

Design sidewalks better. Couriers use bikes on sidewalks across east asia, except Japan, nobody cares. You can slow heavy ebikes via pavers, or block them entirely by requiring they be lifted a certain height to pass a barrier.

Bike lanes as I have seen them implemented are a lot like sidewalks; slower traffic is placed to the right of traffic lanes...except they do not expect to treat every intersection as a stop sign, and they interpret green lights for straight through as for them, even in conflict with right turning traffic.

Why the fuck would you have right turns on the same signal as straight? Why the shit wouldn't you make protected intersections.

Your argument is basically "poorly designed roads are dangerous". Yeah, they are, stop making them

Edit: Also, Dutch pedestrians have the right of way over cars in the same road. If you're turning right, and someone is walking there, the car stops. This works fine, because we actually know how to design roads.

Why the fuck would you have right turns on the same signal as straight?

Your parents didn't even try to educate you, did they?

There are a lot of different kinds of intersections. Simple two-lane meets two lane where each kind has a stop-go light, up to hugely complicated intersections with multiple turn lanes in each direction.

At a small stop-go light, like you might find in a residential neighborhood, there's one travel lane in all four directions, and each one is a left, straight and right lane. Going left is a yield across oncoming traffic, a green light gives you right of way to go straight or right.

A more medium size intersection might have left and right turn lanes in addition to one or two travel lanes. Let's say Some Road (N/S) is crossing Another Street (E/W). Some Road is a four-lane divided highway, and at this intersection it has both right and left turn lanes. Another Street is a 2 lane road with much less traffic than Some Road, so it comes out to a left turn lane and a straight/right turn lane.

A typical light cycle will go Some Road gets green circles and green right arrows. Straight lanes bound North and South get to go, as well as those turning right onto Another Street. The through traffic on Some Road blocks any other right of way that could collide with those right turn lanes.

The through lights will turn red, possibly the turn lights will stay green, and the left turn lanes on Another Street will turn green. They can now make a protected left across the intersection, again this blocks any other traffic from colliding with the right turns from Some Road to Another Street, so they retain the right of way.

Finally, those will turn red (or sometimes flashing yellow meaning yield) and Another Street's straight/right lanes get to go. This cycle will then repeat.

This is for an intersection that doesn't have sidewalks. You'll find these out in the middle of nowhere where a state route crosses a federal highway. Interstates and highways built like them will have overpasses and non-blocking intersections.

Where you DO have sidewalks, such as larger intersections inside cities, there are signals for the crosswalks. Those are interlinked with the traffic signals, and depending on the implementation there won't be any straight and turn signals because "cars go straight" is when the pedestrians cross. When turn lanes are on, all pedestrian traffic is stopped.

Note that these are two different environments; at an intersection in a city center, the speed limits are often 20mph, and frankly, bicycles should not have their own lanes there. By law they're vehicles, they should be in traffic behaving the same as cars and have the right of way that cars do. Where they get themselves killed is trying to weave in and out of traffic, or insisting on putting in a parallel bike lane pretending it turns off friendly fire. "Just add to every driver's cognitive load and make them responsible for my safety." Fuck off.

Meanwhile, back out on Some Road and Another Street, these have 45 and 55 mph speed limits, you're traveling from town to town here, and these places pretty much should not see bicycle traffic. Here we're really in the realm of discussing better public transportation and rail service than pedestrian and cycle routes.

Your parents didn't even try to educate you, did they?

I have a bachelor's in civil engineering, and that's part of the reason why I'm able to pierce through the deep coating of carbrain induced status-quo thinking.

You're making all the wrong assumptions right from the start.

At a small stop-go light, like you might find in a residential neighborhood

These shouldn't even exist. A residential neighborhood shouldn't have traffic lights, and it should have a low enough speed and low enough volume of cars (only the people who live there should be driving there) that accidents should be rare and low risk.

The fact that you assume there's a traffic light here starts from the basic assumption that there is so much car traffic that it needs managing. You've already designed your residential street wrong then.

A more medium size intersection

Skipping this, because these intersections shouldn't have ANY bicycle interactions at all. If bikes are crossing your 4-lane divided highway, you've already designed your roads wrong. I would argue if you're putting a full streetlevel crossing in, you're also not doing great unless you get paid per traffic jam.

Note that these are two different environments; at an intersection in a city center, the speed limits are often 20mph, and frankly, bicycles should not have their own lanes there. By law they're vehicles, they should be in traffic behaving the same as cars and have the right of way that cars do. Where they get themselves killed is trying to weave in and out of traffic, or insisting on putting in a parallel bike lane pretending it turns off friendly fire. "Just add to every driver's cognitive load and make them responsible for my safety." Fuck off.

A protected bike path and protected intersection REDUCE everyone's mental load because it makes it practically impossible to hit a bike. And it separates bikes from traffic too, so they can't weave.

The problem with American bike gutters with painted lines is that cars enter them constantly, by design. Cars cross the bike lane to park, they cross it to turn right, and something they just drive in it because the drivers are idiots. Or cars park in it because they're idiots. And every time a car enters the bike path, the bike needs to move or die. So they move, creating more risks.

All of those problems go away with a raised barrier between the bikes and the cars. You can just stop thinking about them, because they're in an entirely different lane that you physically can't even get to. And if you turn right, you can treat them like any other vehicle again, where they'll have the right of way or there's a traffic light.

Meanwhile, back out on Some Road and Another Street, these have 45 and 55 mph speed limits, you're traveling from town to town here, and these places pretty much should not see bicycle traffic.

Depends. A 20km bike ride is totally fine, an 80km one isn't. But if there's cars going 55mph right next to me, I won't be taking a bike because that's super dangerous. There should be a seperate bike path there as well, removing all risks.

Of course, only if it's actually inhabited in that distance.

There's a lot of "should"s in there that just don't reflect reality. Because of how so many American towns and cities are built, you'd have to bulldoze entire cities to do things like eliminate small traffic lights from residential neighborhoods. And we're not gonna do that. We're not going to tear down the entire fucking nation for some retards on bicycles.

New towns are areas are ALSO designed poorly. It's not just existing areas that have been made wrong, new areas are still being designed by idiots with blinders on.

Because of how so many American towns and cities are built, you'd have to bulldoze entire cities to do things like eliminate small traffic lights from residential neighborhoods.

Weird how other countries manage just fine without bulldozing. What they actually do is switch up road lanes and on-street parking, and it fits just fine.

Having multiple lanes in between level intersections adds pretty much nothing to the capacity anyway, so you may as well use it for something useful.

We're not going to tear down the entire fucking nation for some retards on bicycles.

Terminal carbrain: not realizing that getting more people on bikes means fewer cars, less traffic and a nicer trip for literally everyone, including cars.

There's plenty of examples where car and bike can coexist. Look at Denmark or the Netherlands.

The United States isn't Denmark or the Netherlands; we have been building bike unfriendly roads for a century, and it's not going to be trivially undone by painting a white line on the side.

They didn't come out of nowhere in those countries. They were once as car centric as everywhere else.

'if you build it, it will come'

They were once as car centric as everywhere else.

Not quite sure about that. Denmark famously had a bicycle regiment during WW2. We've never been anywhere near as car centric as places like the US, for various reasons including, but probably not limited to:

  1. Our cities and towns are really close. I can cycle for 30 minutes and get through 3-4 towns around my rural parts.
  2. We have had excellent public transportation for a very long time.
  3. Old ass cities are really bad for big roads, so instead you get a bunch of crammed roads that are awful to navigate, resulting in more people prefering their bike, since it's about as fast anyway.
  4. We have a very high (compared to the USA) tax on cars, gas and everything relating to it. This started in the 70's when oil got scarce. To try to make people conserve oil, we started to tax the shit out of it, and kept doing it. As a result, driving a large vehicles is super expensive, and if you CAN live without one, you're much better off riding a bicycle.

This is not to say that the person you responded to isn't completely wrong about everything, it's just not going to help acting like we've ever been as crazy about our cars as they have always been. It could also be a decent roadmap for how to get rid of the huge deathtraps, and get people more excited about bicycles.

Sure. I'm from the Netherlands, we did use bikes more often. But if you look at infrastructure from the fifties and compare that to today there's a world of change. Cars were everywhere and bike lanes just a line on the road.

All of those are policy choices though. None of that (except the old cities) happened by accident

Right, so you don't stop at a white line, you lower speed limits+add speed bumps, or protect your bikelanes.

Or you do what I've seen some cities do and you close certain roads to car traffic entirely, and then send the bikes down there. Further increase the efficiency of both modes of traffic while eliminating collisions. Create walkable and bikeable sections of town that cars can travel between.

Of course you should ban cars from areas of the city, but bikes still need to travel between those islands. If your "pedestrian area" is an island everyone has to drive to get to, it will fail.

At that point, you can do things like pedestrian bridges, over/underpasses with roads and streets, or level crossings with signals. Instead of trying to mix traffic everywhere, have the two systems meet at certain well designed controlled spots. Instead of bikers being in a near constant state of "I am in traffic", have certain points along their journey be "I am crossing a road." These areas will almost certainly drive both cars and bikes to stop, and then one or the other gets to go at a time, rather than both are in motion failing to predict the other's movements.

Bikes are a much denser form a transportation; you can have 100s of bikes cross an intersection in the time it takes 4 cars to cross. You don't want a traffic system where both have to wait, you prioritize the more efficient form of transit.

If people aren't driving cars down a road because stopping at so many stop signs is unpleasant, why do you expect cyclists to bike down that road, when they actually have to physical work (not just pushing a pedal) getting up to speed again? Stop signs suck for bikes more than for cars. If cars avoid a route because of stop signs, of course bikes will avoid it!

In my area, there are very few cyclists who actually bike to get anywhere. They do it for exercise and/or to be allowed to wear their little padded shorts in public. So get the exercise from peddling away from a stop sign. The reason to choose that route instead of the others? To not get hit by cars.

And what exactly is the pedestrian excuse? Why do people insist on walking on the sidewalkless busy roads when in between them there's a sidewalkless non-busy road?

I think e-bikes are such a problem in the US because we have such a car-sentric culture and the majority of people who are riding them seem to be people who lost their drivers licenses due to poor life decisions (AKA, dangerous driving or DUI) or are too young to get a drivers license in the first place. They take the same dangerous, stupid mentality and transfer it into their riding of the e-bikes. I drive an ambulance and every single day I see a suicidal idiot blitzing through traffic at top speed on an e-bike, running red lights and stop signs without even slowing down or looking, going the wrong way up one way roads in the middle of the lane, driving at 3am down the middle of the road with no lights (almost always going the wrong way and running stop signs), ignoring the blocked off bike lanes on the roads that do have them, or just generally being an absolute menace and an idiot. We have so many bikers getting seriously hurt or killed because of their antisocial behavior. I've almost hit a couple in my ambulance because they're constantly pulling out right in front of me or simply trying to bike right into the side of my rig as I'm driving down the road doing the speed limit, forcing me to either swerve or possibly end their entire existence. They just assume that car drivers will get out of their way, which is a dumb assumption when most of the drivers are just as dumb and are fucking around on their phones. Suicidal fucking idiots with zero survival instincts. I have zero problems whatsoever with the ones who are responsible and follow traffic laws, but they seem to be in the low minority around here.

There's something about the damn things that makes people think they can do vehicular parkour.

And they want to remove safety regulations and let the industry auto-regulate

Oh, and also the dumbass in office no doubt had some say in why opm decided to force gov workers back to the office which also affected private sector to also force everybody to the office.... so now we're all going back to the office again and are traveling at the same fecking time every day, all running through our rat race. He must be removed—yesterday!

It was such a simple thing we all could have done to improve our lives and improve the environment, and they were like, nah, gotta keep em enslaved.

Honestly every F150 and monster truck needs to have at least three of these stickers on their sides:

Why should I know this? Like most people on Earth, I don't live there.

As you know, everyone is American and held to American expectations for society.

Undisciplined US drivers and the lack of strict vehicle technical inspections. Swerve or drive fast in rolling junk will increase traffic fatalities.

The biggest factor, the USA leads the pack in the most pathetic public transport system for a supposed 1st World country.

"Rugged, fierce individualism" doesn't make for good founding principles for a real, functional society.

Exploiting this has been a huge industry in the US, business really, really wants people splintered into groups who hate each other or have everyone thinking that they're the most special, unique angry snowflakes on the whole plane and deserve special treatment and of course, special products for their special lives.

When covid hit, it accelerated this process. You can really see the situation when you look at FAA statistics of people losing their goddamn minds on airplanes when being told to sit down and not fuck with the plane. Of course the spike during Covid was extreme, but look how the rates never really went back down to where they were.

"Every man for himself" means everyone loses

A lack of traffic law enforcement also.

Roads are poorly designed in many states. Cars are huge now. And many cities don’t enforce traffic laws. Recipe for disaster.

Where I live is very rural with winding, two lane country roads. The speed limits are low (45 or 55mph limit) and particularly treacherous in the winter with curves that will have deep ravines where it's pretty easy to slide into them. In recent years, it does not matter how fast you go on these roads, it's not fast enough. You can be doing 10, hell, 20 miles over the limit and you will have people passing you on double yellow for having the audacity to drive on THEIR road. I don't know if it's the current political climate and maybe PTSD from COVID making people more selfish, or the fact that F250s drive like sports cars did 20 years ago, but people have definitely gotten meaner on the road

The culprit is the front of trucks and SUVs being like 5ft tall.

Most cars hit you at the knee. Trucks and SUVs hit you in the chest. Hit in the knee, and you're likely to end up smashing tempered glass which will catch you almost like a really painfully frozen net. Hit in the chest, you're going down, and the truck is running you over.

Yes and no. The research you posted in your follow-up comment does indeed show collisions here are deadlier because of the taller vehicles, but that's not the only factor (and maybe not even the largest).

I think the even bigger problem is that collisions are more frequent to begin with, because car-dependent zoning forces people to drive more.

In other words, banning big pickup trucks is a marginal gain, but still more of a scapegoat than a real solution.

Edit: folks, read what I actually wrote, not what the other guy pretended I wrote. I never disputed his point!

Y'all just like his answer because it gives an easy villain to scapegoat and thus absolves you from having to change anything about your behavior, despite the fact that (statistically speaking, with most Americans reading this likely having suburban car-dependent lifestyles), you yourself are likely to also be part of the problem.

🙄

I. The "Height & Geometry" Studies (Directly refuting your claim)

  1. IIHS Study: Vehicles with hood heights >40 inches are 45% more likely to cause fatalities. Crucially, medium-height vehicles (crossovers) with blunt fronts are 26% more lethal than those with sloped fronts.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians

  1. University of Hawaii (Justin Tyndall): "The Effect of Front-end Vehicle Height on Pedestrian Death Risk." A 10cm increase in front-end height yields a 22% increase in fatality risk.

https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/UHEROwp2401.pdf

  1. Journal of Safety Research: Children are 8 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV compared to a passenger car.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002243750300088X

  1. Economics of Transportation: Replacing SUVs with cars would have averted over 3,000 pedestrian deaths in US cities (2000–2019).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221201222100002X

  1. Traffic Injury Prevention: SUVs are disproportionately likely to kill pedestrians even at intermediate speeds due to high impact points (chest/pelvis vs legs).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389580490898696

  1. IIHS Research: "Vehicle height compounds dangers of speed." Taller front ends amplify the lethality of speed.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicle-height-compounds-dangers-of-speed-for-pedestrians

II. The "Blind Zone" & Visibility Data (It's not just a sedan)

  1. Consumer Reports: Modern trucks/SUVs have front blind spots 11 feet longer than sedans.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/the-hidden-danger-of-big-trucks-a9662450296/

  1. WTHR 13 Investigates: Demonstration showing an SUV driver cannot see 13 children sitting in front of the vehicle.

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investigates/13-investigates-millions-of-vehicles-have-unexpected-dangerous-front-blind-zone/531-9521c471-3bc1-4b55-b860-3363f0954b3b

  1. Kids and Car Safety: "Frontovers" (running over a child you can't see) are responsible for 366 deaths/year; most involve SUVs/Trucks.

https://www.kidsandcars.org/frontovers/facts

  1. NBC News: Investigation into the rising death toll of front blind zones in SUVs.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/drivers-cannot-see-kids-front-blind-zones-suvs-trucks-rcna44876

III. Government & Association Reports (The Statistics)

  1. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration): Pedestrians are 2-3 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV/Truck than a car.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812681

  1. Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA): 2023 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities Report linking the rise in deaths to the increased market share of light trucks.

https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians24

  1. GHSA 2022 Data: Light trucks now account for the majority of pedestrian deaths.

https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/GHSA%20-%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Fatalities%20by%20State%202022%20Preliminary%20Data%20(Jan-Dec).pdf

  1. NHTSA CrashStats: Overview of motor vehicle crashes showing injury severity by vehicle type.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813592

  1. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine: Study on pedestrian injury patterns confirming SUV impacts result in more severe thoracic/head injuries.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217544/

IV. Analysis & Journalism (Explaining the Physics)

  1. The Atlantic: "American Cars Are Getting Too Big for Parking Spaces—and for Pedestrians."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/suvs-trucks-killing-pedestrians-cyclists/621102/

  1. USA Today / Free Press: "Death on Foot: America's Love of SUVs is Killing Pedestrians."

https://www.freep.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2018/06/28/suv-death-rise-pedestrian-safety/646139002/

  1. ProPublica: "Yield to Death." How vehicle design regulations have failed to protect pedestrians from SUVs.

https://www.propublica.org/article/yield-to-death

  1. The Autopian: Detailed breakdown of Justin Tyndall’s research on SUV lethality.

https://www.theautopian.com/full-size-suvs-are-twice-as-likely-to-kill-pedestrians-as-cars-study/

  1. Insurance Journal: "SUV ‘Grilleflation’ Killing More Pedestrians."

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2023/11/14/748057.htm

  1. Bloomberg CityLab: "The deadly physics of the SUV."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-26/suv-crash-safety-for-pedestrians-is-getting-worse

  1. Reuters: "U.S. pedestrian deaths jump; taller vehicles cited as risk."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-pedestrian-deaths-jump-taller-vehicles-cited-risk-2023-11-14/

I know you're not the person I responded to, but surely you saw that I am not here to have an armchair discussion.

If you're not giving me something peer reviewed to chew on, I am not going to generally respect your response. We're all nobody's out here. Give peer reviewed research or admit you're just armchairing, and return to the premise that I am explicitly not here for any armchair discussion.

Oh, by the way, this...

I know you're not the person I responded to, but surely you saw that I am not here to have an armchair discussion.

If you're not giving me something peer reviewed to chew on, I am not going to generally respect your response. We're all nobody's out here. Give peer reviewed research or admit you're just armchairing, and return to the premise that I am explicitly not here for any armchair discussion.

...is nothing but a bullshit attempt to excuse your Gish gallop so you can avoid addressing substantive counterarguments that don't rely on a flood of citations to provide the appearance of validity.

Fucking rekt

Rekt how? I never disputed his point to begin with.

By his own citation (#4, BTW), he's quibbling over 3000 deaths over a ten-year span. That's the maximum number of people that could be saved by abolishing large trucks, all other things being equal.

Meanwhile, total car-related deaths are two orders of magnitude higher: 40,000 per year (not decade, year). The only sorts of policies that could make a real dent in that are the kinds that get people out of their automobiles completely, not just swap big ones for smaller ones.

What part of "the research you posted in your follow-up comment does indeed show collisions here are deadlier because of the taller vehicles" did you not understand? You just spent a bunch of effort on a rebuttal to a claim I didn't make!

You're literally preaching to the choir mod of !fuckcars. I get it.

All I'm saying is that if we have the choice between lessening the severity of a crash by replacing a tall truck with a smaller car or avoiding it entirely by replacing the truck trip with a bike or transit trip — and we do! — the latter is clearly superior.

Take your citation #4, for instance:

Replacing SUVs with cars would have averted over 3,000 pedestrian deaths in US cities (2000–2019).

3000 over 10 years. That's the maximum benefit of the policy change you're proposing (getting rid of tall trucks and SUVs). Compare that to the 40,000 total traffic deaths per year that we could put a big dent in by making zoning changes to reduce total car trips and vehicle miles traveled. Even just a 10% reduction in VMT (and even without reducing our ridiculously high rate of deaths per VMT) would save 4,000 people a year, which is an order of magnitude higher than your 3000 per 10 years best-case.

Obviously, we could do both. But if you have a limited amount of time/money/effort/political capital to spend and you had to choose only one, zoning reform for walkability has a way higher potential upside.

Face it: you're chipping around the edges of a vastly larger problem.

I doubt this is a significant factor. Nobody in America is driving actual SUVs. They’re all crossovers which are more often than not identical to their Sedan counterparts but with a suspension about 4 inches higher.

Sorry, I don't do armchair "I doubt this" nonsense. We're not doing that here.

This isn't my opinion. It is peer-reviewed research based on actual crash data. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) explicitly found that vehicles with hood heights exceeding 40 inches are about 145% times as likely to cause pedestrian fatalities.

The data confirms that the danger is the vertical front-end geometry striking the torso rather than the legs—regardless of whether you call it a "crossover" or a truck.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians?hl=en-US

I'm not interested in your response unless it includes peer-reviewed research. Just as a heads-up: I implore you to read before offering your "insight" next time.

You've either looked into this more than me or you haven't. Seems like you haven't.

Absolutely nothing in your linked page disputes what I said.

On the contrary, that final hood comparison picture reinforces what I said. It clearly states that the hood size and shape indicative of a crossover has “similar risk” to standard cars. Vastly different from the hood of the large SUVs and trucks. Destroys your entire argument lol.

I implore you to read the articles you share before sharing them. Not only will you avoid being wrong, but you might actually learn something.

whether you call it a "crossover" or a truck.

This confirms how clueless you are beyond a reasonable doubt lol. You can’t even distinguish between a truck, SUV, or crossover, three very distinct vehicles with different sizes and shapes, but you want to speak authoritatively on the safety aspects of each of them? Zero people other than you would look at a truck and call it a “crossover” or vice versa.

Since you couldn't be bothered to provide a single peer-reviewed source as requested, I did the work for you.

You are fixated on a picture you clearly didn't understand. The "crossover is just a sedan" argument is factually bankrupt. It isn't just about height; it is about geometry. A sedan is a wedge (pedestrian rolls onto the hood); a crossover is a block (pedestrian is pushed forward/under).

The data is overwhelming. You haven't looked into this. I have.

Regarding your comment on the picture: You looked at the image but ignored the data right next to it. The IIHS study explicitly isolates "medium-height" vehicles (30–40 inches—i.e., crossovers) and found that those with blunt, vertical fronts are 26% more lethal than those with sloped fronts.

Here are 22 sources—including peer-reviewed studies, federal datasets, and safety institute reports—that explicitly refute your "opinion."

I. The "Height & Geometry" Studies (Directly refuting your claim)*

  1. IIHS Study: Vehicles with hood heights >40 inches are 45% more likely to cause fatalities. Crucially, medium-height vehicles (crossovers) with blunt fronts are 26% more lethal than those with sloped fronts.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians

  1. University of Hawaii (Justin Tyndall): "The Effect of Front-end Vehicle Height on Pedestrian Death Risk." A 10cm increase in front-end height yields a 22% increase in fatality risk.

https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/UHEROwp2401.pdf

  1. Journal of Safety Research: Children are 8 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV compared to a passenger car.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002243750300088X

  1. Economics of Transportation: Replacing SUVs with cars would have averted over 3,000 pedestrian deaths in US cities (2000–2019).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221201222100002X

  1. Traffic Injury Prevention: SUVs are disproportionately likely to kill pedestrians even at intermediate speeds due to high impact points (chest/pelvis vs legs).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389580490898696

  1. IIHS Research: "Vehicle height compounds dangers of speed." Taller front ends amplify the lethality of speed.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicle-height-compounds-dangers-of-speed-for-pedestrians

II. The "Blind Zone" & Visibility Data (It's not just a sedan)

  1. Consumer Reports: Modern trucks/SUVs have front blind spots 11 feet longer than sedans.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/the-hidden-danger-of-big-trucks-a9662450296/

  1. WTHR 13 Investigates: Demonstration showing an SUV driver cannot see 13 children sitting in front of the vehicle.

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investigates/13-investigates-millions-of-vehicles-have-unexpected-dangerous-front-blind-zone/531-9521c471-3bc1-4b55-b860-3363f0954b3b

  1. Kids and Car Safety: "Frontovers" (running over a child you can't see) are responsible for 366 deaths/year; most involve SUVs/Trucks.

https://www.kidsandcars.org/frontovers/facts

  1. NBC News: Investigation into the rising death toll of front blind zones in SUVs.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/drivers-cannot-see-kids-front-blind-zones-suvs-trucks-rcna44876

III. Government & Association Reports (The Statistics)

  1. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration): Pedestrians are 2-3 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV/Truck than a car.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812681

  1. Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA): 2023 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities Report linking the rise in deaths to the increased market share of light trucks.

https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians24

  1. GHSA 2022 Data: Light trucks now account for the majority of pedestrian deaths.

https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/GHSA%20-%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Fatalities%20by%20State%202022%20Preliminary%20Data%20(Jan-Dec).pdf

  1. NHTSA CrashStats: Overview of motor vehicle crashes showing injury severity by vehicle type.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813592

  1. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine: Study on pedestrian injury patterns confirming SUV impacts result in more severe thoracic/head injuries.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217544/

IV. Analysis & Journalism (Explaining the Physics)

  1. The Atlantic: "American Cars Are Getting Too Big for Parking Spaces—and for Pedestrians."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/suvs-trucks-killing-pedestrians-cyclists/621102/

  1. USA Today / Free Press: "Death on Foot: America's Love of SUVs is Killing Pedestrians."

https://www.freep.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2018/06/28/suv-death-rise-pedestrian-safety/646139002/

  1. ProPublica: "Yield to Death." How vehicle design regulations have failed to protect pedestrians from SUVs.

https://www.propublica.org/article/yield-to-death

  1. The Autopian: Detailed breakdown of Justin Tyndall’s research on SUV lethality.

https://www.theautopian.com/full-size-suvs-are-twice-as-likely-to-kill-pedestrians-as-cars-study/

  1. Insurance Journal: "SUV ‘Grilleflation’ Killing More Pedestrians."

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2023/11/14/748057.htm

  1. Bloomberg CityLab: "The deadly physics of the SUV."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-26/suv-crash-safety-for-pedestrians-is-getting-worse

  1. Reuters: "U.S. pedestrian deaths jump; taller vehicles cited as risk."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-pedestrian-deaths-jump-taller-vehicles-cited-risk-2023-11-14/

You've either looked into this more than me or you haven't. Seems like you haven't.

If you're not going to provide peer reviewed research I will block you because like I said, I don't do armchair horseshit

It isn't just about height; it is about geometry. A sedan is a wedge (pedestrian rolls onto the hood); a crossover is a block (pedestrian is pushed forward/under).

Incorrect. A crossover is a wedge, not a block. You are once again thinking of a truck or a full size SUV you donut lol.

You haven't looked into this. I have.

No you haven’t. You don’t even know what modern motor vehicles look like.

The IIHS study explicitly isolates "medium-height" vehicles (30–40 inches—i.e., crossovers) and found that those with blunt, vertical fronts are 26% more lethal than those with sloped fronts

Good thing crossovers have sloped fronts and not vertical fronts lol. Once again, you’ve never seen a motor vehicle before in your life.

Thank you for taking the time to collect several more links, all of which reinforce what I’ve said and completely destroy your own argument. The danger comes from large SUVs and trucks with tall, blunt hoods. NOT the average crossover that is currently the highest selling sector of vehicle in the United States.

I'm sure you read all those links.

Welcome to my block list! Cheers.

Again as stated, I don't do armchair.

✌️

Perhaps you should read them, since they prove my point and discredit yours. Every single link you provided discusses the impacts of SUVs and Light trucks. Literally none of them apply to crossovers, the most popular vehicle type in the United States, which you continue to prove that you can’t identify.

But go ahead and block me you intellectual coward. It’s the only way you will be able to live in your shocking level of ignorance in peace.

Nobody in America is driving actual SUVs. They’re all crossovers which are more often than not identical to their Sedan counterparts but with a suspension about 4 inches higher.

Massive 'umm akchyually it is not clip, it is magazine', 'AR15 is not automatic, it is semiautomatic' energy.

No?

One of those things has characteristics that have been found through extensive research to be more deadly to pedestrians, due to geometry very different from regular cars, and the other does not have those things.

Take a look at these two vehicles. Can you tell which one of these is responsible for killing people at a higher rate?

Not quite potayto potahto as you would suggest.

Ya we stopped enforcing motor vehicle violations and now the roads have become lawless. Who’d a thought?

Yup. I barely ever see any traffic law enforcement anymore.

Driving has become a right, not a privilege. Driving isn't taken seriously either. It is treated like entertainment.

We have a fed gov that is actively trying to get people to die from viruses (anti vax), cutting basic healthcare access, food access, etc. Our avg lifespan in the US continues to drop in turn.

Should I know this? Really?

This place is becoming worse than Reddit, using unrelated comms to push shit.

In my area we get a lot of drivers who have vehicles and drive like they are NASCAR. They treat the roads like racetracks. Then you have the red light runners.

What is the reason? I can tell you about my city where the boulevards were race tracks after 10:00 PM, more vehicles passed on yellow and red than on green, everyone parked wherever they could, no one stopped at pedestrian crossings. This resulted in many deaths in traffic accidents and a public reaction demanding more control and respect for traffic rules. Since December 1, they have installed Safe City cameras. For every traffic violation (increased speed, passing a red light, not stopping at a pedestrian, wrong parking), the system automatically sends an SMS and an email within 5-10 minutes with an order to pay a fine. The first month only a warning is sent, from the next month fines will begin. On the first day, the system registers 110,000 traffic violations. The second day "only" 55,000. Although the system in the trial period is giving results (human life has no price), people on social networks started complaining, "there would be a lot of punishments", "only punishments, why no rewards", "violation of privacy", ... I assume it's similar everywhere, everyone wants the rules to be respected, but if possible, they should be amnestied, freed from it.

There are only 2 ways you can go about it. Well educated beginner and strict laws, or chaos, and everybody takes their own ego out of the experience on the road. Chaos, combined with everybody's main character syndrome nowadays, will get people killed.

it surely has nothing to do with the fact that vehicles that wouldn't be allowed on the road anywhere else brcause they are danger to people in and around them became such a norm that whole car brands now don't even produce anything else...

edit: i just noticed how many responses i. this thread keeps reiterating the same points in slightly different words blaming everything else except the car industry. fml i'm talking with bots

Mostly bc there's zero penalty for drunk drivers especially in big cities. In Houston for example u pay 100 bucks and you are out. This shit is a joke

What world are you living in? That’s not even remotely true

Yeah but I get to go 90-100 MPH between metro areas in my SUV now that the speed limit is 80-85 max. I fully accept that death might be involved.

Pathetic compared to a 150+ MPH train. You don't even fucking realize how much of a backwards, loser country we're in.

I'm sure the people you risk killing find your acceptance very noble.

I'm going to guess that those highways between metro areas, especially where speeds like that are even feasible (highest speed limit in the US is 85) are so remote and sparsely traveled that that's not where the deaths are happening.