711–720 of 816 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you, I hadn't even considered that smartphone use may differ between drivers in developed countries.
Australia has both smart phone and seat belt cameras. These are "portable" (mounted high on a road side trailer) which peep into your cabin from above to detect phone usage. Being caught using a phone whilst driving imposes a $1,251 fine. In fact, even a phone off, but touching any part of your body (including on lap/leg) will incur this fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're take is a bit off for multiple reasons. First, people need transportation, not cars. For the vast majority of people, if you truly need a car, it's because your infrastructure was built in a way that doesn't provide any other modes of transportation. Second, mass shootings aren't the intended effect of guns in the same way pedestrian fatalities aren't the intended effect of cars. Both cars and guns are…
I would argue that cars provide a tangible value, and guns only provide a perceived / emotional value. Guns make you objectively less safe, and at enormous social cost. Cars are (unfortunately) necessary in a lot of cases for the economy to work, there is really no comparison to guns.
It is a difficult problem to untangle, but not impossible. Accepting this level of tragedy and violence because cars are sometimes “economically necessary” is very sad. And again they are not nearly as necessary as is perceived. I drive my car maybe once or twice a week now and I live in a suburb of about 40k people, not in a major city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones. The US is the only developed country that has seen a steady increase in the number of pedestrian deaths per 1000km driven over the past 10-15 years. And 10-15 years ago it was one of the worst performing…
> You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones. I mean, yes? Society has decided that cars are worth the convenience because of all their advantages. Now is America too obsessed with cars, and totally ignorant of pedestrian safety? Yes of course. But other countries aren't so bad on that front and they still accept…
This problem is solvable and people in this thread saying that it’s not are absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How often people tow anything?
Is this a serious question? A lot of people tow stuff all the time for work, home improvement, or recreation. Not everyone is a city dweller living in a small apartment whose only options to spend their free time is picking which restaurant to eat dinner at.
And if we're talking businesses, building crews etc. - this is what they actually need: https://img.linemedia.com/img/s/flatbed-truck-3-5t-Volkswage...
Or just a regular van more likely, cause rain is a thing.
VW crafter with dual cab uses 57% of its length for the flatbed, largest F150 - 39%. Notice how the engine fits into this tiny vedge-shaped hood.
https://i.imgur.com/KopGeTi.png
Same idea as American trucks, more cargo space, higher usable load, can be loaded from all sides, completely flat bed, no wheel cutouts, fits 6 people inside, burns less fuel. All because there's no ridiculously huge hood, wheels and engine.
Let's be honest here. American pickup trucks are not about the usability, they are about ego.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I agree with both of those statements. If you read the original statement before the "tut tut" response, you will note that I was only suggesting the A pillars introduce dangerous blind spots. I understand how that could be confused on other platforms, but I expected folks on HN to extend the benefit of the doubt that posters are not generally oblivious to the law. So the conversation derailed.
You led with "people just hop right out onto zebra crossings expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them." I think framing it this way was a mistake and the cause of your frustration. People in zebra crossings do have the right of way, regardless of whether they hopped there or what there expectations are, full stop. Your point about modern A pillars is right on the money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's more comfortable about SUV or a truck than a minivan or combi? How is a tall hood increasing your family comfort? It only increases your ego.
Plenty of minivans also have tall hoods. I assume by combi you're talking about a station wagon, and in that case you're trading cargo capacity and the ability to tow boats / trailers / campers / etc... Ego has nothing to do with it - utility does. You can fit more people and things in a larger vehicle, this isn't rocket science.
In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1] It is a massive problem that receives a disproportionate amount of attention. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While vehicle sizes are indeed trending upward in Australia and Europe, giant SUV and especially giant truck penetration in both countries is still far behind US levels, and particularly in Europe are unlikely to ever reach the same figures (good luck parking your Ford F-9000 Testosteroneo in Rome or Paris).
> While vehicle sizes are indeed trending upward in Australia and Europe, giant SUV and especially giant truck penetration in both countries is still far behind US levels Many big SUVs are flat out illegal in Europe, you’d need a small truck license. It’s hard to comprehend how large American cars are unless you’ve lived in both places. For example: we took an Uber to the airport for our annual pilgrimage back home.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Complete indifference. That's the same class of argument as telling people they shouldn't use Signal because criminals use Signal.
Complete indifference to a big increase in deaths?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We never invest effort in things that provide the most value; we invest in what we're the most emotional about. The number of people killed in 9/11 and every plane hijacking is dwarfed by any single year of deaths due to either vehicle accidents or gun shootings. But we do nothing about either of those things, and instead spend $180B on TSA, to save zero lives. We then roll back things like vaccine mandates, to kill…
That’s a very uncharitable way to interpret public opinion. A more charitable way is that people have different ethical intuitions. Some of us lean more utilitarian than others, and almost no one is a pure utilitarian. It isn’t merely a matter of being more emotional; people very reasonably have different views on this stuff.
