5 ms·

> Large vehicles, especially pickups with high hood heights, are a public health disaster This feels hyperbolic. I, and I imagine most people in the US, don't

> Large vehicles, especially pickups with high hood heights, are a public health disaster This feels hyperbolic. I, and I imagine most people in the US, don't think our daily lives are a "disaster" and don't go outside in fear of vehicles, let alone large vehicles. We also derive a lot of utility from vehicles that makes our lives better. The choice to rely on cars or purchase a larger vehicle isn't made with solely risks and nothing positive on the balance. I feel the focus on vehicle-related fatalities is safetyism, given that there is only 1 fatality per 100 million miles traveled in the US.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
version_five 5y ago
You're apparently wrong, as you can see from the moderation. Failure to acknowledge the public health crisis that is large vehicles makes you a denier whose opinions need to be fact checked.
kelnos 5y ago
> We also derive a lot of utility from vehicles that makes our lives better. Most of the people I know who have purchased SUVs do so in large part because they believe that there are a lot of other SUVs on the road, and they will be more likely to survive a collision with an SUV if they themselves are in an SUV. Another big reason is that they have kids, and in reality want a minivan, but minivans aren't "cool", so they get a SUV instead. Not many people I know buy them for "sport utility" reasons. Maybe they drive it out to Tahoe two or three times a year (which doesn't require an SUV; a 4WD/AWD sedan is probably more stable on windy, winding, snowy roads anyway), but that hardly justifies the need. > there is only 1 fatality per 100 million miles traveled in the US Just because a number "feels" low to you, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to eliminate preventable deaths in order to drag that number even lower. For people whose activities are genuinely made easier, safer, better, and more comfortable with an SUV than a sedan, that's great; I have no quarrel with them. But my -- perhaps non-representative, admittedly -- experience with SUV owners is that they are buying them for the wrong reasons, which reduces safety for the rest of us.
lamontcg 5y ago
There's 100 fatalities a day and they're the leading cause of workplace deaths. Total cost of all fatal and nonfatal collisions comes to about $250B/yr.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Personally, I don't feel 100 fatalities a day is alarming in a population of hundreds of millions. Something can be a leading cause without being a problem that needs to be addressed. To dive deeper into that - you mentioned that the total cost of all collisions, fatal and non-fatal, is $250B a year. I'm curious where you got that number from, but let's assume that's accurate. Just new vehicle sales in the US is something like $600B a year, and if you include the rest of the consumer-facing automotive industry (used vehicles, parts, etc.) it's over $1T a year. People only spend money on things when they derive a lot more value than what they're spending. Therefore, we can probably safely assume that the societal benefits of cars is an order of magnitude more than the societal costs. I'll also note that continued standardization of safety technologies (automatic braking, collision avoidance, blind spot monitoring, rear view cameras, etc.) will continue the downward trend in injuries and fatalities per mile driven.
thrower123 5y ago
Yes, there's this insane urbanist crowd that thinks every quarter-ton pickup is a tool of satan, and endlessly repeats asinine statements like "a minivan is a better cargo hauling platform" and "you can haul a boat with a Honda Fit." We get it, you hate pickups. But they're really useful. And no, I'm not going to help you move...
- caconym_ 5y ago
  I started this subthread, and I'll be the first to admit that if I needed a pickup or other large vehicle I'd get one. But there is a difference between owning a dangerous tool (and using it responsibly) because it's practical for you, and acting like there is nothing wrong with a general automotive trend that has caused thousands of preventable deaths and stands to cause thousands more. Casting this as some trendy "urbanist" ideological concern is, frankly, totally asinine.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

version_five 5y ago

You're apparently wrong, as you can see from the moderation. Failure to acknowledge the public health crisis that is large vehicles makes you a denier whose opinions need to be fact checked.

kelnos 5y ago

> We also derive a lot of utility from vehicles that makes our lives better. Most of the people I know who have purchased SUVs do so in large part because they believe that there are a lot of other SUVs on the road, and they will be more likely to survive a collision with an SUV if they themselves are in an SUV. Another big reason is that they have kids, and in reality want a minivan, but minivans aren't "cool", so they get a SUV instead. Not many people I know buy them for "sport utility" reasons. Maybe they drive it out to Tahoe two or three times a year (which doesn't require an SUV; a 4WD/AWD sedan is probably more stable on windy, winding, snowy roads anyway), but that hardly justifies the need. > there is only 1 fatality per 100 million miles traveled in the US Just because a number "feels" low to you, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to eliminate preventable deaths in order to drag that number even lower. For people whose activities are genuinely made easier, safer, better, and more comfortable with an SUV than a sedan, that's great; I have no quarrel with them. But my -- perhaps non-representative, admittedly -- experience with SUV owners is that they are buying them for the wrong reasons, which reduces safety for the rest of us.

lamontcg 5y ago

There's 100 fatalities a day and they're the leading cause of workplace deaths. Total cost of all fatal and nonfatal collisions comes to about $250B/yr.

throwawaysea 5y ago
Personally, I don't feel 100 fatalities a day is alarming in a population of hundreds of millions. Something can be a leading cause without being a problem that needs to be addressed. To dive deeper into that - you mentioned that the total cost of all collisions, fatal and non-fatal, is $250B a year. I'm curious where you got that number from, but let's assume that's accurate. Just new vehicle sales in the US is something like $600B a year, and if you include the rest of the consumer-facing automotive industry (used vehicles, parts, etc.) it's over $1T a year. People only spend money on things when they derive a lot more value than what they're spending. Therefore, we can probably safely assume that the societal benefits of cars is an order of magnitude more than the societal costs. I'll also note that continued standardization of safety technologies (automatic braking, collision avoidance, blind spot monitoring, rear view cameras, etc.) will continue the downward trend in injuries and fatalities per mile driven.

thrower123 5y ago

Yes, there's this insane urbanist crowd that thinks every quarter-ton pickup is a tool of satan, and endlessly repeats asinine statements like "a minivan is a better cargo hauling platform" and "you can haul a boat with a Honda Fit." We get it, you hate pickups. But they're really useful. And no, I'm not going to help you move...

caconym_ 5y ago
I started this subthread, and I'll be the first to admit that if I needed a pickup or other large vehicle I'd get one. But there is a difference between owning a dangerous tool (and using it responsibly) because it's practical for you, and acting like there is nothing wrong with a general automotive trend that has caused thousands of preventable deaths and stands to cause thousands more. Casting this as some trendy "urbanist" ideological concern is, frankly, totally asinine.