5 ms·

> Then why bring it up? You brought it up, buddy. I'm talking about what you said. Your reply to my quoted text was not germane to said text and its context.

> Then why bring it up? You brought it up, buddy. I'm talking about what you said. Your reply to my quoted text was not germane to said text and its context. I'm going to disengage from this discussion now, as there is not much more for me to say that I haven't already said, and the discussion is going in a nonproductive direction (as above). Frankly, I don't think you're doing a great job examining your own position. If you want to know more about where I stand on these issues, you can read my other comments in this thread. I'll leave you with this: despite your continuing attestations to the contrary, data showing the dangers presented by large vehicles are not in short supply. The OP's link is an example of some; here^[1] is another example, to the effect that pickup trucks "were still 2½ times as likely to kill the driver of a car they crashed into, compared with a car colliding with another car". Look for more, if you like; if you're making a good faith effort, you'll find plenty, and you'll also find obvious gaps where we simply have not looked very hard. And if saving lives is not a "clear and compelling benefit" for you, then that's your choice, and--though it's one I disagree with--I am evidently not going to convince you otherwise. (Or, if you believe saving lives is good but that our current status quo is already optimal and that any conceivable regulation would be counterproductive, I am similarly powerless to sway you if you will not be swayed. I honestly have no idea which it is. Looking back, you have really contributed very little constructive content to this discussion.) ^[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight

giantg2 5y ago
"Your reply to my quoted text was not germane to said text and its context." Now you're just making things up. "And if saving lives is not a "clear and compelling benefit" for you" Again, you're using appeal to emotion, which is not a solid argument. "Frankly, I don't think you're doing a great job examining your own position." That's my opinion of you as well. "Looking back, you have really contributed very little constructive content to this discussion" I feel I have contributed more that you simply by questioning your unsupported suggested restrictions. I guess that makes sense that you're from the UK, with all the other odd restrictions. You are arguing about something that doesn't even affect you! Way to cherry pick from your article. You can see that article doesn't support an outright ban and shows that technology has been making improvements to survivability. I don't want a ban in the US, and quite frankly, your opinion on the matter is moot. "A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences." "Large vehicles aren't as big a threat to people in small vehicles as they used to be."
- caconym_ 5y ago
  > Again, you're using appeal to emotion, which is not a solid argument. Nah. Appealing to emotion would be like e.g. if I told you you should visit somebody who's lost a loved one to a collision with a pickup truck and tell them to their face that there would have been no "clear and compelling benefit" to reducing the odds of that tragic outcome. If you think (and you evidently do) that simply stating we should endeavor to save lives where we can is an "appeal to emotion", well, I don't even know what to say to that. It's absolutely asinine, almost unbelievable. > Way to cherry pick from your article. If anybody here's cherry-picking it's you, by failing to respond to the point I actually cited the article for. It's great that things are getting better! But do you seriously have nothing to say to the 2.5x figure? Come on. Respond to it, I dare you. Tell me there's no "clear and compelling benefit" to keeping those vehicles off the road in cases where there was no good reason for them to be on it in the first place. 2.5x. Also, I actually live in the US. I think your takeaway from that other comment (about my UK citizenship) and its context is quite telling. > I don't want a ban in the US Yeah, I noticed.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Come on. Respond to it, I dare you. Tell me there's no "clear and compelling benefit" to keeping those vehicles off the road in cases where there was no good reason for them to be on it in the first place." See, you are making the assumption that there are not any good reasons. This premise is false and brings us back to your subjective comment about reasonable and practical vehicles. You even stated that large truck serve a purpose, but you somehow do not see any purpose for pickups. You have not stated a clear and compelling reason to ban these vehicles. What is the other number that 2.5x is modifying? I'm guessing it's quite low. Please do some research on appeal to emotion. I thought you were disengaging?
    - caconym_ 5y ago
      > I thought you were disengaging? Hmm. What do you think I meant by that? On that subject, though: this is why getting into it with people like you is a waste of time. You say where are the data, where are the data, and then when you are shown the data you debase yourselves with endless intellectual contortions to avoid acknowledging it. > I'm guessing it's quite low. Keep guessing, then. Relevant public data^[1] are yours for the taking if you decide, probably offline, that you'd rather not remain willfully ignorant. But I'm not going to hold your hand anymore, because it is an absolute waste of time. ^[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...

giantg2 5y ago

"Your reply to my quoted text was not germane to said text and its context." Now you're just making things up. "And if saving lives is not a "clear and compelling benefit" for you" Again, you're using appeal to emotion, which is not a solid argument. "Frankly, I don't think you're doing a great job examining your own position." That's my opinion of you as well. "Looking back, you have really contributed very little constructive content to this discussion" I feel I have contributed more that you simply by questioning your unsupported suggested restrictions. I guess that makes sense that you're from the UK, with all the other odd restrictions. You are arguing about something that doesn't even affect you! Way to cherry pick from your article. You can see that article doesn't support an outright ban and shows that technology has been making improvements to survivability. I don't want a ban in the US, and quite frankly, your opinion on the matter is moot. "A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences." "Large vehicles aren't as big a threat to people in small vehicles as they used to be."

caconym_ 5y ago
> Again, you're using appeal to emotion, which is not a solid argument. Nah. Appealing to emotion would be like e.g. if I told you you should visit somebody who's lost a loved one to a collision with a pickup truck and tell them to their face that there would have been no "clear and compelling benefit" to reducing the odds of that tragic outcome. If you think (and you evidently do) that simply stating we should endeavor to save lives where we can is an "appeal to emotion", well, I don't even know what to say to that. It's absolutely asinine, almost unbelievable. > Way to cherry pick from your article. If anybody here's cherry-picking it's you, by failing to respond to the point I actually cited the article for. It's great that things are getting better! But do you seriously have nothing to say to the 2.5x figure? Come on. Respond to it, I dare you. Tell me there's no "clear and compelling benefit" to keeping those vehicles off the road in cases where there was no good reason for them to be on it in the first place. 2.5x. Also, I actually live in the US. I think your takeaway from that other comment (about my UK citizenship) and its context is quite telling. > I don't want a ban in the US Yeah, I noticed.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Come on. Respond to it, I dare you. Tell me there's no "clear and compelling benefit" to keeping those vehicles off the road in cases where there was no good reason for them to be on it in the first place." See, you are making the assumption that there are not any good reasons. This premise is false and brings us back to your subjective comment about reasonable and practical vehicles. You even stated that large truck serve a purpose, but you somehow do not see any purpose for pickups. You have not stated a clear and compelling reason to ban these vehicles. What is the other number that 2.5x is modifying? I'm guessing it's quite low. Please do some research on appeal to emotion. I thought you were disengaging?
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    > I thought you were disengaging? Hmm. What do you think I meant by that? On that subject, though: this is why getting into it with people like you is a waste of time. You say where are the data, where are the data, and then when you are shown the data you debase yourselves with endless intellectual contortions to avoid acknowledging it. > I'm guessing it's quite low. Keep guessing, then. Relevant public data^[1] are yours for the taking if you decide, probably offline, that you'd rather not remain willfully ignorant. But I'm not going to hold your hand anymore, because it is an absolute waste of time. ^[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...