4 ms·
> narrow, 3-ft passages Is this a "fat Americans" joke? If it were 1 or 2 foot wide I could see calling it narrow, but 3 feet is plenty wide. Doubly so becau
by jandrese 4y ago
> narrow, 3-ft passages
Is this a "fat Americans" joke? If it were 1 or 2 foot wide I could see calling it narrow, but 3 feet is plenty wide. Doubly so because there are passages on either side so it's 6 feet of walkway. The low maximum capacity of the system also helps in this regard, it will never need to evacuate thousands of people at once. Just the handful that were in the cars at the time.
This might change if Tesla changes out the current cars for higher capacity ones, but it doesn't seem like it should be an issue currently.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rmccue 4y ago> Is this a "fat Americans" joke? If it were 1 or 2 foot wide I could see calling it narrow, but 3 feet is plenty wide. The standard width for walkways per NFPA 130 is 3.75 ft, so 3 ft is definitely narrower than the US standard. (The European standard (SRT TSI) is 2.6 ft though.)
- s1artibartfast 4y agoWeird take, 3 feet is still quite narrow. at 2ft wide, most people would not be able to walk down it and have to turn sideways, let alone evacuate. The 95th percentile male hasshoulders ~23 in wide, and eblows protrude further.