4 ms·

i'm always shocked when supposedly technology literate people meme like this; are you not aware of and/or dismissive of materials and mechanical engineering res

i'm always shocked when supposedly technology literate people meme like this; are you not aware of and/or dismissive of materials and mechanical engineering research in the intervening years. to such an extent that 1. the car on the left is 3x safer than the car on the right. 2. the car on the left actually does have comparable fuel efficiency (feel free to google for fuel efficiencies of the original minis) 3. the car on the left is better for the environment due to more stringent (e.g.) EPA standards for production vehicles (well at least until trump rolled them back...)

kstrauser 3y ago
1. The modern day version of the car on the right would also be vastly safer. 2. Imagine how great all those fuel efficiency technologies would be if applied to a much lighter vehicle.
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > The modern day version of the car on the right would also be vastly safer. no it wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  Safer than the former version of itself perhaps but not safer than the version on the left. The car on the right did not have to share the road with two to 2.5 ton SUVs and pickup trucks lifted 6 in and sitting on 21-inch rims.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    > 2.5 ton SUVs and pickup trucks lifted 6 in and sitting on 21-inch rims. this such a weird red-herring - you can literally look up mortality statistics from the decades during which these cars were manufactured and they are very bad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... and there were no SUVs or anything. the technology has just flat out gotten much better.
    - ChainOfFools 3y ago
      Road travel as a whole has gotten safer; the entire integrated system of cars, roads, and laws have collectively reduced fatalities per vehicle mile traveled. But they specific example of the mini given in the picture, is invoking a type of vehicle (microcar) that no longer exists as a segment in the US (and was barely represented here when it did exist) - even the Smart cars are gone. You're actually arguing in favor of large cars by doing this because increasing the size of all vehicles is part of that collective Improvement to safety of the squishy occupants inside. Many of the improvements made to vehicle safety have to do with things like enforcing seat belt laws, cracking down on drunk driving, better standards for nighttime road illumination, and requiring airbags and side impact structures and anti-lock brakes. None of which would have much of an improvement on the chances of survival in a high speed collision between a micro car and just about anything on the road today. You might as well be riding a motorcycle. Either overall size of vehicles has to be brought down collectively, which I would agree with if it were possible to do, or vehicles have to be of a such a size that they are not going to be crushed to the point of frame collapse under conditions of a normal highway impact. Nor severely disadvantaged (due to height) in terms of visibility and the situational awareness of road conditions. I would argue that your stats are even more of a weird red herring because this refers to all cause fatality across the board vs. a specific comparison against a mini car that is no longer "Mini."
- walleeee 3y ago
  3. Imagine that instead of continuing to build an enormously fragile, destructive world economy on a very temporary energy surfeit, we'd understood this could not sustain, and the car on the left was never manufactured
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    There has to be a name for this, it's like the idea of 6 degree's of separation. How many degrees of separation until a comment has fallen into a hole of histrionics from which the conversation can never return.
    - walleeee 3y ago
      Sure, if you want to call a desire for a viable planetary ecology histrionics. What are we doing here if we can't critique the technologies we deploy or question the trajectories they set us on?
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        Think about it like this. Would that starving kid rather have you bitch at everyone else about how people are starving or have you buy them food? If you really want change, typing on these forums isn't the place for it. Not everything has to be a battle line, sometimes it's just a stupid meme that you chuckle at and move on. We went from a discussion about the expense of a new car to a stupid meme to a screed about socioconomics and planetary consumption. What I'm saying is, 90% of the internet is just one big fight after another. Maybe instead of adding to it, you spend the time taking action. Because, believe it or not, I'm generally on your side, but at some point I want to be able to read a stupid meme without seeing an ensuing fight.
        fragmede 3y ago
        Maybe the meme could be less stupid?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mcphage 3y ago
  The modern day version of the car on the right is the card on the left.
Tijdreiziger 3y ago
I’m going tho have to disagree on these points. > 1. the car on the left is 3x safer than the car on the right. It might be marginally safer for the driver, but due to reduced visibility, it is less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Some carmakers take this to an extreme: https://i.redd.it/5b2ewauetf191.jpg https://i.redd.it/5b2ewauetf191.jpg Here’s another example: https://i.redd.it/7vgq17y69m691.jpg https://i.redd.it/7vgq17y69m691.jpg. The fact that the front car is street legal is, frankly, a policy failure. (The Mini is less egregious, of course, but having two of them highlights the differences more than having two different cars.) > 2. the car on the left actually does have comparable fuel efficiency (feel free to google for fuel efficiencies of the original minis) > 3. the car on the left is better for the environment due to more stringent (e.g.) EPA standards for production vehicles (well at least until trump rolled them back...) Don’t you think that if we made modern cars the size of the right one, their fuel efficiency and environmental impact would be even less? Is it not a colossal shame that in 50 years, we have not improved on these parameters?
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > It might be marginally safer for the driver, but due to reduced visibility, it is less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. do you have any data or just feelings?
  - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
    Sorry, but have you viewed the linked images accompanying the argument?
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      sorry, but images are not stat-sig data.
      - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
        I did not think academically rigorous proof was necessary when the issue can be plainly understood using basic knowledge of physics.

kstrauser 3y ago

1. The modern day version of the car on the right would also be vastly safer. 2. Imagine how great all those fuel efficiency technologies would be if applied to a much lighter vehicle.

mathisfun123 3y ago
> The modern day version of the car on the right would also be vastly safer. no it wouldn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone
ChainOfFools 3y ago
Safer than the former version of itself perhaps but not safer than the version on the left. The car on the right did not have to share the road with two to 2.5 ton SUVs and pickup trucks lifted 6 in and sitting on 21-inch rims.
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > 2.5 ton SUVs and pickup trucks lifted 6 in and sitting on 21-inch rims. this such a weird red-herring - you can literally look up mortality statistics from the decades during which these cars were manufactured and they are very bad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... and there were no SUVs or anything. the technology has just flat out gotten much better.
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    Road travel as a whole has gotten safer; the entire integrated system of cars, roads, and laws have collectively reduced fatalities per vehicle mile traveled. But they specific example of the mini given in the picture, is invoking a type of vehicle (microcar) that no longer exists as a segment in the US (and was barely represented here when it did exist) - even the Smart cars are gone. You're actually arguing in favor of large cars by doing this because increasing the size of all vehicles is part of that collective Improvement to safety of the squishy occupants inside. Many of the improvements made to vehicle safety have to do with things like enforcing seat belt laws, cracking down on drunk driving, better standards for nighttime road illumination, and requiring airbags and side impact structures and anti-lock brakes. None of which would have much of an improvement on the chances of survival in a high speed collision between a micro car and just about anything on the road today. You might as well be riding a motorcycle. Either overall size of vehicles has to be brought down collectively, which I would agree with if it were possible to do, or vehicles have to be of a such a size that they are not going to be crushed to the point of frame collapse under conditions of a normal highway impact. Nor severely disadvantaged (due to height) in terms of visibility and the situational awareness of road conditions. I would argue that your stats are even more of a weird red herring because this refers to all cause fatality across the board vs. a specific comparison against a mini car that is no longer "Mini."
walleeee 3y ago
3. Imagine that instead of continuing to build an enormously fragile, destructive world economy on a very temporary energy surfeit, we'd understood this could not sustain, and the car on the left was never manufactured
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  There has to be a name for this, it's like the idea of 6 degree's of separation. How many degrees of separation until a comment has fallen into a hole of histrionics from which the conversation can never return.
  - walleeee 3y ago
    Sure, if you want to call a desire for a viable planetary ecology histrionics. What are we doing here if we can't critique the technologies we deploy or question the trajectories they set us on?
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      Think about it like this. Would that starving kid rather have you bitch at everyone else about how people are starving or have you buy them food? If you really want change, typing on these forums isn't the place for it. Not everything has to be a battle line, sometimes it's just a stupid meme that you chuckle at and move on. We went from a discussion about the expense of a new car to a stupid meme to a screed about socioconomics and planetary consumption. What I'm saying is, 90% of the internet is just one big fight after another. Maybe instead of adding to it, you spend the time taking action. Because, believe it or not, I'm generally on your side, but at some point I want to be able to read a stupid meme without seeing an ensuing fight.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        Maybe the meme could be less stupid?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mcphage 3y ago
The modern day version of the car on the right is the card on the left.

Tijdreiziger 3y ago

I’m going tho have to disagree on these points. > 1. the car on the left is 3x safer than the car on the right. It might be marginally safer for the driver, but due to reduced visibility, it is less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Some carmakers take this to an extreme: https://i.redd.it/5b2ewauetf191.jpg https://i.redd.it/5b2ewauetf191.jpg Here’s another example: https://i.redd.it/7vgq17y69m691.jpg https://i.redd.it/7vgq17y69m691.jpg. The fact that the front car is street legal is, frankly, a policy failure. (The Mini is less egregious, of course, but having two of them highlights the differences more than having two different cars.) > 2. the car on the left actually does have comparable fuel efficiency (feel free to google for fuel efficiencies of the original minis) > 3. the car on the left is better for the environment due to more stringent (e.g.) EPA standards for production vehicles (well at least until trump rolled them back...) Don’t you think that if we made modern cars the size of the right one, their fuel efficiency and environmental impact would be even less? Is it not a colossal shame that in 50 years, we have not improved on these parameters?

mathisfun123 3y ago
> It might be marginally safer for the driver, but due to reduced visibility, it is less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. do you have any data or just feelings?
- Tijdreiziger 3y ago
  Sorry, but have you viewed the linked images accompanying the argument?
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    sorry, but images are not stat-sig data.
    - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
      I did not think academically rigorous proof was necessary when the issue can be plainly understood using basic knowledge of physics.