5 ms·

Invert this point ("SUV or a pickup colliding with a smaller car was 28 percent and 159 percent, respectively, more likely to kill that car’s driver.") to get t

Invert this point ("SUV or a pickup colliding with a smaller car was 28 percent and 159 percent, respectively, more likely to kill that car’s driver.") to get that one is less likely to die in a big vehicle. It is in your interest to buy and drive the biggest car you can afford, due to the presence of other large cars on the road. See [1] 12 black swans to avoid, YouTube video from ER physician Dr. McGuff. First thirty seconds. Force equals mass x acceleration. [1] https://youtu.be/xoPCIUwc4zY?si=wUvR7bhkBthiTsU_ https://youtu.be/xoPCIUwc4zY?si=wUvR7bhkBthiTsU_

trgn 2y ago
Perfect illustration of the tragedy of the commons. Until there is top down intervention, people choose to be either part of the problem, or choose to be part of the solution.
arbuge 2y ago
Really interesting video that one.
wepple 2y ago
Yeah, we had a very compact car. Drove my firstborn home from the hospital in it, surrounded by monster vehicles. Then traded it for a (smallish) SUV. I may wish it weren’t that way, but I’m playing the game.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Invert this point ("SUV or a pickup colliding with a smaller car was 28 percent and 159 percent, respectively, more likely to kill that car’s driver.") to get that one is less likely to die in a big vehicle. That's not how inversions work. If you're in a small car and get into a collision with a large truck, you're likely to die. But if you're in a truck and get into a collision with another large truck, you're still likely to die, because you still got hit by a truck. Meanwhile truck collisions are more likely given the same drivers because they have more surface area which provides less margin to avoid an impact.
saxelsen 2y ago
This is the reason my wife insisted that we get an SUV: Concern that if she were to be in a crash with another SUV/truck, they'd obliterate her in a small car.
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
It sounds like it's also in your interest to legislate safety standards that ensure other peoples' vehicles are less likely to kill you when they crash into your own.
jasonladuke0311 2y ago
Yep it’s very much a prisoner’s dilemma. If I choose a smaller car then my family is in greater danger.

trgn 2y ago

Perfect illustration of the tragedy of the commons. Until there is top down intervention, people choose to be either part of the problem, or choose to be part of the solution.

arbuge 2y ago

Really interesting video that one.

wepple 2y ago

Yeah, we had a very compact car. Drove my firstborn home from the hospital in it, surrounded by monster vehicles. Then traded it for a (smallish) SUV. I may wish it weren’t that way, but I’m playing the game.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Invert this point ("SUV or a pickup colliding with a smaller car was 28 percent and 159 percent, respectively, more likely to kill that car’s driver.") to get that one is less likely to die in a big vehicle. That's not how inversions work. If you're in a small car and get into a collision with a large truck, you're likely to die. But if you're in a truck and get into a collision with another large truck, you're still likely to die, because you still got hit by a truck. Meanwhile truck collisions are more likely given the same drivers because they have more surface area which provides less margin to avoid an impact.

saxelsen 2y ago

This is the reason my wife insisted that we get an SUV: Concern that if she were to be in a crash with another SUV/truck, they'd obliterate her in a small car.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

It sounds like it's also in your interest to legislate safety standards that ensure other peoples' vehicles are less likely to kill you when they crash into your own.

jasonladuke0311 2y ago

Yep it’s very much a prisoner’s dilemma. If I choose a smaller car then my family is in greater danger.