3 ms·
Even if you accept this article’s factual claims to be true, the derived conclusion that the only fix is to downsize cars is ridiculous. Technology (like the re
by blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Even if you accept this article’s factual claims to be true, the derived conclusion that the only fix is to downsize cars is ridiculous. Technology (like the resolution of cameras, accuracy of automatic braking, etc) can be improved. Drivers can be less distracted if they have physical controls instead of touchscreens. Pedestrians can choose to cross only when they have a walk sign instead of when they don’t. Street lighting can be improved (since most of these happen at night). And so on.
But I also don’t see why this is a problem worth addressing any faster than what technology permits. So there are thousands of pedestrian deaths. But there are also literally hundreds of millions of people who benefit from using vehicles. The majority of cars sold are crossovers or SUVs or pickups, and the benefit everyone gets from having these larger vehicles is far larger than the negatives from car-related deaths, whether it is pedestrians or others.
- charleslmunger 2y agoFrom the article: >A recent analysis by the Economist found that among the heaviest one percent of American cars, 12 people die inside smaller models for each person saved by the enormity of their vehicle. What benefit exactly are hundreds of millions of people getting from having tall-grille cars? Many of these tall fronts are fake, they're taller than what is needed to fit the engine - purely an aesthetic choice, to give the look of a large and powerful machine.