6 ms·

I like how your comment is downvoted even though this hypothesis is directly supported by the data from the article. Fat cars getting fatter, pedestrian-hostil

I like how your comment is downvoted even though this hypothesis is directly supported by the data from the article. Fat cars getting fatter, pedestrian-hostile streets becoming faster, city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere. Hmmmm, what could be the reason.

potato3732842 1y ago
>I like how your comment is downvoted even though this hypothesis is directly supported by the data from the article. I like (by which I mean I think it indicates a lack of moral character) that you say this despite the articles conclusion basically being "the data is all over the place, I see no strong trends <sigh> I guess it's the SUVs, ugh, maybe" Like yeah, it probably is the SUVs to an extent but the data only indirectly supports this at best and there's probably confounding factors (in particular road design which has been discussed at length and people all over these commands are bringing up).
- alterom 1y ago
  >I like (by which I mean I think it indicates a lack of moral character) This isn't coherent, sorry. >that you say this despite the articles conclusion being... Notice that I said that the hypothesis is supported by the data presented in the article, not by the lackluster analysis (or the conclusion, which, nevertheless, does point to SUVs as the only hypothesis they find plausible). >the data is all over the place, I see no strong trends <sigh> I guess it's the SUVs, ugh, maybe" This is a bad and misleading summary of the article. >Like yeah, it probably is the SUVs to an extent but the data only indirectly supports this at best and there's probably confounding factors (in particular road design which has been discussed at length and people all over these commands are bringing up). You missed the entire point of the article, which is trying to understand why the rate of pedestrian fatalities spiked after 2009 in the US (but not in the EU). Road design, BY ITSELF, isn't the cause of the spike, since IT DID NOT CHANGE. The speed limits did go up in many places in the US, something that I brought up in another comment (and something that was glossed over by the article). That may be a factor. But the primary factor is the elephant in the room - cars getting bigger, heavier, taller, and more hostile to pedestrians. It's the goddamn obvious conclusion, and all the data out there supports it: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedestrian-deaths-increase-crash-data https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedest...
paulcole 1y ago
> city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere I really really really disagree with this. A huge number of people could design a car-free or less car dependent life for themselves if that was something they valued highly. People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do.
- alterom 1y ago
  >People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do. Whatever. Change it to "city infrastructure heavily incentivizing people to drive everywhere by heavily penalizing all other modes of transportation and prioritizing automobiles and accommodating the needs of car drivers above everything else". When the cities are designed for cars with everything else being an afterthought, people are going to driver everywhere.
  - paulcole 1y ago
    > When the cities are designed for cars with everything else being an afterthought, people are going to driver everywhere. Not if they really hate driving and want to live differently! You can say you're a victim of circumstance or you can say I care a lot about something and have more control over your life. I'm biased because I'm 45 and have never driven a car in my life. I grew up in a very rural area in Florida, went to a big state college, and then moved to Portland, OR because it was a decent place to live without a car. I knew from a very young age that driving a car seemed like a dumb way to live and so wondered why everyone did it and why nobody decided to try something different?
    - alterom 1y ago
      >You can say you're a victim of circumstance or you can say I care a lot about something and have more control over your life. >I'm biased because I'm 45 and have never driven a car in my life. I learned to drive when I was 24-25, after moving to Texas for graduate school, and cycling everywhere for a year. I cycled ~3 miles for groceries. I hauled an upright vacuum cleaner ~4 miles on a bicycle. And a bar stool. You really can't blame me for not trying hard to avoid driving. You can't blame me for, say, wanting to go to a movie theater, which was less than a mile away... by highway frontage, where cars would go 60mph. You can't blame me for wanting to see places other than College Station, TX, when I was living there (despite the name, there isn't a station there, and hasn't been for the past 100 years or so). And you can't blame for wanting to fucking live, after a good friend of mine was mauled down by an SUV when he, a non-driver, got out into the street in Long Island on roller blades. Several were hit by cars while cycling (non-lethally, thankfully). At least one by a driver who was looking left (into the oncoming traffic) while making a right turn, and ignored what's literally in front of his car. > then moved to Portland, OR because it was a decent place to live without a car. My friend, not everyone has the choice to move to a handful of metro areas in the US where living without a car isn't a pain. I'm glad you have the means and the resources. I didn't, and still don't; Silicon Valley is where the jobs are for me. And it's not a great place to be at without a vehicle - and I say that even as I do use an e-bike for short runs. After all is said and done, my quality of life has gone up tremendously after getting a car. And that's why it's not a me-problem.

potato3732842 1y ago

>I like how your comment is downvoted even though this hypothesis is directly supported by the data from the article. I like (by which I mean I think it indicates a lack of moral character) that you say this despite the articles conclusion basically being "the data is all over the place, I see no strong trends <sigh> I guess it's the SUVs, ugh, maybe" Like yeah, it probably is the SUVs to an extent but the data only indirectly supports this at best and there's probably confounding factors (in particular road design which has been discussed at length and people all over these commands are bringing up).

alterom 1y ago
>I like (by which I mean I think it indicates a lack of moral character) This isn't coherent, sorry. >that you say this despite the articles conclusion being... Notice that I said that the hypothesis is supported by the data presented in the article, not by the lackluster analysis (or the conclusion, which, nevertheless, does point to SUVs as the only hypothesis they find plausible). >the data is all over the place, I see no strong trends <sigh> I guess it's the SUVs, ugh, maybe" This is a bad and misleading summary of the article. >Like yeah, it probably is the SUVs to an extent but the data only indirectly supports this at best and there's probably confounding factors (in particular road design which has been discussed at length and people all over these commands are bringing up). You missed the entire point of the article, which is trying to understand why the rate of pedestrian fatalities spiked after 2009 in the US (but not in the EU). Road design, BY ITSELF, isn't the cause of the spike, since IT DID NOT CHANGE. The speed limits did go up in many places in the US, something that I brought up in another comment (and something that was glossed over by the article). That may be a factor. But the primary factor is the elephant in the room - cars getting bigger, heavier, taller, and more hostile to pedestrians. It's the goddamn obvious conclusion, and all the data out there supports it: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedestrian-deaths-increase-crash-data https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedest...

paulcole 1y ago

> city infrastructure requiring people to drive everywhere I really really really disagree with this. A huge number of people could design a car-free or less car dependent life for themselves if that was something they valued highly. People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do.

alterom 1y ago
>People just don't value it as highly as they claim they do. Whatever. Change it to "city infrastructure heavily incentivizing people to drive everywhere by heavily penalizing all other modes of transportation and prioritizing automobiles and accommodating the needs of car drivers above everything else". When the cities are designed for cars with everything else being an afterthought, people are going to driver everywhere.
- paulcole 1y ago
  > When the cities are designed for cars with everything else being an afterthought, people are going to driver everywhere. Not if they really hate driving and want to live differently! You can say you're a victim of circumstance or you can say I care a lot about something and have more control over your life. I'm biased because I'm 45 and have never driven a car in my life. I grew up in a very rural area in Florida, went to a big state college, and then moved to Portland, OR because it was a decent place to live without a car. I knew from a very young age that driving a car seemed like a dumb way to live and so wondered why everyone did it and why nobody decided to try something different?
  - alterom 1y ago
    >You can say you're a victim of circumstance or you can say I care a lot about something and have more control over your life. >I'm biased because I'm 45 and have never driven a car in my life. I learned to drive when I was 24-25, after moving to Texas for graduate school, and cycling everywhere for a year. I cycled ~3 miles for groceries. I hauled an upright vacuum cleaner ~4 miles on a bicycle. And a bar stool. You really can't blame me for not trying hard to avoid driving. You can't blame me for, say, wanting to go to a movie theater, which was less than a mile away... by highway frontage, where cars would go 60mph. You can't blame me for wanting to see places other than College Station, TX, when I was living there (despite the name, there isn't a station there, and hasn't been for the past 100 years or so). And you can't blame for wanting to fucking live, after a good friend of mine was mauled down by an SUV when he, a non-driver, got out into the street in Long Island on roller blades. Several were hit by cars while cycling (non-lethally, thankfully). At least one by a driver who was looking left (into the oncoming traffic) while making a right turn, and ignored what's literally in front of his car. > then moved to Portland, OR because it was a decent place to live without a car. My friend, not everyone has the choice to move to a handful of metro areas in the US where living without a car isn't a pain. I'm glad you have the means and the resources. I didn't, and still don't; Silicon Valley is where the jobs are for me. And it's not a great place to be at without a vehicle - and I say that even as I do use an e-bike for short runs. After all is said and done, my quality of life has gone up tremendously after getting a car. And that's why it's not a me-problem.