>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.

>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...