876
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago

I’ve literally never had an issue and I’ve never heard of that being an issue. Do you not look at the road when you’re driving or something?

Can anyone provide anything that says this is a real concern…? Because people keep saying it, and no one wants to prove it. So strange… should be easy, no? So why can’t anyone do it?

[-] Threeme2189@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Here you go bud.

https://wlos.com/news/local/consumer-reports-how-bad-blind-spots-suvs-pickup-trucks-large-vehicles-protect-families-tech-required-new-cars-backup-cameras

Latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that in 2020 there were over 500 deaths and more than 10,000 “frontover” injuries due to forward-moving vehicles. A frontover injury happens when a vehicle moving forward runs over a person because of not seeing them, usually due to a blind spot.

And a disproportionate number of frontover victims are children, as these accidents mostly take place in driveways and parking lots. According to Kids and Cars, about 81% of victims are 6 years and under.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Got anything from anywhere other than the US where this problem solely exists…? Because your local stats mean nothing in a global conversation.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

this isn't a global conversation? At least right now it isn't this is entirely localized to the US because the US has the most of these large vehicles lmao

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Canada… Mexico… Australia…

Your ignorance is showing.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

i almost mentioned australia, but australia is just now getting an influx of these trucks, they're becoming more popular.

Mexico, well uh, mexico has cartels, so i feel like that's completely redundant and not worth mentioning, the statistics you could even gather from mexico are probably more significantly swayed by the existence of the cartels than they are from the increase in danger of the truck tbh.

Mexico is also a completely different place, so i would have to research into mexico specifically to know more about it and how it would be a problem.

unfortunately for you i live in america and do go outside, so i have a rather reliable viewpoint there. And that's what im talking about.

as for canada, canada has a lot of logging and oil industry so it's probably related to that, most of the populated parts of canada are coast line, the norther border and farther north are generally sparse and has a considerably lower population than most of the US. It's just a little bit different from the US in most regards that would make comparing the data directly much harder.

Seems like you might have more ignorance than me, considering you forgot the entire rest of the world, where as you literally just referenced the entirety of "north america" maybe you're just american pilled, but north america is not global, it's north america.

[-] Threeme2189@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Sure thing bud. Also, how far are you going to move the goalposts?

https://www.polisnetwork.eu/news/size-matters-polis-urges-keep-large-and-unsafe-vehicles-off-europes-streets/

The bottom line? These vehicles are not fit for European cities.

They are dangerous for several reasons, namely because their front ends are frequently higher than the average height of young children, making it difficult for drivers to spot some of the most vulnerable road users. Moreover, pick-up trucks such as these are more difficult to manoeuvre than standard vehicles, a challenge only made worse by the size of many European city streets.

Therefore, it should hardly come as a surprise that these vehicles have been shown to kill and injure road users more frequently than ordinary automobiles when they get into collisions. According to Pedro Homem Gouveia, Coordinator of POLIS WG on Safety & Security, it would be more fitting to call vehicles of this dimension "dangerous road users."

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I followed every hyperlink, and there’s no stats.

EU hasn’t had an increase in pedestrian deaths like the US has, where’s the stats…?

In fact, the hyperlink that alludes it should be about stats, just goes to a LinkedIn type page for the person they are talking about…. What do you think that op Ed would be proving here?

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/stop-frontovers-act-eliminate-dangerous-front-blind-zones-a1009105623/

Further, large trucks and SUVs are involved in more pedestrian accidents (and are more lethal in those accidents) than cars.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I’ve literally never had an issue and I’ve never heard of that being an issue

Well fuck me dead, that's a shocking plot twist. The guy who responds to every comment with "spoonfeed me this widely available information" hasn't heard of something.

Do you not look at the road when you’re driving or something?

It's basic geometry, which was apparently too much to ask of you. Maybe we should have started at "object permanence" and established that things continue existing, even when your vision of them is blocked.

Can anyone provide anything that says this is a real concern…? Because people keep saying it, and no one wants to prove it. So strange… should be easy, no? So why can’t anyone do it?

Most people probably just assumed you were aware of this extremely common knowledge and that if you weren't, you were capable of being a big brave boy and typing "pickup truck blind spot" into a search engine by yourself.

But nope, you'd rather accidentally admit that you don't know basic safety information about your own car.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well fuck me dead, that's a shocking plot twist. The guy who responds to every comment with "spoonfeed me this widely available information" hasn't heard of something.

Like everyone else not understanding that using red lights inside of urban areas cause most of these issues? And this issue only exists in the US…? And not anywhere else?

I love how all the data is from the US, it’s literally not an issue anywhere else… fucking lmfao. Don’t provide your local data in a global conversation, why do you think that’s important…??

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Oh look, the goalposts have moved again and apparently outside the US, people in giant trucks have xray vision that let's them see through solid metal.

I'm not engaging any further. You're a fucking idiot, driving around in a fucking idiot's car, and you've already done more than I ever could to prove it.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago

the reason they mention the US is because the US has significantly more of these trucks, it's not even shifting goalposts, it's literally cherrypicking the data to make it look better than it is.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The goalposts haven’t moved, they’ve always been global, I don’t live in the US so why the fuck would I be talking about the US…? The meme could apply to multiple countries, even mine, but we don’t have this issue of kids getting killed in school zones, nor this campaign to get smaller vehicles, since it’s not an issue when driving, maybe the decent pedestrian infrastructure helps, but who knows, the problem only exists in one place.

Lmfao, give your head a shake, the world doesn’t evolve around your country, I know you all want to, but there’s an entire world out there.

I’m sorry your country doesn’t care about your safety, and you want to blame vehicles instead of your own abilities while driving, or make shit safer of you want to stare at your phone while driving. Yeah it’s not illegal to use your cellphone while behind the wheel in how many states….? Maybe that’s the reason for these collisions that only happen in the US…? No… can’t be the laws letting people be negligent… no…. Can’t be… must be something we can blame than ourselves… hmmmmhmmm….

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I'm not American but don't worry, we're all used to your opinions being ignorant of basic facts.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Can anyone provide anything that says this is a real concern…? Because people keep saying it, and no one wants to prove it. So strange… should be easy, no? So why can’t anyone do it?

the likelihood of large trucks hitting pedestrians is substantially higher, and the likelihood of those impacts being deadly is even higher than that.

Even ignoring statistics here, basic static analysis of the factors at play would argue that there should be an expected increase in these stats. For one thing you have significantly less immediate LOS meaning it's not incredibly apparent what is directly in front of you which should make it quite obvious as to why they're more dangerous, especially at lower speeds. You feel much safer in them due to their size, so you are more likely to be paying less attention or none at all, assuming that other people will notice your massive pavement princess coming down the road.

The front of the vehicle is a literal wall, so the chance that you impact someone, and drag them across the road for a significant distance, or even just run them over outright is significantly higher, because low hoodline vehicles often just throw people up on their hoods, an f150 is significantly less likely to do this, considering how much higher off the ground the hoodline is already, especially when you add in children. It also has considerably more mass, meaning it's going to impart significantly more energy into a pedestrian, even at low speeds. A lot of these trucks are also lifted and stanced (or as i liked to refer to them "tonked" because they look like tonka trucks) which means if you do impact a pedestrian, you're likely to stuff them straight into your front suspension and driveline, which is sure to cause all kinds of fun problems.

oops, consumer reports article

looks like nhtsa is even running for these kinds of things

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

So why are rates only going up in the US…? Other places have these same trucks and don’t have the same issues.

I appreciate you not providing sources from outside the US to support it’s not a US only problem. Every article people provide is about the US, other places have these trucks, why don’t they have the same issues?

Why in this so hard for you guys to find? And why is every answer skirting around the actual question? Lmfao.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

probably a combination of the fact that there are substantially more trucks in the US compared to places in the EU for example where the statistics are probably significantly closer to "margin of error" levels of accuracy.

The US also has substantially more people driving, substantially more road, substantially less skilled drivers one could argue, though i would argue we have a much wider range of skilled drivers, than somewhere like germany for example, where they have a might tighter though higher sitting range of skilled drivers.

edit: a lot of these trucks outside the US are likely to be work vehicles exclusively i imagine, where as in the US they're primarily work and personal, though i sure do see a lot more personal trucks on the road than i do work trucks on the road.

In short, other places don't have these issues because other places simply have a lot less vehicles, and a lot less traffic, as well as a lot less of these trucks per capita compared to the US which is just statistically what you expect to see in the results.

Dangerous vehicles are really only dangerous when in large numbers because otherwise they are quite literally a statistical anomaly. It's why old vehicles are still allowed on the road in the US even though they're less safe, there just isn't enough of them for it to be statistically significant.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Why did you mention the EU? What about Canada? Mexico? Australia? Where these vehicles actually exist, but the numbers aren’t the same as the Us…?

Canada is basically identical to the US in every metric you mentioned, yet the stats aren’t the same. You keep trying to find other reasons why, when I’ve already explained it.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

go have a look at my other comment in your inbox :)

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I did, all those other countries haven’t had an increase in pedestrian rates… and you’ve provided nothing to support this claim…. it’s almost like the size of the vehicle isn’t a factor at all or something… but hey let’s keep blaming the vehicles when 20 other proven points have been pointed out…

Fucking yeesh, you’re about the stupidest one in this chain trying to argue lmfao.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago

all those other countries haven’t had an increase in pedestrian rates… and you’ve provided nothing to support this claim…

and i don't have to as i don't live in those other states.

You haven't provided me with any info as to why they haven't risen in other places, but have risen in the US so arguably, you're just factually incorrect by fallacy of logical reasoning!

Fucking yeesh, you’re about the stupidest one in this chain trying to argue lmfao.

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
876 points (96.6% liked)

Humor

7453 readers
3 users here now

"Laugh-a-Palooza: Unleash Your Inner Chuckle!"

Rules


Read Full Rules Here!


Rule 1: Keep it light-hearted. This community is dedicated to humor and laughter, so let’s keep the tone light and positive.


Rule 2: Respectful Engagement. Keep it civil!


Rule 3: No spamming!


Rule 4: No explicit or NSFW content.


Rule 5: Stay on topic. Keep your posts relevant to humor-related topics.


Rule 6: Moderators Discretion. The moderators retain the right to remove any content, ban users/bots if deemed necessary.


Please report any violation of rules!


Warning: Strict compliance with all the rules is imperative. Failure to read and adhere to them will not be tolerated. Violations may result in immediate removal of your content and a permanent ban from the community.


We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS