• Drogdar@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    “Ocean has been found to contain large amounts of water, a new study finds. Internet argues.”

  • porterbrown@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    … but that’s exactly what I want. A big boxy suv. Not a low, rinky dink jellybean suv / cuv.

    I live in the sticks, dirt roads, snow, skiis, snowboards, camping - big boxy SUV. Ladder frame, real 4WD, low range.

    I have never got a ticket, nor killed someone. Go after the assholes, don’t legislate things away.

    • RedHed94@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Lol you can do all of that stuff with a vehicle with a smaller grill and hood slope. The boxy grill is not a prerequisite for any of those things

  • KronosX3TR@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I like to ask this question to people I know:

    Would you rather be hit by a Porsche going 50mph or a (new model) Tahoe going 30mph?

    • ebbinghope@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      The kinetic energy carried into the impact scales with the square of the speed, 1/2mv². To make the impact energy equal, the Tahoe would need to have (50²/30²) 2.777 times the mass of the Porsche. The mass of the Tahoe is known, about 2600kg. There lightest Porsche on offer is the 911 S/T at 1386kg. The Porsche would hit you with ~50% more force.

      The question now is the low hoodline worth being hit with 50% more force? I’d say yes.

  • someoneone211@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    C’mon, how’s this not common sense? They weigh about 1000 more lbs than a compact car. The rest is just Newton.

    • noh-seung-joon@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      sadly, common sense should be regulating these especially deadly, inefficient vehicles out of existence, not accepting that “people have to die for retro aesthetics and awful aerodynamics”

  • reliablesoup@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    You mean to tell me that additional mass, poor near-range visibility and the sense of invincibility that comes from driving a humongous vehicle results in more fatalities?!

    I’m in shock. I need to sit down…

  • Apical-Meristem@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I had a neighbor deputy who investigated crash scenes about 15 years ago. He said the flat faced trucks and SUVs were killers. The best car for pedestrian survival was the 2003 style Honda Accord. That was the style that somewhat mimicked the Passat with sloping hood.

  • HedonisticFrog@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Part of it is that people who are terrible drivers know they’re bad and drive huge vehicles to feel safer for when they inevitably hit something. SUV and truck drivers are also more far more likely to go out of their way to hit animals as well, so they’d care less about hitting people in the first place.

  • Its_free_and_fun@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Repeal CAFE, it’s driving everyone to change to bigger cars to make sure the automakers hit their MPG numbers.

    It’s wasting fuel and killing pedestrians.