I think the nanny state charge is appropriate when people engage in dangerous behavior (like riding a motorcycle without a helmet) where almost all the risk of the potential harm is taken on by the user.
With large cars its the opposite. The people who drive large cars take on no risk, while everyone else is subjected to their negative externalities.
Remember when they banned popup headlights because they were unsafe?
Government agencies used to be able to do their jobs, but ever since the Reagan era, that has diminished. And as a result, since 2010 pedestrian deaths (and deaths for vehicle occupants) has actually increased, after falling for decades. If you want to do dangerous stuff, like riding a motorcycle, free climbing, etc, you should be able to. But when you're doing stuff where the risk is entirely placed on someone else, that's literally the point of regulation.
But the difference to the occupants going from medium to very large vehicles is minute while the difference in risk for others increases dramatically.
And, as a point of information, you DO drive where there are pedestrians. Pedestrians cross streets and walk in parking lots. If you can't see them and the consequences of not seeing them are more fatal, then that should factor in.
> people jumping in front of it should not even factor in
What? People will eventually end up in front of a car, either by their own mistake or when a inattentive driver hits them, it will happen. Factoring that in those unfortunate occasions you want the human being to have higher chances to survive is fucking absolutely a factor.
I'm sorry to ask this on HN but: are you a moron or a troll?
> People will eventually end up in front of a car, either by their own mistake or when an inattentive driver hits them, it will happen.
It seems like you’re implying that everyone eventually dies by getting hit by a car (sorry if I am reading this incorrectly)? But that is simply not true. There are approximately 7000 pedestrian deaths a year right now, compared to a population of about 340 million people. So the probability of dying in a given year is 0.00002. With a 79 year life expectancy on average, the chance of dying as a pedestrian over a lifetime is like 0.15%. By the way, MOST pedestrian deaths are at night, so it seems like an easy way to drive this even lower is just to improve lighting and ask pedestrians to make themselves more visible.
> I'm sorry to ask this on HN but: are you a moron or a troll?
> It seems like you’re implying that everyone eventually dies by getting hit by a car (sorry if I am reading this incorrectly)?
Yes, you interpreted my comment absolutely incorrectly.
I meant that there's always going to be someone getting hit by a car, it's a fact of life when the road is shared between cars and people. Not considering this fact when designing a car is not possible.
Hence my comment asking if GP was a moron or a troll after they stated this:
> large suvs are to protect the occupants. people jumping in front of it should not even factor in. I don't drive on sidewalks.
I simply cannot accept that a user on this forum really thinks this way, it's an absurdly moronic statement.
You are - obviously he's not saying "everyone" will get hit by a car. This is obvious, because that's clearly untrue. In fact, out of 8 billion people on Earth I don't think a single one would argue that "everyone" will get hit by a car.
What's more likely here, you misunderstood? Or you found someone 1 in 8 billion, someone truly one of a kind?
Right, so you misunderstood. Worse, you know you misunderstood but you proceeded anyway. That's dishonest - if you can't make your argument without lying and smearing your opponent, your argument doesn't deserve to be spoken.
the whining about twitter is an endless fountain of tiresome. everyone should know by now they can join mastodon if twitter is too strong for their tummies. I get it, people miss old twitter. I miss Toys R Us. Live with it and move on.
