The airlines and the FAA have been reducing seat size and weight for "safety reasons". 21" width minimum required in 1995 only 18" width in 2025. These seat requirements directly corrolate to fuel cost savings, and passenger density. Simple statistical manipulation with the increase in passengers shrinks the fatality and accident rate because the sample is larger. The airlines are to the FAA as what wall street is to the SEC.
i think the dissent in this thread is unqualified. Society is completely over "net-benefit" solutions. Stop perscribing 20th century one size fits all solutions. How about free flouride tablets instead of dosing everyone. Then saying "we need public policy to govern insurance rates". If this arugment saw its maxima, it would be manditory euthansia after 65. Certainly would really drop insurance rates. Btw genetics are a massive factor in oral hygine requirements, probably something your not considering. Should everyone wear the same brand/make of shoes?
Having to do work is different than getting adequate vitamins and minerals (which is all fluoride is) passively. It's no different than iodine in salt or vitamins B12, C and folic acid in cereal or vitamin D in milk.
We no longer go out and find the magic rock that we lick to ensure a good harvest or drink from the special stream that cures illnesses: we know what the human body needs to be able to do things like "grow teeth" and "not develop scurvy". Why would we go back to making people have to do a bunch of work to get access to basic nutrition? Because some weirdos want to take us back to a time when the average life expectancy in the United States was 40 years old?
The only point I put forth is that public fluoridation of water supplies doesn't infringe absolutely on an individual's right to informed consent to treatment since there is at least 1 method (moving) available that an individual can utilize to opt out. Others have pointed out that there may even be additional options available such as de-fluoridating yourself.
Did you have something on topic to contribute?
Or did you just want a soap box to voice your own opinions and I just happen to be collateral damage because you thought casting oblique aspersions about my qualifications would make you sound intelligent?
SUVs are not the problem. it's literally what the article said, mininums are too low. Most SUVs are family's traveling. You should look up the statistics for uninsured motorists in Florida, it's staggering. People simply will not follow the law, it's an enforcement problem. The sheer miles of roadways to police is extremely vast, it's very difficult to remove dangerous uninsured drivers. Hence why most people by big SUVs to protect themselves from collisions.
Research indicates that SUVs are indeed more dangerous to pedestrians compared to other vehicle types in the United States. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) highlighted that late-model SUVs are more likely to cause fatalities to pedestrians than cars. This is attributed to the higher front profile of SUVs, which tends to result in more severe injuries upon impact. The study found that at speeds greater than 19 mph, SUVs caused more serious injuries and were more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities compared to cars. Specifically, at speeds of 20-39 mph, 30% of crashes with SUVs resulted in pedestrian fatalities, compared to 23% for cars. At speeds of 40 mph and above, all crashes with SUVs resulted in pedestrian fatalities, compared to 54% with cars. This indicates a significant increase in the risk posed by SUVs at higher speeds[0].
Further research supports these findings, showing that trucks and SUVs with hood heights greater than 40 inches are about 45% more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than shorter vehicles with sloped hoods. The study, also by the IIHS, used data from nearly 18,000 crashes and noted that tall, squared-up hoods, characteristic of many best-selling SUVs and trucks, contribute significantly to the risk. The number of pedestrian deaths has significantly increased, with pedestrian fatalities jumping 13% to 7,342 in 2021, marking the highest number since 1981. This rise in pedestrian deaths has outpaced the increase in overall U.S. traffic deaths, highlighting a growing crisis in road safety related to larger vehicles[1].
These findings underscore the need for vehicle design changes to improve pedestrian safety, particularly as the proportion of SUVs on U.S. roads continues to rise. Despite advancements in vehicle safety that have reduced overall motor vehicle crash fatalities, the increased lethality of SUVs to pedestrians poses a significant challenge that requires attention from both manufacturers and regulatory bodies.
Good summary. Something ChatGPT missed is that SUV's are taller, and that tends to increase speed, because _perceived_ speed is lower the farther you are from the ground
And they present very little risk to pedestrians as a result. You're sitting LOWER than the pedestrians. You can see a bottle-cap on the road. You don't feel superior to anyone at all.
It’s funny, I’m often tempted to fact check data or lookup jargon, etc. and comment to save someone else the trouble. I once did this on the seriouseats subreddit with copy paste from a relatively reliable source and met with an insane heated argument over what amounted to semantics and a flurry of downvotes. I wonder if attribution to ChatGPT increases civility towards the commenter or if HN is just generally more civilized.
I the term bot is interesting, I think it cbelievean be expanded to any automata predictably responding in a certain fashion. Twitter "reply" accounts even if operated by humans but acting like bots should be considered bots. Posts that don't move the discussion along but just reaffirm in one direction or the other are just pure noise and useless. Discourse is broken or the human brain is, unsure which it is.
