- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/9992203
You must log in or register to comment.
Tbf phones grew bigger at one point.
Actually the display always grew bigger and the rest of it always grew smaller and at some point, the sum grew bigger
When the screens started getting good enough to watch porn on, the size trend reversed.
TVs might be an even better example
I don’t think so. They never shrank which makes them an even worse example for the meme or what do you mean?
They shrank by weight and volume for sure.
Not by screen area though.
Right now I’m sitting next to 2 TVs. One 34’’ CRT and an OLED with 4 times the screen area. The CRT weights 7 times more
Donno why I didn’t think about the volume and weight but only about the front area
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Poorly thought out government policy caused cars to get bigger, not over consumption. Over consumption is a problem with tech too.
It’s a mix of the CAFE laws and consumer habits based on decades of unsafe street design pushing consumers to larger vehicles which makes them feel safer and anyone outside them less safe, which makes them lean toward larger vehicles to match. Viscous cycle and arms race. Point being policy is part of it, but consumer behavior isn’t blameless.
safety concerns caused cars to get bigger, everyone wanted to protect their children in a range rover but couldn’t afford one, so other companies started making tank suv’s
There’s more to it than that.
From https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution:
Congress made a fateful decision when it established CAFE. Instead of setting a single fuel economy standard that applies to all cars, CAFE has two of them: one for passenger cars, such as sedans and station wagons, and a separate, more lenient standard for “light trucks,” including pickups and SUVs. In 1982, for instance, the CAFE standard for passenger cars was 24 mpg and only 17.5 mpg for light trucks.
Put simply, there’s a loophole in the emissions standards. If the vehicle is bigger, it has a lower mileage standard to meet. Manufacturers responded by making vehicles larger.
there is not more to it than that, safety standards in the 80’s were “good luck and god bless”, safety standards and demands from consumers currently and for the last couple decades are looking to protect children from being decapitated in automobile accidents, and have dictated the size and weight of what’s being demanded and produced. SUV’s make up the VAST oversized majority of the massive vehicles on the roads now, trucks/utility vehicles a VAST undersized minority. this argument is being made in a echo chamber, the issue is safety, and you’re not going to convince families to put their children in the “yolo mobiles” of the last century, when literal tanks are on offer.
Vehicles have only gotten comically oversized in the US. Are you saying european and asian families do not care about their children?
The F-150 is the top selling vehicle in the US.
The post is only misguided because we can see the same effect in the latest smartphones. I fucking miss the time when it fit into my pocket.
What I find the most funny and ironic personally is the fact that the old BMW looks like it has a lot more space for passengers than the new oversized one.
Probably has less structure to the frame, smaller crumple zones, and probably no airbags in the pillars.
Not even close. The wheel base on the x7 is longer than an entire 325i from the era. And you are basing the off a front profile?
Safety standards caused passenger cars to get larger more than anything else (trucks got bigger because of weird fuel economy regulations).
Roll back safety standards and we can have small cars again. It’s probably worth the amount of excess deaths it will create, but someone should do a study.
Dpn’t forget the fact that most car safety only applies to people in the car. For others it may or may not make it in fact less safe.
Actually pedestrian safety standards are a thing and explains a lot of design choices and why many cars have a very similar profile.
Absolutely true, it’s why there aren’t any more fun pop up headlights, or hood ornaments.
Were already at an all-time high of vehicle related deaths. We’d actually probably see a decrease in fatalities if we made cars smaller.
Proportional to the number of km driven or just raw number?
Both. More weight of a car = more danger to everyone.
Source on that?
Source on the deaths
Give us numbers, prove that deaths have gone up when taking the increase in annual mileage, cars on the road and increase in general population into consideration.
The only thing I know as someone not in the business is that many of the experts are saying larger vehicles are nearly half of all fatalities.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedestrian-deaths-increase-crash-data
Do note that these are numbers for the US, and may not correspond with other countries.
They’re also half of the vehicles sold though…
Also bigger vehicles result in more dangerous pedestrian impacts isn’t the first point you were making and isn’t the point being discussed here.
Answer the question, where did you get the info about accidents being at an all time high? Where did you get the info that it’s at an all time high in proportion to mileage covered, number of cars on the road and increase in population?
You said it’s at an all time high for “both” gross number and in proportion, you must be able to provide a source if you’re so confident, right?
You have me confused for someone else. Lemmy is a big place with multiple users, someone else said that it’s both.
But sure, here you go:
Pedestrian fatalities are correlated with two major factors: speed and vehicle size. In North America, streets are designed to make driving easier and faster: lanes are made wider, and obstacles are removed to reduce visual clutter. This results in everything in NA looking flat and being spread out.
Vehicle sizes are goibg up because of the “size wars”: the EPA made limits on fuel emissions barring vehicle size, so auto manufacturers decided to make larger vehicles to get around the limitations. Consumers wanted bigger, “safer” vehicles to make it more likely to survive a crash, so there’s become an arms race for vehicle size. As these vehicles get bigger, pedestrians become harder to see, and if a pedestrian is hit, the grill is so high, the pedesteian will be thrown under the vehicle as opposed to over it.
As North America grows, we expand into suburbs, which are residential only, requiring residents to commute into the city to get groceries or go to work. More driving means more km driven.
And if you want my sources, here are a few to get you started:
Pedestrian deaths all-time high - https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deaths-high-traffic-car
And https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7317a1.htm
And https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-safety.html
And https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33147075/
Lane width and speeding correlation: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/review_lane_width_and_speed_parsons.pdf
And https://narrowlanes.americanhealth.jhu.edu/report/JHU-2023-Narrowing-Travel-Lanes-Report.pdf
I hope these provide the answers you’re looking for.
deleted by creator
Numbers
Proportions
Source
Without adjustment based on proportions this means nothing.
Did you know that there’s more car related deaths now than there ever was in the 1800s? 😱
Yeah, because there were no cars on the road.
I just linked you 6 articles and a peer reviewed paper on the subject, but if you’re still not going to believe me, I’m not going to spoonfeed you. This is my last reply to your motonormative idiocy.
you’re not going to convince families their children will be safer in smaller cars then they are in the current tank suv’s
I think the solution there is to discourage families, because you’re absolutely right.
We need to raise the cost of childcare, remove tax incentives for children, provide tax incentives for sterilization, and provide better contraceptive options and abortion access. Then it won’t be as much of a problem.
Safety standards is the stated reason, but the actual reason is that weight is unregulated and can always be increased in pursuit of any more profitable dimension. If weight was the taxable dimension, we’d live in a much better world.
Smaller cars still exist though?
yeah in europe (obviosly it varies a lot cross-country and rural/urban) but lots of places with high safety standards , and high emissions taxes. Still lots of small cars around .
Mostly due to parking in big-dense-cities though probably.US does come out badly on deaths per billion pax-km: 8 ish vs 3-5 for most euro countries
- it’s not far off Belgium (7) though . . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
So on the face of it small cars dont sem to correlate - but these data look a bit hodge podge, so not sure to read too much into it without knowing the underlying sources.
Other factors like the “stroad” thing might be an issue.
And a lot of European municipalities give the elderly free public transport, and have ok bus service, so many doddery old coots have a viable option.I remember that southpark episode about senior drivers, with the jaws music . . .
Maybe not as funny when you look at that US death rate. To quoe Father Maxi: “No god needs complex irony and subtle farcical twists that seem macabre to you and me, all that we can hope for is that god got his laughs . . .”- it’s not far off Belgium (7) though . . . .
^ this
I mean, you do need to fit into one of those
deleted by creator
