You are absolutely right that cars are heavier now, which means they are putting more energy into a collision, but cars are also better at dissipating that energy. I don’t actually know enough to know what wins in that face-off. You could very well be right. I’d defer to someone with more expertise in collisions.

Number of cars. Increase the number of cars, you increase the number of deaths. But any given collision is more likely to be survivable than in the past.

Also, it’s not a perfect analog, but a quick search for deer hits and you can see modern cars crumple just fine.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying this deer was out dancing that very night, but if you’re gonna hit me at 30 MPH with either a flat, unyielding piece of steel with potentially sharp edges and/or rusted spots, or a soft piece of plastic or fiberglass formed to cushion my impact into the engine where the REALLY hard parts are, I’m going to choose the plastic/fiberglass every time.

Edit: Here. Just to back up the information I’m giving you…

The ABSOLUTE number of deaths are increasing, because the number of people and cars are increasing. But as a function of percentage of population they are only slightly above the lowest they’ve been since the 20’s. Modern cars are much safer. Even a bad SUV with horrible visibility is safer to all involved in a crash than an average car in the early 80’s. The numbers don’t lie.

Source

Edit again: To give pedestrian numbers to go with that:

You do have a point… there ARE increases in recent years, but overall the rate is still nearly half of the rate in the 80s. You are correct the most very recent trend is worrying, however.

Totally viable as an option if that’s the goal.

If that’s New Zealand’s goal, they should do exactly the same.

But if they’re looking for a balance between risk and convenience, there’s factors to be considered that the article glosses over.

If you get the opportunity. It’s just as likely the impact of the all-steel frame with no crumple actually bisects your body right in half, or crushes your internal organs to paste.

Rolling over a hood is “better” because it consumes energy. Everything about mitigating a crash impact is about putting as much of the energy of the impact as possible somewhere other than a human body. You don’t get the opportunity to do that at all if the initial impact is rigid. It’s putting all that collision energy directly into you.

It is - both things can be true. There are certainly some types of vehicles and conditions that are less safe than others, often for unjustifiable and stupid reasons, but the general trend of the average vehicle over time is towards being much safer than in the past. You’d still rather be hit by an SUV with a crumple zone than a sedan with an all steel body, all else being equal.

It’s also worth noting the current speed limits were set in 1985. I know this is the wrong place to point it out, and I do hate cars, but acknowledge they have value for some use cases. That said…

Since 1985, car safety evolution has introduced: -Traction Control -Anti-lock Brakes -Airbags -Electronic Stability Control -Crumple Zones -Adaptive Cruise Control -Blind spot detection -Pedestrian detection

…just to name a few. Cars are safer now than they’ve ever been, for both drivers and pedestrians (the Cybertruck not withstanding), so it’s equally strange to suggest that the same speed limit that was set in the mid-80s is the best balance of convenience and safety. If it’s simply a matter of reduction in absolute terms, why not LOWER the speed limit?

Not saying the article’s premise is wrong, but it’s kneejerk. In fact, smartly using speed limits can help to push traffic into out of the way areas where it will be less problematic to pedestrians. For example, lowering the speed limits in pedestrian areas in cities and increasing them less dense, outer areas can both improve traffic flow and make dense spaces more pedestrian friendly by diverting traffic into roads with fewer people. And intercity traffic through areas with little to no pedestrian traffic is a no-brainer.

I know the cultural context and respect it as different from my own.

But it will never stop being viscerally disgusting to my personal sensibilities.

Every time I just suck it up. Pun intended.

Ramen. And they are slurping like an 85 year old man who hasn’t had to care in 6 decades.

This works. I ran a linux distro in off hours on my work laptop for years this way.

Sure, at the surface level of tweeting back and forth, there is nothing vile. But the very act of using the platform funds an agent of chaos that is doing very real harm, and to ignore that because it is inconvenient is at the most charitable interpretation a selfish and callous act. There are other means of discourse, and those with input that is valuable will follow you.

Maybe, just maybe, if your followers aren’t willing to give up something vile because it’s giving them a dopamine hit, they’re not adding as much value to your life as you think.

deleted by creator

Username (of poster, not OP) checks out.

But without a Joestar to do it for you, could you handle the Pillar Men yourself? 🤔

Ariel has her voice? What’d she trade for legs in this universe?

My Nvidia card won’t properly resume the display after suspend with the default suspend script, but if I correct the script file, every time aptitude updates the nvidia drivers, it restores the bad version of the configuration file. If you set the file immutable with chattr, aptitude throws a fit and goes into a broken state when it can’t overwrite the file on a driver update.

So I keep a good copy of the script file in the directory, and in my pre-suspend script file I overwrite the main suspend script with the good version. Every single time.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!