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.
It doesn’t help that carmakers get incentivised to go big by fucked up fuel standards. Here in the US the CAFE standards were gutted during their creation to carve out looser standards for obese pickups and hummer-sized SUVs. The bigger they get even within a given segment, the less stringent the requirements are.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution
Plus people “feel safer” and all that other jazz when they drive them. It’s just… It’s so stupid to have to watch people continuing to chose shit like this.
IMO it’s such a multi-faceted problem that at this point about the only thing that makes sense is to switch lanes (heh) and focus on other transit methods. More people will take transit or bike if it’s easier than parking their mile long farm vehicles in tight urban spaces and being helplessly fumigated by standstill traffic.
deleted by creator
The post is only misguided because we can see the same effect in the latest smartphones. I fucking miss the time when it fit in my pocket.
That first laptop is cool. Why isn’t there an option like that now with a 12 day battery life and every fucking port imaginable?
> 100 watt hours and you can’t take that battery on a plane in the US.
Most usb-c charging capable laptops will charge off large external high powered usb-c batteries. Allowing you to optionally choose to just buy a reasonably priced one to leave in your bag.
The work field technian bag has something like this in it: https://www.amazon.com.au/INIU-27000mAh-Capacity-Powerbank-Compatible/dp/B0CB1FWNMK
Most laptops have batteries of a size that can go on a plane I believe. I could be wrong.
The P series of thinkpad or framework 16 are as close as I’d say you could probably get
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.
Not to speak up for this ludicrous inflation of motor vehicle dimensions, but often the shrinking of cabin space on modern cars is often in pursuit of crashworthiness and safety.
Probably has less structure to the frame, smaller crumple zones, and probably no airbags in the pillars.
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
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
When the screens started getting good enough to watch porn on, the size trend reversed.
Yeah I was going to say, phones are currently growing bigger after hitting a sort of “peak small” lol.
They’re getting so huge that it’s hard to find a small one without ordering an old model. I like to be able to see things and all but at a certain point they don’t fit comfortably in my pockets
Ya, they’re too big now. I liked it when I could use my phone with one hand.
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.
Smaller cars still exist though?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean, you do need to fit into one of those
