Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Try reading it again then.
liquidindian
Hello
Bad memories of turning 50?I'm not reading something from 1990
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Car fans: we aren't directly running you over. Cars are safe
Also car fans:
Also car fans:
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
10 actually, grandad.
Find something from 2010 onward that demonstrates improved side-impact protection in cars has not saved lives, or has led to an increase in pedestrian deaths or whatever, and I'll take a look.
Otherwise I'll continue to maintain that car-width moaners don't have any sort of point and don't actually care about road deaths.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
platinumsage knowingly posts fallacious arguments for his own entertainment. Sometimes they can appear plausible to those who don't spend much time thinking about this stuff, and in those cases it's worth responding. In fact it's quite a good way of letting people see how various arguments don't stand up. It's all part of this thread working as intended. I think recently platinumsage has got bored and moved to posting just quite obviously silly arguments. When they are nonsensical enough that everyone can see what they are, there's no particular benefit of responding - they can stand as kind of parody posts. Again, fits fine with the aims of the thread.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Note how they cunningly switch from 3.5 million deaths globally to 50% of deaths in OECD countries. Most air pollution deaths globally are caused by cooking and heating.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
So do you think it's a good thing cars are 18cm wider given the lives saved, or not?
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
From the US. But no let's go back to 1970s Golfs because they're 18cm narrower:
Don’t think you’re getting my point. We gave over our cities to cars no questions asked and they continue to take the piss but getting bigger& bigger and sat navs routing more traffic onto minor roads.
We should have to just put up with it. Rather then drivers moaning about “the war on cars” they should be thankful they got away with so much for son long.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I don't see how an 18cm increase in width with a concomitant massive improvement in safety is at all relevant to your point.
One might almost think you're posting fallacious arguments for your own entertainment.
This is just a Golf. Have you not seen the rise of the wankpanzers? Have you not seen the residential streets with parking on both sides constantly getting snarled up when 2 cars happen to meet - after all that’s a total of nearly 3/4s of a metre.
Why should we just let cars continue their dominance uninterrupted?
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I'm pretty sure that obstructive parking isn't caused by an 18cm increase in car width, it's caused by drivers and councils making bad decisions.
Residential roads to only have parking on one side of there isn’t space for 2 cars to pass. Totally agree - very bold! Exactly the thing I’m talking about but just imagine the opposition from whiny motorists.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Right, glad we've established that parking problems in residential streets won't be best solved by replacing impact-protected cars with 18cm narrower tin cans from the 1970s, and that the costs in thousands of lives would probably be too high a price to pay for not being bothered to paint double yellow lines.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Everyone knows that the optimum ratio of lives saved per unit car width is achieved when the car width is zero. It's just maths.
I’m making a point that we shouldn’t listen to motorists whiny when we’re trying to deal with the problems they’ve created. Not sure what point you’re making.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
We've already established that buses are more dangerous to pedestrians than cars. With zero car width, there'd be a massive increase in bus and pedestrian traffic, with devastating consequences.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I note that on your other thread where you are complaining about an increase in aggressive, large dogs, you only seem to be interested in the safety of children and others that they might attack.
Nothing about the consequences for a dog if, say, a small child accidentally topples a large vase in the vicinity of a dog. It's obvious that a larger dog is much less vulnerable to injury in this scenario.
Your advocacy for smaller dogs displays a contemptious disregard for the safety of dogs, which increases the larger they get. Don't you think that's a disgusting attitude to take?
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Are you trying to equate dogs with cars containing people? How the mighty have fallen.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Dogs are often used to protect people. The larger and better at fighting they are, the more effective they are at protecting their owners' hard working families. And yet you want to remove this protection by banning them and taking away people's freedom which is something that would happen in North Korea.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
How many lives are saved by fighting-dogs every year, that wouldn’t be saved by ordinary dogs? How many people are killed each year by side-impact protection on cars?
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Anyway I would have thought a fighting dog advocate would have known that North Korea has a similar attitude to dogs as they do to cars:
www.eurogroupforanimals.org
Kim Jong Un orders pet dogs to be confiscated in North Korean capital
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has ordered pet dogs to be confiscated in the country’s capital, saying the pooches represent Western “decadence’’ — but their owners fear Fido is really headed for someone’s dinner table.
www.eurogroupforanimals.org
teuchter
je suis teuchter
How many lives could be saved in side impact collisions by mandatory speed limiters set at a given speed? Please express your answer in deaths per 1mph of speed limit above zero.
Then calculate a ratio of this number to the number of deaths per cm subtracted from a 2022 car width.
Show all workings and sources. Then we can do an entirely objective cost benefit calculation that everyone can agree on.
While you are working on the above I will produce a measure for available road width benefit, in units of something "like hundred people having a nicer life per cm3 of bloated murder machine eliminated".
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
All the statements of fact I've made in response to edcraw's Golf-width-outrage are self-evident and therefore need no supporting sources or calculations.
However, feel free to take the time to produce your own analysis which no doubt will be dismissed out-of-hand as being deeply flawed.
However, feel free to take the time to produce your own analysis which no doubt will be dismissed out-of-hand as being deeply flawed.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
72cm on a typical London street with 2 parking spaces and 2 live lanes.
Post in thread 'Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.'
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I‘m surprised no one has yet mentioned the dramatic increase in obesity since the 70s, all that pavement space being taken up with no associated safety gains. 
Well as you’ve alluded to before its prob one of the reasons for bigger cars. People drive more meaning they get less exercise so bigger cars and they drive more and get bigger meaning bigger cars and they drive more and get bigger etc etc. Its a vicious circle.I‘m surprised no one has yet mentioned the dramatic increase in obesity since the 70s, all that pavement space being taken up with no associated safety gains.
We need to stop this by restricting cars so we alllow people to walk and cycle more stopping ever increasing obesity and breaking this cycle. Quite simple really.
Also, surely we should be increasing pavement sizes if people are getting bigger!I‘m surprised no one has yet mentioned the dramatic increase in obesity since the 70s, all that pavement space being taken up with no associated safety gains.
