Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>flips over and kills people inside at minor incidents.

>a strong argument against SUVs

This kind of hubris to think you can plan the exact details of the market for a product followed up by cognitive dissonance when it doesn't work out drives me up the wall.

The SUVs back in the day when they were becoming a thing had fine visibility, great even by modern standards. Then you people said they rolled over too much and were too unsafe so they grew wide to be stable and they got thick bodies and doors and strong pillars and high belt-lines to be strong and nobody could see out of them. And then you people backed over your kids. And then we got backup cameras and all sorts of tech. And now you people complain the screens are distracting and un-ergonomic. You see the pattern here?

Just stop trying to tell everyone else what's good for them and then force it on them and we wouldn't have this problem.

Want me to do zoning too? Because it's basically the same story.



Something tells me the intersection of the "you people" trying to reduce car dependence and the "you people" arguing to make cars bigger and heavier is not a large one.

Increasing car size (sometimes) increases safety for the driver at the expense of anyone in a smaller car or not in a car. Road deterioration also increases exponentially with vehicle weight so people that opt for no-car or smaller cars are effectively subsidizing the excessive vehicles of other people with their tax money. iirc a Hummer causes 21x more damage than an "average car."

https://www.gao.gov/products/109954


who is “you people” here




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: