Is it? I mean maybe it is, I don't know, but I'm guessing you don't really know either. I can imagine that maybe a scooter could be safer than a very bad car. You can get crushed in a car, cars go faster, you've got less situational awareness.
I'm not sure this is one of those things that is just obviously true.
> - safety. From the time electric scooters caught on I have numerous examples of people getting seriously hurt with permanent quality of life affecting injuries.
Do you not know anyone who has had a life-affecting injury or was killed while in a car? Not saying scooters don't have their risks, but pretending cars are a paragon of safety seems to be the result of availability bias.
>> Motor vehicles are a big cause of death in many countries.
Yep, that is true. On the other hand there are also many laws that try to mitigate the risk of accidents.[] I think the mobility of motor vehicles is a benefit, that outweighs the risk of accidents. I doubt we could manage the logistics of supplying big cities with bikes, trains and horses alone.
[]: That does not solve the problem, that cars are dangerous machinery and some people just shouldn't handle them (despite a drivers license).
> Just let people have a certain power and max speed and they will drop the car and replace it with a powered scooter
I think many Americans have a higher expectations for safety than many people in China. No way I am packing my kid onto a scooter and driving them around downtown.
> Safety is of course a personal preference but solving it by sitting in a two ton bubble is kind of the wrong way to go about it, no?
Safety is also largely a psychological issue. People don’t want to be safe (most of the time they have no clue), they want to feel safe (which depends on personal experience and prejudice). Even a quick and dirty analysis of accidents statistics shows that driving is much less safe than public transport.
> Why not put some effort into making the use of small, lightweight, silent, clean vehicles possible?
It’s already possible. The effort you seem to be requesting is the effort I already described as dangerous to me and my pup. If I’m understanding correctly: that’s why. Because it’s dangerous to me and my pup.
If I’m not understanding correctly, please feel free to clarify what effort you think I should be making to better accommodate these vehicles by which I wish not to be hit.
> Scooter driving in an illegal manner? Charge the driver and the company.
As someone who frequently has to dart myself and my puppy out of the way of these jerks—almost always on a narrow sidewalk beside a busy arterial—this kind of sounds nice. But I can’t imagine how it would work. Even if I could scramble fast enough to snap a picture while keeping pup safe, would it be actionable?
As it is, on the rare occasion it’s just me out walking I’m content to play chicken with them and try to hold my ground. But I don’t take those chances with pup, and trying to get evidence (however useful) would involve the same risk.
>Hardly. Self-inflicted injury leading to death is the #3 leading cause of death in the US. Mostly, that's ladders and falls that kill you. Suicides are more common than car accident fatalities. _YOU_ are the most dangerous thing you interact with on a daily basis.
Isn’t that saying that if you combine all other accidental injuries it edges out cars. So cars are almost as dangerous as all the other things put together? Why are cars broken out into their own category from all the other things? Is it because they are incredibly dangerous?
> The vehicle can never be made safe for these circumstances. The road and pedestrian walkways _can_ be, though.
Pedestrian crash safety standards exist, in Europe, for example. As a result, some European cars offer active pedestrian safety systems that are stripped from North American equivalents. Cars certainly can be designed for passive and active pedestrian safety, and they are notably safer in areas where this is a requirement.
> Perhaps this hyperfocus on the Cybertruck will help jumpstart a larger shift in public opinion on general automobile-pedestrian safety?
I have bought over a dozen cars in my adulthood, and not once has the thought of pedestrian safety ever crossed my mind. Nor will it factor into my decision if I buy a dozen more. I am pretty much going to assume that no matter what vehicle I buy, if I hit a pedestrian going anything faster than a crawl, I am going to do damage to that person.
I am in a heavy moving object made of sturdy materials larger than the pedestrian. They are not going to have a good outcome.
>It doesn't matter how fast you are going, it matters how fast the other guy is going! The crash safety of modern cars is not an accident. It takes a lot of money to do the engineering, buy the proper materials, and put it together correctly.
I think the safety complaint is irrelevant when the alternative is a bike or moped.
It does also very much matter how fast you're going because a huge fraction of crashes only involve one vehicle.
> Cars are an order of magnitude safer than they used to be and we were trending towards 0.
This isn’t true for the US, cars are actually more dangerous due to the prevalence of SUVs that skirt safety regulations by being sold as light trucks.
>That's like saying your car is fine when it's smashed upside-down in a ditch on the side of the highway.
I'd argue it's more like saying your car is safe when it's smashed upside-down in a ditch on the side of the highway.
It is safe. The safest minivan is fantastically safe. Then it smashes into a semi truck at 80 mph and everyone dies. It was still a safe car, when compared to other cars.
Is it? I mean maybe it is, I don't know, but I'm guessing you don't really know either. I can imagine that maybe a scooter could be safer than a very bad car. You can get crushed in a car, cars go faster, you've got less situational awareness.
I'm not sure this is one of those things that is just obviously true.
reply