but it’s still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is.
Just to clarify, I said “no difference” in that “big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered” vehicles ALL cause severe injuries and death to pedestrians.
I’m not trying to argue that there’s no measurable difference in the amount of damage a larger vehicle can cause vs a smaller one, as I completely agree that there is.
My point is that they are all too dangerous to be around people, so a fatality by a car is “no different” than a fatality by an SUV.
I agree that a fatality by a car is no different to a fatality by an SUV. But I would say that there is a difference in accidents involving cars vs SUVs because the fatality rates differ, which is what is being discussed.
I might be misinterpreting your argument, but my understanding is that you’re saying because both cars and SUVs can cause fatalities, they are all too dangerous to be around people. But many things can cause fatalities, even bikes. We’ll never be able to reduce accidents entirely. But there’s a rate at which the fatalities become too high compared to the benefits. So that’s why I believe talking about the rates of fatalities is more useful than talking about whether something can cause a fatality at all. In this case, I think your acceptable rate for fatalities is at a level where all motorised vehicles clear the threshold, so that’s why you’re saying there’s no difference. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Replacing tall-fronted vehicles with short-fronted vehicles would reduce fatalities, which is why I believe there is a difference and we should try to do that where possible.
Just to clarify, I said “no difference” in that “big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered” vehicles ALL cause severe injuries and death to pedestrians.
I’m not trying to argue that there’s no measurable difference in the amount of damage a larger vehicle can cause vs a smaller one, as I completely agree that there is.
My point is that they are all too dangerous to be around people, so a fatality by a car is “no different” than a fatality by an SUV.
I agree that a fatality by a car is no different to a fatality by an SUV. But I would say that there is a difference in accidents involving cars vs SUVs because the fatality rates differ, which is what is being discussed.
I might be misinterpreting your argument, but my understanding is that you’re saying because both cars and SUVs can cause fatalities, they are all too dangerous to be around people. But many things can cause fatalities, even bikes. We’ll never be able to reduce accidents entirely. But there’s a rate at which the fatalities become too high compared to the benefits. So that’s why I believe talking about the rates of fatalities is more useful than talking about whether something can cause a fatality at all. In this case, I think your acceptable rate for fatalities is at a level where all motorised vehicles clear the threshold, so that’s why you’re saying there’s no difference. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Replacing tall-fronted vehicles with short-fronted vehicles would reduce fatalities, which is why I believe there is a difference and we should try to do that where possible.