[bpt3]

> The majority of the SUVs I see driving have exactly 1 person in them. It's ok to admit that.

I don't need to "admit" that, because I agree it's true.

In your rush to prove a point, you completely missed mine, which was: At least 99% of families buying SUVs to transport kids around instead of a car or minivan (which is why single occupant use didn't come up, as it wasn't really relevant) aren't intentionally firing a shot in an ideological war, they're just picking a car that works for them, they can afford, and they like.

Obviously a lot of that is subjective and has been shaped by regulation, marketing, and an interest in conformity with peers, but what will definitely not change anyone's mind is endless hostility over what is a generally benign decision.

[5upplied_demand]

You seem to have completely dismissed the factual data I provided that vehicle deaths of pedestrians have increased 48% in the past 10 years. This certainly implies that something has changed in how Americans drive and interact with pedestrians. It also perfectly correlates with a time period where SUVs went from 30% to 60% of vehicles on the road.

There is research on how car cost (with SUVs being the most expensive vehicle type) impacts driver yielding behavior [0]. There is also research on how being in a car changes your perspective of pedestrians and others not in the car [1][2][3].

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8758047/

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816....

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233520099_Acoustic_...

[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227874062_Territori...

[bpt3]

You. Do. Not. Get. It.

Best of luck to you.

[5upplied_demand]

Yea, it sure seems like we are talking about different things. I've re-read the exchange and can't find the disconnect or where the hostility came from. Maybe you thought I was another poster from a different exchange?

You clearly stated your opinion that "SUV-drivers looking at pedestrians with disdain" isn't widely held. I then provided actual data and studies that disagrees with that opinion. I'm not sure why that was so upsetting.

[bpt3]

Thanks for continuing to prove my point.

The data you provided isn't upsetting, other than it's sad that people are being needlessly killed.

Interacting with insufferable transit "enthusiasts" is exhausting though, especially when they jump into discussions without reading the entire thread (as you did here apparently).

You and your peers seem incapable of doing anything other than attacking, insulting, and looking down upon anyone who isn't as "enlightened" as you, making you zealots, which is why I want absolutely nothing to do with any of you even if I agree with many of your positions.

If you all ever figure out that the first step to improving a situation isn't "try to make everyone who disagrees with me feel bad about themselves via hostility" let me know. I won't be holding my breath.

[5upplied_demand]

> the first step to improving a situation isn't "try to make everyone who disagrees with me feel bad about themselves via hostility" let me know.

Is an eye-opening comment from a person who called me "insufferable", "incapable of doing anything other than attacking", and a "zealot" just in this one comment. Further up thread are plenty of other insults you have lobbed at anyone who dares to challenge you. All while continuing to claim that everyone else is attacking, insulting, and looking down at you.

This conversation is over, you can project on someone else.

[bpt3]

This conversation was over before it started, because you saw a need to interject (without reading everything that was written beforehand) with a challenge to get me to "admit" to something (that I already agree with by the way because it is a fact) and I'm not going to participate.

You're the one who chose hostility, and of course you fall back on a display of offense when you get it back in kind.

Enjoy tilting at windmills for eternity.