[lonelyasacloud]

> If you're actually following the stats you will see that vehicle size only accounted for 10% of the increase.

It's a paper that will make money automobile advertising.

Implicitly if there were any other single larger cause for the deaths then the article would be about that.

The sensible thing to do would be to carry on investigating the 90%, but in the meantime get on with saving the 200 to 400 people by removing largest factor - the _unnecessarily_ large vehicles - that are _known_ to be killing them.

[giantg2]

"Implicitly if there were any other single larger cause for the deaths then the article would be about that."

Then show me explicitly what the breakdown is.

"the _unnecessarily_ large vehicles"

Define unnecessarily. Do I get to buy one because I'm tall, have a big family, haul stuff?

[lonelyasacloud]

> Define unnecessarily. Do I get to buy one because I'm tall, have a big family, haul stuff?

Give or take inches around the waist we are the same size and shape. We have roughly the same mental faculties. Afaik we are no lesser than our parents and grandparents who all managed to do just fine without huge vehicles.

If a situation was fine before and changing something either does nothing or makes that situation worse e.g. kills 200 to 400 people, then that change is?

[giantg2]

"If a situation was fine before and changing something either does nothing or makes that situation worse"

But it's not. You forgot the size and weight of vehicles from previous generations. You forgot the higher fatalities of the past. You're ignoring that people today are taller. You're also ignoring that pedestrian fatalities have gone down over time when looking at the parents and grandparents timeframe to today, despite the more recent uptick.

[lonelyasacloud]

Just what from that list requires something that kills and maims other people because of its size to deliver it? Are their deaths worth it?