• ContrarianTrail
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Driving a truck and not wanting children to die in accidents are in-fact not in conflict with each other. Or are you implying that truck drivers do want them to die?

    • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Driving a truck and not wanting children to die in accidents are in-fact not in conflict with each other.

      Then design trucks which are not as deadly to pedestrians on impact.

      • ContrarianTrail
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Large vehicles are inherently going to be more dangerous to pedestrians than cars. If you make a truck the size of a car then it no longer functions in the role it was intented for. Why is everyone so focused on trucks anyway? The nose height on most vans is compareable and on semi trucks it double the height of a pickup yet nobody seems to be complaining about those.

          • ContrarianTrail
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Cars kill people every year. Trains and buses too. Ban those as well?

            • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Thanks for the strawman, I can burn it for fuel when winter comes.

              I see that you reference Sam Harris in a recent post. Thank you for making it clear that you’re not worth listening to, bye.

              • Thorny_Insight
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Blocking is always a good way to avoid needing to explain the contradictions in one’s reasoning.

    • Krzd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, but it clearly isn’t important enough to them to influence their choice.

      • ContrarianTrail
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So you think people should not buy trucks because they might be in the 0.1% of truck drivers who end up killing a pedestrian with it? What about the people who have a legitimate use for the bed?

        • Krzd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No, they shouldn’t because even in vehicle to vehicle collisions SUVs kill 4 times more people than cars. Source
          The people that have a legitimate use for such trucks should be required to apply for a exception and/or have a CDL.
          Because in fact almost no one actually needs those trucks. Source [1]
          Most people can use a trailer or rent a truck for the 1-2 times per year they need it.

          [1] I work at a hardware store, specifically in the construction materials department. In 2 years of working there I had literally 1 person use their truck bed to haul a pallet of concrete bags, everyone else either used vans or a trailer. And just 2 weeks ago I had the first customer that used a pickup truck (Mercedes X-Class) to tow a 2.5t trailer to transport paving slabs.
          So no, even trades people don’t need those trucks, so why the fuck should a normal “civilian” have those and be 4 times as likely to kill someone??