• @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    329 days ago

    Both vehicles involved are the type that make it impossible to see kids standing 10 feet away. These should he banned unless a second person is spotting, like what you’d do around construction vehicles.

    A 9-year-old girl is dead after being hit by a truck…

    The driver of the pickup was not injured in the collision.

    😒

    • @sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      You forgot:

      The truck was not damaged by the unprovoked child ambush

      Now there’s peak carbrain, just phrase it as insanely as when cops shoot a completely innocent person for no reason.

      • @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        129 days ago

        I see it in every article when a pedestrian or cyclist is killed, as if there was a chance the driver would be even mildly injured. Or that anyone would care, seeing how they killed someone else.

        It’s infuriating.

  • Rentlar
    link
    fedilink
    English
    0
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    I don’t want to ban pick up trucks.

    Instead, put 15km/h (10mph) speed limits in residential areas, 40km/h (25mph) speed limits on arterial roads, and an 105km/h (65mph) electronic highway speed limiter, exclusively for vehicles with bonnet height above 40" or 1m. That will mitigate the danger these vehicles have on our roads.

      • @mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        129 days ago

        I would absolutely love for that

        Yes it would fuck up traffic. and people would change their vehicle choice as a result

        • @ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          129 days ago

          I drive a little roadster and those trucks are especially terrifying for me. I know they can’t fucking see me at all when I’m driving next to them on the right.

        • @mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          129 days ago

          don’t forget to give these drivers the finger and flash your high beams at them when they drive towards you at night!

          so sick of getting blinded by headlights, flashing somebody, and then they flash their “high beams” back but it’s almost impossible to tell the difference

          I do want to point out that while aiming and headlight height are a factor that makes it worse, it’s the sheer brightness in the first place that’s the main issue with headlights

    • @dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      Enforcement, or the need for constant traffic surveillance, has already been raised as a problem with this approach. People tend to drive as fast as they feel safe on most streets, with the occasional unaware jerk screwing everything up. The threat of a possible ticket doesn’t really work, or else we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place.

      A better approach is re-engineering streets for traffic calming. Basically threaten drivers with breaking or damaging their vehicle if they try too drive fast and/or in a straight line. Way more effective.

      https://www.smatstraffic.com/blog/traffic-calming

      • Rentlar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        128 days ago

        I agree, but I living in Toronto I found that people wanted to go 20-30% above the limit, so when it was 60 drivers would go 75-80, now it’s 50 so they go 60-65.

  • @falidorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    029 days ago

    The vehicle didn’t hit them. A person driving the vehicle did. Stop with this regurgitation of passive police reports.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      029 days ago

      No, actually please stop with regurgitating weird language constructs.

      Everybody knows that a car doesn’t drive itself (STFU Tesla fanboys, it doesn’t) and that a driver is responsible.

      That, and yes, a vehicle DID hit them. It’s not like the driver stopped, got out and beat the shit out of the toddler, his car, driven by him (doh) hit the toddler and killed her.

      • @sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        No, its still passive voicing that intermediates between the actor and the act.

        The vehicle struck the child

        vs

        The driver struck the child

        is analgous to

        The bullet struck the child

        vs

        The cop shot the child

        EDIT:

        With the active phrasing… you can just append a following clause to give more detail, and it flows naturally.

        The driver struck the child [with the truck] , [unaware of their presence].

        The cop shot the child [unintentionally] / [with their service pistol], [while pursuing a suspect].

        These kinds of statements are active voiced, and also more fact/detail content heavy.

        It is entirely possible to use active voicing and also be precise… you’re bending over backwards with your hyperbolic example.

        The whole point of using passive voicing is that it works on the reader at a subconscious or subliminal level.

        Yes, ‘everybody knows’ that a car doesn’t drive itself, but phrasing and vocabulary have always been key elements of propaganda, because only more literate, more critically analytic readers realize what is happening in a more conscious way.