Source for further reading? I’m also pretty invested in road design and I’d like to learn more about how it’s done in Ontario.

Smyths

Thank you for being an amazing admin!

I know it from the tribute plaque to the Apollo 1 astronauts who sadly passed in a tragic fire during ground tests.

Same location, look for the tall white tower with the vertical stripes and balconies, which is in the middle of the bottom photo. Top photo is slightly more zoomed out.

BIIS

Is it your instance or my instance doing the censoring here? Scunthorpe effect at work.

At the risk of feeding the troll, here is the math you are suggesting we do, which disproves all of your arguments. It pains me how confidently you speak of a topic you are clearly so uneducated about: your physics mentors should be disappointed in you.

Conservation of linear momentum:

m₁v_1i + m₂v_2i = m₁v_1f + m₂v_2f

Let the vehicle be m₁ and the human m₂. Let the human’s initial velocity be zero. Let us further assume an inelastic collision: the human and vehicle end up at the same final speed v_1f=v_2f=v_f.

Thus:

m₁v_1i = (m₁+m₂)v_f

What we are concerned of is the ratio of initial vehicle speed, v_1i, to post-collision speed v_f. Your argument is that a lighter vehicle will have a larger drop-off in speed, recovering energy and reducing the severity of the collision. If you were right, the ratio v_1i/v_f should be less than 1.0, and be significantly different for a heavy and light vehicle. We will prove this wrong shortly.

Rearranging:

v_1i/v_f = m₁/(m₁+m₂)

Already it is abundantly clear that when m₁ >> m₂, v_1i/v_f will be 100%. I will leave you no room for counterargument here by working two examples. Take the most popular pickup truck, the Ford F150, at 2125 kg. Take one of the smallest compact cars, a Honda Fit, at 1130 kg. Take the average adult human, at 65 kg.

For the F150: v_1i/v_f = 2125/(2125+65) = 97%

For the Honda fit: v_1i/v_f = 1130/(1130+65) = 95%

At 35 mph, that’s a difference in speed delta of 0.7 mph, which is absolutely insufficient to explain the delta in injury severity presented in this article.

This proves what everyone knew all along: vehicle mass is insignificant in crash severity with a pedestrian because the masses of the two objects are so different. When the masses are similar (e.g. a small car colliding with a big car) yes, mass is important. But that’s not what is being discussed and is not your argument.

I hope you go back to school and learn the basics before confidently acting superior. Take your downvotes and learn from this to do better.

Survivorship bias?

You know what else pisses people off: the fact that speeding kills 33 Americans every day and permanently disables dozens more.[1]

The downvotes on this comment are a testament to the privilege of drivers. It’s crazy how good people, who would otherwise not break the law, believe it’s their right to speed. And before someone tells me it’s a victimless crime I’ll remind everyone that speeding kills both those inside and outside of your car.

Two facts:

1. The average occupancy of a car in my North American city is 1.2 people per car. This does not vary much by city.
2. Autonomous vehicles will almost certainly be worse for traffic than human driven cars. They will circle empty with no passengers and drive to pick up passengers empty (dead heading) even with a fully rideshare system. If there is widespread private ownership of autonomous vehicles (and you bet your butt that car companies will campaign for this aggressively to keep sales up), the dead heading problems only multiply. If you don’t believe me, look up any recent literature on the topic: by most accounts it will be worse, not better. Dead heading is only the tip of the iceberg of problems there.

Followed by a hyperlink to the page for cunt

I don’t know, if I were surprised by a panther I think I would also be shocked and say holy shit, haha. How should I react to not get hirt?

Ellipses… definitely.

Sentences ending a full stop. Somewhat.

Very context dependent though

i.e. as “in effect” is even easier

I as pro-EV as the best of them. A cradle to grave emissions drop of 40% is a great step forward on reducing transport emissions (public transport and active transportation are a whole other aspect of this we’ll avoid here). However, characterizing the energy gap for EV charging as a non-issue is disingenuous.

You’ve correctly pointed out that peak hours are when the grid is most strained and vulnerable. Well, if most everyone who drives to work starts charging their EV when they get home from work, that is at the highest peak of the day: around 5-7pm. It’s the addition to the peak curve that’s the real concern. In most places, that means triggering on fossil fuel burning facilities to meet that peak demand. It also means increased peak loads on the transmission infrastructure that could overwhelm it.

That being said, there are some simple solutions: e.g. charge EVs on off-peak hours, smoothing out the demand on the grid. Where I live there is already an incentive to charge overnight in the form of ultra low overnight rates. I’m sure we’ll find the solutions, but please don’t pretend it’s not a problem.

The answer to why is billions of dollars of subsidies to the animal meat industry.

Yes it affects parts too, at least batteries. Stifling electric car production isn’t enough, ebikes get caught in the crossfire too.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=2026997

No, the building on that land is assessed for value and property tax is levied based on that assessment. This is how it works throughout Canada/the US.