thats what happen when the hood of cars become taller than actual children. Ford is responsible for countless of deaths.
Children
*Adults
I hate these high front ends now. Not only can you not see pedestrians, they are terrible for off-roading which is their supposed purpose. When go up any sort of incline you can’t see the road at all. A slanted down front end is better for visibility, aerodynamics, just about everything. This trend is stupid.
Their solution is to add a trail cam on the front so you can run over kids with impunity while also watching your line while off-roading.
These trucks don’t off road. They are pavement princesses.
a slanted down hood is required if you want to sell your cars in EU and most countries of Asia. Anything else negligent homicide, and the car makers should be held accountable
It’s not stupid if you’re an oil company trying to increase profits, then it makes perfect sense to make your oil guzzling death machine as big, bulky and inefficient as possible.
The vehicle didn’t hit them. A person driving the vehicle did. Stop with this regurgitation of passive police reports.
“9-year-old… hit by truck.” Someone should go have a talk with these trucks.
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.
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.
But in this case it’s actually the vehicle that is the problem. These trucks are simply unsafe and shouldn’t exist. The blame is to be put on the car manufacturer. Of course the drivers are at fault but I bet they didn’t want to squish their kids. They bought a car, assuming it should be safe to drive.
Still, fuck the drivers too.
what a waste of time
Is what your parents said after they had sex to conceive you
smooth, not contrived at all
Read the room, Asshole, what the fuck is wrong with you?
It seems you may have misread the room. The problem here is not only the driver but also the fucking vehicle. This kind of vehicle should not be allowed to exist, because it’s inherently unsafe.
Yes. The car the person was in didn’t hit them. When it got close enough, it transformed. Then the person spiderman’d off their wheel (now 10ft in the air) and kicked the poor little girl.
If we want to be correct, a car doesn’t work like a gun. Bullets kill people. Guns shoot bullets and people shoot guns. Saying “Guns shoot people” or “people shoot people” isn’t a stretch.
When dealing with collisions, saying “the vehicle didn’t hit them, the person did” means the one hit never came into contact with the car.
Neither does a shooting victm come into contact with the gun or shooter. This is why the analogy works for guns and not cars.
That person was most definitely hit by a car. But today, like a hudered years ago and for the forseeable future, someone was driving that car. So yeah, they were hit by the drivier of the car. But they werem’t hit by the driver and not the car. Then they must’ve stopped driving and given the victim a run for their money with a baseball bat. Which, again, most definitely did hit them.
Putting the news site aside, you are in a community called “fuck cars”. We focus on the issue with big cars, not reckless drivers.
We point out how ridiculous it is that north america gives multi-ton death machines to 16 year olds, alcoholics, senile people, and everyone in between because you can’t take away peoples driving licenses when there is no alternative transportation.
If you are here looking for humans to hate, you should probably find a different community.
I’d phrase it “The situation with huge oversized vehicles is out of control!”. We want standards back not “everything goes” in the name of profit.
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.
😒
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.
jfc like anybody asked, why even include that
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.
Because property has more rights than people in a hypercapitalist hellworld.
Also why tf do cops have a giant ass pickup truck now
Sometimes, they’re in the cop fleet because of civil asset forfeiture. Same reason they sometimes have Porsches and shit like that.
It’s Alberta, everybody and everything has a massive pickup truck. It’s the Texas of Canada, especially Calgary.
A fleet should be a mix so when an actual pickup truck might be needed one is available.
I imagine the mix is out of proportion though for some stupid reason.
This may be an ignorant question, but… Asking from a European perspective, where pick-ups aren’t super common, what do the police have to do in North America that would require a pick-up truck?
The police need vehicles capable of 4x4 in rural communities and rough dirt roads. This is to access the entire comunity but also give better success in chasing the drunk dodge ram driver into the corn field. The police also sometimes have things like trailers for crime scene investigation or boats for water based policing, they need a vehicle capable of towing those.
They also use some unmarked trucks for traffic control as they blend in better allowing them to do radar more effectively.
ram other pickups
that’s literally about it
SUVs/pickups are occasionally required for tossing stuff in the back to move it, like garbage/belongings/etc
Pickup trucks are not required for tossing stuff in the back. Because Europeans do need to transport stuff, from piles if dirt to wooden kitchens which need to be installed. And all of it most often doesnt happen with a pickup truck.
Or this kind of car for loading open air (“Pritschenwagen” in german)
All with normal grill-hight and probably a lower truckbed than pickup trucks
Or just a trailer. A lot of germans have something like this in their garage and use it only when needed instead of driving around with an integrated trailer all the time as people with a pickup do.
In denmark Garden trailers is very commen
There are several images but I think I know what you mean. Those are common for smaller gardeners in Switzerland.
In my township, the police supervisor drives the truck around. I don’t know why the fuck police supervision requires a truck, but “police supervisor” is what’s written on the side of it. Maybe they put the cops back there when they’re found passed-out drunk in their regular cruisers.
In addition to the other reply, they could service rural areas or uneven land. What if a chase / incident starts going through a farm field kinda thing.
A lot of pickups don’t even have 4 wheel drive though. A Toyota Landcruiser, Land Rover Defender, Mitsubishi Pajero, or hell even a Fiat Panda would do a better job.
I’d hope if the police were purchasing a pickup… they’d get them with 4wd…
Ego issues with cops and conservatives
deleted by creator
“Charges pending”
Gotta love how its “save the kids, protect the future” up until thier precious cars are at stake.
And I bet the car brains blame the children.
Had someone tell me that arresting a child for walking to the park alone was ok because of all the cars.
Why were the outside??
Also: kids these days!!
CAR*
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.
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.
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.
That would only work if it’s enforced. It’d be significantly harder to enforce that than a ban. I’ll take the ban please.
Vehicle-specific speed limits are long overdue. Even having 2 or 3 categories would go a long way.
Height limits for the front grille as well. So many trucks are up to my neck. It’s ridiculous.
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.
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
I would absolutely love for that
Yes it would fuck up traffic. and people would change their vehicle choice as a result
Front-view cameras for giant trucks?
Not a bad idea past a certain height
Those kids should have driven a pickup and carried a gun to defend themselves.
The driver dindu nuffin, fuck ur kids!
He already suffered enough metal stress over the dead lid, give him a break 🤡
a white pickup truck … the driver made a turn to continue north, striking the toddler.
The 9-year-old was sitting on her skateboard, which was rolling off the driveway, when she was struck by a Dodge pickup, RCMP said in a release.
What makes it out of control? Are we significantly above baseline pedestrian deaths relative to previous years?
any amount of dead children should be out of control.
What is the acceptable amount of dead children, that if kept at that level makes letting people drive gigantic emotional support trucks worth it?
“You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go ‘according to plan’. Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all ‘part of the plan’. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds.”
Well none would be the best obviously but that isn’t acknowledging reality. In my city we have a mandatory 25 mph max speed limit in residential neighborhoods and it is highly enforced. Policy changes can prevent these situations.
I agree that policy changes can prevent these children’s deaths. Speed limits are a nice start, but we can do better. Size limits for personal vehicles, investment in public transit and pedestrian infrastructure, repealing the myriad laws that enforce car dependency such as parking requirements, increased density and reduced zoning restrictions, banning cars in city centers, etc.
Maybe previous years have been out of control too? Especially since it is possible to cut down on traffic fatalities with policy changes.
https://www.motor1.com/news/767353/this-city-went-a-year-without-a-traffic-death/
