Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
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:
m~1~v~1i~ + m~2~v~2i~ = m~1~v~1f~ + m~2~v~2f~
Let the vehicle be m~1~ and the human m~2~. 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:
m~1~v~1i~ = (m~1~+m~2~)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~ = m~1~/(m~1~+m~2~)
Already it is abundantly clear that when m~1~ >> m~2~, 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.
This is where you went wrong.
But, you're not asking questions. So, I'll not invest into answers.