jaco1001 t1_j3mc1nt wrote on January 9, 2023 at 3:50 PM

Reply to comment by Rugrats-theme-song in Car owners are always made to be a villain. by [deleted]

my small quibble with this is that it's not that cars are more "PHYSICALLY protected" it's that cars cause insane damage when they strike things due to their size/weight/speed. It's not about the protection that the driver has, it's about the fact that the things/people that drivers hit suffer terrible injuries. The trend seems to be making cars bigger, higher up, and with poorer visibility, aka more dangerous to bikes/pedestrians/children.

Rugrats-theme-song t1_j3miiye wrote on January 9, 2023 at 4:32 PM

So a person in a car is more physically protected than anyone or anything they will hit?

That’s literally, exactly what I said

jaco1001 t1_j3mq4dz wrote on January 9, 2023 at 5:20 PM

no, it's not. reading comprehension is low here. you're focused on the defense provided to the driver. that's not the issue. it's that the car is an offensive weapon. if you cant grok the different that's on you.

Rugrats-theme-song t1_j3mqh44 wrote on January 9, 2023 at 5:22 PM

Lol at you insulting my comprehension skills when you wouldn’t even put in the extra effort to spell check your own comment

And you’re still just stating the exact same thing from a different vantage point.

People in cars are more protected = things cars hit are less protected

They’re the same statement 🤣

jaco1001 t1_j3mrset wrote on January 9, 2023 at 5:30 PM

>We’re way more PHYSICALLY protected if a collision happens.

is not the same as

"we cause terrible injuries in collisions because we are the bigger, heavier, faster party"

but it is a very car-centric view on the subject, which in of itself is interesting. and yes, your reading comprehension is poor, regardless of my spelling