Much like Tesla’s half-baked and severely misrepresented self-driving technologies, it seems pretty clear we’re going to let the corpses pile up first, then maybe figure out policy solutions down the road a decade after the fact. Surely that will work out great for everybody involved. Especially cyclists and pedestrians already traversing overtly hostile transit design on the daily.
Garbage article. Completely manufactured conclusions on the article’s author not even supported by they “supporting” links. I read 3 of the “supporting” are articles and one is straight up an opinion piece, and the other supposed sources contradict the techdirt article suggesting EVs are getting singled out. Its the opposite, heavy vehicles in general, and EVs are actually getting a pass in some cases. In one case the author claims EVs are getting extra scrutiny and the very next line shows that its nothing specifically about EVs, but all heavy vehicles regardless of how they’re powered.
Don’t waste your time on this one.
You’re pretty angry about a piece that shares a few facts and opines that governments typically don’t do anything meaningful until people start dying.
Nah, not angry. Its presented as a news article presenting factual evidence. Not only doesn’t it present facts, its own sources contradict the author’s conclusions.
Its a waste of time to consume it.
until people start dying.
…and you’re doing the same thing. Heavy vehicles aren’t new. Vehicle design isn’t new. The outrage presented in the article, and your incendiary statement, have existed for decades. Why are you only now outraged?
I’m not outraged.
Your quote of me is a simplification of the excerpt the OP provided (the corpses pile up line). But if I were outraged (I’m not), my comment about your emotional denouncing of the article doesn’t magically become the starting point for your imagined outrage.
I read the article. I read techdirt often for their good sourcing and no pulled punches. I fail to see how using other articles for a source is a problem, especially when the source is supporting a claim like, “pointy cars.”
There were other sources for the facts of the article, like the NSC for fatality data.
I fail to see how using other articles for a source is a problem,
One of the sources is someone’s unsubstantiated opinion. Its fine for someone to write an opinion piece, but the techdirt article’s author is citing the opinion piece as fact. Other sources completely contradict the techdirt author’s statements where techdirt cites the other source as where that wrong statement came from. After checking 3 sources and finding problems with all three I gave up. The article and the author have zero credibility.
You’re welcome to keep reading that author’s work, just don’t make the same mistake the author makes and passing the article off as credible.
