We have a 25% tariff on a whole slew of vehicles - about 60% of the US market, actually.  60%*25%+40%*2.5% = an average tariff of about 16%.

Good, then we will be able to refocus our security concerns to our true enemy, Canada.

F150 and Silverado have been extremely popular for decades. I was referencing the overall shift of market share among vehicle types. Truck sales have been relatively flat over the past 40 years, despite minor fluctuation based on the economy or gas prices. Cars have lost marketshare mostly to SUV’s.

This isn’t about the cause of the crash. This article, and the studies, say nothing about the cause of the crashes.

Well this is what happens when you try to counter data (SUVs kill disproportionately) with opinion (distracted driving is deadlier than SUVs). You walked out on this limb.

To be fair the title and lead paragraph(you know, the click generating parts) were kinda misleading too. Headline: ‘Death on foot: America’s love of SUVs is killing pedestrians’ and then the article goes on to examine multiple contributing causes, one of which is SUVs, but never really reaches a verdict as to whether…

Perhaps the reason you’re getting argumentative responses is that, while you’re making a perfectly reasonable point that distracted driving is a problem, there’s no reason to make impact-survivability its enemy. It’s a little like responding to an article about the efficacy of condoms in reducing the risk of HIV…

If you’d read the original article where the research was done rather than the Jalopnik article it examines multiple contributing causes. Distracted driving and walking have both gone up contributing to more pedestrian impacts and therefore deaths, SUV driving has gone up which means a higher proportion of pedestrian…

There’s literally a section in the referenced article titled “Distraction and other factors,” as well as a section here plainly stating:

Well, the point of this study would still stand even if smartphone usage were a factor as well—regardless of how likely to be hit due to distracted driving/walking, if/when you’re hit, you’re more likely to die if hit by an SUV.

Didn’t this same person also just attribute causation to something else without citing a single piece of data to support it?

“I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say I know better than the science”

We can get into the discussion of Capitalism and the Marxist belief that is a doomed concept destined to fail later, but I don’t have any issues with making money where there is money to be made - even at the expense of other people’s bad decision making - but to me, this falls somewhere between ticket scalping and…

I’m in the same boat as you. But it’s the American way, for everything from houses to sports paraphernalia to children’s toys. We even have reality TV shows about people who do this sort of thing for a living.

I get the impression from comments here that capitalism and the law of supply and demand are Challenging concepts, and people would rather Charge ahead and Demonize the Intrepid guy who does understand them.

And they need to bring back the wagon. My 2011 WRX was totaled in Harvey, I got the insurance payout, and that money is still sitting in the bank. I haven’t bothered buying another one because I don’t like the new sedans and finding a used wagon that hasn’t been modified by some flat-billed dude-bro takes too much…

You mean their losses call.

They’ve been working on it since 2012, not for 2-3 years. And there’s a bunch of companies in China and India that have done it recently, and Ford did it without the benefit of being able to hire people that knew how to design and build cars from other companies. No one’s done it in the U.S. because the market is…

No, and this is a problem.