• @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18 months ago

    Go ahead but please please don’t go on a public road. There is enough death in the world, we don’t have to add to it when a blade flings off your turbine and takes out an innocent.

    • @jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Ironically, that’s nonsense. Experimental cars on public roads barely cause any deadly accidents (under 1%), unlike distracted road-certified human drivers (over 80%); there is still twice as many births than deaths per year, predictions don’t expect there to be “enough” deaths for a stable population before 2085; and wind turbine blades already can change pitch without flying apart anyway. 🤷

      • @ultorpha@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        I’m sorry, are you saying experimental cars cause almost 1% of road deaths, despite making up a tiny fraction of 1% of cars on the road? or is everything you just said made up and I majorly whooshed?

        • @jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You seem to have interpreted “under 1%” as “almost 1%” instead of “less than 1%”. Less than 1% includes 0%… which it isn’t, because there have been a few deaths caused by experimental cars, just far fewer than the hundreds of thousands caused by drivers of fully certified cars. Similarly, “over 80” includes figures like 84% or 92% that I’ve seen cited from a quick Google search.

          In any case, if you think any of what I said is made up, only way to be sure would be to check it out yourself, wouldn’t it?

          • @ultorpha@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            You seem to have interpreted “under 1%” as “almost 1%” instead of “less than 1%”. Less than 1% includes 0%… which it isn’t,

            Sure! But if you actually knew the figure, you’d say it. If you were making it up you’d use weasel words like “under 1%” when you knew the figure wasn’t near 1%.

            In any case, if you think any of what I said is made up, only way to be sure would be to check it out yourself, wouldn’t it?

            Sure, if authorities were in the habbit of reporting road deaths split by “experimental” and “non-exprimental” cars. If they aren’t, the only option is to make it up.

            I wasn’t able to find any stats, but it seems irrelevant anyway. You basically saw someone saying “please don’t try to sit on an airplane as it flies”, and decided to reply with “that’s ridiculous fear mongering, less than 1% of aircraft deaths are from people riding on aircraft”. The fact experimental cars are a tiny proportion of total cars makes your comparison meaningless.