tyler comments on They're so spacious

Interesting, because in vehicles that offer (e.g. 2nd row) captains and these, manufacturers consistently refer to this option as "bench". And I think they would pass as "bench" for most people, and most of the things that they would want out of it, even if they aren't the same as the older style.

Irrespective of nomenclature, these type of seats should be OK in the front row then, yes? Yet I can't think of any new vehicles that have them.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

It's quite hard to see, but some trucks offer this, except the middle seat is also the armrest.

manufacturers consistently refer to this option as “bench”. And I think they would pass as “bench” for most people, and most of the things that they would want out of it, even if they aren’t the same as the older style.

I guess I haven't seen that. The older style was literally just a single piece of padding all the way across. So you would literally slide on turns. Even the slightest bump stops you from moving as much.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

Look up the 2026 Suburban. They refer to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd row "bench". Also used for other GM vehicles.

Ford uses it for some of their vehicles (e.g. Explorer) but oddly not for others.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

Hm. I went and looked, but couldn't find any mention of bench, and only found one mention of the back seats at all, and it was for the heated second row bucket seats in the premier

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

Well I guess some marketing materials and configurations have it and others don't. Plenty of it out there does refer to it as bench seats, even if this particular one doesn't. Maybe it's a regional thing.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago

Yeah I think it’s probably regional. Though those seats in the suburban do look incredibly like bench seats. They would barely hold you in at all.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -1 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Interesting how they're unacceptable for cars but the norm for trains and they don't even have seatbelts

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] tyler@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Trains don’t take 90° turns, nor have other trains hit them at 90° angles.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -1 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Over an 8 year period there were 49 90 degree rail accidents with trucks at crossings in Australia

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)

... with trucks... that weigh hundreds of HUNDREDS of thousands of pounds less than a train (literally just the locomotive weighs 400 THOUSAND pounds/200 short tons, even a land train in australia has a maximum weight of 164 short tons). It's like saying "why don't bicycles have seatbelts when cars are required to". The car seatbelts are for collisions with other things at speed. A bike/car collision at 90 degrees is much more worrisome for the bike than the car.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

There are 25 rail passenger casualties for every 100 collisions with a heavy vehicle at a crossing, of which there are 14609 collisions with trucks in the US database over a ten year period to 2021

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] tyler@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Yeah you’re gonna need to start quoting your sources.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-04/RS-2021-001%20Final%20v1.2.pdf

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

Nice, you conveniently left out "25 rail passenger or staff" in your claim there. Meaning the person at the very front of the train, that gets smushed with the truck. Even with that, the level of fatalities is 45x lower than road fatalities. All you've done here is prove my point.

                | Total collisions | Rail fatalities | Rail injuries | Road fatalities | Road injuries
Heavy vehicles  | 4,886            | 5               | 1,230         | 228             | 1,143
Light vehicles  | 14,609           | 6               | 504           | 1,542           | 5,249

And fun little quote from your paper:

Fatalities to rail occupants were extremely rare, with 7 collisions (out of 19,495) resulting in 11 rail fatalities. There were 5 separate collisions involving heavy vehicles which each caused one rail fatality, whereas one collision involving a light vehicle resulted in 5 fatalities 20 (another collision with a light vehicle resulted in one fatality).

So 7 collisions out of 19,495 resulted in fatalities. A rate of .03% fatality rate... without seatbelts.

Yeah, I'm gonna reiterate it. All you've done is prove my point.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments