[0:00] All right. So, if I were to tell you
[0:02] that pedestrian fatalities were on the
[0:04] rise in the United States, you'd
[0:06] probably think the cause was some kind
[0:08] of distracted or impaired driving,
[0:10] right? Texting, touch screens, talking
[0:13] to passengers, buzzed driving, drunk
[0:16] driving, bad driving, all of the typical
[0:20] causes.
[0:21] Except smartphones are everywhere.
[0:24] Modern tech is pervasive in cars
[0:26] throughout the world, and bad or
[0:28] irresponsible drivers aren't exclusive
[0:31] to one nation or region.
[0:34] But you know what is?
[0:36] The statistic that pedestrian deaths
[0:39] have increased by 75%
[0:43] since 2009.
[0:46] And that statistic that exists nowhere
[0:49] else in the world belongs to the good
[0:52] old red, white, and blue, because of
[0:55] course it does.
[0:57] But why?
[0:59] Well, a new study suggests that the
[1:02] American auto industry's obsession with
[1:05] larger vehicles is contributing to an
[1:08] inescapably bleak landscape of
[1:11] pedestrian danger.
[1:14] And that sounds pretty ominous, but this
[1:16] is also just what one study is saying,
[1:19] and you know me, I can never just look
[1:21] at one study. Okay, maybe not never,
[1:23] just rarely.
[1:25] So, we're going to get to the bottom of
[1:27] this. Is the blame on large trucks and
[1:30] SUVs for pedestrian fatalities
[1:33] misplaced, or is it squarely where it
[1:37] belongs? And is this ultimately the
[1:40] fault of the drivers whose appetite for
[1:42] these cars increases every year, or is
[1:46] this on an industry that prioritizes
[1:49] size at the expense of pedestrian
[1:52] safety?
[1:54] Or is it something else altogether?
[1:58] >> Submit report at the end of the month
[2:01] and I make what I want when I feel like
[2:04] discussing cars.
[2:06] >> On June 21st, the New York Times
[2:09] published an extensive investigative
[2:12] study on the cause of the 75%
[2:15] increase in pedestrian motor vehicle
[2:18] deaths in the United States since 2009.
[2:22] And they came to the same conclusions as
[2:25] far many people on Hinge. Size, or more
[2:30] particularly height, matters.
[2:33] As the report notes, quote, "After
[2:37] analyzing federal and industry records,
[2:40] including never-before-examined
[2:42] data on vehicle dimensions, we found
[2:45] that the rise of large pickups and SUVs
[2:48] is an important factor. Our estimate is
[2:52] that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year
[2:56] would not have died if vehicles had
[2:58] remained approximately the same size
[3:02] over the past quarter century. That
[3:05] represents about 10% of the recent
[3:08] increase in pedestrian deaths."
[3:12] End quote.
[3:14] I've linked the article in the
[3:16] description, and I highly recommend
[3:17] checking it out. It's fairly interactive
[3:20] with 3D recreations and a drop-down menu
[3:24] for you to put in your height to see how
[3:25] much likelier you are to get knocked
[3:28] down by today's cars and how much lower
[3:31] that likelihood would have been roughly
[3:33] 25 years ago. So, for me, I'm a short
[3:36] king at 5'7" and 1/2, so let's round
[3:40] that up to 5'8" because shut up. And I'm
[3:42] likely to be knocked down by about 43%
[3:45] of vehicles today. In 2002, the same
[3:49] model year as Estelle, my Toyota
[3:53] that I drive every single day, that
[3:56] number would have been 31%.
[3:59] Either way, I am clearly in peril, but I
[4:01] was in considerably less peril in 2002
[4:05] than I am today. And I really hope I'm
[4:07] not jinxing anything by saying that.
[4:10] Regardless, it's a dramatic increase
[4:12] caused by what the report found was the
[4:15] even more dramatic increase in the
[4:18] average hood height of American cars
[4:20] today. And they're talking all cars, not
[4:23] just trucks and SUVs, as the average
[4:26] passenger vehicle today has a hood
[4:29] that's roughly 3 ft high, meaning that,
[4:32] as the study notes, quote,
[4:35] "Anyone shorter than 5 ft 6, about half
[4:39] of American adults, would frequently be
[4:42] rammed to the pavement. So would most
[4:46] children."
[4:48] End quote.
[4:51] Basically, in instances where a
[4:53] pedestrian is struck by a vehicle with a
[4:55] lower hood, the chances are better for
[4:58] the person to be sent rolling over top
[5:00] of the car rather than the car rolling
[5:03] over top of them. The hood essentially
[5:05] absorbs a lot of the momentum, so that
[5:07] by the time the pedestrian falls off of
[5:10] the car, they're hitting the ground at a
[5:12] lower speed than they would have been
[5:14] had they been struck by a vehicle with a
[5:16] higher hood line that caught them higher
[5:19] on the body and just, you know, planted
[5:22] them straight onto the ground at full
[5:24] speed. But then, taller hoods aren't the
[5:27] only issue here with regards to
[5:29] visibility.
[5:30] There's another aspect of large trucks
[5:33] and SUVs that make them uniquely
[5:36] dangerous to pedestrians and even to
[5:39] drivers themselves. And it's something
[5:42] we complain about a lot on this channel.
[5:46] And that's
[5:47] thick A-pillars.
[5:49] I mean, really, with a lot of the
[5:51] contemporary trucks we've done recently,
[5:54] it's a huge problem. When the A-pillars
[5:57] are big and chunky, they hamper
[5:59] visibility so that it feels like you're
[6:01] driving with one eye closed or wearing a
[6:04] dope eye patch like some kind of pirate
[6:07] of the turnpike.
[6:09] Just from the vehicle you chose, you're
[6:12] starting off with a smaller visual space
[6:15] than you might have had in a smaller
[6:17] passenger car.
[6:19] Your vision is as limited as the
[6:21] availability of the McRib, and your
[6:24] experience is hardly ever better for it
[6:27] because the entire reason those
[6:29] A-pillars are so thick has nothing to do
[6:32] with improving visibility or sightlines
[6:36] or anything like that. Rather, it's
[6:38] because of laws enacted in 2009 that
[6:41] required automakers to build roofs that
[6:44] could support three times the weight of
[6:47] the car in response to an increase in
[6:49] rollover deaths. Except reinforcing the
[6:53] roofs meant they had to also reinforce
[6:56] the A-pillars to support them. And,
[6:59] ironically, in trying to solve the
[7:01] problem of rollover deaths, they created
[7:04] a new problem that shifted the mortality
[7:07] rate to a different cause while also
[7:10] potentially contributing to exactly the
[7:12] kinds of deaths they were trying to
[7:14] prevent in the first place.
[7:17] Because those taller hoods and
[7:19] reinforced roofs with the chunky
[7:21] A-pillars are going to have a center of
[7:24] gravity that's a whole hell of a lot
[7:26] higher than your average Camry or
[7:28] Corolla, all the heavy front end
[7:31] components necessary for the car's
[7:33] operation are going to be higher off the
[7:36] ground than they would be in that
[7:38] aforementioned Camry or Corolla. So, at
[7:42] best, you're at increased risk of body
[7:45] roll, and at worst, you're increasing
[7:48] the possibility for a rollover. And
[7:52] worse than that, by being higher off the
[7:54] ground, a collision with a smaller car
[7:58] could lead to a sort of monster truck
[8:00] effect, where you're overriding their
[8:02] engine or trunk components, rather than
[8:05] having that energy dispersed through
[8:08] crumple zones. And now you're risking
[8:10] causing fires, causing explosions, all
[8:13] the ridiculous action movie BS that
[8:16] leaves investigators checking dental
[8:18] records.
[8:19] And this is to say nothing of the
[8:22] psychological effect of larger vehicles
[8:25] on their drivers, namely the false
[8:28] illusion of security that being higher
[8:31] off the ground will give you. I mean,
[8:33] it's true that in some ways you are
[8:35] safer than the hypothetical car that
[8:38] your truck would be hitting, but you are
[8:41] not invincible up there in your Chevy
[8:43] Colorado. Pickup truck drivers have
[8:46] reported instances of speed blindness,
[8:48] which is theorized to be a byproduct of
[8:51] command seating, because the height can
[8:53] create a disconnect from the sensation
[8:56] of speed, so that you don't feel how
[8:58] fast you're really going. And in fact,
[9:01] while researching this topic, I read a
[9:03] 2006 traffic injury prevention study
[9:08] that actually measured this by putting
[9:10] test subjects in a driving simulator.
[9:13] One group had their simulator set to the
[9:16] ride height of a sports car, while the
[9:18] other group had their set to one of
[9:20] these Mount Everest-ass trucks. And
[9:23] while you would think that the people
[9:25] with the sports car ride heights would
[9:28] be going faster, the study found that
[9:31] while ride height ultimately didn't
[9:34] influence things like follow distance or
[9:37] driver aggression, they did influence
[9:39] speed and consistency.
[9:43] Quote,
[9:44] "When viewing the road from a high eye
[9:47] height, drivers drove faster with more
[9:51] variability and were less able to
[9:54] maintain a consistent position within
[9:57] the lane than when viewing the road from
[10:00] a low eye height."
[10:03] End quote.
[10:05] But okay, what about the visual
[10:07] obstruction of tall hood lines?
[10:10] Well, the New York Times study compared
[10:13] the hood height on current models to
[10:16] their counterparts from 25 to 30 years
[10:19] ago. In this case, the Chevrolet
[10:22] Silverado, the Ford F-150, the GMC
[10:25] Sierra, and the Toyota Tacoma.
[10:29] Their findings,
[10:30] quote,
[10:32] "The Silverado's blind zones have nearly
[10:35] doubled. The Sierras and the Tacomas
[10:38] grew by about 60%.
[10:41] The smallest increase was the F-150's.
[10:45] Its blind zones grew by about 25%."
[10:51] End quote.
[10:54] Per their example, there's been an
[10:56] alarming Jack and the Beanstalk kind of
[10:59] growth in production cars the past two
[11:02] decades and change.
[11:04] As they put it, a 2002 Toyota Corolla
[11:07] had a 26-in hood. 12 years later, the
[11:11] 2014 Ford Escape would have a 36-in
[11:14] hood. By 2022, the Chevrolet Silverado
[11:19] had a 47-in hood. And now, options like
[11:22] the Ford F-250 and the Chevrolet
[11:25] Silverado 2500
[11:28] have hoods in excess of 50 in.
[11:33] Now, while I appreciate the Times as
[11:36] study, I find it kind of dumb to compare
[11:38] completely different classes of vehicles
[11:41] as if a sedan transformed into an SUV
[11:44] and then into a pickup. But even just by
[11:48] looking at, say, a 2002 Toyota Tacoma
[11:52] rather than a Corolla, the hood height
[11:54] was around the mid-30s in inches, while
[11:58] the current Tacoma has a hood height
[12:00] around 48 in. And frankly, that
[12:04] difference is stark enough to be a
[12:06] problem because at 4 ft high, that truck
[12:10] is not hitting you in a way that safely
[12:12] disperses anything except brain matter.
[12:16] It's hitting you higher up on the body,
[12:18] and your likelihood of survival is
[12:21] likely to drastically decrease as a
[12:24] result.
[12:25] But I think what's most troubling about
[12:27] all of this is how none of it is new.
[12:31] Yeah, the information gleaned from the
[12:33] New York Times study is new, but the
[12:35] concept of higher ride height vehicles
[12:38] being a nightmare for pedestrian safety
[12:40] is about as far from new information as
[12:42] we can get short of an email blast about
[12:45] the color of the sky and the price of
[12:48] printer ink.
[12:49] Researchers allegedly met with senior
[12:52] officials from the National Highway
[12:54] Traffic Safety Administration to warn
[12:57] about the dangers to pedestrians as far
[12:59] back as November 2022,
[13:02] only for no action to be taken,
[13:05] supposedly. Worse, there was outright
[13:08] denial as a senior official for the
[13:11] NHTSA argued that safety was already
[13:14] improving thanks to pedestrian sensing
[13:17] technology in cars. And while I'm sure
[13:21] that's true, it's bad enough that we
[13:23] rely on technology for as much as we do.
[13:26] But if we're really expecting sensors to
[13:29] replace our own eyes, then I'm not even
[13:31] sure why cars need drivers in the first
[13:35] place. Because as we've learned through
[13:37] years of experimentation with autonomous
[13:40] driving, sensors fail. And even when
[13:43] they don't, they're not exactly batting
[13:46] a thousand when it comes to detecting an
[13:48] object in the road before it's too late.
[13:51] But even ignoring the New York Times
[13:53] article completely, we can find
[13:55] instances going back nearly 30 years of
[13:59] height being an issue on American cars,
[14:01] starting with a report in 2022 by the
[14:04] Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
[14:07] which researched causes of 14,000 fatal
[14:10] pedestrian accidents, and found that
[14:13] pickup trucks were 51% more likely than
[14:17] cars to be involved in a fatal
[14:19] pedestrian hit-and-run than an average
[14:21] car. While SUVs were 25% more likely.
[14:26] And the likelihood of a pedestrian
[14:28] accident occurring during a left turn
[14:31] jumped through the roof if you aren't
[14:34] driving a run-of-the-mill passenger car
[14:36] like a sedan or a coupe, as SUVs saw
[14:39] double the accident rate of cars, vans
[14:42] and minivans nearly triple, and pickup
[14:46] trucks nearly quadruple.
[14:50] A year prior to that study, Consumer
[14:52] Reports found that the average hood
[14:54] height of passenger trucks has seen an
[14:56] 11% increase since 2000, with some
[15:01] heavy-duty trucks having hoods as tall
[15:04] as the roof of some sedans. A completely
[15:08] different study by economist Justin
[15:11] Tyndall of the University of Hawaii,
[15:13] which analyzed traffic fatalities
[15:16] between 2000 and 2019,
[15:19] theorized that had all light trucks
[15:22] involved in those accidents been
[15:24] replaced by standard cars, over 8,000
[15:28] pedestrian deaths could have been
[15:30] avoided.
[15:32] And we can keep going further back, like
[15:35] a different traffic injury prevention
[15:38] study, this one in 2009, that found that
[15:42] the risk of fatal injury for pedestrians
[15:44] is 50% greater in collisions with light
[15:48] truck vehicles than in conventional
[15:51] cars.
[15:53] And this is backed up by a 2003 report
[15:56] by the Association for the Advancement
[15:59] of Automotive Medicine, citing that
[16:02] light truck vehicles have greater
[16:04] instances of severe injury or death than
[16:07] standard passenger cars. Meanwhile, a
[16:11] study on pedestrian injuries by vehicle
[16:14] type in Maryland between 1995 and 1999
[16:19] noted that, quote, at lower speeds,
[16:22] pedestrians struck by sport utility
[16:25] vehicles, pickup trucks, and vans were
[16:28] approximately two times as likely to
[16:31] have traumatic brain, thoracic, and
[16:34] abdominal injuries. At higher speeds,
[16:38] there was no such association.
[16:42] End quote.
[16:44] So, at higher speeds, you're pretty much
[16:46] boned either way, but at lower speeds,
[16:49] the danger is evident. And look, I can
[16:52] keep going on, but at a certain point,
[16:55] the past becomes prologue and then main
[16:58] story and then epilogue and then sequel,
[17:01] because we've been warned about this
[17:03] forever while virtually nothing is ever
[17:06] done about it. I mean, I guess you could
[17:07] say that pedestrian detection technology
[17:10] is something being done about it, but I
[17:13] don't know that it accounts for the
[17:15] basic problem that people have less
[17:18] visibility now than they did a quarter
[17:20] century ago. And while I like giving
[17:22] both potential sides to the story and
[17:25] even considered trying some kind of
[17:27] devil's advocacy for taller trucks and
[17:30] SUVs, you know, really making an
[17:32] argument on their behalf, I kind of feel
[17:35] like that would have been irresponsible.
[17:37] But even if I were to go through with
[17:39] it, I couldn't find a single scholarly
[17:41] source that could point to this fear
[17:43] being overblown in any way whatsoever.
[17:47] Bigger vehicles impose bigger dangers
[17:50] and greater risks for pedestrians and
[17:53] for drivers. And so, if the dangers are
[17:56] not being overblown, then that leaves us
[17:58] to question who's at fault here. Is it
[18:01] automakers for producing these taller
[18:04] vehicles, or is it consumers who buy
[18:07] these vehicles that compel automakers to
[18:10] continue making them?
[18:12] After all, the F-Series pickups are
[18:14] routinely among the top-selling vehicles
[18:17] in America in any given year, in
[18:20] addition to being among the tallest. And
[18:24] the companies that have abandoned
[18:26] internal combustion sedans might not
[18:28] have done so had people still bought
[18:31] them, or had tall crossover SUVs and
[18:34] pickup trucks not been as popular at
[18:37] high dollar values as they became. At
[18:40] least theoretically, right?
[18:43] But think about it. Consumers are often
[18:46] at the mercy of what's advertised to
[18:48] them and how it's advertised to them.
[18:51] There's more than a little manipulation
[18:53] involved in talking people into a car.
[18:56] Our buttons are pressed and our strings
[18:59] are pulled, and sometimes we're
[19:00] compelled into cars we didn't know we
[19:03] wanted. And it's because
[19:06] we didn't want them.
[19:08] >> [laughter]
[19:08] >> Not at first, anyway, but we got talked
[19:10] into them by seductive advertising,
[19:13] celebrity endorsements, or just the envy
[19:16] that goes along with keeping up with the
[19:17] Joneses. Like, "Oh, my neighbor has the
[19:20] new Tacoma. I want the new I want the
[19:22] new Tacoma because that guy sucks and
[19:25] I'm better than him. So, why shouldn't I
[19:27] have it, too? Hell, why shouldn't I have
[19:29] better?" It's a confusing rat race that
[19:32] has the potential to affect even those
[19:35] who consider themselves immune to
[19:37] targeted advertising. People who feel
[19:40] their brains can never be touched by the
[19:42] subliminal or the overt. But as
[19:45] advertising becomes more sophisticated
[19:48] and more integrated into our everyday
[19:51] lives,
[19:52] I don't actually know how to finish this
[19:54] sentence because I realize now
[19:56] >> [laughter]
[19:56] >> that there's a non-trivial chance
[19:58] YouTube interrupts it with an ad and
[20:01] torpedoes any kind of point I'm trying
[20:04] to make. So, the question, back to the
[20:06] question, the central question that
[20:09] remains and it's this.
[20:12] If we say grace, eat the meal, and then
[20:16] go up for seconds, do we need to say
[20:19] grace for the seconds? Wait, sorry. Uh
[20:22] wrong notebook. That is
[20:25] my notebook for toilet seat
[20:27] observations.
[20:29] Um
[20:30] All right, you know what? Just
[20:33] Oh oh okay here.
[20:35] The real question. Who is truly to blame
[20:39] for cars getting larger?
[20:42] And at the risk of having already made
[20:44] my own argument for myself just now, I
[20:48] do think this is a corporate issue.
[20:51] People defending the auto makers might
[20:54] say that they had large, tall vehicles
[20:56] imposed upon them by legislation that
[20:59] required them to start making reinforced
[21:02] roofs by legislators who have no idea
[21:06] what goes into making a car or what the
[21:09] trickle-down effects of such a mandate
[21:12] would be.
[21:13] That by being forced to build sturdier
[21:16] hoods, they would need to obstruct
[21:18] visibility through chunky A-pillars, and
[21:21] that the hoods would rise to meet all
[21:23] these dimensional changes over the years
[21:26] once people actually started buying
[21:28] these bigger cars en masse to where the
[21:32] American automotive industry couldn't
[21:34] have survived without them. And maybe
[21:37] there's something to that since the law
[21:40] about the rollover prevention was
[21:42] instituted on the back of the near
[21:44] collapse of the entire industry in 2009.
[21:49] But even if we allow that, I don't think
[21:52] it absolves automakers from nearly two
[21:55] decades of concerted advertising
[21:58] intended to get consumers into
[22:00] ever-growing monstrosities to justify
[22:04] profit margins. Because while these
[22:06] trucks aren't cheap to make, it's always
[22:09] been my understanding that the
[22:10] production cost difference with a
[22:13] smaller crossover isn't that extreme.
[22:16] Yet because these sell at such a high
[22:19] dollar value, these bigger vehicles
[22:22] stand to be more profitable. And so we
[22:25] see trucks with dollar values and hood
[22:28] lines that reach
[22:32] while consumers in search of smaller
[22:34] options find slim pickings among new
[22:37] offerings unless they want to get an EV.
[22:39] And EVs aren't always practical in
[22:42] certain regions because the
[22:44] infrastructure might not be there yet.
[22:47] So pedestrian bodies stack like flaccid
[22:50] hotcakes while ads convince emotionally
[22:53] stunted gas pump sticker vandals that
[22:56] they need a heavy-duty road hulk just to
[22:59] go see their divorce attorney or
[23:01] convince a married mother of one that
[23:03] she needs a three-row boulder of
[23:06] Sisyphus just to get her son to karate
[23:08] practice. But by instilling in consumers
[23:12] the desire for these cars, automakers
[23:14] have reinforced the belief that they
[23:17] deserve these cars, which presumably
[23:20] would make this a lot harder for the
[23:22] industry to walk back if they ever did
[23:24] try and shrink their collective
[23:26] automotive output.
[23:28] It's getting to the point where we're
[23:30] going to need to start putting amusement
[23:32] park ride height signs by the front door
[23:34] of every home. You need to be this high
[23:37] to go outside unless you're cool with
[23:39] getting flattened playing the world's
[23:41] most dystopian version of Frogger.
[23:44] It's like the solution to the danger is
[23:47] to simply retreat from it, or to get a
[23:50] tall vehicle of your own. You know, if
[23:53] you can't beat them, join them. And it
[23:55] got me thinking, there have been a lot
[23:57] of comedians over the years who have
[23:59] made a mint on talking about the old
[24:01] days and how parents didn't care where
[24:03] you went as long as you were back by
[24:06] dark and how soft current generations
[24:08] are because their parents only let them
[24:10] play between the front porch and the
[24:12] family car in the driveway. And all
[24:15] because they're afraid of their kid
[24:17] being swiped by some weirdo in an
[24:20] unmarked van. And maybe that's true, but
[24:23] honestly, I don't think it's entirely
[24:25] implausible to suggest that there's a
[24:27] parent out there who tells their kid to
[24:29] stay close, not simply because of some
[24:32] vague threat of a weirdo in an unmarked
[24:35] van, but because that weirdo's unmarked
[24:38] van is too high to see their kid in the
[24:41] first place.
[24:43] But okay, that is all just worst-case
[24:47] scenario dooming. It's outlandish, it's
[24:51] over the top, and it's probably
[24:53] unnecessary.
[24:55] But then maybe it's not.
[24:57] Maybe the thing that's really
[24:59] unnecessary is pretending that tall
[25:02] cars, trucks, and SUVs aren't a problem.
[25:06] Either way, it does seem that the likely
[25:09] outcome for this, sadly, is that
[25:12] pedestrian injuries continue unabated,
[25:15] and people find that they have to adjust
[25:18] by exhibiting an abundance of caution.
[25:21] Call it
[25:22] an evolutionary adoption of additional
[25:26] precaution.
[25:27] But, the reason these studies and their
[25:30] results matter is because they suggest
[25:34] that not everybody has the information
[25:36] available to them to be cautious. I
[25:39] mean, if a driver doesn't have visual
[25:42] evidence of your presence, if their eyes
[25:44] are not taking in that visual
[25:46] information because they've been
[25:48] physically impeded from doing so, then
[25:51] they can't adjust their speed. They
[25:53] can't adjust their movement. And by the
[25:56] same token, the pedestrian can't adjust
[26:00] their behavior to account for the sudden
[26:02] acceleration or turning of a driver who
[26:06] doesn't even see that they're there.
[26:09] Is the solution shorter cars?
[26:13] Probably.
[26:14] But I also feel like putting the
[26:16] toothpaste back in the tube is harder
[26:19] than just brushing with the excess,
[26:22] which is to say, we need to make the
[26:24] best of a less-than-ideal situation. And
[26:28] while fighting for lasting change is
[26:30] always going to be the best route
[26:33] forward, sometimes you kind of have to
[26:35] figure out how to exist in a world that
[26:38] resists change. Then again,
[26:41] maybe I'm just bitter because I'm 5'7
[26:44] and 1/2 and 1/2.
[26:48] But what do you think? Are taller trucks
[26:50] and SUVs really the bane of pedestrian
[26:53] existence, or do you think that there's
[26:56] an argument that this has all been blown
[26:57] out of proportion? I really want to hear
[26:59] your thoughts. Hit me up in the
[27:01] comments. I'll be in there, too. Keep an
[27:04] eye out for me. My screen name is
[27:05] Limited Time Roman. If you enjoy this
[27:07] video like comment subscribe share
[27:11] the video, or join us on Patreon for
[27:14] just a dollar, where you'll get
[27:15] exclusive content and videos just like
[27:18] this early and ad-free, including my new
[27:21] 2-hour RCR stories on the complete
[27:25] history of the drive-in movie theater.
[27:28] But, regardless, I just want to say your
[27:30] viewership is enough, and thank you for
[27:33] giving it. Have an outstanding
[27:36] rest of your week.