Modern Trucks Are Getting Too Dangerous (The Roman Report)

[00:00] All right. So, if I were to tell you

[00:02] that pedestrian fatalities were on the

[00:04] rise in the United States, you'd

[00:06] probably think the cause was some kind

[00:08] of distracted or impaired driving,

[00:10] right? Texting, touch screens, talking

[00:13] to passengers, buzzed driving, drunk

[00:16] driving, bad driving, all of the typical

[00:20] causes.

[00:21] Except smartphones are everywhere.

[00:24] Modern tech is pervasive in cars

[00:26] throughout the world, and bad or

[00:28] irresponsible drivers aren't exclusive

[00:31] to one nation or region.

[00:34] But you know what is?

[00:36] The statistic that pedestrian deaths

[00:39] have increased by 75%

[00:43] since 2009.

[00:46] And that statistic that exists nowhere

[00:49] else in the world belongs to the good

[00:52] old red, white, and blue, because of

[00:55] course it does.

[00:57] But why?

[00:59] Well, a new study suggests that the

[01:02] American auto industry's obsession with

[01:05] larger vehicles is contributing to an

[01:08] inescapably bleak landscape of

[01:11] pedestrian danger.

[01:14] And that sounds pretty ominous, but this

[01:16] is also just what one study is saying,

[01:19] and you know me, I can never just look

[01:21] at one study. Okay, maybe not never,

[01:23] just rarely.

[01:25] So, we're going to get to the bottom of

[01:27] this. Is the blame on large trucks and

[01:30] SUVs for pedestrian fatalities

[01:33] misplaced, or is it squarely where it

[01:37] belongs? And is this ultimately the

[01:40] fault of the drivers whose appetite for

[01:42] these cars increases every year, or is

[01:46] this on an industry that prioritizes

[01:49] size at the expense of pedestrian

[01:52] safety?

[01:54] Or is it something else altogether?

[01:58] >> Submit report at the end of the month

[02:01] and I make what I want when I feel like

[02:04] discussing cars.

[02:06] >> On June 21st, the New York Times

[02:09] published an extensive investigative

[02:12] study on the cause of the 75%

[02:15] increase in pedestrian motor vehicle

[02:18] deaths in the United States since 2009.

[02:22] And they came to the same conclusions as

[02:25] far many people on Hinge. Size, or more

[02:30] particularly height, matters.

[02:33] As the report notes, quote, "After

[02:37] analyzing federal and industry records,

[02:40] including never-before-examined

[02:42] data on vehicle dimensions, we found

[02:45] that the rise of large pickups and SUVs

[02:48] is an important factor. Our estimate is

[02:52] that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year

[02:56] would not have died if vehicles had

[02:58] remained approximately the same size

[03:02] over the past quarter century. That

[03:05] represents about 10% of the recent

[03:08] increase in pedestrian deaths."

[03:12] End quote.

[03:14] I've linked the article in the

[03:16] description, and I highly recommend

[03:17] checking it out. It's fairly interactive

[03:20] with 3D recreations and a drop-down menu

[03:24] for you to put in your height to see how

[03:25] much likelier you are to get knocked

[03:28] down by today's cars and how much lower

[03:31] that likelihood would have been roughly

[03:33] 25 years ago. So, for me, I'm a short

[03:36] king at 5'7" and 1/2, so let's round

[03:40] that up to 5'8" because shut up. And I'm

[03:42] likely to be knocked down by about 43%

[03:45] of vehicles today. In 2002, the same

[03:49] model year as Estelle, my Toyota

[03:53] that I drive every single day, that

[03:56] number would have been 31%.

[03:59] Either way, I am clearly in peril, but I

[04:01] was in considerably less peril in 2002

[04:05] than I am today. And I really hope I'm

[04:07] not jinxing anything by saying that.

[04:10] Regardless, it's a dramatic increase

[04:12] caused by what the report found was the

[04:15] even more dramatic increase in the

[04:18] average hood height of American cars

[04:20] today. And they're talking all cars, not

[04:23] just trucks and SUVs, as the average

[04:26] passenger vehicle today has a hood

[04:29] that's roughly 3 ft high, meaning that,

[04:32] as the study notes, quote,

[04:35] "Anyone shorter than 5 ft 6, about half

[04:39] of American adults, would frequently be

[04:42] rammed to the pavement. So would most

[04:46] children."

[04:48] End quote.

[04:51] Basically, in instances where a

[04:53] pedestrian is struck by a vehicle with a

[04:55] lower hood, the chances are better for

[04:58] the person to be sent rolling over top

[05:00] of the car rather than the car rolling

[05:03] over top of them. The hood essentially

[05:05] absorbs a lot of the momentum, so that

[05:07] by the time the pedestrian falls off of

[05:10] the car, they're hitting the ground at a

[05:12] lower speed than they would have been

[05:14] had they been struck by a vehicle with a

[05:16] higher hood line that caught them higher

[05:19] on the body and just, you know, planted

[05:22] them straight onto the ground at full

[05:24] speed. But then, taller hoods aren't the

[05:27] only issue here with regards to

[05:29] visibility.

[05:30] There's another aspect of large trucks

[05:33] and SUVs that make them uniquely

[05:36] dangerous to pedestrians and even to

[05:39] drivers themselves. And it's something

[05:42] we complain about a lot on this channel.

[05:46] And that's

[05:47] thick A-pillars.

[05:49] I mean, really, with a lot of the

[05:51] contemporary trucks we've done recently,

[05:54] it's a huge problem. When the A-pillars

[05:57] are big and chunky, they hamper

[05:59] visibility so that it feels like you're

[06:01] driving with one eye closed or wearing a

[06:04] dope eye patch like some kind of pirate

[06:07] of the turnpike.

[06:09] Just from the vehicle you chose, you're

[06:12] starting off with a smaller visual space

[06:15] than you might have had in a smaller

[06:17] passenger car.

[06:19] Your vision is as limited as the

[06:21] availability of the McRib, and your

[06:24] experience is hardly ever better for it

[06:27] because the entire reason those

[06:29] A-pillars are so thick has nothing to do

[06:32] with improving visibility or sightlines

[06:36] or anything like that. Rather, it's

[06:38] because of laws enacted in 2009 that

[06:41] required automakers to build roofs that

[06:44] could support three times the weight of

[06:47] the car in response to an increase in

[06:49] rollover deaths. Except reinforcing the

[06:53] roofs meant they had to also reinforce

[06:56] the A-pillars to support them. And,

[06:59] ironically, in trying to solve the

[07:01] problem of rollover deaths, they created

[07:04] a new problem that shifted the mortality

[07:07] rate to a different cause while also

[07:10] potentially contributing to exactly the

[07:12] kinds of deaths they were trying to

[07:14] prevent in the first place.

[07:17] Because those taller hoods and

[07:19] reinforced roofs with the chunky

[07:21] A-pillars are going to have a center of

[07:24] gravity that's a whole hell of a lot

[07:26] higher than your average Camry or

[07:28] Corolla, all the heavy front end

[07:31] components necessary for the car's

[07:33] operation are going to be higher off the

[07:36] ground than they would be in that

[07:38] aforementioned Camry or Corolla. So, at

[07:42] best, you're at increased risk of body

[07:45] roll, and at worst, you're increasing

[07:48] the possibility for a rollover. And

[07:52] worse than that, by being higher off the

[07:54] ground, a collision with a smaller car

[07:58] could lead to a sort of monster truck

[08:00] effect, where you're overriding their

[08:02] engine or trunk components, rather than

[08:05] having that energy dispersed through

[08:08] crumple zones. And now you're risking

[08:10] causing fires, causing explosions, all

[08:13] the ridiculous action movie BS that

[08:16] leaves investigators checking dental

[08:18] records.

[08:19] And this is to say nothing of the

[08:22] psychological effect of larger vehicles

[08:25] on their drivers, namely the false

[08:28] illusion of security that being higher

[08:31] off the ground will give you. I mean,

[08:33] it's true that in some ways you are

[08:35] safer than the hypothetical car that

[08:38] your truck would be hitting, but you are

[08:41] not invincible up there in your Chevy

[08:43] Colorado. Pickup truck drivers have

[08:46] reported instances of speed blindness,

[08:48] which is theorized to be a byproduct of

[08:51] command seating, because the height can

[08:53] create a disconnect from the sensation

[08:56] of speed, so that you don't feel how

[08:58] fast you're really going. And in fact,

[09:01] while researching this topic, I read a

[09:03] 2006 traffic injury prevention study

[09:08] that actually measured this by putting

[09:10] test subjects in a driving simulator.

[09:13] One group had their simulator set to the

[09:16] ride height of a sports car, while the

[09:18] other group had their set to one of

[09:20] these Mount Everest-ass trucks. And

[09:23] while you would think that the people

[09:25] with the sports car ride heights would

[09:28] be going faster, the study found that

[09:31] while ride height ultimately didn't

[09:34] influence things like follow distance or

[09:37] driver aggression, they did influence

[09:39] speed and consistency.

[09:43] Quote,

[09:44] "When viewing the road from a high eye

[09:47] height, drivers drove faster with more

[09:51] variability and were less able to

[09:54] maintain a consistent position within

[09:57] 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.