3 ms·

Driving a car is like force feeding me toxic exhaust when all I want to do is walk down the sidewalk. It's disgusting. Please stop driving everyone. I don't nee

by tdavis 17y ago

Driving a car is like force feeding me toxic exhaust when all I want to do is walk down the sidewalk. It's disgusting. Please stop driving everyone. I don't need to drive, why do you? I am within walking distance of everything I need; you should be too. This is my city and I want to walk in it without your dirty car offending my delicate nasal passages.

tentonova 17y ago
Yes, people should drive cars that don't produce such a large amount of noxious fumes, they should drive less -- cars are the number one accidental killer at 40k deaths/year in the US. Both of these things would naturally occur if drivers were not free externalize the significant costs of their personal choices.
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  To heck with driving less. Drive electric.
  - tentonova 17y ago
    That's fine, but doesn't solve point 2, and doesn't take into account the "social" costs of car-dedicated community infrastructure. Of course, these costs are really not "social" at all, as easily observed by reviewing the impact on surrounding neighborhood small businesses and property values in areas where inner-city freeways were erected in the 50s-70s, and then torn down again in the 90s or 00s. If you're interested in the pure social costs, there's always the increase of crime, in-cohesive communities, etc. Cars aren't going anywhere, but that doesn't mean we should always optimize for them above all other concerns, though I agree that we should use more efficient (and less polluting) vehicles. This is a bit off-topic on a discussion regarding second hand smoke -- my apologies.
- ahoyhere 17y ago
  It's not about those wasteful car drivers "externalizing the costs of their personal choices." Please! Most people have no choice, because of how the entire country has chosen to invest in infrastructure. Which is to say, it has chosen not to. American physical geography and sociopolitical geography forces car driving.
  - tentonova 17y ago
    We live in a representative democracy. If the costs were not externalized, market and political forces would dictate changes in both personal choices and infrastructure investment. I don't see the rational for abdicating responsibility for the choices in where we both live and work, as disclaiming responsibility for the externalities incurred by these choices ensures that a more optimum "sociopolitical geography" will not be reached.
axod 17y ago
Car smoke is 1% as offensive as 'smoke' smoke IMHO. Modern cars fitted with catalytic convertors etc aren't the ones causing the trouble. It's big diesel busses and lorries or very old cars.

by tdavis 17y ago

tentonova 17y ago

Yes, people should drive cars that don't produce such a large amount of noxious fumes, they should drive less -- cars are the number one accidental killer at 40k deaths/year in the US. Both of these things would naturally occur if drivers were not free externalize the significant costs of their personal choices.

JulianMorrison 17y ago
To heck with driving less. Drive electric.
- tentonova 17y ago
  That's fine, but doesn't solve point 2, and doesn't take into account the "social" costs of car-dedicated community infrastructure. Of course, these costs are really not "social" at all, as easily observed by reviewing the impact on surrounding neighborhood small businesses and property values in areas where inner-city freeways were erected in the 50s-70s, and then torn down again in the 90s or 00s. If you're interested in the pure social costs, there's always the increase of crime, in-cohesive communities, etc. Cars aren't going anywhere, but that doesn't mean we should always optimize for them above all other concerns, though I agree that we should use more efficient (and less polluting) vehicles. This is a bit off-topic on a discussion regarding second hand smoke -- my apologies.
ahoyhere 17y ago
It's not about those wasteful car drivers "externalizing the costs of their personal choices." Please! Most people have no choice, because of how the entire country has chosen to invest in infrastructure. Which is to say, it has chosen not to. American physical geography and sociopolitical geography forces car driving.
- tentonova 17y ago
  We live in a representative democracy. If the costs were not externalized, market and political forces would dictate changes in both personal choices and infrastructure investment. I don't see the rational for abdicating responsibility for the choices in where we both live and work, as disclaiming responsibility for the externalities incurred by these choices ensures that a more optimum "sociopolitical geography" will not be reached.

axod 17y ago

Car smoke is 1% as offensive as 'smoke' smoke IMHO. Modern cars fitted with catalytic convertors etc aren't the ones causing the trouble. It's big diesel busses and lorries or very old cars.