5 ms·

1/3 of avoidable deaths is not insubstantial - and traffic accidents aren't the only harm done by autos. Add in an estimated 53,000 deaths in the US due to tra

1/3 of avoidable deaths is not insubstantial - and traffic accidents aren't the only harm done by autos. Add in an estimated 53,000 deaths in the US due to transportation emissions. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013004548 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013... Potentially millions killed by auto emissions worldwide. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/17/pollution-car-emissions-deaths-china-india https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/17/pollutio... The leading cause of death in the US for people under the age of 25. This isn't even considering the massive amounts of secondary pollution via production and maintenance of vehicles, the enormous land use and sprawl costs (financially and environmentally), harm done via driving induced stress and sedentary lifestyles. Cars may be getting safer on those who can afford to be on the inside, but for everyone else outside they're a nightmare. Our climate, resource and many of our social problems are not going away as long as we center society around the car.

valuearb 9y ago
Except that some illnesses like cancer are avoidable, it's not just accidents. Except that buses and trains and horses and teslas kill people and pollute. Even bikes kill people. Every mode of transportation is a killer, so if you want to eliminate travel deaths you can only eliminate travel. If you eliminated cars completely tens of thousands would likely still die in the US from transportation accidents. But now you've trapped people and forced them to live close to work, do less traveling, and live crappier lives. Automobiles provide freedom to choose where you want to live and work. They are cleaner than ever and getting cleaner every year. And the vast majority of the US is empty land. And the below age of 25 stat is incredibly misleading. People under the age of 25 rarely die of disease or cancer, which are by far the leading causes of death. They rarely die at all which is why car accidents are disproportionally represented for young people. In reality 99% of people who die had a cause of death unrelated to traffic accidents.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > Except that some illnesses like cancer are avoidable Sorry?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Sorry, keep smoking your cigarettes, it won't be your fault.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      1) I don't smoke 2) You can get cancer from many other things than cigarettes.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        Most lung cancer is caused by cigarettes. Many cancers have a "lifestyle" component. This does not mean that every single case of cancer is caused by something the person did. It does mean that we need to give people better information. Some lifestyle factors are much stronger than others. Smoking causes a lot of cancer. Alcohol causes less. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/risks-causes http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/ris... > Smoking tobacco is one of the biggest causes of lung cancer. More than 8 out of 10 lung cancers (80%) are caused by smoking .This includes breathing in other people’s cigarette smoke. https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/health-effects-of-alcohol/diseases/alcohol-and-cancer/ https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/health-effects-of... > Over the long term, drinking alcohol increases your risk of serious illnesses, such as mouth, throat and breast cancer1. Of course, not everyone who drinks will get cancer. But scientists have found that some cancers are more common in people who drink alcohol than those who don’t. [...] > One study has estimated that around 4% of all cancers are due to alcohol consumption
        jacquesm 9y ago
        I'm objecting to the general statement that 'cancers are avoidable'. Some cancers are, not all cancers are and there are plenty of people that ended up with lung cancer that never smoked so even that isn't a guarantee.
- ericd 9y ago
  The health benefits from riding bikes more than offset the dangers, especially when they're not forced to share lanes with road tanks piloted by people who don't take their driving responsibility seriously. Driving cars don't yield the same benefits. When you take that into account, driving is much more hazardous to your health. Also, forcing cities to accommodate cars via zoning has lead to a huge host of problems, from making centers that are no longer walkable, and destroying the social fabric of the city that used to happen via face to face interactions. Anywhere there is fast traffic, people no longer want to walk, because it's incredibly stressful being near speeding cars. If you want a visible demonstration of the difference, visit some small pre-car cities in Italy, the public places are wonderful, and you can see people bumping into each other and chatting all the time. People walk everywhere. Compare with the sprawling wastelands of asphalt we've created, including on some of the most expensive parking lots in the world in Silicon Valley.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Yes, people in Italy are poor and trapped in small urban areas unable to leave. That's not better.
    - dashundchen 9y ago
      Have you been to Italy? or Germany or any western European county? Even relatively podunk towns have typically walkable centers and local transit connecting to frequent regional train service and sometimes stops by long distance, high-speed services. In Germany, regional all day rail passes can be had for as little as 10 EUR! I imagine the situation is quite similar in Italy.
    - ericd 9y ago
      Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. They make less on average, but the trains are ubiquitous and can take you from city center to city center in less time and for less money than it would cost to drive, even at US gas prices. They're not "trapped", Europeans travel far more than Americans.
- dashundchen 9y ago
  >>If you eliminated cars completely tens of thousands would likely still die in the US from transportation accidents. But now you've trapped people and forced them to live close to work, do less traveling, and live crappier lives. >>Automobiles provide freedom to choose where you want to live and work. They are cleaner than ever and getting cleaner every year. I think you're still ignoring the pollution deaths and massive negative external effects the automobile has on society, especically on those who can't participate in an auto-dominated society. The waste is colossal. Automobiles provide freedom if you're luck enough to not be young, old, poor, disabled etc. Why do we want to design society around excluding huge groups from mobility, when bikes, effective public transit and walkability can open up our country to everyone?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    You essentially want to enslave people to push your dated concepts of how to live on them. My job is 20 miles away, I'm not riding a bike. I don't want to spend hours going to and from work every day. I'm not moving my kids into a shittier house without a big yard in a shittier school district, just so I can bike to work. I'm not going to move my family in a shitty apartment just so we can have "density" and force everyone to use shitty mass transit. My daughters dojo is 5 miles from my house, she ain't walking there. I'm not sending her to the shitty dojo down the street. No one is getting excluded. The young, old, poor and disabled are driven everywhere in cars. If they can't drive themselves, someone drives them. Thats what we do for family members. And soon the car itself will drive them.
    - dashundchen 9y ago
      Can it not be argued running billion dollar freeways through urban neighborhoods, flattening their commercial districts with "free" (subsidized) parking lots and choking them on pollution is enslaving people at the expense of how you want to live? You still haven't addressed the issue that driving fundementally pushes large costs on others and society in general. There are plenty of ways to have a accesible city designed for multimodal transportation. Look to many European cities to show how this used to be done. It doesn't take much imagination to find out it doesn't have to be "shitty". I don't think you really understand what life is like without a car in America. Like it or not, people are being excluded. A third of households in my city don't have a car (likely not out of choice). Transit is sparse. How are they supposed to access job centers, , shopping education opportunities built in the auto dominated sprawl? Hint: you can't build your life around asking other people for rides. You don't seem open to the idea of a different lifestyle. I get that. At the very least I ask that you consider the real impact your choice of driving has on other people, and how it's subsidized by society.
- fulafel 9y ago
  The sure way to avoid cancer is not palatable to most people.

valuearb 9y ago

Except that some illnesses like cancer are avoidable, it's not just accidents. Except that buses and trains and horses and teslas kill people and pollute. Even bikes kill people. Every mode of transportation is a killer, so if you want to eliminate travel deaths you can only eliminate travel. If you eliminated cars completely tens of thousands would likely still die in the US from transportation accidents. But now you've trapped people and forced them to live close to work, do less traveling, and live crappier lives. Automobiles provide freedom to choose where you want to live and work. They are cleaner than ever and getting cleaner every year. And the vast majority of the US is empty land. And the below age of 25 stat is incredibly misleading. People under the age of 25 rarely die of disease or cancer, which are by far the leading causes of death. They rarely die at all which is why car accidents are disproportionally represented for young people. In reality 99% of people who die had a cause of death unrelated to traffic accidents.

jacquesm 9y ago
> Except that some illnesses like cancer are avoidable Sorry?
- valuearb 9y ago
  Sorry, keep smoking your cigarettes, it won't be your fault.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    1) I don't smoke 2) You can get cancer from many other things than cigarettes.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      Most lung cancer is caused by cigarettes. Many cancers have a "lifestyle" component. This does not mean that every single case of cancer is caused by something the person did. It does mean that we need to give people better information. Some lifestyle factors are much stronger than others. Smoking causes a lot of cancer. Alcohol causes less. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/risks-causes http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/ris... > Smoking tobacco is one of the biggest causes of lung cancer. More than 8 out of 10 lung cancers (80%) are caused by smoking .This includes breathing in other people’s cigarette smoke. https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/health-effects-of-alcohol/diseases/alcohol-and-cancer/ https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/health-effects-of... > Over the long term, drinking alcohol increases your risk of serious illnesses, such as mouth, throat and breast cancer1. Of course, not everyone who drinks will get cancer. But scientists have found that some cancers are more common in people who drink alcohol than those who don’t. [...] > One study has estimated that around 4% of all cancers are due to alcohol consumption
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        I'm objecting to the general statement that 'cancers are avoidable'. Some cancers are, not all cancers are and there are plenty of people that ended up with lung cancer that never smoked so even that isn't a guarantee.
ericd 9y ago
The health benefits from riding bikes more than offset the dangers, especially when they're not forced to share lanes with road tanks piloted by people who don't take their driving responsibility seriously. Driving cars don't yield the same benefits. When you take that into account, driving is much more hazardous to your health. Also, forcing cities to accommodate cars via zoning has lead to a huge host of problems, from making centers that are no longer walkable, and destroying the social fabric of the city that used to happen via face to face interactions. Anywhere there is fast traffic, people no longer want to walk, because it's incredibly stressful being near speeding cars. If you want a visible demonstration of the difference, visit some small pre-car cities in Italy, the public places are wonderful, and you can see people bumping into each other and chatting all the time. People walk everywhere. Compare with the sprawling wastelands of asphalt we've created, including on some of the most expensive parking lots in the world in Silicon Valley.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Yes, people in Italy are poor and trapped in small urban areas unable to leave. That's not better.
  - dashundchen 9y ago
    Have you been to Italy? or Germany or any western European county? Even relatively podunk towns have typically walkable centers and local transit connecting to frequent regional train service and sometimes stops by long distance, high-speed services. In Germany, regional all day rail passes can be had for as little as 10 EUR! I imagine the situation is quite similar in Italy.
  - ericd 9y ago
    Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. They make less on average, but the trains are ubiquitous and can take you from city center to city center in less time and for less money than it would cost to drive, even at US gas prices. They're not "trapped", Europeans travel far more than Americans.
dashundchen 9y ago
>>If you eliminated cars completely tens of thousands would likely still die in the US from transportation accidents. But now you've trapped people and forced them to live close to work, do less traveling, and live crappier lives. >>Automobiles provide freedom to choose where you want to live and work. They are cleaner than ever and getting cleaner every year. I think you're still ignoring the pollution deaths and massive negative external effects the automobile has on society, especically on those who can't participate in an auto-dominated society. The waste is colossal. Automobiles provide freedom if you're luck enough to not be young, old, poor, disabled etc. Why do we want to design society around excluding huge groups from mobility, when bikes, effective public transit and walkability can open up our country to everyone?
- valuearb 9y ago
  You essentially want to enslave people to push your dated concepts of how to live on them. My job is 20 miles away, I'm not riding a bike. I don't want to spend hours going to and from work every day. I'm not moving my kids into a shittier house without a big yard in a shittier school district, just so I can bike to work. I'm not going to move my family in a shitty apartment just so we can have "density" and force everyone to use shitty mass transit. My daughters dojo is 5 miles from my house, she ain't walking there. I'm not sending her to the shitty dojo down the street. No one is getting excluded. The young, old, poor and disabled are driven everywhere in cars. If they can't drive themselves, someone drives them. Thats what we do for family members. And soon the car itself will drive them.
  - dashundchen 9y ago
    Can it not be argued running billion dollar freeways through urban neighborhoods, flattening their commercial districts with "free" (subsidized) parking lots and choking them on pollution is enslaving people at the expense of how you want to live? You still haven't addressed the issue that driving fundementally pushes large costs on others and society in general. There are plenty of ways to have a accesible city designed for multimodal transportation. Look to many European cities to show how this used to be done. It doesn't take much imagination to find out it doesn't have to be "shitty". I don't think you really understand what life is like without a car in America. Like it or not, people are being excluded. A third of households in my city don't have a car (likely not out of choice). Transit is sparse. How are they supposed to access job centers, , shopping education opportunities built in the auto dominated sprawl? Hint: you can't build your life around asking other people for rides. You don't seem open to the idea of a different lifestyle. I get that. At the very least I ask that you consider the real impact your choice of driving has on other people, and how it's subsidized by society.
fulafel 9y ago
The sure way to avoid cancer is not palatable to most people.