2 ms·

> Driving was the 12th leading cause of death, and 7th in terms of number of years of life lost, in 2011 Including buses, right? Or do they never crash? > Is

> Driving was the 12th leading cause of death, and 7th in terms of number of years of life lost, in 2011 Including buses, right? Or do they never crash? > Is it worth it to kill 36,000 people a year so that they can have the "freedom" of a particular "lifestyle"? Yes, because it comes with great utility as well. You could ask the same questions about smoking (in private), drinking alcohol, lack of exercise, flying in airplanes etc. - are you going to forbid all of these? > Moreover, this lifestyle choice has not only negative health effects, but actually lowers local economic activity, to say nothing of worsening income inequality, upward mobility, and debt. Yeah, right. > the technical progress does not stop just because cars are taken off the road. If you take away a market, you'll hamper progress.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Most folks are not car-enthusiasts. Lots of us would gladly give up driving. So no, its not worth it to us. The utility is all in the time/cost. So a good public transit network would be a fine replacement for car ownership. Nothing at all like smoking, alcohol et al. Also, busses. A bus crash favors the bus. There are rarely (compared to cars) any deaths. Its a pure public-health win.
peterwwillis 9y ago
> Including buses, right? Or do they never crash? Oh, I forgot about all those buses constantly crashing. They account for 0.6% of all traffic accidents. > Yes, because it comes with great utility as well. A small portion of drivers need their vehicles for a utilitarian purpose. The vast majority use them simply as personal transportation. It's similar to guns. A very small amount of them are used for a utilitarian purpose, and the rest are owned for fun, yet they kill 33,000 every year. If ownership were limited only for utilitarian purpose, these numbers would go way, way down. > You could ask the same questions about smoking (in private), drinking alcohol, lack of exercise, flying in airplanes etc. - are you going to forbid all of these? Flying in airplanes? There is no significant health risk from airplanes. The rest are perfectly fine to do in private. The reasons why cars might be eliminated has nothing to do with private use - it has to do with its impact on the public. > If you take away a market, you'll hamper progress. An existing market does not necessarily result in progress. We (the US) had the largest auto market in the world for almost the entire history of automobiles, now second to China. We had not only the technology, but actual electric cars, 130 years ago. Rough timeline: The first crude electric car was introduced 185 years ago, around 1832. The first successful American electric car was introduced in 1891, with multiple makes and models produced in 1893. By 1900, one third of all cars produced in the US were electric. In 1908, the Model T gas-powered car was introduced, and in 1912, the electric starter. The practicality of this method ends the commercial viability of electric cars by 1920. In 1966, Congress introduced a bill recommending electric cars to reduce air pollution. In the 70s, an oil crisis sparks massive consumer interest in electric vehicles. In 1997, 30 years later, Toyota introduced the Prius, a hybrid. Within three years Honda, GM, Ford, Nissan, Chevy, and Toyota all produce ALL-electric vehicles. Here we are, 20 years later, with a lot of hybrids, and one or two all-electric vehicles, pretty much all of which are too expensive or impractical for widespread adoption. We have invented electric cars twice. Both times the market did not choose progress.
- lazyjones 9y ago
  > We have invented electric cars twice. Both times the market did not choose progress. Please educate yourself about the history of automobiles and why gasoline powered cars were much more practical and won. Progress is not whatever fits in your utopia or seems best in hindsight, it's whatever improves the current situation. Pollution was not an issue in the 20's and what seemed best then won on the market. It's not a difficult concept.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

Most folks are not car-enthusiasts. Lots of us would gladly give up driving. So no, its not worth it to us. The utility is all in the time/cost. So a good public transit network would be a fine replacement for car ownership. Nothing at all like smoking, alcohol et al. Also, busses. A bus crash favors the bus. There are rarely (compared to cars) any deaths. Its a pure public-health win.

peterwwillis 9y ago

> Including buses, right? Or do they never crash? Oh, I forgot about all those buses constantly crashing. They account for 0.6% of all traffic accidents. > Yes, because it comes with great utility as well. A small portion of drivers need their vehicles for a utilitarian purpose. The vast majority use them simply as personal transportation. It's similar to guns. A very small amount of them are used for a utilitarian purpose, and the rest are owned for fun, yet they kill 33,000 every year. If ownership were limited only for utilitarian purpose, these numbers would go way, way down. > You could ask the same questions about smoking (in private), drinking alcohol, lack of exercise, flying in airplanes etc. - are you going to forbid all of these? Flying in airplanes? There is no significant health risk from airplanes. The rest are perfectly fine to do in private. The reasons why cars might be eliminated has nothing to do with private use - it has to do with its impact on the public. > If you take away a market, you'll hamper progress. An existing market does not necessarily result in progress. We (the US) had the largest auto market in the world for almost the entire history of automobiles, now second to China. We had not only the technology, but actual electric cars, 130 years ago. Rough timeline: The first crude electric car was introduced 185 years ago, around 1832. The first successful American electric car was introduced in 1891, with multiple makes and models produced in 1893. By 1900, one third of all cars produced in the US were electric. In 1908, the Model T gas-powered car was introduced, and in 1912, the electric starter. The practicality of this method ends the commercial viability of electric cars by 1920. In 1966, Congress introduced a bill recommending electric cars to reduce air pollution. In the 70s, an oil crisis sparks massive consumer interest in electric vehicles. In 1997, 30 years later, Toyota introduced the Prius, a hybrid. Within three years Honda, GM, Ford, Nissan, Chevy, and Toyota all produce ALL-electric vehicles. Here we are, 20 years later, with a lot of hybrids, and one or two all-electric vehicles, pretty much all of which are too expensive or impractical for widespread adoption. We have invented electric cars twice. Both times the market did not choose progress.

lazyjones 9y ago
> We have invented electric cars twice. Both times the market did not choose progress. Please educate yourself about the history of automobiles and why gasoline powered cars were much more practical and won. Progress is not whatever fits in your utopia or seems best in hindsight, it's whatever improves the current situation. Pollution was not an issue in the 20's and what seemed best then won on the market. It's not a difficult concept.