12 ms·
"more Kms travelled. " might have some value if it means a trip that wasn't taken before is taken now. It has _negative_ value, massively so, if it means people
by CalRobert 8y ago
"more Kms travelled. " might have some value if it means a trip that wasn't taken before is taken now. It has _negative_ value, massively so, if it means people who used to have 10km commutes all move farther out and have 20km commutes instead but cheaper housing. This seems to be what happens.
More people will die horrible deaths in their cars, more people will die walking and cycling, more people will die because their understandable fear of walking and cycling gives them a sedentary lifestyle, more people will die from cancer, lung disease, etc, more wildlife habitat will be destroyed, more sound and light pollution will destroy mental health and disturb wildlife, and the planet will boil a little bit sooner. But those are externalities and not borne by the person choosing to drive more.
But all of this is apparently just fine. Adults matter too of course, but it's striking that cars (drivers, really) are the thing that kills more kids than anything else, and yet people do. not. care. I'm astonished how much outrage there is over kids being killed by bullets but not those killed by cars. People in the US accept it as normal, though. When I pointed out I cared more about automotive violence than gun violence people would look at me like I had 3 heads. And then joke about running over cyclists.
On the bright side, it might encourage those who are able to emigrate somewhere nicer (Netherlands and the Nordics, basically), so I guess it's a gain to those countries.
- marcosdumay 8y ago> It has _negative_ value, massively so, if it means people who used to have 10km commutes all move farther out and have 20km commutes instead but cheaper housing. Is that because affordable houses are worthless? So, instead of solving the housing crisis, city planners do nothing on the matter, but go and ration transportation too, so people... well, gain nothing because they will be the same time in traffic.
- CalRobert 8y agoOf course not - affordable homes are great. Building more homes near the places people need to be will help make them more affordable. But nobody ever got votes by campaigning to reduce home prices. Perhaps because you have to live in a place to vote for those governing said place.
- marcosdumay 8y agoRationing transport does not solve that problem. It does nothing at all to solve it, just makes it worse.
- CalRobert 8y agoYou can build homes near where oeople want to be, or farther. Or hope people emigrate or die. Which is better for transport?
- pavelrub 8y agoSpending less on housing has tremendous value for the people who benefit from it, including the ability to pay for better medical treatment, and lead an overall happier life. It's unclear what evidence you have that the net effect would be an increase in the overall number of deaths, or - more importantly - human suffering. Other than that I do not really understand your "astonishment": you've artificially constructed a personal axiom that has never applied to human society - namely that people should care equally about every casualty, regardless of circumstances or causes, or the impact of those causes on society as a whole - and are then surprised that others don't follow this model.
- CalRobert 8y agoWe both want affordable housing. I just want it to be legal to build it closer to jobs. Driving is dangerous, as are its byproducts. More driving kills more people.
- pavelrub 8y agoIf the choice is between cheaper housing with a longer commute, or expensive housing with shorter commute, it's completely unclear that the latter is more beneficial to humanity than the former, even if we only consider the number of deaths caused by each scenario. At the very least you haven't presented any evidence that this is so.
- CalRobert 8y ago