4 ms·

According to Wikipedia [0], the number of MV-related deaths has been right about 10 or 11 per 100,000 per year for the last ten years. Which makes the opening c

According to Wikipedia [0], the number of MV-related deaths has been right about 10 or 11 per 100,000 per year for the last ten years. Which makes the opening claim "Americans are condemned to lose friends and relatives to traffic violence" seem particularly overwrought. And while the legal system may have been of some help, I rather suspect the main reason cars took over is because they give the user a tremendous amount of freedom and agency. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

stellar678 7y ago
If you live in a small town of 100,000 people, that means 11 of your neighbors will be killed by drivers crashing their cars every year. And that doesn’t account for the deaths and health costs caused by road pollution, by inactive lifestyles forced on communities due to car-centered infrastructure, etc... Given the car-oriented status quo, perhaps it’s true that cars give owners tremendous freedom and agency (at the costs outlined above, plus tremendous financial cost). But it’s also true that many of the most desirable and productive parts of our cities are that way despite cars and not because of them.
- nmeofthestate 7y ago
  I live in a small city of about 400,000 and only have about 10 neighbours. I guess Americans are just friendlier.
  - stellar678 7y ago
    I also live in a city of about 400,000 - and I have thousands of neighbors. Of course I don't know them all personally - I am familiar with different groups, communities, leaders, families. I know about what's important to them, what their goals are, what they are up to in our shared community. I care about them. Do you care about the health and wellbeing of people who are not your 10 immediate neighbors?
  - mcguire 7y ago
    There are higher dimensions involved.
- maxsilver 7y ago
  > If you live in a small town of 100,000 people, that means 11 of your neighbors will be killed by drivers crashing their cars every year. True. But for comparison, if we live in this small town of 100k people, then 192 people will die from Heart Disease, 178 people will die of Cancer, 47 people will die of Respiratory diseases, 43 people will die of Stroke, and 16 will die from the flu (influenza or pneumonia) every single year, according to the CDC. "Motor vehicle accidents" are not even in the top 10 causes of death (they're 13th, using 2016's data). > the most desirable and productive parts of our cities are that way despite cars and not because of them. Which is a strong argument for cars. Cars make things drastically more affordable for people. If you remove them, you increase the costs for everything (food, transportation, housing, healthcare, education, etc), to heights no regular person could ever afford. That also carries tremendous costs and even carries it's own death toll. Paradoxically, making things "more desirable and productive" makes them worst for real people (because that value will be captured in a pricetag, and real people will never be able to afford it). Paradoxically, too much safety can actually be less safe overall (that safety will be captured in a pricetag, and real people will never be able to afford it, and will be forced into less safe alternatives) - https://local.theonion.com/neighborhood-starting-to-get-too-safe-for-family-to-aff-1819578182 https://local.theonion.com/neighborhood-starting-to-get-too-... More people died from suicide (45k in 2016) in the US, than died from all automobile accidents nationwide (37k in 2016). The tradeoff here is not as simple as people often imagine it to be.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    > "Motor vehicle accidents" are not even in the top 10 causes of death (they're 13th, using 2016's data) To your point of bringing up suicide, there is "accidental" death; where it's 1. Opioid overdoses 2. Suicide 3. Car Accidents
  - magduf 7y ago
    >Which is a strong argument for cars. Cars make things drastically more affordable for people. If you remove them, you increase the costs for everything (food, transportation, housing, healthcare, education, etc), to heights no regular person could ever afford. So why is it that the US has the most expensive healthcare costs in the world, and also extremely high food and housing costs?
- DaveInTucson 7y ago
  Here's another way to look at it. This link (https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/ https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/) says "traffic crashes [...] account for 2.2% of all deaths globally." Which means that out of your 50 closest acquaintances, one of them is likely to die in a car accident.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 7y ago
the whole article is a festival of cherry picked statistics, innuendo, and hyperbole, all to support a fantasy world ideal the author desires.
francisofascii 7y ago
Motor vehicle-related injuries are the leading cause of death for people ages 5 through 34 in the United States. Also, the injuries are substantial. In the US, 2.7 million emergency department visits from motor vehicle accidents each year. I am not suggesting we eliminate cars, but the US has gone way, way overboard and thus actually "reduced" our freedoms. Congestion, car dependency, and lack of alternatives is not freedom.

stellar678 7y ago

If you live in a small town of 100,000 people, that means 11 of your neighbors will be killed by drivers crashing their cars every year. And that doesn’t account for the deaths and health costs caused by road pollution, by inactive lifestyles forced on communities due to car-centered infrastructure, etc... Given the car-oriented status quo, perhaps it’s true that cars give owners tremendous freedom and agency (at the costs outlined above, plus tremendous financial cost). But it’s also true that many of the most desirable and productive parts of our cities are that way despite cars and not because of them.

nmeofthestate 7y ago
I live in a small city of about 400,000 and only have about 10 neighbours. I guess Americans are just friendlier.
- stellar678 7y ago
  I also live in a city of about 400,000 - and I have thousands of neighbors. Of course I don't know them all personally - I am familiar with different groups, communities, leaders, families. I know about what's important to them, what their goals are, what they are up to in our shared community. I care about them. Do you care about the health and wellbeing of people who are not your 10 immediate neighbors?
- mcguire 7y ago
  There are higher dimensions involved.
maxsilver 7y ago
> If you live in a small town of 100,000 people, that means 11 of your neighbors will be killed by drivers crashing their cars every year. True. But for comparison, if we live in this small town of 100k people, then 192 people will die from Heart Disease, 178 people will die of Cancer, 47 people will die of Respiratory diseases, 43 people will die of Stroke, and 16 will die from the flu (influenza or pneumonia) every single year, according to the CDC. "Motor vehicle accidents" are not even in the top 10 causes of death (they're 13th, using 2016's data). > the most desirable and productive parts of our cities are that way despite cars and not because of them. Which is a strong argument for cars. Cars make things drastically more affordable for people. If you remove them, you increase the costs for everything (food, transportation, housing, healthcare, education, etc), to heights no regular person could ever afford. That also carries tremendous costs and even carries it's own death toll. Paradoxically, making things "more desirable and productive" makes them worst for real people (because that value will be captured in a pricetag, and real people will never be able to afford it). Paradoxically, too much safety can actually be less safe overall (that safety will be captured in a pricetag, and real people will never be able to afford it, and will be forced into less safe alternatives) - https://local.theonion.com/neighborhood-starting-to-get-too-safe-for-family-to-aff-1819578182 https://local.theonion.com/neighborhood-starting-to-get-too-... More people died from suicide (45k in 2016) in the US, than died from all automobile accidents nationwide (37k in 2016). The tradeoff here is not as simple as people often imagine it to be.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  > "Motor vehicle accidents" are not even in the top 10 causes of death (they're 13th, using 2016's data) To your point of bringing up suicide, there is "accidental" death; where it's 1. Opioid overdoses 2. Suicide 3. Car Accidents
- magduf 7y ago
  >Which is a strong argument for cars. Cars make things drastically more affordable for people. If you remove them, you increase the costs for everything (food, transportation, housing, healthcare, education, etc), to heights no regular person could ever afford. So why is it that the US has the most expensive healthcare costs in the world, and also extremely high food and housing costs?
DaveInTucson 7y ago
Here's another way to look at it. This link (https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/ https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/) says "traffic crashes [...] account for 2.2% of all deaths globally." Which means that out of your 50 closest acquaintances, one of them is likely to die in a car accident.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Shivetya 7y ago

the whole article is a festival of cherry picked statistics, innuendo, and hyperbole, all to support a fantasy world ideal the author desires.

francisofascii 7y ago

Motor vehicle-related injuries are the leading cause of death for people ages 5 through 34 in the United States. Also, the injuries are substantial. In the US, 2.7 million emergency department visits from motor vehicle accidents each year. I am not suggesting we eliminate cars, but the US has gone way, way overboard and thus actually "reduced" our freedoms. Congestion, car dependency, and lack of alternatives is not freedom.