6 ms·

It kinda bothers me how much safer cars are than walking and cycling, given that most of these deaths are probably caused by cars. ('Caused' not necessarily mea

It kinda bothers me how much safer cars are than walking and cycling, given that most of these deaths are probably caused by cars. ('Caused' not necessarily meaning the accident was the drivers fault, but the death being due to the car being big and made from metal vs. humans being soft and squishy.)

ajuc 7y ago
Roads are basically "killing people here is ok as long as you follow few simple rules" zones. It's insane. If I told people "I'm going to shoot my gun in the city from time to time - if you don't want to die please step away when I light this red laser sight" and then did exactly that and blamed people for not avoiding it - that wouldn't fly. But cars are so convenient it's allowed.
- seszett 7y ago
  What you're describing is basically what happens in France during hunting season in the countryside. Luckily, the most frequent victims are the hunters themselves, but sometimes random hikers too. "But we had put up a sign that there was a hunting session in the forest!" seems to be a valid defense most of the time.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    "What happens is, men put on bright red hats, and they go out in the woods, and they shoot at each other. There's no penalty for this, and it's a lot of fun. Once in a while someone even shoots a deer!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Sounds pretty similar to US deer hunting season then, except beer wasn't mentioned anywhere. There's something special about the recklessness of deer hunters specifically, as other game seasons don't seem to have this problem.
- rkangel 7y ago
  Calling it convenience is minimising the importance. Economic value is also important. This is most obvious when talking about trucks, but people being able to move large distances rapidly has a positive benefit to society.
  - helen___keller 7y ago
    The value to society of trucks is undebatable but I'm not so convinced for the personal car. If we're talking about people moving large distances rapidly, there's solutions that don't involve transforming our entire living habitat to death zones. These solutions dont apply to rural or small-town environments, but do apply to cities. And it just so happens that cities, by virtue of their population density, maximize the negative externalities of cars (less open space and more people means the pollution is more concentrated and affects more people. the noise of every honk is annoying more nearby residents, etc) In conclusion, cars aren't necessary in cities but are awful for the residents, even for those who choose to never touch a vehicle.
    - commandersaki 7y ago
      > In conclusion, cars aren't necessary in cities but are awful for the residents, even for those who choose to never touch a vehicle. Disagree, for many they are a necessary evil. You can live without but you have to contort your lifestyle.
      - turbinerneiter 7y ago
        I think cars have pretty much shaped our world in a way where they became a necessary "evil". Simplified thought: the local grocery dies because everyone can easily drive 10km to the supermegamarket, which makes driving there the only choice. It would be interesting to see how our world would have evolved without cars. There sure would be a lot missing, but also a lot of things simply done in a different way. Maybe this kind of SF already exists? Cyclepunk anyone?
      - helen___keller 7y ago
- tdhoot 7y ago
  Have you heard of gun ranges? There are so many examples of situations where you risk death if you don't follow rules, your argument isn't persuasive at all.
  - ajuc 7y ago
    Gun ranges are private property not public space.
  - chidg 7y ago
    Except gun ranges are not just liberally sprinkled throughout cities, making it difficult to leave the house without having to move through one.
truculent 7y ago
Also would be interesting to know the scale of air pollution fatalities & similar side-effects
Arnt 7y ago
Can't find a reference now... but I read a while ago that you can count the risks of cycling differently, if you want. If you cycle to work, you get perhaps an extra hour's phyiscal activity compared to driving, and you get some risk of being squished to death by a car. An extra hour's moderate physical activity is good for you, being squished to death is absolutely awful for you, and the story I read said one of the German health insurers did a study and found that the former effect is the bigger for most of the German population. (Or put differently, most Germans don't exercise enough.)

ajuc 7y ago

Roads are basically "killing people here is ok as long as you follow few simple rules" zones. It's insane. If I told people "I'm going to shoot my gun in the city from time to time - if you don't want to die please step away when I light this red laser sight" and then did exactly that and blamed people for not avoiding it - that wouldn't fly. But cars are so convenient it's allowed.

seszett 7y ago
What you're describing is basically what happens in France during hunting season in the countryside. Luckily, the most frequent victims are the hunters themselves, but sometimes random hikers too. "But we had put up a sign that there was a hunting session in the forest!" seems to be a valid defense most of the time.
- icebraining 7y ago
  "What happens is, men put on bright red hats, and they go out in the woods, and they shoot at each other. There's no penalty for this, and it's a lot of fun. Once in a while someone even shoots a deer!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Sounds pretty similar to US deer hunting season then, except beer wasn't mentioned anywhere. There's something special about the recklessness of deer hunters specifically, as other game seasons don't seem to have this problem.
rkangel 7y ago
Calling it convenience is minimising the importance. Economic value is also important. This is most obvious when talking about trucks, but people being able to move large distances rapidly has a positive benefit to society.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  The value to society of trucks is undebatable but I'm not so convinced for the personal car. If we're talking about people moving large distances rapidly, there's solutions that don't involve transforming our entire living habitat to death zones. These solutions dont apply to rural or small-town environments, but do apply to cities. And it just so happens that cities, by virtue of their population density, maximize the negative externalities of cars (less open space and more people means the pollution is more concentrated and affects more people. the noise of every honk is annoying more nearby residents, etc) In conclusion, cars aren't necessary in cities but are awful for the residents, even for those who choose to never touch a vehicle.
  - commandersaki 7y ago
    > In conclusion, cars aren't necessary in cities but are awful for the residents, even for those who choose to never touch a vehicle. Disagree, for many they are a necessary evil. You can live without but you have to contort your lifestyle.
    - turbinerneiter 7y ago
      I think cars have pretty much shaped our world in a way where they became a necessary "evil". Simplified thought: the local grocery dies because everyone can easily drive 10km to the supermegamarket, which makes driving there the only choice. It would be interesting to see how our world would have evolved without cars. There sure would be a lot missing, but also a lot of things simply done in a different way. Maybe this kind of SF already exists? Cyclepunk anyone?
    - helen___keller 7y ago
tdhoot 7y ago
Have you heard of gun ranges? There are so many examples of situations where you risk death if you don't follow rules, your argument isn't persuasive at all.
- ajuc 7y ago
  Gun ranges are private property not public space.
- chidg 7y ago
  Except gun ranges are not just liberally sprinkled throughout cities, making it difficult to leave the house without having to move through one.

truculent 7y ago

Also would be interesting to know the scale of air pollution fatalities & similar side-effects

Arnt 7y ago

Can't find a reference now... but I read a while ago that you can count the risks of cycling differently, if you want. If you cycle to work, you get perhaps an extra hour's phyiscal activity compared to driving, and you get some risk of being squished to death by a car. An extra hour's moderate physical activity is good for you, being squished to death is absolutely awful for you, and the story I read said one of the German health insurers did a study and found that the former effect is the bigger for most of the German population. (Or put differently, most Germans don't exercise enough.)