4 ms·

Of all the things I am concerned about for my 3 school aged children its them getting hit by a car. It makes it so I am afraid to let them go anywhere without m

Of all the things I am concerned about for my 3 school aged children its them getting hit by a car. It makes it so I am afraid to let them go anywhere without me or another adult. It represses freedom in a way no other technology has. The only freedom that has been taken away has been the freedom of people to live car free. Its now required for so many people, and combine that with rising home prices and the associated sprawl and cars are nothing but a prison people have to put themselves in for multiple hours a day.

Bostonian 7y ago
The long term trend in car accident death rates is down, as shown at https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... . Everyone wants to see accidents decrease, but targeting zero deaths sounds like a crusade.
- dkhenry 7y ago
  In so much as you can't get close to zero without radically changing how we build and live in this country you are correct, but the question is why wouldn't you want to make the changes to target zero deaths ? Not only would you be removing the 11th leading cause of death, you would be significantly improving our environmental footprint and literally saving trillions of dollars in unnecessary infrastructure spending.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > ... but the question is why wouldn't you want to make the changes to target zero deaths? Well, if you target "zero" of anything with a large enough N, you end up well past the point of diminishing returns, and avoiding that last death may have a price tag truly outsized relative to the benefit. It may even cause more deaths in other areas. For instance, after 9/11 security at airports was tightened massively ("targeting zero") and this caused a lot more people to drive short distances, which is much riskier than flying, which in turn caused way, way more deaths than all of 9/11. Micro, achieved, macro, failed. Bruce Schneier covers this well in an essay titled "Our Decreasing Tolerance to Risk" [1] With that in mind, I don't believe cars should exist in urban centers, but because they're a livability nightmare rather than due to the very low risk cars pose to my continued existence (you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident). [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident Which sounds like very little. But life expectancy is now around 80 years. That means that your lifetime chance of dying in a car accident is 0.8%. That's high enough that, in a country of 330 million people, it adds up to a problem that's worth trying to solve. Look, I mostly agree with you. But the "low risk" argument in your last paragraph isn't as effective as you think.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Because zero deaths, while a good thing, is not the only good thing. Are you also going to prohibit smoking? Bad eating habits? Or do only traffic deaths matter to you? Not dying matters. I mean, duh, it really matters. But in the time when you're not dead, it's nice to be able to do some things besides just not dying. Among the things I want to do with my life and my time, walking to work in winter is very low on the list. So is waiting at a tram stop in a blizzard.
sfgweilr4f 7y ago
Freedom always implies balancing risk. If you eliminate all risk you end up in a box where all dangers are kept out. But then you die of something else. Probably boredom due to lack of input. I don't have public transport available. So for freedom in general, take away access to public transport and cars become freedom to move. Even when public transport is available its not when I need it. Or how I need it. I need to move this odd shaped or heavy or inconvenient equipment now. Not in 5 minutes. Not in 15. I won't tolerate your rules on what I put in the car or truck I own either. The time of day is also important. I won't tolerate you saying "please wait 30 minutes" or "we can have a vehicle available tomorrow at 9am". Now. Obligatory notes: - I'm not in favor of more road deaths. - I'm in favor of sensible road speed limits and school zones. - I'm not in favor of speed limits being used as revenue streams. - People need to actually stop tailgating and learn how to drive at appropriate speeds. - I'm not against areas being pedestrian zones with entire streets blocked off. I like to walk as well. - People are bad drivers some of the time or most of the time in many cases. They make mistakes. "No deaths" means an absolute guarantee. Real life has opinions about absolute guarantees: they are usually either strong fact or a temporary fiction that has harsh consequences while its maintained. - I think the "cure" for road deaths using just legislation and too low speed limits will cause societal distortions similar to the madness that prohibition had on general society (the government went so far they actually thought poisoning alcohol was a legitimate measure). - auto-pilot for cars and trucks is worth pursuing. On a related note: you wrote, "It makes it so I am afraid to let them go anywhere without me or another adult." Sounds like helicopter parenting[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent
- cgrealy 7y ago
  >I need to move this odd shaped or heavy or inconvenient equipment now. Not in 5 minutes. Not in 15. No, you don't. You want to move it now, but in general, you don't need to move it now. > I won't tolerate your rules on what I put in the car or truck I own either. Yes, you will, or you won't drive on publicly funded roads. You are not licenced to transport nuclear waste. You are not licenced to transport explosives. You need the right vehicle to transport an heavy or insecure load. Your freedom to transport whatever you want does not supersede other peoples freedom to drive in a safe environment.

Bostonian 7y ago

The long term trend in car accident death rates is down, as shown at https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... . Everyone wants to see accidents decrease, but targeting zero deaths sounds like a crusade.

dkhenry 7y ago
In so much as you can't get close to zero without radically changing how we build and live in this country you are correct, but the question is why wouldn't you want to make the changes to target zero deaths ? Not only would you be removing the 11th leading cause of death, you would be significantly improving our environmental footprint and literally saving trillions of dollars in unnecessary infrastructure spending.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > ... but the question is why wouldn't you want to make the changes to target zero deaths? Well, if you target "zero" of anything with a large enough N, you end up well past the point of diminishing returns, and avoiding that last death may have a price tag truly outsized relative to the benefit. It may even cause more deaths in other areas. For instance, after 9/11 security at airports was tightened massively ("targeting zero") and this caused a lot more people to drive short distances, which is much riskier than flying, which in turn caused way, way more deaths than all of 9/11. Micro, achieved, macro, failed. Bruce Schneier covers this well in an essay titled "Our Decreasing Tolerance to Risk" [1] With that in mind, I don't believe cars should exist in urban centers, but because they're a livability nightmare rather than due to the very low risk cars pose to my continued existence (you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident). [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > you have a 0.01%/year chance of dying in a fatal car accident Which sounds like very little. But life expectancy is now around 80 years. That means that your lifetime chance of dying in a car accident is 0.8%. That's high enough that, in a country of 330 million people, it adds up to a problem that's worth trying to solve. Look, I mostly agree with you. But the "low risk" argument in your last paragraph isn't as effective as you think.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Because zero deaths, while a good thing, is not the only good thing. Are you also going to prohibit smoking? Bad eating habits? Or do only traffic deaths matter to you? Not dying matters. I mean, duh, it really matters. But in the time when you're not dead, it's nice to be able to do some things besides just not dying. Among the things I want to do with my life and my time, walking to work in winter is very low on the list. So is waiting at a tram stop in a blizzard.

sfgweilr4f 7y ago

Freedom always implies balancing risk. If you eliminate all risk you end up in a box where all dangers are kept out. But then you die of something else. Probably boredom due to lack of input. I don't have public transport available. So for freedom in general, take away access to public transport and cars become freedom to move. Even when public transport is available its not when I need it. Or how I need it. I need to move this odd shaped or heavy or inconvenient equipment now. Not in 5 minutes. Not in 15. I won't tolerate your rules on what I put in the car or truck I own either. The time of day is also important. I won't tolerate you saying "please wait 30 minutes" or "we can have a vehicle available tomorrow at 9am". Now. Obligatory notes: - I'm not in favor of more road deaths. - I'm in favor of sensible road speed limits and school zones. - I'm not in favor of speed limits being used as revenue streams. - People need to actually stop tailgating and learn how to drive at appropriate speeds. - I'm not against areas being pedestrian zones with entire streets blocked off. I like to walk as well. - People are bad drivers some of the time or most of the time in many cases. They make mistakes. "No deaths" means an absolute guarantee. Real life has opinions about absolute guarantees: they are usually either strong fact or a temporary fiction that has harsh consequences while its maintained. - I think the "cure" for road deaths using just legislation and too low speed limits will cause societal distortions similar to the madness that prohibition had on general society (the government went so far they actually thought poisoning alcohol was a legitimate measure). - auto-pilot for cars and trucks is worth pursuing. On a related note: you wrote, "It makes it so I am afraid to let them go anywhere without me or another adult." Sounds like helicopter parenting[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent

cgrealy 7y ago
>I need to move this odd shaped or heavy or inconvenient equipment now. Not in 5 minutes. Not in 15. No, you don't. You want to move it now, but in general, you don't need to move it now. > I won't tolerate your rules on what I put in the car or truck I own either. Yes, you will, or you won't drive on publicly funded roads. You are not licenced to transport nuclear waste. You are not licenced to transport explosives. You need the right vehicle to transport an heavy or insecure load. Your freedom to transport whatever you want does not supersede other peoples freedom to drive in a safe environment.