4 ms·

> Americans are in total collective denial about how lethal our car dependency is. US traffic fatality rate is 1.24 deaths per 10,000 people per year. This is

by wyager 5y ago

> Americans are in total collective denial about how lethal our car dependency is. US traffic fatality rate is 1.24 deaths per 10,000 people per year. This is a more than acceptable level of risk; I’m perfectly happy to shave off 1% of 1% of my life expectancy to be able to have near-absolute freedom of movement.

kesselvon 5y ago
It's not freedom when there's little alternative to car usage in the U.S. As a society, 10-15% of household spending goes towards transportation costs (largely vehicle payments, fuel, and maintenance).
- Spivak 5y ago
  You’re conflating two types of freedoms. In almost all of the US you basically have to own a car, but once you own a car you can go anywhere super easily whenever you want — half a mile, 100 miles, 2pm, 3am — all the same. And you can carry a small apartment’s worth of stuff with you which makes groceries, home improvement, sports/leisure, parties a non-issue.
- wincy 5y ago
  Obviously I’m a niche case, but I can’t move to a city that doesn’t rely on car usage, as I get severe motion sickness when using public transportation. If I lived somewhere that car use wasn’t an option but I needed to commute, I’m not sure what I’d do, as the motion sickness medications have an effect on me that make me unable to work. When I visited New York City for a few days some years ago, I could feel the ground shaking the entire time, and it was absolutely miserable. Large buildings were the worst. I was anxious and nauseous the entire time, like a constant earthquake was going on. Elevators are really bad, I break out into a sweat, so a place where I could bike everywhere would likely involve elevators on both sides of the journey. Subways are also awful, bus isn’t much better, but at least I can sit up front, all of it. I’m effectively “allergic” to public transportation. I can barely sit in the front seat when someone else is driving. It’d be weird if one day restrictive laws are passed limiting the use of personal vehicles, as I feel I’d have to apply for some sort of disability. I’m worried about self driving cars because I wouldn’t be able to do the sync up between my brain and the car without directly controlling the vehicle.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    How is it that you can drive but can barely tolerate sitting in the passenger seat of a car? This sounds psychological to me; have you tried to talk with someone about this?
tenebrisalietum 5y ago
You're misusing statistics. Your life expectancy is not being lowered by .0001, but 124 out of 1,000,000 lose their life each year through something preventable. This is the cost of your "near-absolute freedom of movement" that you are trying to hide.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  You're more likely to die by falling. And a good bit more likely to die by suicide. I don't know anybody in my family or circle of acquaintances who have died from any of the above, however.
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    Is it so difficult to understand that killing others involves a totally different moral equation than killing yourself?
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Almost everything you do involves some amount of risk to others.
      - Sharlin 5y ago
        Which is, obviously, not an argument against regulating those activities whose risk to others is particularly high. See: false equivalence.
    - wyager 5y ago
      Maybe if you have a busted moral calculus. Any number of coherent utilitarian models don’t require ad-hoc application of different rules to different people.
- wyager 5y ago
  Changes in individual life expectancy and number of expected deaths per year are dual quantities. Talking about either one is fine. That said, you’re right that it’s not actually 0.0001, but probably closer to 0.004. So if I live for 80 years I’m giving up maybe 4 months of EL. Still an easy trade.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
That's not the trade off. For instance, lowering speed limits in urban areas by 5mph and enforcing that limit would significantly decrease pedestrian fatalities. That will have a minor impact on your freedom of movement.
thescriptkiddie 5y ago
Even if you have the privilege of owning a car, it does not give you "absolute freedom of movement". It gives you hours of your day siting in traffic. But even if it did, what about those of us who don't own a car? What gives you the right to inflict an "acceptable level of risk" on others?
- whateveracct 5y ago
  > it does not give you "absolute freedom of movement". It gives you hours of your day siting in traffic. Talk about hyperbole - Having a car in America does in fact you can get to pretty much anywhere else in the country within a couple days. That's facts. Most of that time will be crusing too - not traffic.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I presume you never leave your home? Everything you do has a nonzero risk to others. How did you determine it was acceptable?
- wyager 5y ago
  > What gives you the right to inflict an "acceptable level of risk" on others? What gives you the right to do it? Presumably you interact with people at least occasionally; how dare you expose them to pathogenic risk like that? > It gives you hours of your day siting in traffic No it doesn’t. I don’t sit in traffic for more than 15 minutes a day. Actually, the only time my commute is bad is when I occasionally have to take the train. > what about those of us who don't own a car You should probably live in a city or something. I don’t really have any input on your choices here. But I would appreciate if people who didn’t own a car wouldn’t take out their frustration on people who do own cars.
pdoege 5y ago
Yeah, its easy to vote people that you don't know off the mortal coil. Classic case of the tragedy of the commons. Canada has half the rate of the USA, Netherlands around third, and they have the same "near-absolute" freedoms. (Canada vs. USA vs. NL rates) https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/estimated-road-traffic-death-rate-(per-100-000-population) https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-detai...
- wyager 5y ago
  > its easy to vote people that you don't know off the mortal coil The risk to myself is at least as high as the risk to anyone else. And yes, I am willing to impose negative externalities on people if I think it’s still utilitarian. You impose the same kind of externalities, even if you aren’t aware of it.

by wyager 5y ago

kesselvon 5y ago

It's not freedom when there's little alternative to car usage in the U.S. As a society, 10-15% of household spending goes towards transportation costs (largely vehicle payments, fuel, and maintenance).

Spivak 5y ago
You’re conflating two types of freedoms. In almost all of the US you basically have to own a car, but once you own a car you can go anywhere super easily whenever you want — half a mile, 100 miles, 2pm, 3am — all the same. And you can carry a small apartment’s worth of stuff with you which makes groceries, home improvement, sports/leisure, parties a non-issue.
wincy 5y ago
Obviously I’m a niche case, but I can’t move to a city that doesn’t rely on car usage, as I get severe motion sickness when using public transportation. If I lived somewhere that car use wasn’t an option but I needed to commute, I’m not sure what I’d do, as the motion sickness medications have an effect on me that make me unable to work. When I visited New York City for a few days some years ago, I could feel the ground shaking the entire time, and it was absolutely miserable. Large buildings were the worst. I was anxious and nauseous the entire time, like a constant earthquake was going on. Elevators are really bad, I break out into a sweat, so a place where I could bike everywhere would likely involve elevators on both sides of the journey. Subways are also awful, bus isn’t much better, but at least I can sit up front, all of it. I’m effectively “allergic” to public transportation. I can barely sit in the front seat when someone else is driving. It’d be weird if one day restrictive laws are passed limiting the use of personal vehicles, as I feel I’d have to apply for some sort of disability. I’m worried about self driving cars because I wouldn’t be able to do the sync up between my brain and the car without directly controlling the vehicle.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  How is it that you can drive but can barely tolerate sitting in the passenger seat of a car? This sounds psychological to me; have you tried to talk with someone about this?

tenebrisalietum 5y ago

You're misusing statistics. Your life expectancy is not being lowered by .0001, but 124 out of 1,000,000 lose their life each year through something preventable. This is the cost of your "near-absolute freedom of movement" that you are trying to hide.

rootusrootus 5y ago
You're more likely to die by falling. And a good bit more likely to die by suicide. I don't know anybody in my family or circle of acquaintances who have died from any of the above, however.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  Is it so difficult to understand that killing others involves a totally different moral equation than killing yourself?
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Almost everything you do involves some amount of risk to others.
    - Sharlin 5y ago
      Which is, obviously, not an argument against regulating those activities whose risk to others is particularly high. See: false equivalence.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Maybe if you have a busted moral calculus. Any number of coherent utilitarian models don’t require ad-hoc application of different rules to different people.
wyager 5y ago
Changes in individual life expectancy and number of expected deaths per year are dual quantities. Talking about either one is fine. That said, you’re right that it’s not actually 0.0001, but probably closer to 0.004. So if I live for 80 years I’m giving up maybe 4 months of EL. Still an easy trade.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

That's not the trade off. For instance, lowering speed limits in urban areas by 5mph and enforcing that limit would significantly decrease pedestrian fatalities. That will have a minor impact on your freedom of movement.

thescriptkiddie 5y ago

Even if you have the privilege of owning a car, it does not give you "absolute freedom of movement". It gives you hours of your day siting in traffic. But even if it did, what about those of us who don't own a car? What gives you the right to inflict an "acceptable level of risk" on others?

whateveracct 5y ago
> it does not give you "absolute freedom of movement". It gives you hours of your day siting in traffic. Talk about hyperbole - Having a car in America does in fact you can get to pretty much anywhere else in the country within a couple days. That's facts. Most of that time will be crusing too - not traffic.
rootusrootus 5y ago
I presume you never leave your home? Everything you do has a nonzero risk to others. How did you determine it was acceptable?
wyager 5y ago
> What gives you the right to inflict an "acceptable level of risk" on others? What gives you the right to do it? Presumably you interact with people at least occasionally; how dare you expose them to pathogenic risk like that? > It gives you hours of your day siting in traffic No it doesn’t. I don’t sit in traffic for more than 15 minutes a day. Actually, the only time my commute is bad is when I occasionally have to take the train. > what about those of us who don't own a car You should probably live in a city or something. I don’t really have any input on your choices here. But I would appreciate if people who didn’t own a car wouldn’t take out their frustration on people who do own cars.

pdoege 5y ago

Yeah, its easy to vote people that you don't know off the mortal coil. Classic case of the tragedy of the commons. Canada has half the rate of the USA, Netherlands around third, and they have the same "near-absolute" freedoms. (Canada vs. USA vs. NL rates) https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/estimated-road-traffic-death-rate-(per-100-000-population) https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-detai...

wyager 5y ago
> its easy to vote people that you don't know off the mortal coil The risk to myself is at least as high as the risk to anyone else. And yes, I am willing to impose negative externalities on people if I think it’s still utilitarian. You impose the same kind of externalities, even if you aren’t aware of it.