3 ms·

>"If you want to operate a killing machine" How can I take this seriously? >"either yield to people who don't operate one" And I do, where appropriate.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> How can I take this seriously? I mean sure it's hyperbolic, but is it wrong in the context of the US? Cars are dangerous, there's no doubt about it. There are lots of wealthy, developed countries that put safeguards around cars in the forms of pedestrian safety standards, low speed limits, strict licensing restrictions, strict road enforcement, and effective road design. It's not like the US is the only wealthy country in the world with cars. It's a well-known joke to get a license in the US, and teens and adults in the US joke about hitting parked cars, stop signs, trees, and mailboxes all the time. America has a non-existent safety culture surrounding the _outside_ of a car; cars are only meant to be safe for their inhabitants.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"I mean sure it's hyperbolic, but is it wrong in the context of the US?" A car is a car no matter which nation it is in. A car does not transfigure into a killing machine because it is in America. I understand what you are saying about road design in other nations. That tells me the car shouldn't be labeled as a killing machine since the road design bears the responsibility in this perspective. >"cars are only meant to be safe for their inhabitants" This is untrue, there exist safety features that benefit occupants and non-occupants alike.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    > That tells me the car shouldn't be labeled as a killing machine since the road design bears the responsibility in this perspective. I hear you. This is why most mature traffic safety and transit advocacy is about encouraging infrastructure changes, encouraging even traffic enforcement, and trying to add sensible legislation around vehicular responsibility (like alcohol rules and the like). The problem is, car culture is a thing that exists in America (and many parts of the world of course), and that culture often actively embraces reckless acts like speeding, unsafe hauling, coal-rolling, or unsafe vehicle lifting. Car culture also often actively pushes back against efforts to make the roads safer like automated traffic enforcement or stricter licensing requirements, and leads to negative things like catcalling from cars. You don't have to take my word for it, just check out https://reddit.com/r/cars https://reddit.com/r/cars and look at the jokes and memes they say. I'm also willing to bet that the average subscriber of r/cars is a _safer_ driver than the average American driver because of their enthusiasm. > This is untrue, there exist safety features that benefit occupants and non-occupants alike. In theory. In practice, the numbers show that these safety features aren't enough.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      >In theory. In practice, the numbers show that these safety features aren't enough. Where are the goalposts and what would be enough? That is not to say they aren't dangerous, but it seems the discussion would greatly benefit from some definitions and goals. Driving and walking both carry risks and both could be safer. Last year, 6,700 pedestrians were killed by vehicles, and pedestrian fatality rate was around 2 per billion miles driven. At what point are the deaths acceptable? https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians21#:~:text=The%20report%20projects%20the%20U.S.,increase%20from%201.9%20in%202019 https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians21#:~:text=The%20r....
      - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
        Almost every country in this table [1] in Europe, and almost all developed countries, has fewer road deaths per 100k inhabitants / year than the US. The US is at 12.4 deaths / 100k inhabitants, up there with countries like Belize and Moldova. Germany and Span are at 3.7 deaths, Netherlands at 2 deaths, France at 5, Italy at 5.2, and even _Canada_ at 5.8. Even Canada has half the road deaths / 100k inhabitants as the US. Road deaths in the US are more similar to countries with a fraction of our GDP and development. Let's get near Canada, so maybe even 6 deaths / 100k inhabitants first before we stop the scrutiny on car violence. Those are the goals I'm willing to set. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
newsbinator 5y ago
I understand where you're coming from. It's practically impossible for most people, especially in North America, to imagine a world without 2-ton metal things traveling meters away from people at 40 ~ 100 kph. It's literally a piece of the landscape. Almost everybody you ask is a better-than-average driver, and it's the other idiots on the road who are causing the problems. But fundamentally, the problem is that when primates design 100 kph 2-ton metal things to zoom around in the millions, controlled by other primates, we're really bad at it. It's how you make an inevitable killing machine that has the convenient side effect of being good at transporting people safely 299 times out of 300.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

> How can I take this seriously? I mean sure it's hyperbolic, but is it wrong in the context of the US? Cars are dangerous, there's no doubt about it. There are lots of wealthy, developed countries that put safeguards around cars in the forms of pedestrian safety standards, low speed limits, strict licensing restrictions, strict road enforcement, and effective road design. It's not like the US is the only wealthy country in the world with cars. It's a well-known joke to get a license in the US, and teens and adults in the US joke about hitting parked cars, stop signs, trees, and mailboxes all the time. America has a non-existent safety culture surrounding the _outside_ of a car; cars are only meant to be safe for their inhabitants.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"I mean sure it's hyperbolic, but is it wrong in the context of the US?" A car is a car no matter which nation it is in. A car does not transfigure into a killing machine because it is in America. I understand what you are saying about road design in other nations. That tells me the car shouldn't be labeled as a killing machine since the road design bears the responsibility in this perspective. >"cars are only meant to be safe for their inhabitants" This is untrue, there exist safety features that benefit occupants and non-occupants alike.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  > That tells me the car shouldn't be labeled as a killing machine since the road design bears the responsibility in this perspective. I hear you. This is why most mature traffic safety and transit advocacy is about encouraging infrastructure changes, encouraging even traffic enforcement, and trying to add sensible legislation around vehicular responsibility (like alcohol rules and the like). The problem is, car culture is a thing that exists in America (and many parts of the world of course), and that culture often actively embraces reckless acts like speeding, unsafe hauling, coal-rolling, or unsafe vehicle lifting. Car culture also often actively pushes back against efforts to make the roads safer like automated traffic enforcement or stricter licensing requirements, and leads to negative things like catcalling from cars. You don't have to take my word for it, just check out https://reddit.com/r/cars https://reddit.com/r/cars and look at the jokes and memes they say. I'm also willing to bet that the average subscriber of r/cars is a _safer_ driver than the average American driver because of their enthusiasm. > This is untrue, there exist safety features that benefit occupants and non-occupants alike. In theory. In practice, the numbers show that these safety features aren't enough.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >In theory. In practice, the numbers show that these safety features aren't enough. Where are the goalposts and what would be enough? That is not to say they aren't dangerous, but it seems the discussion would greatly benefit from some definitions and goals. Driving and walking both carry risks and both could be safer. Last year, 6,700 pedestrians were killed by vehicles, and pedestrian fatality rate was around 2 per billion miles driven. At what point are the deaths acceptable? https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians21#:~:text=The%20report%20projects%20the%20U.S.,increase%20from%201.9%20in%202019 https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians21#:~:text=The%20r....
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      Almost every country in this table [1] in Europe, and almost all developed countries, has fewer road deaths per 100k inhabitants / year than the US. The US is at 12.4 deaths / 100k inhabitants, up there with countries like Belize and Moldova. Germany and Span are at 3.7 deaths, Netherlands at 2 deaths, France at 5, Italy at 5.2, and even _Canada_ at 5.8. Even Canada has half the road deaths / 100k inhabitants as the US. Road deaths in the US are more similar to countries with a fraction of our GDP and development. Let's get near Canada, so maybe even 6 deaths / 100k inhabitants first before we stop the scrutiny on car violence. Those are the goals I'm willing to set. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

newsbinator 5y ago

I understand where you're coming from. It's practically impossible for most people, especially in North America, to imagine a world without 2-ton metal things traveling meters away from people at 40 ~ 100 kph. It's literally a piece of the landscape. Almost everybody you ask is a better-than-average driver, and it's the other idiots on the road who are causing the problems. But fundamentally, the problem is that when primates design 100 kph 2-ton metal things to zoom around in the millions, controlled by other primates, we're really bad at it. It's how you make an inevitable killing machine that has the convenient side effect of being good at transporting people safely 299 times out of 300.