4 ms·

Driving a car is not a requirement for any of those professions.

by rtlfe 5y ago

PopAlongKid 5y ago
My comment had nothing to do with requirements. If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost? I say "where I live" because every car trip I take starts and ends at my front door. I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming.
- rtlfe 5y ago
  > I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming. The point is that everybody pays the costs whether they drive or not. If the costs were more directly tied to how much each person drives, there would be a lot less driving overall.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  What they mean is that the vehicle-specific costs they incur aren't sufficient to cover the true costs to society, from pollution cleanup to road maintenance. Instead, those funds must be drawn from general sources like income taxes. Once you account for social ills like pollution, the costs end up falling disproportionately on the people who can least afford them and contribute the least to the problem.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    Road maintenance is paid for by property taxes. You have to be a home owner to pay property taxes. The costs don't disproportionately fall on those who are least able to afford them, but on those who have the most invested in a local, tangible asset (i.e. homeowners, business owners, landowners, etc.)
    - AlotOfReading 5y ago
      It is partially but not exclusively paid for by property taxes. It's actually a fairly small share of funding in some cases. The BATIC institute gives the numbers 5% and 1% for highways and transit funding respectively [1]. Moreover, funding is not evenly distributed here. Suburbs tend to have massive road networks and long commutes, but comparatively low property taxes. This creates a shortfall that generally gets made by with sales taxes and general funds. [1] http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/funding/ http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/fun...
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost? No, because part of the cost is the fact that pollution in that area affects everyone -- including non-drivers. You're paying part of the cost, yes, but not the whole thing. Imagine if there was some mechanism such that non-drivers inhaled as much pollution as there'd be if there were no cars*, and drivers inhaled as much pollution as is proportional to however much pollution they themselves create (this would vary not just based on a binary do/do not drive, but on how much you drive and how polluting your vehicle is). Then each person would be paying the true cost. A true cost has to be proportional to the damage done, such that changing behavior results in changing cost paid. * leaving aside the impracticality of zero non-electric cars for the moment
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  The conclusion is total bunk, and you can only reach it by selecting which externalities you want to measure, and which externalities you want to ignore. For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You also have to ignore the externalities that the non-car-owners benefit from. If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners (unless they’re living in the woods or something).
  - rtlfe 5y ago
    > For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You shouldn't have to travel long distances to do those things. This is only considered normal in the US because so much was built specifically for the convenience of drivers.
    - AmericanChopper 5y ago
      It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.
      - rtlfe 5y ago
        > wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train. Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
        5y ago
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  In addition to the point already made about people who do not drive paying those costs too, you're also missing the externalities that affect others for health related reasons, and not yourself (and others with your good fortune).
moffkalast 5y ago
Yeah those were terrible examples. But more proper ones would be: truck and van drivers for mail, food and other delivery to stores, bus drivers, taxi drivers, farmers, police, EMT, etc.
- rtlfe 5y ago
  Those could all be less reliant on cars than they currently are too. For example: * UPS is trying "equad" bikes: https://www.reuters.com/technology/ups-tries-out-equad-electric-bikes-urban-deliveries-2022-04-01/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/ups-tries-out-equad-elect... * London has bike paramedics: https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/calling-us/who-will-treat-you/single-responder/cycle-responder/ https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/calling-us/who-will-treat... * Most taxi rides in urban areas could easily be replaced with e-pedicabs
  - adhesive_wombat 5y ago
    That's not how bike paramedics work. From your link: > They are able to reach patients quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an ambulance is on the way. You still need an ambulance, because that person is going to need to go to hospital in nearly all cases except the most trivial "fell over while drunk" cases, and backies are impractical for the average person in need of a paramedic.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Many things are not a requirement for survival, but we still like to do them. Yes, driving a car to get from A to B in (usually) the fastest and most comfortable way wastes some energy and generates some pollution... but so does reading a book (wood for paper, ink, energy for lighting), eating any non-local food, eating meat, sex not for procreation, etc.
- adhesive_wombat 5y ago
  > some energy and generates some pollution... but so does .... sex not for procreation I think sex for procreation is likely the one thing you could possibly do with the highest resulting pollution.

Driving a car is not a requirement for any of those professions.

by rtlfe 5y ago

Driving a car is not a requirement for any of those professions.

My comment had nothing to do with requirements. If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost? I say "where I live" because every car trip I take starts and ends at my front door. I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming.

rtlfe 5y ago
> I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming. The point is that everybody pays the costs whether they drive or not. If the costs were more directly tied to how much each person drives, there would be a lot less driving overall.
AlotOfReading 5y ago
What they mean is that the vehicle-specific costs they incur aren't sufficient to cover the true costs to society, from pollution cleanup to road maintenance. Instead, those funds must be drawn from general sources like income taxes. Once you account for social ills like pollution, the costs end up falling disproportionately on the people who can least afford them and contribute the least to the problem.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Road maintenance is paid for by property taxes. You have to be a home owner to pay property taxes. The costs don't disproportionately fall on those who are least able to afford them, but on those who have the most invested in a local, tangible asset (i.e. homeowners, business owners, landowners, etc.)
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    It is partially but not exclusively paid for by property taxes. It's actually a fairly small share of funding in some cases. The BATIC institute gives the numbers 5% and 1% for highways and transit funding respectively [1]. Moreover, funding is not evenly distributed here. Suburbs tend to have massive road networks and long commutes, but comparatively low property taxes. This creates a shortfall that generally gets made by with sales taxes and general funds. [1] http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/funding/ http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/fun...
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost? No, because part of the cost is the fact that pollution in that area affects everyone -- including non-drivers. You're paying part of the cost, yes, but not the whole thing. Imagine if there was some mechanism such that non-drivers inhaled as much pollution as there'd be if there were no cars*, and drivers inhaled as much pollution as is proportional to however much pollution they themselves create (this would vary not just based on a binary do/do not drive, but on how much you drive and how polluting your vehicle is). Then each person would be paying the true cost. A true cost has to be proportional to the damage done, such that changing behavior results in changing cost paid. * leaving aside the impracticality of zero non-electric cars for the moment
AmericanChopper 5y ago
The conclusion is total bunk, and you can only reach it by selecting which externalities you want to measure, and which externalities you want to ignore. For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You also have to ignore the externalities that the non-car-owners benefit from. If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners (unless they’re living in the woods or something).
- rtlfe 5y ago
  > For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You shouldn't have to travel long distances to do those things. This is only considered normal in the US because so much was built specifically for the convenience of drivers.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.
    - rtlfe 5y ago
      > wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train. Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
      - 5y ago
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
In addition to the point already made about people who do not drive paying those costs too, you're also missing the externalities that affect others for health related reasons, and not yourself (and others with your good fortune).

moffkalast 5y ago

Yeah those were terrible examples. But more proper ones would be: truck and van drivers for mail, food and other delivery to stores, bus drivers, taxi drivers, farmers, police, EMT, etc.

rtlfe 5y ago
Those could all be less reliant on cars than they currently are too. For example: * UPS is trying "equad" bikes: https://www.reuters.com/technology/ups-tries-out-equad-electric-bikes-urban-deliveries-2022-04-01/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/ups-tries-out-equad-elect... * London has bike paramedics: https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/calling-us/who-will-treat-you/single-responder/cycle-responder/ https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/calling-us/who-will-treat... * Most taxi rides in urban areas could easily be replaced with e-pedicabs
- adhesive_wombat 5y ago
  That's not how bike paramedics work. From your link: > They are able to reach patients quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an ambulance is on the way. You still need an ambulance, because that person is going to need to go to hospital in nearly all cases except the most trivial "fell over while drunk" cases, and backies are impractical for the average person in need of a paramedic.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

Many things are not a requirement for survival, but we still like to do them. Yes, driving a car to get from A to B in (usually) the fastest and most comfortable way wastes some energy and generates some pollution... but so does reading a book (wood for paper, ink, energy for lighting), eating any non-local food, eating meat, sex not for procreation, etc.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago
> some energy and generates some pollution... but so does .... sex not for procreation I think sex for procreation is likely the one thing you could possibly do with the highest resulting pollution.