4 ms·

If you include second order effects beyond your individual experience the benefits are plenty: - better for the environment - safer (especially for pedestrian

by jjj123 4y ago

If you include second order effects beyond your individual experience the benefits are plenty: - better for the environment - safer (especially for pedestrians) - more people can move using less space, resulting in less traffic/higher throughput - if public transportation was prioritized over cars, city layouts could be dramatically overhauled, with more streets used for pedestrian/bike traffic instead of cars These are the reasons I take public transportation instead of driving. I’d rather contribute in some small way to the society I want instead of settling for a local maximum of convenience. Edited for clarity

m463 4y ago
theoretically. there are plenty of ways to lose efficiency. for instance, what if your whole society is n% less efficient?
kazinator 4y ago
Most public transit vehicles don't have seat belts, and often force people to stand.
- jjj123 4y ago
  What’s your point? That it makes riding the bus less safe? You’re safer on a bus without a seatbelt than you are in a small car because of the mass of the vehicle.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    ... than you are in a small car with a seat belt? The history of transportation is full of deadly bus accidents; cases when everyone or almost everyone on board was killed. A vehicle which has a larger mass decelerates more slowly. (Mass isn't the only factor, but how it's distributed and how the vehicle crumples.) The mass helps you only if you are secured to it, so that you decelerate at the same rate. Whether the vehicle stops in 0.2 seconds or 0.05 seconds, if you're loose, you're flying and hitting something. Something that has stopped by the time you hit it. Or something outside of the vehicle entirely. When you hit something, the deceleration of your body or body part is all that is relevant. A standing passenger can fall and get seriously injured just from hard braking.
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      Do you have literally anything to back that up? And by that I mean: cases when everyone or almost everyone on board was killed. And: A standing passenger can fall and get seriously injured just from hard braking. I can point to Muni of the early 2000s. Their then-new trams experienced frequent emergency brake applications in the tunnel because reasons. It got so bad that the braking computer was changed to reduce the rate of deceleration during emergency braking. People were getting hurt, twisted ankles and whatnot. I can't remember anyone dying inside one of the trams. Ever. The last fatal automobile collision I can think of was idk yesterday? Four dead. Six injured. But that was up in the north bay. The most recent fatal traffic collision I can think of in San Francisco was on the 19th (so about a couple weeks ago). Here's a non-fatal wreck where the bus was hit hard enough to do a 180. No deaths and six injuries (some of the injured were pedestrians). https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/6-hurt-after-suv-collides-with-muni-bus-in-san-francisco/2923295/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/6-hurt-after-suv-colli... One of the first links I turned up was this: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics... Deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 2020. Autos: 0.56, Buses: 0.02, Trains: 0.03, and Part 121 air travel: 0.002. Traveling by bus is dramatically safer than traveling in a car.
      - kazinator 4y ago
        The probability of being in a collision in a transit bus may be low, and the word "safe" covers this idea; but that doesn't speak to the severity of the consequences of the collision. Statistics about deaths mix the two together are hard to interpret: are there low deaths because the frequency of accidents is low, or because their severity is low? Or what mixture of the two? In statistics about automobile accidents, I would expect there to be a high preventable component: deaths due to neglected use of seatbelts as well as operator negligence: distracted, drunk or reckless driving. What is the deaths-per-100M miles figure for automobiles, if we count only the deaths of seatbelt wearers, where the driver wasn't drunk, distracted or otherwise reckless? Regarding seat belts for instance, according to https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/occupant-protection/seat-belts/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/occupant-protectio... 51% of the day-time fatalities in 2020 were confirmed cases of no restraint use. (That doesn't mean those people would have lived if they had used a seat belt; that can only be estimated. However, the same page cites a high rate of seat belt use for the same period: 90.3%. So 51% of the day-time fatalities are coming from the 9.7% unrestrained passengers/driver population.)
wisnoskij 4y ago
This is true in a minority of cases. Like delivery works as their are a small number starting locations and no one cares about the max travel time. Or transporting people between a small number of hub locations and not caring that much about how long it takes. But public transit that transports every address to every other address is almost infinitely less efficient than just giving everyone a car.
- jjj123 4y ago
  You’re right that’s something cars solve for that public transport doesn’t. But that’s not what public transit advocates are asking for.
emeraldd 4y ago
> - safer (especially for pedestrians) This is arguably not true. It's not uncommon to find yourself on foot and alone in situation/places where it is not a good idea to be either.
- mtrpcic 4y ago
  I think this statement is more geared towards those commuters who are walking either way, not those that are deciding between driving and public transit. With fewer cars on the road, there is a lower likelihood of those walking being hit by one.
bequanna 4y ago
If we’re listing externalities let’s at least be honest: - Lost productivity or quality of life for rider. If we suddenly double the amount of commute time someone experiences, how do you think that will impact their personal life? Their professional life? Take it a step further and look at how the misery cascades: Imagine that person is a neurosurgeon and we doubled their morning commute so they now have to wake up an hour earlier. Will they be operating at their highest level? I understand that the “anti-car” movement is probably well intentioned, but you know what they say about the road to hell…
- jjj123 4y ago
  Where in my comment did it say no one should drive to work, or that everyone should make choices the way I do? We live in a fucked up system, do what you have to do. I have the luxury of being able to choose how I get around even if it means taking a little extra time, I get that not everyone has that luxury.
- sporkland 4y ago
  I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but productivity and quality of life is a many faceted debate. There are a ton of factors in here: 1. If everyone drives the neighborhoods are spread out/less dense and filled with loud, dangerous, locally air polluting cars and their tires. 2. Cars are stressful to drive and lead to road rage. 3. Can't work while you drive a car, but can on trains and some subways. But at least can read, entertain yourself. I agree with you and OP that this all comes at a higher commute time cost, but concluding it's open and shut on quality of life. I personally think the anti-car movement should be focused on cities where we should reduce traffic within city cores and invest in shared electric bikes/various forms of non-car transit.
- CleaveIt2Beaver 4y ago
  > you know what they say about the road to hell… ...you're forced to use mass transit!
- ouid 4y ago
  >lost productivity I've never been able to get any work done in the car.

by jjj123 4y ago

m463 4y ago

theoretically. there are plenty of ways to lose efficiency. for instance, what if your whole society is n% less efficient?

kazinator 4y ago

Most public transit vehicles don't have seat belts, and often force people to stand.

jjj123 4y ago
What’s your point? That it makes riding the bus less safe? You’re safer on a bus without a seatbelt than you are in a small car because of the mass of the vehicle.
- kazinator 4y ago
  ... than you are in a small car with a seat belt? The history of transportation is full of deadly bus accidents; cases when everyone or almost everyone on board was killed. A vehicle which has a larger mass decelerates more slowly. (Mass isn't the only factor, but how it's distributed and how the vehicle crumples.) The mass helps you only if you are secured to it, so that you decelerate at the same rate. Whether the vehicle stops in 0.2 seconds or 0.05 seconds, if you're loose, you're flying and hitting something. Something that has stopped by the time you hit it. Or something outside of the vehicle entirely. When you hit something, the deceleration of your body or body part is all that is relevant. A standing passenger can fall and get seriously injured just from hard braking.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    Do you have literally anything to back that up? And by that I mean: cases when everyone or almost everyone on board was killed. And: A standing passenger can fall and get seriously injured just from hard braking. I can point to Muni of the early 2000s. Their then-new trams experienced frequent emergency brake applications in the tunnel because reasons. It got so bad that the braking computer was changed to reduce the rate of deceleration during emergency braking. People were getting hurt, twisted ankles and whatnot. I can't remember anyone dying inside one of the trams. Ever. The last fatal automobile collision I can think of was idk yesterday? Four dead. Six injured. But that was up in the north bay. The most recent fatal traffic collision I can think of in San Francisco was on the 19th (so about a couple weeks ago). Here's a non-fatal wreck where the bus was hit hard enough to do a 180. No deaths and six injuries (some of the injured were pedestrians). https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/6-hurt-after-suv-collides-with-muni-bus-in-san-francisco/2923295/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/6-hurt-after-suv-colli... One of the first links I turned up was this: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics... Deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 2020. Autos: 0.56, Buses: 0.02, Trains: 0.03, and Part 121 air travel: 0.002. Traveling by bus is dramatically safer than traveling in a car.
    - kazinator 4y ago
      The probability of being in a collision in a transit bus may be low, and the word "safe" covers this idea; but that doesn't speak to the severity of the consequences of the collision. Statistics about deaths mix the two together are hard to interpret: are there low deaths because the frequency of accidents is low, or because their severity is low? Or what mixture of the two? In statistics about automobile accidents, I would expect there to be a high preventable component: deaths due to neglected use of seatbelts as well as operator negligence: distracted, drunk or reckless driving. What is the deaths-per-100M miles figure for automobiles, if we count only the deaths of seatbelt wearers, where the driver wasn't drunk, distracted or otherwise reckless? Regarding seat belts for instance, according to https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/occupant-protection/seat-belts/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/occupant-protectio... 51% of the day-time fatalities in 2020 were confirmed cases of no restraint use. (That doesn't mean those people would have lived if they had used a seat belt; that can only be estimated. However, the same page cites a high rate of seat belt use for the same period: 90.3%. So 51% of the day-time fatalities are coming from the 9.7% unrestrained passengers/driver population.)

wisnoskij 4y ago

This is true in a minority of cases. Like delivery works as their are a small number starting locations and no one cares about the max travel time. Or transporting people between a small number of hub locations and not caring that much about how long it takes. But public transit that transports every address to every other address is almost infinitely less efficient than just giving everyone a car.

jjj123 4y ago
You’re right that’s something cars solve for that public transport doesn’t. But that’s not what public transit advocates are asking for.

emeraldd 4y ago

> - safer (especially for pedestrians) This is arguably not true. It's not uncommon to find yourself on foot and alone in situation/places where it is not a good idea to be either.

mtrpcic 4y ago
I think this statement is more geared towards those commuters who are walking either way, not those that are deciding between driving and public transit. With fewer cars on the road, there is a lower likelihood of those walking being hit by one.

bequanna 4y ago

If we’re listing externalities let’s at least be honest: - Lost productivity or quality of life for rider. If we suddenly double the amount of commute time someone experiences, how do you think that will impact their personal life? Their professional life? Take it a step further and look at how the misery cascades: Imagine that person is a neurosurgeon and we doubled their morning commute so they now have to wake up an hour earlier. Will they be operating at their highest level? I understand that the “anti-car” movement is probably well intentioned, but you know what they say about the road to hell…

jjj123 4y ago
Where in my comment did it say no one should drive to work, or that everyone should make choices the way I do? We live in a fucked up system, do what you have to do. I have the luxury of being able to choose how I get around even if it means taking a little extra time, I get that not everyone has that luxury.
sporkland 4y ago
I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but productivity and quality of life is a many faceted debate. There are a ton of factors in here: 1. If everyone drives the neighborhoods are spread out/less dense and filled with loud, dangerous, locally air polluting cars and their tires. 2. Cars are stressful to drive and lead to road rage. 3. Can't work while you drive a car, but can on trains and some subways. But at least can read, entertain yourself. I agree with you and OP that this all comes at a higher commute time cost, but concluding it's open and shut on quality of life. I personally think the anti-car movement should be focused on cities where we should reduce traffic within city cores and invest in shared electric bikes/various forms of non-car transit.
CleaveIt2Beaver 4y ago
> you know what they say about the road to hell… ...you're forced to use mass transit!
ouid 4y ago
>lost productivity I've never been able to get any work done in the car.