3 ms·

That’s nowhere true at reasonable scale. People spend days (months even, in the last few years) in the same room without dying. You can’t do that with a car, ev

by bertil 4y ago

That’s nowhere true at reasonable scale. People spend days (months even, in the last few years) in the same room without dying. You can’t do that with a car, even if the room is ventilated normally. You will die in 3 to 5 mins. Sure, if you stand in an airtight coffin… but no one here is arguing for that. I really think that you presenting a straw man instead of my actual and then pretending you are a moderate by claiming its “all tradeoff” is the perfect illustration of how car lobbyist make sure their master can kill millions of people every year and think they look like the good guys. It’s a scandal bigger than the holocaust by two orders of magnitude and you are there defending it like it’s a good thing…

bawolff 4y ago
It seems about the same amount of reasonableness/strawmanness as capturing the exhaust in a plastic bag and breathing that.
haswell 4y ago
I think you’re missing the point here. The way I took the comment, specifically about tradeoffs, is that for many people the alternative to driving is dying. If a household can’t acquire food at a minimum, death will result. For many people, a car is a prerequisite to food. This is why IMO, only legislative action that includes new solutions to replace the need for cars will make a dent here, and trying to convince individuals will continue to be problematic.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Cars being a life line isn't strictly an American thing either. Any rural area will very likely have insufficient public transport, necessitating cars just to accomplish daily needs. Japan, for example, faces a problem of elderly drivers in the countryside who can't (or won't) retire from driving simply because they need to drive to get to their farm, go shop groceries, and visit the hospital.
Dalewyn 4y ago
Standing in an enclosed space with a running combustion engine is, in fact, "arguing for standing in an airtight coffin" and equivalent to breathing "only our own exhalations". If you have any doubts, the crew of Apollo 13 will be happy to give you a seminar about the dangers of carbon dioxide and by extension carbon monoxide produced by combustion engines.

by bertil 4y ago

bawolff 4y ago

It seems about the same amount of reasonableness/strawmanness as capturing the exhaust in a plastic bag and breathing that.

haswell 4y ago

I think you’re missing the point here. The way I took the comment, specifically about tradeoffs, is that for many people the alternative to driving is dying. If a household can’t acquire food at a minimum, death will result. For many people, a car is a prerequisite to food. This is why IMO, only legislative action that includes new solutions to replace the need for cars will make a dent here, and trying to convince individuals will continue to be problematic.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Cars being a life line isn't strictly an American thing either. Any rural area will very likely have insufficient public transport, necessitating cars just to accomplish daily needs. Japan, for example, faces a problem of elderly drivers in the countryside who can't (or won't) retire from driving simply because they need to drive to get to their farm, go shop groceries, and visit the hospital.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Standing in an enclosed space with a running combustion engine is, in fact, "arguing for standing in an airtight coffin" and equivalent to breathing "only our own exhalations". If you have any doubts, the crew of Apollo 13 will be happy to give you a seminar about the dangers of carbon dioxide and by extension carbon monoxide produced by combustion engines.