8 ms·

> In fact, a well off person in a well functioning city has little if any reason to own a car and can get away without one. You can get away without one, that

> In fact, a well off person in a well functioning city has little if any reason to own a car and can get away without one. You can get away without one, that is if you don’t mind sharing transit with violent junkies in any North American city. Transit can be down right terrifying to use these days.

afunctionof 4y ago
I would be interested in seeing a graph comparing the rate of automobile fatalities to the rate of public transit fatalities.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I'm not sure what value there would be in that comparison. Cars and public transit are not filling the same role in society, regardless of how often that claim is made on HN. And that's completely ignoring the counterfactual of how mortality overall would change if we actually tried to make public transit fill all the roles cars have today.
knowledge-clay 4y ago
I’ve relied on public transit for 7 years in 3 different cities and never once have I encountered a “violent junkie”. It’s far safer to take transit than to drive. Cars kill 40,000 people a year in the US. Cars are the leading cause of death for Americans age 15-24. These are deaths we just normalize and wave away because it’s the living cost of car-dependent infrastructure. But it’s not and shouldn’t be normal or acceptable. => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
armchairhacker 4y ago
It depends. Anecdotally, in Boston the MBTA is one of the "falling apart" systems. I could still rely on it to commute to my college / job, and the worst that has happened was sometimes being late due to delays. There are certainly a lot of sketchy people, but I have never seen someone attacked or have anything stolen or been harassed myself - then again I am a man and I'm certain it's different for women. But more importantly, when living in Boston I never had to use the train. Only when commuting. Because when I lived in Boston everything was at most a 3 mile walk. Even in the really bad weather I could layer up still get places without public transit. Now I'm in a less urban area but it's the same: I don't have a car and rarely end up using transit / Lyft. I do get groceries and things delivered though, but my job and everything else is within walking distance. I still agree it would be a lot better if public transit was more reliable, but I think many people in cities can be well-off without a car. Not anecdotally I know that most of the college students in Boston don't have a car (especially because there is basically no parking...)
- dublinben 4y ago
  There's no shortage of parking in Boston, the market price of $40/day or $400 a month is just unaffordable for most college students. The ones driving exotic sports cars sure don't have any problem finding parking in the city. As you point out, when you can find all of life's necessities within a reasonable walking distance, the need to own a car is significantly diminished. That's the goal that "anti-car" activists are pushing for.

afunctionof 4y ago

I would be interested in seeing a graph comparing the rate of automobile fatalities to the rate of public transit fatalities.

rootusrootus 4y ago
I'm not sure what value there would be in that comparison. Cars and public transit are not filling the same role in society, regardless of how often that claim is made on HN. And that's completely ignoring the counterfactual of how mortality overall would change if we actually tried to make public transit fill all the roles cars have today.

knowledge-clay 4y ago

I’ve relied on public transit for 7 years in 3 different cities and never once have I encountered a “violent junkie”. It’s far safer to take transit than to drive. Cars kill 40,000 people a year in the US. Cars are the leading cause of death for Americans age 15-24. These are deaths we just normalize and wave away because it’s the living cost of car-dependent infrastructure. But it’s not and shouldn’t be normal or acceptable. => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

armchairhacker 4y ago

It depends. Anecdotally, in Boston the MBTA is one of the "falling apart" systems. I could still rely on it to commute to my college / job, and the worst that has happened was sometimes being late due to delays. There are certainly a lot of sketchy people, but I have never seen someone attacked or have anything stolen or been harassed myself - then again I am a man and I'm certain it's different for women. But more importantly, when living in Boston I never had to use the train. Only when commuting. Because when I lived in Boston everything was at most a 3 mile walk. Even in the really bad weather I could layer up still get places without public transit. Now I'm in a less urban area but it's the same: I don't have a car and rarely end up using transit / Lyft. I do get groceries and things delivered though, but my job and everything else is within walking distance. I still agree it would be a lot better if public transit was more reliable, but I think many people in cities can be well-off without a car. Not anecdotally I know that most of the college students in Boston don't have a car (especially because there is basically no parking...)

dublinben 4y ago
There's no shortage of parking in Boston, the market price of $40/day or $400 a month is just unaffordable for most college students. The ones driving exotic sports cars sure don't have any problem finding parking in the city. As you point out, when you can find all of life's necessities within a reasonable walking distance, the need to own a car is significantly diminished. That's the goal that "anti-car" activists are pushing for.