7 ms·

When will we stop tolerating the flagrant waste of life that occurs every day as a result of our addiction and worship of the automobile?

• akivabamberger 13y ago
  Is this a joke? What part of this death is due to automobile worship?
  • _delirium 13y ago
    He was killed by an automobile driver. The U.S. is notorious [1] for bicyclists (and pedestrians) being hit by cars at a relatively high rate, because it prioritizes automobile infrastructure and speed (and culture) over bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure/accessibility/safety. [1] Not to say it's the worst, just relatively bad for an advanced country.
    • chrischen 13y ago
      You've never been to China then. I've never been to any country where the drivers are more courteous to pedestrians than the USA.
      • moskie 13y ago
        The US is a big place. Some areas are OK for pedestrians and bicyclists. Many are not so friendly or accommodating.
        • chrischen 13y ago
          I've been around the US. Even in this article, the driver didn't seem to have done it because of disregard for cyclers or pedestrians. It claimed s/he moved out of the way to avoid traffic, and probably didn't see the cycler. In China, they might actually go on the sidewalk intentionally and drive at you assuming you will move out of the way for them.
      • jlgreco 13y ago
        Drivers are courteous to pedestrians to a fault in the north-west US. Sometimes several times a day I will be approaching (as a pedestrian) an intersection (double stop-sign), say 10 to 15 feet away, and a car will stop and refuse to move until I reach the intersection, step into it, and fully cross it. Contrast this with the east coast where a car will stop and pause for one second. If after that second nobody is in the crosswalk, they will continue. This allows pedestrians to comfortably stand in the general area of intersections without feeling as though they are holding up traffic. It also allows considerate pedestrians, like I consider myself, to allow a car to continue first (I often (try to) do this when I notice that a car has waited for several pedestrians already by the time I arrive). It also allows cautious pedestrians (as I am) to courteously opt-out of stepping in front of a car that seems impatient but begrudgingly stopped, or cars that appear distracted. It drives me crazy. It reminds me of my mother/aunts all arguing that they should be the one that pays for everyone's meal; trying to be "polite" but ultimately just making the situation worse for no reason. Absolutely maddening. Cars and pedestrians should have a safe but adversarial attitude towards each other, it just makes everything run smoother for everybody involved.
        • alxndr 13y ago
          > Contrast this with the east coast where a car will stop... You've seen cars stop on the east coast?!? Not me...
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    • bti 13y ago
      The U.S. is huge and spread out. Not everyone has the luxury of having all their needs within a 10 minute bike ride. We need that automobile infrastructure to get places so it makes sense that it is prioritized.
      • moskie 13y ago
        But you've got it backwards. The point is that the "spread out" nature you're talking about was created with the idea in mind that everyone will have a car and will drive. That was a conscious decision, and not a necessary one. Also realize that it was by design that you don't view having a car to be the luxury.
        • jwoah12 13y ago
          I'm fairly certain that the US was large and spread out well before cars were invented.
          • TillE 13y ago
            On a large scale, yes. But urban sprawl is directly caused by the automobile. The design of US cities is just godawful from any perspective (environmental, social, business efficiency, crime rates, ghettoization, etc), compared to those in Europe. I'm fairly certain that Manhattan and San Francisco are so vibrant and livable largely because they're constrained by geographical barriers.
            • scott_karana 13y ago
              It's a bit of a stretch to refer to most large European cities being "designed", at least recently, isn't it?
              • _delirium 13y ago
                The urban cores are very old, but many of them are surprisingly small, with the bulk of the city dating to the past 100-150 years. Copenhagen's old center, for example, was less than 10km across (confined within city walls until the 1850s), so nearly the entire city was laid out according to 19th- and 20th-century urban plans (the 20th-century one was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Plan). The city where it's architecturally most visible is probably Barcelona, where you can see the medieval core's winding streets, and then a massive expanse of centrally planned regular squares outside of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eixample_aire.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eixample_aire.jpg
    • droopybuns 13y ago
      I quit biking because I realized it was unsafe. I am not sure why ostensibly intelligent people would engage in any activity where you are one texting teenager away from crippling injury or death.
      • xioxox 13y ago
        For goodness, stop this hyperbole. At least in the UK, the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the danger: http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html
        • clarky07 13y ago
          For the population as a whole maybe. That doesn't take away the not insignificant risk to any one individual of being killed or crippled. Biking "could" give you an increased life span of 5-10 years IF you don't replace it with other exercise. In exchange for this, you have a slightly increased chance of being crippled or killed far sooner. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but don't dismiss his argument as being unreasonable. It's not unreasonable at all. I can happily get the benefits on biking on a closed course or at a gym while not subjecting myself to the dangers of biking near people in cars that don't always pay enough attention.
        • droopybuns 13y ago
          I do not think you understand the definition of hyperbole. I live 40 minutes outside of Seattle, in a rural area that is considered a great destination for a full day weekend bike loop. Our highways are curvy, have very little shoulders and are regularly traveled by speeding logging trucks. I am a former biker. I know what I have seen and it is just not a safe hobby. Your disagreement with the reality of a 50 ton truck traveling blind corners at high speed will be of little solace to your family at your funeral. Hyperbole is a word reserved for exaggerated claims. I am not exaggerating. It is a dangerous hobby here in the states, and the biking community might as well be shaking their fists at rain clouds.
          • jessaustin 13y ago
    • hillbillyjack 13y ago
      Without living in the US it is hard for you to come up with a valid argument against prioritizing automobile infrastructure. Population density alone makes it an issue outside of large cities like New York, because of that you'll also find most cities have pretty lackluster public transportation. It is tragic that people are hurt and worse because of automobiles but they are a fact of life in America and cyclists are a very minor subset of the population for which taxes rarely cater. One of the major problems with bicycling is the lack of respect between the cyclist and the motorist, it goes both ways but there are plenty of motorists who do not understand the laws and despise cyclists. But there are also many cyclists who fail to follow the laws which helps perpetuate the hate from motorists. If more cities had the budget for dedicated cycling paths and road usage I'm sure they would use it but as it is now only some "greener" cities are able to do anything.
      • _delirium 13y ago
        > Without living in the US it is hard for you to come up with a valid argument against prioritizing automobile infrastructure. I'm American, and have lived in the U.S. for about 90% of my life, so I'm pretty familiar with the issues. Even leaving aside major change, and just taking cities as they exist today, pedestrian/bicyclist access and safety is just not prioritized even within cities. I lived in midtown Atlanta for three years, and two people I know were hit by automobiles while crossing in a crosswalk (fortunately neither killed, but one injured seriously). Bicycling safely was pretty much impossible, because the roads were designed exclusively for cars. And god help you if you were anywhere worse for pedestrians than midtown, which was relatively good. It's partly infrastructure and partly culture imo. If you compare how drivers and pedestrians interact in, say, a German city center, with how they interact in Atlanta, the German intersections give much more formal protection: more crosswalks have lights, whereas many Atlanta crosswalks are not signalized, and the lights will typically give at least a short fully protected period to cross, while the Atlanta ones leave you dodging left/right turning cars even on a 'walk' signal. And culturally, the German drivers are just much more conscientious about yielding right of way when the law says they should. Pedestrians in a crosswalk are supposed to have right of way in the U.S., too, but at least in Atlanta you can't rely on it.
  • thwest 13y ago
    No, this is not a joke. Having heavy motorized vehicles zooming around our urban landscape is incredibly dangerous and violent. Worse, the pilots are inattentive and feel entitled to the asphalt in front of them. Automobile worship has completely dominated city infrastructure, demanding that cyclists and pedestrians simply learn how to use a road designed for automobiles. Automobile worship has also reshaped how we've done city development, making it more difficult to do anything but drive.
    • xradionut 13y ago
      If I could transport myself and goods without driving, I would. But in my present life/location, it's not possible. I could give a fuck about automobiles except for their utility.
      • thwest 13y ago
        I completely appreciate that and am not automobile free myself! I just want 4 wheel solo travel to be the exception, and treated with constant caution.
• tylermac1 13y ago
  When we can find a viable, safer alternative. The automobile has been a staple of growth of modern society since it's invention. There's no other current form of transportation that can be a drop in fit. But in reality, no matter the form of transportation, there will be deaths involved, be it accidental or not. It's a fact of life. Sad, but inevitable.
  • betterunix 13y ago
    "But in reality, no matter the form of transportation, there will be deaths involved" Sure, but: 1. This was a hit-and-run, a problem that is unique to automobiles. Buses and trains do not have a significant hit-and-run issue; they are operated by people whose job is to operate them, and they are on regular, organized schedules. 2. Automobiles are among the most dangerous forms of transportation. On the whole, though, I agree with the sentiment: Seth's death would be just as terrible if he had been hit by a bus, train, or airplane. This is not a story about how terrible cars are, it is a story about a man's tragic death.
    • jlgreco 13y ago
      The "run" part is really the only part that is unique to automobiles, but that part has nothing to do with the danger posed.
  • xanderstrike 13y ago
    The bicycle could have been, and is in many cities (see Copenhagen or Amsterdam). The decision to include the automobile as "a staple of growth in modern society" is the reason it isn't a drop in fit. We designed our cities around dangerous, pollution producing power tools, and in doing so squashed out any hope of implementing something better. If you think about it, the only reason the bicycle isn't a safe alternative is because there are cars on the road. I don't have statistics on this, but you almost never hear about solo bicycle accidents resulting in fatalities, only ones involving cars. We're on our way back now, but it's a long road (so to speak).
    • tylermac1 13y ago
• Terretta 13y ago
  Probably the day after we stop tolerating the even more egregious waste of life that occurs every day from mass over consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and, well, food.[1] Accidents are only 7th in the top 10 killers, and automobile accidents are a fraction of that category[2]. If we want to tackle major causes of death, this is the place to start: 1. http://www.policymic.com/articles/24365/9-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-united-states http://www.policymic.com/articles/24365/9-leading-causes-of-... 2. http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
  • eterm 13y ago
    But if you were to sample leading causes of death among 18-40yr olds then car accidents would be top. Smoking is abhorrent but it still tends to kill the older, car accidents kill young people.
    • eddieroger 13y ago
      Smoking kills people slowly, whereas bike accidents are faster. That doesn't make either better or worse, and if anything, not really comparable.
  • Bosence 13y ago
    I do feel though, that more innocent people are killed by other peoples driving mistakes than other peoples alcohol/smoking/diets.
  • tylermac1 13y ago
    Exactly this. Alcohol is linked to over 75,000 deaths per year [1] while bicycle related deaths are around 700 per year [2]. There needs to be much more focus on alcohol/tobacco related injuries than deaths. 1. http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm 2. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/bikeinjuries.html http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/bikeinjuries.ht...
  • thwest 13y ago
    Personal consumption is a completely different realm than dangerous systemic infrastructure decisions. I'll give someone the right to die fat and drunk on their own, but I absolutely abhor how our roads make murderers out of us.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• cobrausn 13y ago
  Worship? Hyperbolic bullshit. The automobile, and the high mobility it affords, is the primary cause for a lot of social and economic progress over the past century for the average person.
• TylerE 13y ago
  If you want to save lives, ban bikes. Bicycles are responible for 2% of transportation-related fatalities, but less than 1% of trips. On a per-mile basis it's even grimmer.
• Zikes 13y ago
  Never too soon to use a celebrity's death to further an anti-automobile agenda, eh?
• staunch 13y ago
  Don't feed the trolls people.