5 ms·

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 o

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
  I agree that in a dense urban environment, the bicycle could be a much better fit for personal transportation. But as someone who has lived in smaller Midwestern cities, many more lives that some people care to think about depend on the automobile as a livelihood. Even in smaller metro areas, a bicycle would not be a viable option in the least. Cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam precede automobiles by hundreds of years, and are a better fit for bicycles and smaller personal travel mediums. That's where the disparity between the how the US travel system is structured compared to one with a much longer and storied history, like Europe.
  - xanderstrike 13y ago
    That's my point though, the US travel system didn't just become structured this way arbitrarily, it was a conscious decision to design our infrastructure in a way that was hostile to anything other than cars (pedestrians, bicycles, even horse-powered transportation). Cars were the way to the future, or so they thought. Now, we have a hundred years of data and experience with the automobile, and it's become obvious that the fossil fuel powered car isn't a good long-term solution to the urban and suburban transportation problem. Literally everything about them is bad for the world, gathering and burning the fuel, the destruction required for their roads, the massive amount of space needed to store them, and the death and destruction they cause daily. Electric (and other alternative fuel) cars are less bad, but only in one small way, they address a single issue in an inherently flawed model. You say that Europe has an advantage because it's cities are much older, but it's important to understand that the Netherlands and Denmark were both on the same auto-centric trajectory that the US was on coming out of the World Wars and industrialization. Denmark only started rebuilding their cycling infrastructure after decades of disuse when the energy crisis in the 70s made using a car extremely expensive. In both countries, people realized just how bad cars were. The deaths of cyclists (especially children) sparked mass protests where people demanded cycling infrastructure, and they got it. They were able to convert a car-focused city (perhaps less so than Los Angeles or New York, but still) into a bike focused city. They were able to do it, why can't we?
  - akgerber 13y ago
    Many smaller Midwestern cities (speaking as someone who grew up in one and went to college in another) were founded and to a significant degree built out in the streetcar era, and have a physical form in the central city that reflects that. In architecture and urban form, the neighborhood I grew up in quite resembles the walk/bike/transit hotspot inner neighborhoods of Portland, Oregon, for example. In many of those cities, the older, walkable neighborhoods have been left to decay, with gutted transit service, failing schools, and many fine old structures demolished to build parking lots or simply let to collapse., while many residents and jobs have decamped to auto-oriented exurban areas. But that is to a large degree a policy choice designed to maintain residential segregation, and something which can and must be reversed by different policy choices. It is more the Sunbelt than the Midwest where a vast majority of the infrastructure was built in the postwar automobile era, and most neigborhoods (if you can even call them that) are nearly inaccessible to the pedestrian, cyclist, and mass transit user.
darkarmani 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. This is true in areas where car manufacturers bought up all of the light rail and ripped it out. GM was convicted in the 50s and paid a $1 fine for anti-trust behavior. The US gov't has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on roads and highways, so that might be why it looks so viable. *typo

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
I agree that in a dense urban environment, the bicycle could be a much better fit for personal transportation. But as someone who has lived in smaller Midwestern cities, many more lives that some people care to think about depend on the automobile as a livelihood. Even in smaller metro areas, a bicycle would not be a viable option in the least. Cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam precede automobiles by hundreds of years, and are a better fit for bicycles and smaller personal travel mediums. That's where the disparity between the how the US travel system is structured compared to one with a much longer and storied history, like Europe.
- xanderstrike 13y ago
  That's my point though, the US travel system didn't just become structured this way arbitrarily, it was a conscious decision to design our infrastructure in a way that was hostile to anything other than cars (pedestrians, bicycles, even horse-powered transportation). Cars were the way to the future, or so they thought. Now, we have a hundred years of data and experience with the automobile, and it's become obvious that the fossil fuel powered car isn't a good long-term solution to the urban and suburban transportation problem. Literally everything about them is bad for the world, gathering and burning the fuel, the destruction required for their roads, the massive amount of space needed to store them, and the death and destruction they cause daily. Electric (and other alternative fuel) cars are less bad, but only in one small way, they address a single issue in an inherently flawed model. You say that Europe has an advantage because it's cities are much older, but it's important to understand that the Netherlands and Denmark were both on the same auto-centric trajectory that the US was on coming out of the World Wars and industrialization. Denmark only started rebuilding their cycling infrastructure after decades of disuse when the energy crisis in the 70s made using a car extremely expensive. In both countries, people realized just how bad cars were. The deaths of cyclists (especially children) sparked mass protests where people demanded cycling infrastructure, and they got it. They were able to convert a car-focused city (perhaps less so than Los Angeles or New York, but still) into a bike focused city. They were able to do it, why can't we?
- akgerber 13y ago
  Many smaller Midwestern cities (speaking as someone who grew up in one and went to college in another) were founded and to a significant degree built out in the streetcar era, and have a physical form in the central city that reflects that. In architecture and urban form, the neighborhood I grew up in quite resembles the walk/bike/transit hotspot inner neighborhoods of Portland, Oregon, for example. In many of those cities, the older, walkable neighborhoods have been left to decay, with gutted transit service, failing schools, and many fine old structures demolished to build parking lots or simply let to collapse., while many residents and jobs have decamped to auto-oriented exurban areas. But that is to a large degree a policy choice designed to maintain residential segregation, and something which can and must be reversed by different policy choices. It is more the Sunbelt than the Midwest where a vast majority of the infrastructure was built in the postwar automobile era, and most neigborhoods (if you can even call them that) are nearly inaccessible to the pedestrian, cyclist, and mass transit user.

darkarmani 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. This is true in areas where car manufacturers bought up all of the light rail and ripped it out. GM was convicted in the 50s and paid a $1 fine for anti-trust behavior. The US gov't has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on roads and highways, so that might be why it looks so viable. *typo