3 ms·

What if you didn't had your car? Would you have lost any property, or have anyone harmed? Assuming not having your care would have been bad, what is the freque

What if you didn't had your car? Would you have lost any property, or have anyone harmed? Assuming not having your care would have been bad, what is the frequency of such events? Are they, say, more frequent than serious car crashes? Not to mention the sheer costs of having most people owning their own car, compared to a decent public transportation system (which doesn't exist, I know). Even if cars save more lives than they crush, this money could go to more efficient life-saving effort, such as medical research, or existential risks mitigation. It's all cost and benefit. Don't let your personal experience get in the way of numbers. They may be abstract, but at that scale, they matter more than your own family.

robomartin 13y ago
The problem with decent public transportation in the US is that our cities were not designed for it. Just one look at a megalopolis like Los Angeles and it becomes clear there's almost no way to exist without your own car outside of a narrow set of locations and life styles. If you are a single guy or gal living and working in Santa Monica and can bike to work, well, life is good. The minute you move away from those areas, turn into a family with multiple kids things change. Work might no longer be a bike ride away. Work for many is anywhere from thirty to sixty miles away from home. Each adult in the family is likely to work at a very different location. Schools are not centralized. You have separate elementary, middle and high schools. Many families have kids in all three at the same time. This means potentially driving and picking-up kids from three different schools at three different locations every day. Look at Silicon Valley and their commute scenarios. In general terms, yes, I agree, good mass transportation would be good for many reasons. In practical terms this dream is not really attainable without major structural, cultural and labor changes in most US cities. This, for all intents and purposes, probably means this is a pipe dream.

robomartin 13y ago

The problem with decent public transportation in the US is that our cities were not designed for it. Just one look at a megalopolis like Los Angeles and it becomes clear there's almost no way to exist without your own car outside of a narrow set of locations and life styles. If you are a single guy or gal living and working in Santa Monica and can bike to work, well, life is good. The minute you move away from those areas, turn into a family with multiple kids things change. Work might no longer be a bike ride away. Work for many is anywhere from thirty to sixty miles away from home. Each adult in the family is likely to work at a very different location. Schools are not centralized. You have separate elementary, middle and high schools. Many families have kids in all three at the same time. This means potentially driving and picking-up kids from three different schools at three different locations every day. Look at Silicon Valley and their commute scenarios. In general terms, yes, I agree, good mass transportation would be good for many reasons. In practical terms this dream is not really attainable without major structural, cultural and labor changes in most US cities. This, for all intents and purposes, probably means this is a pipe dream.