deleted by creator
If the leading cause of death globally 4-15 year olds is car accidents then it’s not a dirty play IMO.
Okay but, counterpoint, cars kill kids.
Edit, so I don’t have to keep repeating myself, and because this is important fucking information:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/
Passenger vehicles are by far the most dangerous motorized transportation option compared. Over the last 10 years, passenger vehicle death rate per 100,000,000 passenger miles was over 20 times higher than for buses, 17 times higher than for passenger trains, and 595 times higher than for scheduled airlines.Other comparisons are possible based on passenger trips, vehicle miles, or vehicle trips, but passenger miles is the most commonly used basis for comparing the safety of various modes of travel.
Thank you for excepting the exhausting challenge to explain this to a bunch of meat-/car-brains.
Drowning kills kids. Shall we get rid swimming pools?
If there was an alternative you couldn’t drown in then yes, we should get rid of swimming pools.
There are other, better ways to transport people that are not only more efficient, but significantly safer. Cars are basically the worst way our society could practically organise our transport needs.
There is no other way to swim than by getting in the water, but if your pool in particular keeps on killing loads of people then maybe your pool in particular has a problem and should be shut down.
Edit:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/
Passenger vehicles are by far the most dangerous motorized transportation option compared. Over the last 10 years, passenger vehicle death rate per 100,000,000 passenger miles was over 20 times higher than for buses, 17 times higher than for passenger trains, and 595 times higher than for scheduled airlines.Other comparisons are possible based on passenger trips, vehicle miles, or vehicle trips, but passenger miles is the most commonly used basis for comparing the safety of various modes of travel.
I’m all for reducing the amount of cars on the road, but in many areas it’s simply not practical not to own one.
I’ve done the math. Not owning a car at all or paying for note/gas/maintenance/insurance, and instead living in walking/cycling distance from work would require me to spend about $700/month more than I am now living 35 miles away and paying for my car expenses, and would leave me effectively stranded at work.
in many areas it’s simply not practical not to own one.
This is exactly the problem that I am trying to highlight. I don’t think individual consumptive actions will fix this. This is a political issue that needs collective action to fix.
Don’t forget that your taxes go towards other people’s driving. Gas, roads and parking comes out of your taxes.
Don’t also forget that your commute is probably 1 hour each way of unpaid work.
Buses kill kids too. Trains too. Airplanes too. Let’s get rid of transportation.
Or is it about the numbers all of the sudden?
You’ve got to be a special level of dumb to think that anything in life has zero risk. Even food kills kids under certain circumstances.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/
Passenger vehicles are by far the most dangerous motorized transportation option compared. Over the last 10 years, passenger vehicle death rate per 100,000,000 passenger miles was over 20 times higher than for buses, 17 times higher than for passenger trains, and 595 times higher than for scheduled airlines. Other comparisons are possible based on passenger trips, vehicle miles, or vehicle trips, but passenger miles is the most commonly used basis for comparing the safety of various modes of travel.
deleted by creator
-
“Per 100,000,000 passenger miles”. It’s literally right there.
-
Name anything else we do that kills more kids. I will wait.
deleted by creator
You’ve said, “You suck at abstraction” to two people now who’ve explained very clearly what’s wrong with your understanding of the study. If you can’t be bothered to explain yourself nobody will know what you mean.
It’s hard to see how “quality of life” can be balanced against enormous numbers of people killed, but it sounds like you can’t name anything that kills more kids? Maybe because there is nothing? Maybe this is a huge problem and saying, “cars kill kids” is actually pretty valid?
Cars are terrible for quality of life unless you live rurally. Not only are they massively wasteful, their highways cut swathes through communities, they create noise pollution, they dominate our landscape and rob us of communal spaces, and they cause urban sprawl and force us into enormous and stessful commutes.
There is no part of our lives that is made better by cars. You can’t just say “quality of life” and expect that to mean anything unless, again, you explain yourself. You don’t seem interested in doing that though.
-
Those aren’t absolute rates, those are effectively per capita
deleted by creator
Uh. It’s literally per type of vehicle per 100,000,000 miles against passenger vehicles.
You can have your car, go nuts, but people who don’t want one shouldn’t be forced to have one to survive. I should have the freedom to not need a car.
I can spend 17 minutes driving to work, or 1.5 hours catching buses. Easy choice for me.
Alot of people forget that just becuase a bus commute works for them doesn’t mean it works for everyone.
Alot of people have a legitimate reason for owning a car, and if we want then to use public transit then we need public transit to fit their needs in travelling.
“The only factor I care about is my own personal convenience. Nothing else will influence my choices that affect others.” That’s you.
Literally no one is going to quadruple their commute as a good deed. Right or wrong.
People are struggling for free time from capitalistic slavery as it is.
I also had a commute of about 17min with car. The same route with an electric bike takes me 35min. I’m not out of breath with it and I still have some exercise. I still take my car when it rains.
But if there was more demand for public transport, don’t you think they would increase the supply?
And if there are more bus lines, you would only need like 30 minutes instead to get to work.
Right, that’s why we need to stop subsidizing streets and roads, make users pay the cost of them, and put the tax money toward transit. It’s really impossible to ask anybody but the most devoted to make extremely inconvenient choices. Certainly, there are some lunatics who’d drive a car even if it took 1.5 hours, but most people would choose the 17 minute bus.
Cheaper, sustainable, safer, better for mental health, better for non-drivers (children, elderly, disabled). It just makes sense.
You are right, if a bus ride was 17 or even 30 minutes to work I would take the bus. But in my area a bus ride is 2 hours one way.
I really underestimated the effect on my mental health. My commute takes double the time now but that’s alright because since switching to public transit, I’m getting to work and back home much calmer.
deleted by creator
cars are death machines
“studies show that cars save millions of lives annually”
Compared to what?
Study brought to you by volkswagen of america
In America pedestrian deaths have risen 77% since 2010 due to taller suvs and trucks, not to mention pollution.
Not denying this just acknowledging that things like ambulances may save more lives
They do, but they are slowed down by heavy traffic.
In the Netherlands they also have to acess bike paths, so their ability to get to injured people is improved by the infrastructure built for things other than cars.
deleted by creator
Genuene question, how am i supposed to transport myself everyday to the city from my rural area without a car if the city is 40 minutes of biking on a pothole ridden road away?
40 minutes is a long ride, true. Maybe buy a foldable bike or a bike rack for your car, park your car outside of the city and reduce car traffic by riding from there to your workplace by bike? It sure would make this city a better place.
That sounds reasonable maybe I will start doing that.
deleted by creator
You’ll also keep fit and you won’t have to spend time stuck in traffic!
park your car outside of the city
I like this kind of scheme, it should be promoted more maybe if it’s not being pushed much
40 minutes is a warm up, not a long ride.
It is if you have to do it twice every single day. Going to work shouldn’t take longer than 20 minutes.
No it’s not, I used to cycle 1 hour one way without any issues. Every day. Including during cold European winters in -20. 40 minutes is nothing special.
By forcing your elected officials to work on a public traffic infrastructure that could get you to the city in 30 minutes.
Doesn’t you rural area come with horses or donkeys?
No but it comes with chickens :)
Fresh eggs for breakfast?
You don’t have to replace your commute, if its not feasable. But you could try replacing other smaller trips with a bike if you can. Like trips to the grocery store or doctors appointment.
Truthfully if the infrastructure to do these things doesn’t exist for you, then don’t endanger yourself.
I’m trying to figure out how to fit a month’s worth of groceries onto a bike? Or even a week’s worth?
You’re allowed to drive if there’s no other infrastructure connecting point A to point B. This post is dumb because it lacks nuance. There are some cases where driving makes sense. If you live in a city where other options are safe and reliable, you should use those instead. And if you live in a city where there should be safe and reliable options but there aren’t, well that’s what you should be really upset about.
I used to do a 40 minute bike commute twice a day. Once it becomes part of your routine those 40 minutes are easy to conquer. Now I do the same distance by speed pedelec in 25 minutes. I’m faster at work now than when I used to go by car.
If you can’t make the trip safe though, than you shouldn’t. But you can, like me, start out on nice days and incorporate into your days as a workout just to try an see.
“How am I supposed to maintain all my privilege and continue a lifestyle that emulates a landed aristocrat?” Fucking move to the city like the rest of us exploited working class assholes. If you can’t afford to live in the country without externalizing the expenses on other people, then you can’t fucking accord to live in the country. Suck it up.
I dont know how living in a falling apart 70 year old house in the ass end of nowhere is an “aristocratic” privelege.
Nobody is trying to get rid of cars for those in rural areas, as that’s unfeasible. The ONLY place people genuinely care about cars existing is in cities where they can be built and changed to be walkable. I shouldn’t NEED a car to get to a grocery store. I shouldn’t NEED a car to get to work. I should NEED a car to get to anything fun to do. This is a feasible goal.
It’s about choice. I have no choice but to have a car. I don’t want a car. I am forced to have a car because the alternative is… There is no alternative, right now.
It’s about the freedom to have the choice to not drive.
I forgot that majority of people here are American and stuck with car exclusive infrastructure. The city that im trying to get to has plenty of bike lanes and sidewalks. I hope you will get those in the future.
I live in Minneapolis which is one of the more walkable cities in the US and it’s still not fantastic. I have to walk 30 minutes to the nearest bus stop with only 1/3 of it on sidewalks. After that I can get to downtown (or anywhere but suburbia) on the busses and metro, but it’s pretty slow
This is a hack of matrix boards like these that I can 100% get behind.
I would if I could right now and I’m going to move next year to a place where I can sell my car and forget about it.
I live in Canada there is no other option
You live in Canada where there is no other option and yet somehow a significant portion of your neighbors don’t own cars. Wonder how that words, Rab.
deleted by creator
All my neighbours own cars. Literally every single one
You’re using “neighbor” to mean, “people who’s property is directly or nearly directly adjacent to mine”. This is a shitty little trick of sophistry where you pretend to be obtuse so you don’t have to acknowledge the obvious fucking point. I guarantee you, I fucking GUARANTEE you, there are people in your city who don’t own cars. How do they do it, Rab? How do they do it?? There are no other options!!
Are you ok? My nearest neighbour is 3km away. You need to own a vehicle
They did a 10 year revision of the data here in the UK and found on average over 1000 kids were killed as pedestrians by cars. I think I remember another study where they tried to evaluate how children of different ages understood traffic. Most kids under 8 didnt really see the cars coming, slightly older kids struggled to assess oncoming vehicles of speeds over 20mph but slow traffic made it easier for them to cross. Kids who did the old Bikeability training were even better at understanding traffic and assessing the risk, but that scheme was cut nearly 10 years ago under PM Cameron.
You can get more recent info on these stats and others over at Brake’s website
The British people conceive of the bike as an exotic machine used for Olympic time trials. We would never actually use one to go to the shops. This is fundamentally a nation of bigoted Dunning-Kruger morons that keep voting for the people who don’t build cycle paths and other progressive policy. Every day we fall further into irrelevance. These people think that if we act like Victorians we will achieve the success of that era, meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on.
Jay Foreman has some nice (and very funny) video’s about why Cycling isn’t more common in the UK in his series Unfinished London.
I once had a Labour councillor tell me that “the car is progress, nobody needs a bike now!” That was only a few years ago just after the 2012 Olympics.
Amazing. Like a 1960s throwback, the Mark Lamarr of dystopian politics.
I agree with all of these except the last one.
Cars don’t ruin cities, the assholes that drive them do.
Nah, cars ruin everything.
It’s a joke lol, just a stab at the people driving cars in cities.
If you’ve ever spent any amount of time driving a car someplace like say, Atlanta GA, you’d know exactly where I’m getting at.
I spend time driving in Los Angeles.
Cars are bad for everything. Bad drivers (which is everyone, including me) only make it worse.
There are so many people claiming to be good drivers while ignoring every safety rule there is. Stay within the speed limit, keep the distance to the car in front of you, use the indicator,…
The problem is that streets and signs are so dumbed down that even the dumbest driver gets a false sence of “wow, I am quite good at this”. And they are getting more reckless because of this thought.
Anyway, I like your approach to count yourself as a bad driver. Because we all are bad drivers, including me. This thought alone could save lifes.
TIL people in l/fuckcars have no sense of humor
Wow, what a fucking dickhead you are!
Sorry I hurt your feelings somehow, I assure you I was genuinely joking, but since you decided to pull the “Schrödinger’s douchebag” card I don’t really give a shit what you think.
Humor doesn’t exist, you just proved it right there, you must be German.
Lol
Humor doesn’t exist, you just proved it right there, you must be German
Way to go to sprinkle your odyssey with some prejudice.
Guns don’t kill people
Nuh uh
I kill people
With guns
Oh my god dude I remember this lol, where did this come from?
Jon Lajoie, a.k.a. MC Vagina - I kill people
LOL YES, I REMEMBER THIS.
Had me and my buddies giggling over this for weeks. We used to spam it on the mic in Halo 3.
This sub Lemmy? is hilarious, I love my SUV!
Okay done. Now that I have eliminated this here my contribution to CO2 emissions, what do we do about the 100 companies that cause 70% of global CO2 emissions? Or is that no longer an issue once my car is taken out of circulation?
Which companies are those? Coca Cola, who make your drinks that you drink? Ford, who make the car you drive? One of the oil companies who fuels your car? A company that makes the clothes you wear?
It all comes down to consumers in the end - we are the end point of the chain and these mythical 100 companies exist for us. Stop ducking the issue.
You’re both right. We need massive systemic change, but that’s not an excuse to not do what you can in your own life. It’s really easy to get disillusioned (hell, I am half the time) but defeatism gets us nowhere.
sort of, but also not. Sure, those companies are funded by us, but they lobby governments and shit so we NEED to buy their stuff. I wouldn’t think GM would be such a big company if they didn’t get rid of all the streetcars for example
Ok, so give us your plan to stop billions of people from buying cars, clothes and cola.
I, personally, would love to hear it.
As a consumer, i cant find ways to make the products i buy cause less environmental damage and i cant just stop buying clothes, and theres only one place to buy them
or food. And i can only get that from one place.
I cant suddenly not own a car, or else how do i get to work? Public transport isnt an option where i live. and i dont have a choice in how that car is made.
There are alternatives out there for all of these but they are significantly more expensive and i already live on a tight budget and cant afford to suddenly increase my spending.
If you cant see how that traps consumers and the change has to come from above then you are lost
Also theres nothing ‘mythical’ about the companies that produce 70% of the emmisions.
Thats not even the point of the argument. We are expected to separate our waste into special bins or buy electric cars (soooo expensive) or produce less waste and reduce our individual emmisions but its pointless. we can only affect 30% of the global emissions and ee wont get our individual emmisions to zero so it wont even be 30% reduced if we make all the changes we need to.
This isnt an us or them situation, companies need to be held accountable for their emissions and be forced to reduce them. They will always follow the money, consumers will get used to whatever options they are given.
Just like all other environmental legislation Chinese imports will just fill the void. They use mostly coal.
What if alternatives for heavy emitters like steel and concrete producers do not exist at this time… Just dictating targets might be unproductive.
Companies emissions are exclusively to provide you the consume with goods and services. Companies will respond to the marker dictated by the consumer. Really we are also driving the 70%…
Companies will respond to the marker dictated by the consumer.
This is a lie that you’ve been told by econ 101. Companies will manipulate the markets through lobbying and anticompetitive behaviours so that the consumer has no other choice.
For instance, the suburbs are not a natural outworking of market desires, they are mandated by legislation that prevents medium rise and high density urban development, which necessitates cars and also massively overloads the roads so you have terrible traffic.
This wasn’t a natural outworking of a market, but a deliberate push by capitalists to destroy public transit, build more roads, and lock you the consumer into a world in which you actually do not have any choice. This, not coincidentally, also creates the most wasteful possible way to organise our cities and transport ourselves - individualised cars and dwellings with enormous demands on space. More wasteful systems are as a rule better for capitalists because they create the largest possible market for consumables and redundant equipment.
Yeah if you want to fix zoning to increase density that’s a local government issue. I personally like having a car and large house outside of the city. I’m absolutely in support of government fixing multi residential zoning … Would have loved better options when I was younger. I’m sure a lot of developers would gladly respond to those market forces if given the option … Do you think it’s nimbys preventing that or capitalists?
We live under capitalism. That means, explicitly, that capital has all the power. To the extent nimbyism is a real problem that’s because it’s been stoked by capitalist propaganda and fueled by the artificial fear that their property prices will go down. Homeowners have been taught to think in those terms rather than about what will actually affect their quality of life because the nuance-flattening logic of the market permeates our thinking.
You show me a single home owner who’s enthusiastic about having a large multi-unit built next door … I wouldn’t be happy personally.
If you think capital has all the power look at TC energy’s keystone pipeline. Look at LNG facility approval in Canada. No shortage of capital there but those projects are dead.
If there’s demand for something (housing) markets will solve that problem you just get out of the way and let them. Capitalists would love to sell the same acre of developed realeatate to more than one person. Remember - they’re greedy.
I feel like bikes are a good alternative to cars. At least to address one of your points about getting to work. Even an ebike has far less total emissions than a car… Assuming people actually use them instead of just leaving it in the garage
I appreciate that i could be a fringe case hut an ebike would turn my 30-50minute commute into 1-1.4 hour journey along a dangerous road with no cycle lanes or pavement for 90% of the journey.
This would work for alot of people but not for me unfortunately
Bikes are only good for small distances.
What a better alternative for cars would be is public transport.
Just imagine if all the money and time we put into building a highway network would have been put into public transport instead.
How many people live more than 10 miles from work? I know I never have.
90% of people can ride bikes and the rest can take public transit.
I live in the Midwest too, my city is really spread out, but biking is still possible. It would even be enjoyable if there were feewer cars
How bout making government accountable for the people instead of relying on a state machine that consistently needing funds from the lobbying? We have to utilise our collective power to enforce our will onto the goverment, isn’t that how democracy works? Sure it is hardly significant for one’s contribution to the emission reduction, but we still have to voice out our concern on the matters. This particular post is one of such effort. There’s no shame on doubting OP on pushing their voice on the issue, but this community is dedicated for such problem, of course you’d expect post like this to raise the awareness.
Transportation is a quarter of global emissions, with passenger vehicles making up half of that number and is only getting larger as more people in the world decide they need a car.
The number you’re looking for is 20 companies making up 30% of emissions. They’re almost exclusively oil companies, with more than half of them being state owned enterprises. Reduce the need for oil and you reduce the amount they pollute.
So, how do you do that?
Personal vehicles are the most flexible in terms of emissions. Increasing the usability of public transportation has a direct correlation with the number of vehicles on the road. Sure, people out in the middle of nowhere need a vehicle and nobody is looking to take that from them, but you could HALF the number of people in the US with a car if cities had proper public transport or were as walkable as they were barely 80 years ago.
The private sector is more difficult. We’d need to rebuild our train infrastructure that has been gutted and raided by our rail companies in order to get trucks off the interstate. Coincidentally, that would get MORE people off the road since you wouldn’t need a car to go between cities.
Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that we’re incapable of solving multiple problems at the same time. We can make cars unnecessarily (not GET RID of them) while also cutting emissions in other areas.
Make no mistake, we do need to address other areas, but cars are an easy target that would reduce tons of emissions and increase people’s quality of life as well. Cars are a massive waste of space and a huge ongoing drain on taxpayer dollars for very little benefit when you compare it to the alternatives.
I am not saying that we are incapable of solving multiple problems at once, I am saying that we are incapable of solving the main problem.
I was not joking when I said that my car is not a factor. My individual part in this regard is done. But the point remains that by considering the main sources of pollution too “inflexible” to tackle, it seems that we are debating about which colour to best repaint a sinking ship here while being utterly, completely powerless to address the big hole in the hull.
So in conclusion, I’ll now pat myself on the back for having done my part while sailing this doomed (but [for some at least] highly profitable) planet to hell in a handbasket.
If we assume that you’ll have a car even if they become unnecessary, then sure, you’ve done all you’re willing to do. However there are tens of millions of people that would happily stop driving if it weren’t absolutely required to function. They have not finished doing their part. That includes me.
I am saying that we are incapable of solving the main problem.
Has to be done via government. Government action is how to address many industrial practices.
But also, when you say “70% by industry”, that ignores that industry is producing stuff for us. They don’t exist without a consumer.
Absolutely right that it has to be legislated by Government and enforced. Pricing in externalities is important, but at the very least they should be accounted for/reported on honestly (and also not over-inflated).
Consumerism is complicated, of course. It is often manufactured, one way or another. From lack of viable or convenient alternatives (eg. public transport / safe walking and bicycle paths), to straight up advertising and social pressures, to incentives or requirements from above (eg. job, laws, etc.).
Now stop consuming animals.
I mean… they’re making things for us generally. I don’t think they’re emitting recreationally. Look at a pie chart of total emissions and figure what you could cut to hit 50%. Do away with all transportation… Boats planes etc and you’re not even close.
If the average person cut out 100% of their carbon emissions for the rest on their life, they’d save, on average, the amount of CO2 that industry creates in ~1 second. Our personal emissions are but a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme. Change is best brought about by voting both metaphocally with our wallets and literally with our ballot papers.
The industries produces CO2 to provide us goods and services. Car is one of them; not using a car, not only I don’t produce gazes directly (or less), but I also don’t use something “the industry” produced CO2 for.
Why is industry creating carbon? They’re building the things we need and generating our power. Probably 100% of industrial CO2 emissions are conducted for us. This is just our emissions upstream from the things we consume directly.
Also if you cut 100% of your emissions you’d be dead. Breathing emits CO2.
But now you can ride around on your high horse and look at all the scum ruining our planet with their cars.
We are never gonna have a chance against climate change if we try to plead to the individual to live a “greener” life.
Well, we are also never gonna have a chance against climate change if the individual didn’t help.
Both need to put in effort.
While we’re in cycles, the elites are riding in their luxurious car, and flying in their private jets producing all the emissions the world needs.
Yet! We have to deprive ourselves from vehicles, and they be enjoying life.
Private aviation is basically nothing in terms of emissions. Is pretty gross though.
Can you please support your statement with a reference to the source of that data?
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
All aviation is 1.9% … Private would be a vanishingly small amount of that.
That link does not have information on the contribution of private aviation. You are assuming it.
In this BBC article on What’s the climate impact of private jets you can read that
"Emissions per kilometre travelled [using an airplane] are known to be significantly worse than any other form of transport.
(…)
Private jets generally produce significantly more emissions per passenger than commercial flights."
If you already knew the answer why did you ask?
Did I knew the source that supported the comment of /u/malaph, no, I didn’t. I don’t have premonition abilities.
Are you okay?
Yes the BBC article is correct too. Just because CO2 emissions per km travelled are high doesn’t mean they’re statistically relevant in terms of total emissions. All aviation at 1.9% is basically not a meaningful amount of CO2 if you need a 50% reduction.
When weighted for KMs travelled a riding lawn mower is probably worse than a private jet by that logic.
1.9% is significant and meaningful, objectively, mathematically and statistically. It might not feel high to you. But that is your feeling.
And I suspect you are assuming that the path, you think uses the best strategy, to reach 50% reduction on emissions is the only available. Reducing emissions of the persons with most emissions is a valid priority, and these high emitters likely include aviation emmlissions.
The problem is that citys are built around cars.
The first question is not how people can reach shops by foot, or with public transit. The first step is always to build streets to stuff and later figure out if you can might fit in a bus route, or maybe a cycling lane.
The problem is that destinations are spread too far apart for walking, viable transit, etc. because the zoning code forces developers to build low density and massive amounts of parking.
Cities were not built around cars, they were bulldozed for the car.
Cities were built to be walkable, and had trams for everything else. Then we invented the car and General Motors essentially took america by the balls and forced everyone in americs to become dependant on the car
And Goodyear.
Fuck that blimp.
You’re whining about something that happened decades before any of us were even born.
US cities are built around cars now and that is the only life most Americans have known their entire lives. You have to fix that problem first to get what you want.
Im not whining about anything? I was just pointing out that saying cities were built around cars is just not true.
Im in agreement with you that we need to make our cities walkable again by building proper walking infrastructure and public transportation in our cities. But i disagree with OP that the way to fix it is by building more streets to things lol
In the USA at least. In Europe it’s everything but perfect, of course, but at least we have some public transport in cities and between them.
But yeah, the bike paths here in Austria are just getting bigger since some years again - and every cm seems to be a hard fight…
Yeah this’ll convince people! /s
