
Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives - pseudolus
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/car-crashes-arent-always-unavoidable/592447/
======
dalbasal
Another way of stating this could be "transport is a policy question." How
cities are built and what transport infrastructure they're built around.

Im fairly sympathetic to the overall aims of this article. I think a transport
system more similar to those in the Netherlands makes for better urban
landscapes.

But... this habitual style of treating everything as a conspiracy, built
around a personified enemy ("They gave legal force to a mind-set—let’s call it
automobile supremacy—that kills 40,000 Americans a year)... this way of
thinking isn't doing us any favours.

In day-to-day political conversations and articles, it's mostly just formulaic
and lazy. Name the conspiracy, point to vested interests that have been
influencing policy, find a link to established personifications of evil.. big
oil and segregation, in this case.

I'm not saying we should never think in abstractions... but there is a
formulaic pattern here that's old, paranoid and harmful.

~~~
tomohawk
No conspiracy required when a lot of people are acting according to a common
view. People see the real advantages of owning a car and the freedom it
brings, and that activity builds industries and has an impact on policies.

Of course, GM really did conspire to put the trolleys out of business.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

However, this is the kind of thing organizations (companies, government
agencies, non profits) do when they get to a certain size or have accomplished
initial goals and are looking to conquer that next frontier. Just look at the
overreach of the SV titans, for example.

For better or worse, we have a car based society now, and pining for the good
old days is backwards looking. The next thing should preserve the immense
freedom and flexibility that cars brought. Prescribing a top down solution
that gives even more power to the state at the expense of the people is a non
starter.

~~~
salixrosa
Can you give me an example of the immense freedom and flexibility that cars
brought?

Can you give me an example that doesn't involve driving to the middle of
nowhere, that isn't solved by a good public transportation system, and doesn't
involve bringing home large amounts of groceries, or furniture, etc?

~~~
nec4b
Daily routine for people who do not live, work and socialize exclusively in
the city center. Things like going to work, piking up kids, shopping, visiting
other people, having hobbies, outdoor activities, returning borrowed stuff,...

~~~
salixrosa
A city center isn't required for public transportation to be convenient. I've
taken public transit through suburbs and tiny towns and out to the
countryside.

It just so happens that most of the public transit in the states royally sucks
-- even in the city centers.

~~~
nec4b
It is not a matter of quality. By definition public transport cannot connect
all the dots on the map. It is simply impractical or rather impossible. The
car gives us freedom of movement that nothing else can currently match. You
personal anecdote of taking public transport doesn't invalidate other people
use cases and needs, because what works for your situation doesn't necessary
work for everyone. If I may use a CS analogy: public transport is like a
collection of linked lists and a car is like one giant dictionary. Totally
different use cases.

------
dredmorbius
Corollary: the biggest impacts to energy consumption lie in land use and
building code changes, secondarily in consumption habits.

See LLNL's 2018 energy flow chart:

[https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/...](https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2018.png)
(PDF:
[https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/2018_United-...](https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/2018_United-
States_Energy.pdf))

Of 101 quads, 28 go to transport. Industrial use. is dominated by relatively
clean natural gas (methane), with a large chunk likely being ammonia and other
chemical production (I'd like to see breakouts).

Dense and local-first construction enables public. transit, walking and
cycling, localised services, shared facilities, and numerous other mechanisms
of increased efficience

Denser residential spaces and more cimate-appropriate construction hugely
reduces

~~~
Pamar
_hugely reduces_... ? can you please complete your message?

Also, do you mean that places like Japan, or the central, older parts of
European cities are more efficient?

~~~
radres
He's taken by CIA

------
tmux314
There is no doubt that we are over-reliant on cars. We (Americans) spent the
last century towards developing automobile infrastructure. Now with global
warming, it will take many more years to undo the damage. We can agree over
that.

But focusing the blame on car companies and the wealthy one-percenters is
historical revisionism. It undercuts the fact that these policies were eagerly
supported by lower-middle class and middle class people like my family, as
well as by many working class people from the countryside. It expanded our
agency. It allowed us to vacation to beaches and parks. It allowed us to visit
faraway families and pursue work in faraway places. In short, it provided us
physical and economic mobility.

We didn't know the damage we were doing. And even if we did know, we probably
would have done the same thing. But passing the blame doesn't solve anything.

~~~
oefrha
Having grown up without a car in a country with good public transport, I never
had trouble vacationing to beaches and parks, visiting faraway families, or
pursuing work in faraway places (well that last point didn’t apply to me, but
certainly did apply to e.g. my parents).

Now, having lived in the U.S. for many years, I still hate driving, but I’m
basically crippled if I don’t drive.

~~~
agumonkey
"Modern" times attracted people into wanting faster for less. You can do a lot
without cars, but you have to unplug your soul from not walking.

Also society shifted, cars meant larger but further shopping centers, and job
areas.

------
em-bee
living in a big city in europe i was able to live without a car easily, but
when i got a job in the US i fully expected that i'd have to learn to drive
and get a car to get around.

BUT, i managed to get an apartment 10 minutes walking from the office. this
was in san diego, of all places, a city which is very spread out. a few months
later i moved in with friends and we found a place far north. most of my
roommates had a car, but i took care that i had a bus going directly to work.
it ran only once in 30 minutes, so missing it occasionally was a pain, but it
was fine otherwise. it also provided for some memorable displays of humanity.
another few months later the company moved to los angeles, and again i found a
place with a direct bus to work.

i figured that if i can manage to live in sandiego and LA without a car, then
i can do that anywhere. sure enough, a few years later i achieved the same in
auckland. another city that is quite spread out and has a lackluster public
transport system that rivals the US in lack of options.

not everyone is going to be able to achieve this. as a young programmer i
could afford the higher rent in the areas close to the office. (i was a stone
throw from hollywood boulevard, and crossed it every day on my way to the
office :-)

~~~
dannyw
Now try going carless in Montana :)

~~~
vonmoltke
There are plenty of similar places in Europe. I don't see how this says
anything useful.

~~~
em-bee
well, i did claim that if i can live without a car in san diego i can do it
anywhere. dannyw does have a point about places like montana likely being a
lot worse.

i can't think of any places like that in europe. european cities are simply
not that spread out. so unless you live on a farm far from everywhere, you
should be fine.

~~~
DocTomoe
In Europe, urban centers are prohibitively expensive to live in if you want to
avoid living in a slum.

Imagine if every city was San Francisco, especially in realtion to income.

In the end, I can live somewhat comfortably if I commute, essentially trading
my time for lower crime rates and nicer surroundings.

~~~
em-bee
which countries/cities are you talking about? i didn't make that experience in
germany for example.

~~~
DocTomoe
Germany is kind of a mixed bag here - situations are getting weird quickly if
you search for Munich, Frankfurt, Hamburg or Stuttgart, they get somewhat
acceptable when you consider Berlin (but listen to them complaining about
rent!), and in some areas, living is almost free (most of the Ruhrgebiet).

Also consider that if you are reading HN, you are likely to work in IT, which
gives you a skewed idea on average income levels.

~~~
em-bee
fair point. i did go by gut feeling, and haven't actually done any thorough
comparison. and yeah, i can totally see that working in IT won't let me feel
the pain of above average rent.

berlin is indeed interesting, one would think that with it being the capital
city, the demand would rise, but i guess that east berlin is less popular, and
that berlin also suffers from the overall reputation of east germany.

------
zimbatm
Jaywalking is also a notion that was created by the car industry, with
regulation and a PR campaign to shift the blame from cars to pedestrians.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term)

~~~
u801e
Perhaps this wouldn't be an issue if more intersections had a pedestrian
scramble [1] phase.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble)

~~~
caconym_
Where I live there is not a signal at every intersection. In some places there
are not even any marked crosswalks anywhere nearby. However, every
intersection that's not signaled/marked has implicit "unmarked crosswalks" and
according to the law drivers must stop for pedestrians in these crosswalks.

The vast majority of drivers seem to be ignorant of this law, or they just
don't care. Enforcement is nonexistent. When I step out into the road, I'm
sure most of the drivers think I'm "jaywalking". More often than not they do
not stop. I am not "jumping" into the road, nor am I generally walking about
in low-visibility conditions.

Maybe fancy urban planning can help, but it's a band-aid on a deeper problem,
at least where I live: drivers are ignorant and have bad attitudes not suited
for the responsibility of operating motor vehicles. I guess it makes sense
that enforcement is nonexistent, because "ignorant and have bad attitudes" is
also an apt descriptor of police in America in general. Of course, I _have_
been stopped for jaywalking... because obviously that is _so much worse!_

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>Maybe fancy urban planning can help, but it's a band-aid on a deeper problem,
at least where I live: drivers are ignorant and have bad attitudes not suited
for the responsibility of operating motor vehicles.

Which is more likely?

a) everyone is irresponsible

b) your definition of "responsible" is not in line with everyone else's

~~~
caconym_
Given my observations of how frequently and flagrantly (and _objectively_ )
drivers (and other road users) break laws put in place to keep _all_ the users
of our public infrastructure (including themselves) safe, I'll have to go with
a). If your definition of being responsible explicitly allows for breaking
such laws, you may want to re-evaluate it.

I'm not interested in hearing the word "anecdotal", either. Check out DUI
statistics if you want bite-size proof that vast swaths of the population are
fundamentally unfit to be driving, or show me data to back up your own point
that the roads are _not_ full of irresponsible drivers.

Oh, here's another good one: "In 2017 alone, 3,166 people were killed in motor
vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers." (from NHTSA:
[https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-
driving](https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving))

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Oh quit your puritanical hand wringing.

Average people can drive in an average manner and go years or often decade,
sometimes entire lifetimes without screwing up badly enough to attract law
enforcement attention or get in a crash. We as a society have determined that
is mostly good enough. Most people are satisfied with the current level of
risk/reward of driving and unless improvements come with minimal trade-offs
people are for the most part not interested. Society at large does not demand
the same religious adherence to traffic rules as you do.

More people were killed by fires (a hazard that most people would not consider
to be a Big Problem(TM)) in 2016 than in crashes related to distracted
drivers.

[https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.h...](https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.html)

~~~
caconym_
> puritanical

> religious

Nice.

Your point has regressed from "most drivers aren't irresponsible" to "most
drivers are irresponsible but it's fine". If you can support the former with
hard data, great, let's see it. The latter is an opinion; it's one I do not
share, and it's not something I'm interested in discussing because there is
zero chance of that discussion bearing any sort of fruit.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
There's no regression whatsoever.

I am telling you, your definition of "responsible" (and by implication
irresponsible) is not shared by society at large. I have told you this in
several ways. Since apparently my last way of phrasing it wasn't easy to
deflect now you're trying to straw-man me.

What sort of citation do you want? You said ~3k people are killed by
distracted drivers and implied that it's a regular occurrence and a
Problem(TM). I pointed out (with citation) that that's about the same number
killed in fires, something infrequent enough that it's generally considered
Not A Problem(TM).

Make no mistake, preventable deaths are tragic but preventable deaths as a
result of motor vehicles are not the epidemic you portray them to be.

Of course further discussion will bear no fruit. Your mind is made up and will
not be changed.

~~~
caconym_
Pro tip: projection and strawmanning aren't good substitutes for reading
comprehension skills, critical thinking skills, and the ability to form cogent
responses in a discussion.

It is my sincere recommendation that you work on the latter three, or possibly
on your ability to simulate them when you aren't arguing in good faith.

------
DaveInTucson
According to Wikipedia [0], the number of MV-related deaths has been right
about 10 or 11 per 100,000 per year for the last ten years. Which makes the
opening claim "Americans are condemned to lose friends and relatives to
traffic violence" seem particularly overwrought.

And while the legal system may have been of some help, I rather suspect the
main reason cars took over is because they give the user a tremendous amount
of freedom and agency.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

~~~
stellar678
If you live in a small town of 100,000 people, that means 11 of your neighbors
will be killed by drivers crashing their cars every year.

And that doesn’t account for the deaths and health costs caused by road
pollution, by inactive lifestyles forced on communities due to car-centered
infrastructure, etc...

Given the car-oriented status quo, perhaps it’s true that cars give owners
tremendous freedom and agency (at the costs outlined above, plus tremendous
financial cost). But it’s also true that many of the most desirable and
productive parts of our cities are that way _despite_ cars and not because of
them.

~~~
maxsilver
> If you live in a small town of 100,000 people, that means 11 of your
> neighbors will be killed by drivers crashing their cars every year.

True. But for comparison, if we live in this small town of 100k people, then
192 people will die from Heart Disease, 178 people will die of Cancer, 47
people will die of Respiratory diseases, 43 people will die of Stroke, and 16
will die from the flu (influenza or pneumonia) every single year, according to
the CDC. "Motor vehicle accidents" are not even in the top 10 causes of death
(they're 13th, using 2016's data).

> the most desirable and productive parts of our cities are that way despite
> cars and not because of them.

Which is a strong argument _for_ cars. Cars make things drastically more
affordable for people. If you remove them, you increase the costs for
everything (food, transportation, housing, healthcare, education, etc), to
heights no regular person could ever afford. That _also_ carries tremendous
costs and even carries it's own death toll.

Paradoxically, making things "more desirable and productive" makes them worst
for real people (because that value will be captured in a pricetag, and real
people will never be able to afford it). Paradoxically, too much safety can
actually be less safe overall (that safety will be captured in a pricetag, and
real people will never be able to afford it, and will be forced into less safe
alternatives) - [https://local.theonion.com/neighborhood-starting-to-get-
too-...](https://local.theonion.com/neighborhood-starting-to-get-too-safe-for-
family-to-aff-1819578182)

More people died from _suicide_ (45k in 2016) in the US, than died from all
automobile accidents nationwide (37k in 2016). The tradeoff here is not as
simple as people often imagine it to be.

~~~
smileysteve
> "Motor vehicle accidents" are not even in the top 10 causes of death
> (they're 13th, using 2016's data)

To your point of bringing up suicide, there is "accidental" death; where it's
1. Opioid overdoses 2. Suicide 3. Car Accidents

------
megablast
Imagine if someone invented cars today? Hey everyone, we want to make you use
this killing machine, that kills a million people every year around the world
directly, many more indirectly. We just need to clear out the parks currently
around your houses to turn into horrible bleak roads, so they can bring the
pollution directly to your door.

~~~
scarejunba
But in exchange you get to go anywhere in America. You aunt in San Jose you
haven't seen in months because it's a day's horse-ride. Well you can pop over
for lunch, and be home for dinner. You can go see Yosemite and Tahoe in the
same day. Your groceries will be 10 mins away.

No. If someone invented cars today, he'd be considered a hero. We'd talk about
him in history books.

~~~
kranner
> Your groceries will be 10 mins away.

I doubt your groceries would be more than 10 minutes away even if no cars had
been invented. Zoning practices would change to allow more shops distributed
across residential areas. That would make more sense than requiring people to
ride an hour on horseback.

But yes, the supermarket would be much less 'super' with a much smaller
selection of goods.

~~~
mcguire
And more expensive. Like buying everything at a convenience store.

------
PaulHoule
The "car-tel" didn't just make a legal victory, it made a political victory.

It's nearly forgotten how much anger and resentment that Americans had against
the railroad companies back in the day. Back then, railroads could decide if
they would build a stop at your town, or even decide to build a new town on
land that they owned somewhere along the line. Railroads were perceived as a
vast private taking from the commons.

The car on the other hand involves public ownership of the roads and
distributed ownership of the vehicles. That leaves a strong majority of the
population feeling that the status quo benefits them and encourages them to
keep it that way.

------
crunchyfrog
Another result of this culture that I wish the author would have addressed is
how cars have changed how we raise our children. We are forced to keep our
children inside because all our houses are surrounded by rivers of death. Why
are we surprised that young kids spend all their time sedating themselves with
screens? What choice have we given them?

We have designed our living spaces to be ideal for cars, not humans. It is
hard to acknowledge because it has been that way all our lives but it is a
trade-off we are making.

~~~
burlesona
I was aware of this in the abstract before I had kids. Now that I have them,
it can be really terrifying. We go for walks even in places with big wide
sidewalks and they are oblivious, they would jump out in the street at just
about any moment if we weren’t holding hands and teaching them constantly to
be afraid of cars.

It’s really sad. Kids nature is to want to run around and burn off energy, and
right outside our door it’s safe for _adults_ to do that, but it’s still not
safe for young children because you still have to stay in the limited
pedestrian zone and carefully cross streets.

I’ve wondered a lot about trying to build a car-free neighborhood with a
commuter bus to downtown. I wish that existed, I’d move there.

~~~
crunchyfrog
If you build it or find it, let me know. I want to move there too.

------
anonu
> Those who walk or bike to work receive no commuter tax benefit

Its all about incentives. And the government is in the driver's seat. I would
love to get paid to bike around - that is a brilliant idea. Not to mention the
health benefits of having a population exercise to get to work.

I live in NYC where the city was designed for cars. I find it a travesty that
prime waterfront property on both sides of Manhattan - really all around the
island - is a highway. If Robert Moses had prioritized non-car means of
transport, we would have a very different city.

------
bsder
"Yet the most prominent way of setting and adjusting speed limits, known as
the operating-speed method, actually encourages faster driving. It calls for
setting speed limits that 85 percent of drivers will obey. This method makes
little provision for whether there’s a park or senior center on a street, or
for people walking or biking."

This statement causes me to question the veracity of the rest of the article.

Practically every municipality bends over backward to slow traffic near places
where children, the elderly, the blind, or even just where too many accidents
occur.

"Operating-speed method" is only really used for high-speed, high-throughput,
limited access roadways.

~~~
bluGill
Municipalities do not do much to slow traffic. The might put up a slower speed
limit sign, and post traffic copes - but the cynic who says this is about
revenue not slowing traffic has a good point. There are plenty of real ways to
slow traffic known in traffic engineering circles, but they are rarely
implemented.

~~~
bsder
You are not in Southern California then. Traffic circles and road humps are
quite endemic.

This is sufficiently common that I could use road humps as a proxy for "Am I
going the correct direction?" back before nav systems. Maybe you weren't going
the completely right direction, but a road hump (or traffic circle) meant you
were on a road sufficiently useful that it needed a traffic calming measure.

Cities with winter have extra considerations, though.

------
achow
This was a revelation.

 _...Even so, 85 to 90 percent of toxic vehicle emissions in traffic come from
tire wear and other non-tailpipe sources,..._

So electric cars will mitigate only 10-15% of the environmental problems of
the ICE cars?

~~~
mytailorisrich
This is misleading.

If you follow the link to the actual research paper you find that it's 90% of
PM10 and 85% of PM2.5

That is, not "emissions" in general but particle matter specifically.

This makes sense because modern cars have efficient engines and particle
filters so that few particles are emitted from the combustion engine itself.
The remaining sources are the tyres and the brakes.

~~~
achow
Yes.

But doesn't the point still stays that contrary to the popular belief electric
cars would not bring about much change?

Research paper: _..it could be concluded that the increased popularity of
electric vehicles will likely not have a great effect on PM levels._

~~~
mytailorisrich
Electric vehicles will bring about significant changes.

As said, and as your quote highlights, this focusses on particles. But the
main emission of internal combustion engines is CO2, and other nasty stuff
like CO, NOx, hydrocarbons, etc. These are eliminated by electric vehicles.

~~~
sokoloff
They are _moved_ by electric vehicles to some remote place (where they might
also be more efficiently handled), but even as an electric car driver, I don’t
think of them as eliminated.

~~~
mytailorisrich
They are eliminated and electricity production does not have to produce any of
them: The short term goal is total elimination across the whole chain.

~~~
gavia1
I think the parent was referring to the mining and manufacturing of lithion
ion and other components that go into a car.

~~~
sokoloff
That's a secondary effect. Primary effect I had in mind when commenting was
the movement of the emissions from the local tailpipe to the electric plant
(which is very far from 100% emission-free today).

~~~
mytailorisrich
As said this is so only on 'backwards' countries ;) and certainly it should
not last.

Claiming that electric vehicles only move emissions to the electric plant is
unfair at best.

~~~
sokoloff
I think it's more accurate than claiming they are eliminated.

~~~
mytailorisrich
It's not but it helps some narratives...

~~~
sokoloff
OK, I'll play along. Suppose I drive my electric car an additional 450 miles.
That will consume an extra ~100kWh of energy from the battery, which will
require me to buy an extra 115kWh of energy from my electric utility, which
will require them to generate (or procure) an additional 125kWh or so.

Are there any emissions associated with that additional 125kWh of consumed
electricity? If so, where? If not, why not?

------
mikorym
> Even so, 85 to 90 percent of toxic vehicle emissions in traffic come from
> tire wear and other non-tailpipe sources, which electric and hybrid cars
> still produce.

First of all, this person meant to say "particulates" [1] and so we are not
talking about CO2 _at all_. Secondly, the source that he links to has this
table in it for PM10 (the table for PM2.5 would be analogous) [2]. Almost all
of this argument is based on "resuspension". Basically, the car's slip stream.
_Seriously?_

By the way, these values are (virtually) calculated all on acount of EVs being
heavier. Well done I guess for assuming that braking in EVs won't have PM
emissions _< nod to regenerative breaking>_.

It's a pity that an argument based on traffic accidents and cars has to
reference such a random and irrelevant article. I agree that Americans like
cars too much.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates)

[2] Table 5

Comparison between expected PM 10 emissions of EVs, gasoline and diesel ICEVs
(mg/vkm)

(Vehicle technology) (Exhaust) (Tyre wear) (Brake wear) (Road wear)
(Resuspension) (Total)

EV 0 7.2 0 8.9 49.6 65.7

Gasoline ICEV 3.1 6.1 9.3 7.5 40 66.0

Diesel ICEV 2.4 6.1 9.3 7.5 40 65.3

~~~
sokoloff
I drive an electric; wife drives a gas ICE; I maintain both. No way is
electric brake wear 1% or less of a conventional car (what it would take for
it to round down to zero in that table). I'd put it at around 5-10% of an ICE,
making the total particulate emissions higher.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Unless you happen to have two of the same car in ICE and electric you're going
to need to do some math to account for different brake pad volume and vehicle
weight. There's a pretty substantial number of variables that would go into
it. I assume you're using the same product line for all your pads.

~~~
sokoloff
Figuring out whether it's 25% or 50% may require that.

Figuring out whether it's sub 1% or >= 2% probably doesn't.

------
cannabis_sam
The whole fucking world is subsidizing this garbage by not charging people for
the externalities their lifestyle incurs upon the world.

------
diminish
> Since her passing (1995), approximately 1 million more Americans have been
> killed in car crashes.

That's a huge cost.

------
drtillberg
Laws follow practicality, so the first thing to do is make sure drivers pay
their full costs on a per-mile basis. Things like gas taxes being earmarked
for road construction-- when I buy other miscellaneous stuff I pay a general
sales tax that can be spent discretionarily by the government. Not applying
that to gas is an inappropriate subsidy to cars. Where autos own the road
(most everywhere) road funds should pay for sidewalks; where highways divide
communities, there should be liberal allowances for pedestrian bridges.
Finally, public transit needs to be professionalized in order to provide a
fuller alternative, in the sense that transit organizations can't be run with
a 'politics as usual' approach-- the point of the system _cannot_ be simply to
kick the can down the road on historic pension obligations. If government
wants to require public transit to be _better_ in certain respects-- handicap
access and perfect safety come to mind-- these desires should be evaluated
against the counterhypothetical of, "if you make the system less useful by
only opening one set of doors at the stop (for safety) x number of people will
die as a result of being forced back into cars."

------
ThomPete
I am unconvinced about this claim.

The legal and political and taxation system in Denmark is anti car and pro
public transportation and have been for decades.

We are talking 200% taxes on the cars and constant reduction of roads in the
big cities, constant expanision of public transportation.

Yet cars for most people in Denmark is very important.

Cars are the perfect balance between flexibility, scaleability, speed, utility
etc.

This is why cars win, not because of some conspiracy.

------
baybal2
The increasing legal requirements for crashworthiness are self defeating:
making vehicles to withstand more energetic collisions requires making cars
more heavy — more heavy cars then cause even more energetic collisions.

------
gumby
There's a pretty good book on the origins _and_ consequences of the car
culture called, not surprisingly, "The Car Culture by James J. Flink.

It was written in 1975 so doesn't speculate on the future of self driving
vehicles but part of what made that book interesting is it took an oil shock
to really get some attention on the problems.

(let's not forget that one enormous benefit of automobiles was that they
_cleaned up the cities_ which used to be full of horse manure. Of course we
know now that they pollute in other, destructive, ways).

------
joshuaheard
People drive cars because they are the most efficient mode of transportation.
Laws and policy followed. Anything else is a moronic conspiracy theory.

Let's just take the two examples in the article. First single family zoning. I
would argue that before cars (and cities) people lived on farms and ranches.
Cars were not to blame. The trend has been towards smaller living areas, not
larger. Second, parking requirements. I think parking requirements came after
cars, not the other way around.

~~~
WhompingWindows
They aren't the most efficient mode of transportation, depending on your
definition. In terms of carbon, energy utilized, or even time, in many places
walking/biking will beat cars. It's not a moronic conspiracy theory to suggest
that bringing a 2 ton wheel-chair everywhere we go is inefficient.

~~~
joshuaheard
In very few places in America is walking/biking more efficient than cars. The
author is not saying autos are inefficient, which is a valid argument, he is
saying there is a conspiracy ("automobile supremacy") to supplant other forms
of transportation with the automobile. This is simply foolish.

------
yt3
It's also our values system that allowed the legal system to do it's thing.
Cars are also a product of values that focus on "me and my personal needs".

------
coredog64
> Those who walk or bike to work receive no commuter tax benefit

False. It’s possible to pay for mass transit with pretax dollars.

~~~
bluGill
Is that in a theoretical sense, or is it something I could do now? If the
latter can you be more specific - how do I use pre-tax dollars to pay for my
bus fare?

~~~
sokoloff
Not for an individual fare, but an employer can offer monthly/annual passes on
a pre-tax basis (up to $265/mo for 2019)

[https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15b.pdf](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
pdf/p15b.pdf)

------
DarkWiiPlayer
> traffic violence

> automobile supremacy

The language of this article just makes me cringe.

Other than that, it's really quite reasonable though.

~~~
Lio
It sounds shocking if you only travel in car as it doesn't affect you as much
but if you ride a bike it's a fact of life in many areas.

For example if you wear lycra, you will probably find that a percentage of
people will regularly try to "punish" you because they think you "look funny".

The mildest form of punishment will be them driving as close to you as they
dare. That could be 50mph 12"s away. That's like standing on the other side of
the do not cross line in the subway as a train comes past.

That's my anecdotal experience but a quick search Youtube will turn up many
examples of this. Action camera manufacturers specifically design products to
document this.

Worse though, you'll probably eventually have someone be more directly
aggressive to you. Maybe throwing something at you or trying to drive you off
the road.

In that context I think that the phrase traffic violence is fitting. If
someone is using a vehicle as a weapon what else would you call it?

~~~
nmeofthestate
I've cycled for decades and never had such an incident of aggression from
drivers. Maybe it depends on some other factors in addition to the drivers.

~~~
bad-joke
To counter your anecdote, cyclist deaths have risen lately in NYC to the point
of public protest:

> Aster Ryan, 25, of Wingate, said “this summer has felt especially
> dangerous.” In addition to the three cycling deaths that took place within a
> week, Ryan said she was hit while riding her bike a little more than a week
> ago on Dean Street, and also watched another rider get hit by an opening car
> door recently.

[https://www.amny.com/transit/cyclist-die-in-washington-
squar...](https://www.amny.com/transit/cyclist-die-in-washington-square-
park-1.33653749)

~~~
u801e
These problems are caused by riding in areas where one is not visible to
drivers of other vehicles (e.g. filtering to the right of other vehicles that
are preparing to make a right turn) and also riding too close to parked cars.
A secondary cause are laws that require cyclists to use bike lanes or keep as
far right as practicable within the lane.

------
mfer
I'm reminded of the General Motors streetcar conspiracy -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

------
hi41
I was in Switzerland recently and was very impressed with how good the public
transportation system was - trains, trams and buses. To top it, the water in
the lakes and tap were all 100% drinkable.

------
KozmoNau7
I'm vacationing Ireland at the moment, and it really hits me how car-centric
it is, and I found the Scottish Highlands be very similar. Quite narrow roads,
with hedges or stone fences and very little space for a pedestrian or cyclist.

Southern Germany too, although at least they usually don't put hedges/fences
right up to the edge of the road.

I would hate to walk or bike on those roads, despite the beautiful landscapes
on display.

Initially I thought there was a pressing need to widen the roads, but then I
realized that the real problem is the size of modern cars and how fast most
people drive.

While car ownership and driving is currently vital to a lot of rural
communities, we need to reclaim the roads for shared usage, and break the
imagined car/driver ownership and privilege over them.

~~~
Trilkhai
I've always figured that the narrow roads over there were (much like the ones
in the older European cities) created long before cars, when people relied on
horses or horse-drawn vehicles for transport. Roads designed after cars became
common tend to be much wider.

~~~
KozmoNau7
That's sort of my point. cars are way too big and go way too fast for a lot of
roads, and there is often no room to widen them. So we let the cars squeeze in
anyway, to the severe detriment of pedestrians and cyclists.

------
mikeash
Did this happen in other countries too? There are varying degrees, but cars
are king the world over. I’m suspicious of the idea that it was due to laws or
government.

------
jamesmadison66
This is generally how I think self-driving will squeeze out human-driving,
through regulatory capture. Don't love it for many reasons, but there is
precedent.

------
peterwwillis
I'm extremely interested in seeing micro-mobility options expand. The more
forms of transportation we have that aren't cars and buses, the more seriously
the public will consider things like taking one lane of traffic and dedicating
it to bikes, scooters, trikes, quadricycles, golf carts, and the like. If we
can make it easier for people to get around this way, we can slowly push cars
to the fringes of cities, and maybe with the money we save, even eventually
replace them for inter-city transportation.

------
seddin
i will probably get downvoted but this all thanks to the oil industry, they
even knew about climate change since the 60s

------
devoply
Not just the legal system but also the city planners who designed all sorts of
things like suburbs, malls, etc. that favour cars and are pretty much copy-
pasta all over each city on the whole continent. All these people want bike
lanes, I want my horse lane.

~~~
inflatableDodo
I want the majority of the road network roofed with turf into a long hill with
occaisional exits, or lowered and moved completely underground.

~~~
bluGill
I've concluded the opposite: leave the cars where they are. What I want is a
separate pedestrian level to the city - a skyway system (though I'm fine with
it being underground). Let the humans walk in air conditioned comfort while
not cars to worry about. This is much cheaper than the underground roads.

~~~
inflatableDodo
How about air conditioned skyways for pedestrians in cities and underground
roads everywhere else?

~~~
bluGill
Underground roads are orders of magnitude more expensive, so it isn't worth
creating them (with some exceptions). With unlimited resources we could create
as many as we want, but I have better things to do with my time/money than
build roads.

Skyways are significantly cheaper than bridges. It would still be cheaper to
make the ground level of your city a building, but not having to support the
mass of cars and trucks means skyways can be significantly cheaper.

In the modern world trucks and buses are far too useful to ban completely from
cities where people live. People need their stuff delivered, and need to get
longer distances once in a while. Thus I'm saying reserve the ground for those
uses and get humans away from them. It is a compromise, but I think it is a
good one.

~~~
inflatableDodo
Not worrying about the humans in particular. Uncovered ground level roads are
just death traps and fencing them off is even worse in many ways.

------
methodover
“Given New York’s lax enforcement record, the Freakonomics podcast described
running over pedestrians there as “the perfect crime.””

I was driving in Oakland when the car in front of me didn’t slow down for a
pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian disappeared in front of the car. I
stopped my car, got out, found the struck young woman trembling and bleeding
in the street.

The speed limit was 30 miles per hour. I don’t think the driver was going
quite that fast — maybe 20, 25 at most.

The woman driving the car was elderly. It’s tough to gauge her age — pushing
late 70s, maybe 80? She said she didn’t notice the girl in the crosswalk.

I was upset. I stayed the entire time, talked with the cops at length, gave a
statement. I wanted to see the lady’s license taken away. Or a ticket at
least. Or heck, even a talking to about if maybe she’s no longer fit to drive.

The cops let the old lady drive away. No ticket. No talk. I was stunned.
Surely if you hit someone with your car at that speed, in fucking crosswalk,
you at the very least need to prove to the DMV that you’re safe to drive.
Especially if you’re an elderly person. But nope. They said they had no
grounds with which to take any action at all.

Still bothers me. I hope that lady hasn’t killed anyone.

~~~
ChuckNorris89
Wait, what!?

In Europe if you strike a pedestrian on the crosswalk you'll definitely loose
your license and be looking at manslaughter charges too while your insurance
company will murder you after paying the victim's medical/disability/court
bills.

~~~
systemtest
I have hit a pedestrian. Instead of using the nearby crosswalk she walked in
between the cars and when she walked in front of me it was too late for me to
brake. She flew a couple of meters and landed on the crosswalk. In the police
report is was stated that I hit the person on the crosswalk as I couldn't
prove otherwise. The woman was taken away in an ambulance due to a broken leg.

I was 16 at the time. Really shaken up about what had happened. But after
collecting myself and fixing the dangling headlight I was able to drive home.
I got a ticket for not giving way to the pedestrian (€45 I believe) and
insurance covered everything regarding the woman. Didn't even get a letter
other than one that they would take of everything.

So yes it happens here too (The Netherlands)

~~~
pindab0ter
How were you driving when you were sixteen?

~~~
pixl97
Because that's when you can get a license in many states.

~~~
patriot1911
But not in The Netherlands, which he explicitly stated he was from. The real
answer is that he probably wasn't driving a car.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Has it always been that age? We do not know how old the poster is, nor whether
or not he had a regular lisence or a permit.

~~~
patriot1911
It hasn't been less than 18 since 1934, if not further back. Since last year
it's possible to get a provisional license at the age of 17 (no earlier).

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Ah, ok. I truly didn't know.

------
lazyjones
Yet another fantasy article that tries to suggest roads were built for "the
car loving 1%ers of the 20s" and not for public transport and all kinds of
other infrastructure needs, including the army's.

~~~
icebraining
What public transport used roads (not streets) in the early twentieth century
of the US, when much if them were built? According to [1], by 1929 the private
car was doing 175 billion passenger miles, while the bus was doing just 7. As
they write, "Although intercity bus travel climbed from nothing to over seven
billion passenger miles in 1929, it was always the choice of a relatively
small number of people."

And of course, trains don't use roads. What other public transport is there?

[1] [https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-bus-industry-in-the-
united-s...](https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-bus-industry-in-the-united-
states/)

