[Pants-of-dog]

We could ban half the household items we have if we thought in that sort of way. Should we get rid of stairs since so many people(over 1,300 in the USA) are injured on them, every year, or is your line of thought bordering on idiocy?

Bicycles should be banned, since there are many accidents involving them. Swimming should definitely be outlawed! over 5,000 people die every year from drowning!

None of these things hurt other people. I can hurt myself in the stairs but cannot accidentally kill someone else with them.

Driving cars can and do.

[Robert Urbanek]

Yes, that's all they were ever designed for: to warn a child that you will kill him if he doesn't get off the road.

They were not designed for telling the entire world that you're locking your door, that you're opening your trunk, that you are checking to see if your car is locked, that an air current set off your car alarm.

Likewise, they weren't intended for telling other drivers to hurry up, that you hated their last manoeuvre, or that you don't like the way someone else is driving.

Yet they are constantly used for all the purposes above, and no drivers will admit to this, or to the hideous level of noise pollution that has resulted.

***

HATE SPEECH: public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):

***

So it's all about telling vulnerable groups (like pedestrians, cyclists, other people, bystanders, children, etc.) that you hate them. That you could kill them if you wanted to.

Cars kill far more people than any terrorist organization or race-based cult.

In what community does honking cause “a hideous level of noise pollution?” Certainly not mine. The more likely sources of noise from cars in my city are stereos blasting, or, particularly in the evening, tires screeching from sideshows or other reckless stunts, or drivers who modified their exhausts to emit a continuous popping sound.

[Godstud]

None of these things hurt other people. I can hurt myself in the stairs but cannot accidentally kill someone else with them.

All transportation has the potential to harm, and even kill, other people, including your fucking bicycle. That does not mean we get rid of them.

The value outweighs the risks. Risk evaluation. We do it for everything.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

Yes, those are two of the things that people say when they have to agree that driving cars kills a lot of people and we do it even though we know it will kill a lot of people.

And it is not really a risk that people might die. It is a certainty that people will die. The only risk is that we all can die from automobile use, and we do not who will be the unlucky ones.

It is important to remember that it is motorists who impose this risk on us all, but even those who are not motorists are forced to take this risk.

So when we talk about risks and benefits, we should clarify that the driver gets the benefits but it is the people on the driver’s route that take most of the risk.

[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog When you consider how many people use cars on a daily basis(Hundreds of millions), it's really not actually that dangerous. Your arguments are idiotic. A chainsaw is probably a more dangerous tool and people falling from ladders probably is riskier than the average person crossing a road. Should we outlaw ladders because cowards and morons exist, and are afraid?

It is a certainty that someone will die falling from a ladder. We should ban them, despite this impact on work and society. That's how logical your argument is.

Stay home in your house and you can never be hurt by a car. Your argument is asinine.

[QatzelOk]

In what community does honking cause “a hideous level of noise pollution?”

In almost all urban settings all over the world, motor vehicles cause brain-damaging levels of pain and irritation.



Likewise, cow bells cause pain and major irritation to cows with their much more sensitive hearing than our own. This may be one of the things that keeps them passive and confused - perfect states of mind for cattle.

Stay home in your house and you can never be hurt by a car.

This is humanity adapts to having the outdoor environment contaminated by the noise, pollution, and danger of its toys. It stays indoors and watches screens instead of socializing outdoors like every other mammal.

The average American spends 7 hours looking at a screen each day

What you have inadvertently done is to expose the callous lack of general knowledge (and eagerness to follow trends - asabiyya) that has lead trend-following adults to ruin the lives of both their own children and themselves.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

You missed the point.

As a motorist, you impose the risk on other people. You are forcing other people to risk their lives so that you can go somewhere faster.

Ladders and chainsaws and all your other examples involve people risking themselves, not others.

[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog When people build a house for you, you accept the risk that they did a good job and the house won't fall on you. The accept the risks of people living around you every day. It's part and parcel with living in society.

I didn't miss the point. Your point is silly, just like your arguments on this. You rely on the risks of others to bring you food every day, or you wouldn't be able to enjoy your city living.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog When people build a house for you, you accept the risk that they did a good job and the house won't fall on you. The accept the risks of people living around you every day. It's part and parcel with living in society.

Again, you miss the point.

I take the risks that come with my house. I also enjoy the benefits that come with my house.

When a motorist drives, the motorist gets the benefit, but the motorist imposes the risk on others.

I didn't miss the point. Your point is silly, just like your arguments on this. You rely on the risks of others to bring you food every day, or you wouldn't be able to enjoy your city living.

The fact that the vast majority of people have no choice but to buy food that was trans ported by truck does not refute the fact that motorists impose risks on others.

[QatzelOk]

When a motorist drives, the motorist gets the benefit, but the motorist imposes the risk on others.

Just to bring this idea back to the OP theme, drivers also impose harmful levels of noise pollution on everyone who is not protected by a soundproof vehicle. Is it okay to do this?

Should people be allowed to walk around with 300-decibel air-sirens for hats, while they themselves wear sound-dampening headphones?

Wouldn't you find this kind of person lacks empathy? Wouldn't you suspect this person of hating other people?

You rely on the risks of others to bring you food every day, or you wouldn't be able to enjoy your city living.

Yes, and we all rely on the car horns and car alarms and danger of cars killing us... in order to eat avacadoes that are grown 6000 km away. So car horns feed us, right?
Noise pollution brings us sustenance and health, right?

[Godstud]

People don't blow their car horns that often. It's a warning. Your argument is asinine=, as per usual, @QatzelOk.

@Pants-of-dog Grow your own food. That said, you can't do it all, so even then you'll need others to ship it to you, via motor vehicles. Can you grow a new pair of pants?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

You are absolutely correct that everyone must, at some point, use a good or service that could only have been provided with a motor vehicle somewhere in the supply chain.

And that is why my claim (that motorists impose risks on others while enjoying all the benefits) is still true despite the fact that I had to buy food that came in a truck.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Godstud

You are absolutely correct that everyone must, at some point, use a good or service that could only have been provided with a motor vehicle somewhere in the supply chain.

And that is why my claim (that motorists impose risks on others while enjoying all the benefits) is still true despite the fact that I had to buy food that came in a truck.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Motorists impose risks on others, but also take on risks themselves, and they obviously don't enjoy all the benefits since all people enjoy the benefits that faster transportation brings society.

@QatzelOk only sees the negatives in technologies while ignoring the positives, the world is a lot more complex than his ideology gives credit for. The way ie: indigenous people lived pre-Columbus wasn't exactly peaches, but it definitely had some positives too over today's society. Many technologies have downsides but it's easy to complain about them while taking their positives for granted when you don't have to deal with the negatives of not having these technologies around.

[Unthinking Majority]

The value outweighs the risks. Risk evaluation. We do it for everything.

Yes people have made a cost-benefit analysis about cars and have concluded the positives outweight the negatives for themselves. Would be interesting to see how people would have evaluated car use 50-100 years ago if they knew what climate change was going to do. Maybe more reliance on public transit, or at least smaller vehicles.

[Godstud]

@Unthinking Majority General Hindsight wins ALL his battles.

[QatzelOk]

@QatzelOk only sees the negatives in technologies while ignoring the positives, the world is a lot more complex than his ideology gives credit for...

No, I see the negatives because I don't watch television or commercial media. The positives of things like car technology are rammed down the throats of humanity by advertising and movie trope. This is how commercial media encourages to harm ourselves without noticing.

Many media viewers use their voices to "express" the feelings they got while watching screens, which is NOT common sense by any stretch of the imagination. It is screen brainwashing.

People don't blow their car horns that often

If you live in an isolated bungalow in the suburbs, you won't hear horns very often - just lawnmowers all day. But if you live in an urban neighborhood with street parking, you will go insane listening to horns all day that are used for every imaginable car manoevre, including opening your door, locking your doors, locking your trunk, expressing impatience when another car is blocking you, expressing hatred when a car does an unsafe move...

Your use of "that often" means that you don't really care about this topic, or other people's mental health. Arguing for a better social climate with someone who doesn't care about the topic.... is like being trolled by someone lacking empathy (because of alcohol abuse?)

Likewise, your constant use of insult words (like "stupid" and "assinine") demonstrate that you are actually a fan of hate speech, and you would probably like to be reincarnated as a car horn.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Motorists impose risks on others, but also take on risks themselves, and they obviously don't enjoy all the benefits since all people enjoy the benefits that faster transportation brings society.

Only in the broadest sense.

When a motorist is driving, the amount of risk imposed on others is significantly higher than the risk the motorist runs. When a pedestrian or a cyclist crosses paths with a car, the pedestrian or cyclist is taking almost all the risk if there is an accident.

Or if we look at the medical risks associated with car exhaust, it is the people along the route that breathe it, while the motorist stays ahead of the cloud of pollutants.

Or if you want to look at the cumulative effect of so much fossil fuel use caused by cars. This is now affecting the environment, where most of the risks are being suffered by poor people in the global south, even though most of the pollution was caused by car driving in North America and Europe.

And most benefits that non-motorists experience are indirect. Our food or other goods and services come by motor vehicle.

[Unthinking Majority]

No, I see the negatives because I don't watch television or commercial media. The positives of things like car technology are rammed down the throats of humanity by advertising and movie trope. This is how commercial media encourages to harm ourselves without noticing.

Many media viewers use their voices to "express" the feelings they got while watching screens, which is NOT common sense by any stretch of the imagination. It is screen brainwashing.

A group of theater-goers huddled in front of a movie screen. A group of people huddled in church pews. A group of indigenous huddled around a fire spinning tall tales of animal spirits and long dead warriors. I see no real difference. Brainwashing is as old as humans. A lot of people are too dumb or selfish to come up with good narratives themselves, so brainwashing can be a good thing in that sense as long as the myths used are otherwise healthy and good for society. Buying a BMW to look cool isn't one.

If you live in an isolated bungalow in the suburbs, you won't hear horns very often - just lawnmowers all day.

I don't like the sound of lawnmowers. That said, people burning a fire in the backyard is also annoying. Luckily electric mowers are becoming a thing and are much more quiet.

[Unthinking Majority]

Only in the broadest sense.

When a motorist is driving, the amount of risk imposed on others is significantly higher than the risk the motorist runs. When a pedestrian or a cyclist crosses paths with a car, the pedestrian or cyclist is taking almost all the risk if there is an accident.

This assumes there's no negative consequences for manslaughter or wreckless driving, drunk driving etc., or that cars don't hit other cars, or telephone poles etc.

Or if we look at the medical risks associated with car exhaust, it is the people along the route that breathe it, while the motorist stays ahead of the cloud of pollutants.

How can they stay ahead of the pollutants when there are cars all around them on the road?

Or if you want to look at the cumulative effect of so much fossil fuel use caused by cars. This is now affecting the environment, where most of the risks are being suffered by poor people in the global south, even though most of the pollution was caused by car driving in North America and Europe.

And most benefits that non-motorists experience are indirect. Our food or other goods and services come by motor vehicle.

That's a pretty direct benefit. If there were no GHG-producing vehicles, including tractors, trains, cars/trucks, planes etc even horses, then billions would be dead. I do see the negatives involved with cars, but the anti-car people can deliver the condolence letters to their families, and bury their own family members when they starve or get ill. I don't think there's any question that the lives saved and suffering reduced has vastly outweighed the lives taken or suffering caused, at least so far.

[Pants-of-dog]

This assumes there's no negative consequences for manslaughter or reckless driving, drunk driving etc., or that cars don't hit other cars, or telephone poles etc.

No, not at all. For serious problems, such as a death or an injury so bad as to require an ambulance, the motorist may face serious consequences. And by that time, the pedestrian or cyclist will already be dead or in the hospital.

So, as you say, both face risk. As a matter of consequence, the motorist faces a legal risk only if the other person is already facing a risk to their safety, health, or life.

How can they stay ahead of the pollutants when there are cars all around them on the road?

They stay ahead of their own pollution. The fact that they are also consuming pollution from other motor vehicles simply corroborates my point that motorists impose risks on others.

In this case, the motorists ahead impose the risk on our hypothetical motorist, while our hypothetical motorist imposes risks on people behind them.

I believe that cars also equipped with some air filters?

That's a pretty direct benefit. If there were no GHG-producing vehicles, including tractors, trains, cars/trucks, planes etc even horses, then billions would be dead. I do see the negatives involved with cars, but the anti-car people can deliver the condolence letters to their families, and bury their own family members when they starve or get ill. I don't think there's any question that the lives saved and suffering reduced has vastly outweighed the lives taken or suffering caused, at least so far.

We can make the same claim even more strongly about emergency response vehicles. An ambulance is out there directly saving lives as we speak. My family members have (unfortunately) directly benefited from this and would also be receiving one of those condolence letters. Fire trucks, the same thing. Search and rescue helicopters. The list can definitely include food delivery, as you say. Delivery of medical supplies, especially anything that needs to stay frozen or refrigerated. I would even accept arguments for construction vehicles.

But commuters?

Some executive at Dollarama?

As someone who wears a white hard hat at a construction site, I can tell you that architects do not need cars.

So if you want to argue that cars can be justified on a cost/benefit ratio, then I will gladly concede that for motor vehicles that actually provide a social value. For a middle aged fellow to own a ridiculously powerful Mustang that they cruise around in, this same argument provides a justification for banning such use.