this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
492 points (94.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9887 readers
5 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It’s an older article, but the point stands!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] famousringo@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bike not listed.

I’m invincible!

[–] Ondergetekende@feddit.nl 34 points 1 year ago

Depends on where you ride your bicycle.

In the US, bicycle deaths are at 79 per billion miles src. In the Netherlands, this is 17 per billion miles. src.

Note that the Dutch take much more risk when cycling. It is normal for young kids to cycle to school and sports unsupervised. Bicycle helmets are very rare. Despite that "reckless behavior", cycling is quite safe here. Having dedicated cycling infrastructure really helps.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Before I make this statement, yeah, I know where I am.

Deaths per billion passenger-miles

All of these fatality rates, for all of these forms of transportation, are vanishingly small. Comparing the rates of one vehicle to another with phrases like "17 times more likely" while ignoring the "billion passenger-miles" scale is misleading.

In order to present these in a more complete way, the odds of dying on each of these vehicles is:

  • Motorcycle: 0.000000213
  • Car: 0.0000000073
  • Ferry: 0.0000000032
  • Amtrak: 0.00000000043
  • Airplane: 0.00000000007
[–] HumbertTetere@feddit.de 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That is per mile, which is usually not the distance humans limit themselves to in their lives. Assuming you travel a million miles in your life, you do have a 20% chance of dying if exclusively using a motorcycle, which I would consider relevant. The change from car to train already far less so.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fair and excellent points.

Assuming 20,000 miles traveled per year, it would take 50 years to reach 1,000,000 miles. So let's lay out the % odds of fatality over 50 years, at 20,000 miles per year, if using each of these means exclusively:

  • Motorcycle: 21.3%
  • Car: 7.3%
  • Ferry 3.2%
  • Amtrak: 0.43%
  • Airplane: 0.07%

You're also getting at another important point: it is difficult for people to really comprehend very large or very small numbers. With that in mind, if we divide each of those percentages by 50, we should come up with the odds of dying in a given vehicle per year, again, given a 20,000 mile per year usage and exclusive use of one vehicle type:

  • Motorcycle: 0.426%
  • Car: 0.146%
  • Ferry: 0.064%
  • Amtrak: 0.0086%
  • Airplane: 0.0014%

Of these, only motorcycle and car are anywhere near significant, and they're still really unlikely. The remaining three still are small enough to be essentially incomprehenisble. (And who travels 20,000 miles a year on a ferry, anyway?)

Another bit I would like to note is that the comparison posed was between car and train, based on safety. Why was airplane not mentioned? It's far and away the least likely to kill you.

Of course airplane wasn't mentioned. Airplanes are not appropriate solutions to many kinds of necessary travel, and airplanes in general have a worse reputation for their environmental effects. Trains are not solutions to many kinds of necessary travel, either, at least not in the current landscape of travel options available to very many people in the United States.

Again, I know exactly where I'm commenting. I definitely think that there should be way more public transportation options available. I think the number of individual-operated vehicle miles can and should be reduced. I think the kinds of individual-operated vehicles should be addressed more sensibly (we don't get to have the small pickups of the 80s and 90s because of unintended consequences of CAFE standards driving manufacturers to create larger and larger "light" trucks, for example).

Pointing out that "cars are 17 times more likely to kill you than trains!" does not serve the purpose of making a better world through transportation reform.

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trains are not solutions to many kinds of necessary travel, either, at least not in the current landscape of travel options available to very many people in the United States.

That's kind of the point though. Trying to get folks in the US to support better travel infrastructure. Doesn't even always have to be trains.

Pointing out that "cars are 17 times more likely to kill you than trains!" does not serve the purpose of making a better world through transportation reform.

Why not? Everything you said honestly made it sound like everything else is a much safer alternative than personal vehicles. Why is that not an argument for better infrastructure and transportation reform? I've known people who have died in car accidents. I do not know anyone that's even been in a train accident let alone killed in one. Your numbers are not that supportive of cars being generally safe. Those are not great odds when considering the loss is catastrophic. It's probably one of the biggest risks folks willingly take and will actively avoid lesser risks.

Also not saying it's wrong, but why are we dividing by 50? It's per mile basis. If it's 20000 miles per year, it's already by year, no?

[–] oo1@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Also not saying it's wrong, but why are we dividing by 50?

yes, 7% dead by 50 seems a lot to me. I see no reason to split that to an annual rate either.
50 is still young to die, so all of that 7% died young, when still of working age

If car is a fundamental long-term lifestyle choice/situation then people are exposed to the risk for a long period of time. ,20,30, 40 50 years. Its probbaly a decision on the same frquency as the choice to live urban/suburb/rural - maybe every 5-10 years to make a choice - but maybe a change only a few times in a lifetime.

Put this another way...
If the car users had decent range and network of bus /train /cycle /walk options and were willing to use them , they might be able to choose their risk exposure year by year, trip by trip and minimise it.
but without those alternatives in place, it's just not a year-by-year decision for many people.
7% probably will die and may not feel they had the choice to do anything else.

I assume you'd see it as one of the leading causes of death (in the working age population) for that reason. Sorry i don't know those stats of the top of my head- and i don't know how to search on the internet.

The only thing i'd caveat with the stats are, safety figures from 2000-2009 will not be representative of 30-50 years from now.
Hopefully road design will improve - and vehicle design will definitely become safer for those in the cars. so the risk will likely fall.
Though the interaction between safety and congestion can go either way.

but suppose the risk halves (i'd reckon optimistic) the 7% drop to 3.5% i think that's still a serious killer in my book.

[–] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

if we divide each of those percentages by 50, we should come up with the odds of dying in a given vehicle per year,

I'm being very nitpicky but this isn't quite how it works, if you have a 90% chance of survival one year, you'd have 0.9^2 = 0.81= 81% chance of surviving two years in a row. With that in mind, the odds of dying should be relative to the fiftieth root of surviving fifty years, which gives:

  • Motorcycle: 0.478%
  • Car: 0.151%
  • Ferry: 0.065%
  • Amtrak: 0.0086%
  • Airplane: 0.0014%

Without additional decimals it's hard to see the change for the really small numbers but it doesn't make much of a difference in reality.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nioxic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But where i live i need a car to travel to the train...

And the train doesnt go where i need to go.

[–] oo1@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

i think this community sees that as one of the negative consequences of a high car dependent place.

[–] OtakuAltair@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Precisely the issue of car dependent infrastructure

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If you include non-fatal injuries, cars would be like way, WAY more dangerous than a train or plane.

Better yet, include people outside of a car who's been injured or killed by one, and those numbers would be astronomical.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Harvest6671@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Not in the US. You have to actually have access to trains to be able to die while riding them.

[–] googlesnarfen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

the doomer in me: oh shit i need to drive more

[–] Drinvictus@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

The data is probably better now

[–] tiredofsametab@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

As someone who drove his motorcycle today instead of taking the train, I'm getting a kick out of this. Costco runs on the train are quite difficult. About 4 times a year, I go to Costco and the extra storage on my bike means I can make those trips at that frequency rather than more often. Most of my other shopping is done on foot or, if I need something from a specific shop, by train. Some things (like large blocks of cheese) I can only really find at Costco here in Japan. Same with American-style bacon.

Speed limits are definitely lower here, and our trains are better than Amtrack, so I think both of those number will be lower.

[–] rob64@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The idea of specifically choosing motorcycle as your Costco mode of transport is hilarious, but I suppose panniers beat lugging a bunch of bags on a train. Also, my brother did a foreign exchange program in Okinawa when he was in high school, and I'm often reminded of how he said his host-father pronounced Costco as "Co-su-tu-co".

[–] PlexSheep@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the japanese. They like to put foreign words into their own syllables. I call it katakana English.

[–] rob64@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah it makes perfect sense once you realize there are almost no lone consonant phonemes in Japanese.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ebits21@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As a North American…. Taking a motorcycle to Costco because of its storage seems crazy.

Also taking a train anywhere near a Costco.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't even know you could die by taking the train

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Derailment or provoking someone with a gun, I'm guessing?

[–] doggle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Or falling into the tracks from the station... Pretty gruesome

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

that’s technically not on a train

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If only I could take the train to get groceries

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

If you demand proper urban planning, you will be able to walk to get groceries.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very unlikely to happen in this area

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I walk to get groceries, to the doctor, to the dentist, to the pub, to the park, to see my friends (or ride bike)

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You live in an area where that’s possible

[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't buy a house in the suburbs for the sake of buying a house.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

So in other words you live in a city and therefore an area where walking and using public transportation is possible.

Not everyone lives in a city, can afford to live in a city, or is in a position where simply moving to the city is an option.

[–] zoe@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

i want to build a fuck_planes community, but i doubt anyone will get..on board. cars are less of an issue (just demand smaller cars, high wheelers need to be abolished, luckely they aren't common in europe). planes are the bigger threat for now. we need to get our priorities straight.

[–] klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

For short haul flights where a train is preferable, or private iets, absolutely. However airplanes are still the most efficient way to travel long distances. Abolishing airplanes altogether is one of the least thought out takes I've ever heard.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›