I hate cars. Ban them!

[Wanderjar]

This is the most idiotic, stupid thread I have ever seen on this forum.

Lol, QED.

I think we should give a badge to every moron who wanders into the thread without reading at a minimum, the OP. More usefully, the first few pages. Someone else can design the appropriate slogan, I just think they deserve some recognition for their absolute lack of anything resembling thought, or effort.

No...I simply think that anyone who SERIOUSLY thinks that banning vehicles is an economically feasible, or simply a good idea on any level is quite frankly an imbecile. It really doesn't deserve any other commentary, I think calling you a fool is good enough.

[Neesika]

No...I simply think that anyone who SERIOUSLY thinks that banning vehicles is an economically feasible, or simply a good idea on any level is quite frankly an imbecile. It really doesn't deserve any other commentary, I think calling you a fool is good enough.

Which only confirms that you haven't actually read anything. Not even the OP.

Await your badge.

[Gift-of-god]

*yawn*

Obvious straw man is obvious. Driving a car is not in any way shape or form remotely analogous to pulling a trigger or stabbing with a knife. One is a direct attack on a person, the other is a method of transportation. To suggest that cars should be banned because .000136% of the <18y/o population get cancer in emissions areas (and lets remember, only 20% of them are fatal) is absurd.

I never said nothing should be done to curb emissions, I'm just saying that banning cars is probably not the answer. Did anyone else notice that the article cites hospitals as emission sources? Should we ban hospitals because they may contribute to emissions-related illness, or should we find a way to reduce those emissions? I should hope the sensible answer is obvious enough.

And one of the easiest ways to curb emissions is to ban unnecessary use of cars.

By the way, I find it ironic that you accuse me of arguing a strawman, and then accuse me of arguing that murder is analogous to car driving, which I did not argue at all.

Read that bit again. I'm not saying they're as or more dangerous than car travel, rather I'm suggesting that its possible they could be, if the volume of train and airplane users was made to be commensurate with the current volume of motorists.

Moreover, making the case that cars should be banned because they're the leading cause of accidental death is, as I've already pointed out, a slippery slope. Neesk's second 'argument' relies on a gigantic logical fallacy.

They could also be safer. Since your argument depends on them being as dangerous, I suggest you find some evidence that indicates that.

It is not a slippery slope either, as the next leading cause of accidental death may be something that entirely unrelated.

Soo... because you don't like the way suburbs are laid out... cars should be banned? I don't follow. It reads to me as if Neesk came up with what looked like a couple good reasons to ban cars, but struggled a bit to find a third.

I don't understand how 'we have to live with the environmental problems caused by others' ends up being interpreted as 'we don't like it'.

[Tekania]

This is the most idiotic, stupid thread I have ever seen on this forum.

Lol, QED.

I think we should give a badge to every moron who wanders into the thread without reading at a minimum, the OP. More usefully, the first few pages. Someone else can design the appropriate slogan, I just think they deserve some recognition for their absolute lack of anything resembling thought, or effort.

No...I simply think that anyone who SERIOUSLY thinks that banning vehicles is an economically feasible, or simply a good idea on any level is quite frankly an imbecile. It really doesn't deserve any other commentary, I think calling you a fool is good enough.

To be fair, Neesika isn't calling for a complete ban on "cars"

[Neesika]

To be fair, Neesika isn't calling for a complete ban on "cars"

Shhhh! If he reads, he won't get the badge!

[Flameswroth]

By the way, I find it ironic that you accuse me of arguing a strawman, and then accuse me of arguing that murder is analogous to car driving, which I did not argue at all.

I've seen this happen multiple times and it always confuses me. You made an analogy between the acceptance of deaths caused by car emissions and the deaths caused by murder in order to prove a point on how low rate of incidence does not mean it should be accepted as okay. But then you turn around and say that you never said they were analogous. If they're not comparable, when why compare them? What point does it prove?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the concept of analogy or something, but I wish I understood how you can make a point by comparing things without saying they're comparable...

Read that bit again. I'm not saying they're as or more dangerous than car travel, rather I'm suggesting that its possible they could be, if the volume of train and airplane users was made to be commensurate with the current volume of motorists.

Moreover, making the case that cars should be banned because they're the leading cause of accidental death is, as I've already pointed out, a slippery slope. Neesk's second 'argument' relies on a gigantic logical fallacy.

They could also be safer. Since your argument depends on them being as dangerous, I suggest you find some evidence that indicates that.

It is not a slippery slope either, as the next leading cause of accidental death may be something that entirely unrelated.

Yeah, I definitely don't think that saying the number of deaths would be similar is all that accurate. If anything, my objection would be to basing a theoretical ban on it simply being the "leading cause of accidental deaths". Until there are no more accidental deaths, there will always be a "leading cause". It really doesn't mean much, and is hardly actionable, without some concept of the numbers of deaths that are occurring. If you could eliminate all other deaths, such that death by electrocution in the bathtub by a hair dryer were the "leading cause of accidental death", does that mean you ban hair dryers? I'd say not, without some show of numbers.

Now I realize a better idea of the numbers has been given now, so this objection doesn't really have any clout at this point. But that would be my major qualm with a ban on a "leading XXXX" without numbers. And even then, you still have to make a decision where the number of deaths, regardless of its status as a "leader", turns pursuing bans into an objective with negligible benefits.

[FreeSatania]

Yes but some in this thread want a FULL ban, no cars anywhere for anyone, and thats just stupid. I'm all for making public transit better in the city myself.

I have not read anyone arguing that.

I've been arguing something close to it. That being that cars need to be replaced with a monorail system, linking cities, and a trolley system in urban areas.

Why a monorail, what wrong with just using trains like they do in Europe. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against monorails in particular I just think I'd like to see public transportation actually happen rather than a lot of futuristic looking paintings. I mean Maglev is cool and perhaps a good idea in the long run but North America is a fucking big place, 100 ft of iron rails cost's a fraction of the price of the same 100 ft of maglev monorail track.

In Germany they have 3 basic types of trains. ICE / IC which are the fast trains capable of going 300 km/h on straight and level track which connect major cities. IRE / RE which are the normal trains which connect cities major and minor, and don't make a lot of stops. LandesBahn and S-Bahn, slow trains which connect all the little towns to the major cities.

Why don't we just copy their system. I mean it's proven technology, and Bombardier even makes train parts for the Germans.

[Armex]

To be fair, Neesika isn't calling for a complete ban on "cars"

Shhhh! If he reads, he won't get the badge!

Then why is that the topic title? It's just an attention screamer, oh boo-effing-hoo.

Debating with people who can't have an intelligent discourse with anyone but like-minded people is overrated.

[Melkor Unchained]

First of all, Neesk has committed a common error when freaking out about statistics. If you actually make it to the end of the article to which she linked in the OP, you may notice that there are roughly 1,500 new childhood cancer cases in the UK per year, about 20% of which are fatal. According to the 2001 UK Census, there are about 11 million children living in the UK. Eleven. Million. You'll excuse me if I have a hard time getting overwrought over such a thoroughly insignificant figure: holding it up as a reason to ban cars is utterly inane. She howls about "12 times the risk" without stopping to consider the fact that 12*.000136 is still a fantastically low figure.

And there are over 307 million people in the US. 81% of that population is urban. About 60 million children. About 10,400 children under the age of 15 are diagnosed with cancer a year and 1,545 die from it. Cancer is the leading cause of death in that age group. But hey, who cares...it's less than 2000 dead a year! I mean....okay find, ten thousand a year developing cancer but you know, whatever.

Oh but wait. Cancer rates are going up! Survival rates are a bit higher, because we have more effective ways of treating cancer now, but that doesn't change the increasing rates. I linked you to the UK study because frankly, linking cancer to environmental pollution is a tough thing to do, and the UK seems to be doing more work on actually studying it than the US is. And you, being someone who poopoos the idea that second hand smoke is dangerous enough to warrant caring about it at all, are going to say, 'well if you can't prove it for sure then it doesn't count!'

Some of us aren't willing to wait until it can be proved to your satisfaction, and the specific study I linked to in the OP shows how being near high emission areas (bus stops) RADICALLY increases your chance of getting cancer. The overall amount of kids getting cancer might not be enough for you to care about, but when it has been shown that the exhaust fumes from vehicles is increasing cancer rates AND many other health problems (you glossed over that btw), it's pretty ridiculous to say "well but um...it's not killing THAT many people!"

Yes, basically. It's all about priorities. If you want to ban cars because a minute percentage of kids get cancer, I suspect the implications of acting on that number are probably more extensive than you realize. I don't see how such a small number justifies a radical and far-reaching "solution" like banning cars. Cutting emissions via alternative energy sources or what-not is probably a more prudent (and feasible) solution than "OMG BAN CARS."

There are bigger problems that kill far more children on this planet than automobile exhaust. If you're really that concerned about their well-being (as opposed to mindlessly pushing an agenda), focus on them.

We haven't been talking about increasing air traffic, we've been talking about increasing rail traffic. You can hypothesise that there will be accidents, but you don't really know.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that there will be accidents. Nonetheless, I chose my words carefully: I said it's possible that they could be similar. Of course I don't know what the precise rate would be, but 'OMG leading cause of accidental death' is still a slippery slope no matter what justifications you fabricate for it. My point isn't necessarily that rail or air fatality rates would be as high as automobile fatality rates, simply that railway accidents would likely climb (if not top) the list of causes of accidental death, which by your logic amounts to a reason for banning the cause.

So instead of saying, 'na this is good', why not actually think about what switching to rail travel for long distances (people and freight) would do. How many tonnes of emissions would be removed? That's something you could actually calculate, if you get an estimate as to how many cars are on the road, etc. Cars do better than CURRENT rail systems, but an expanded rail system would cut down on inefficient modes of travel (Single occupant vehicles) to an extreme degree. The utilitarian in you should be liking that.

That's fine, but you shouldn't have to ban cars to do it. I don't see anything wrong with promoting rail travel, but it simply won't be practical in many situations. If you live ten or twenty (or fifty...) miles away from the nearest train stop, how do you get there? Cutting emissions by promoting rail travel and banning cars shouldn't be mutually inclusive. I can understand (in urban areas) the appeal of rail travel and what-not, but banning cars altogether? Get real.

Actually the third reason is more than a personal preference. Building with such levels of sprawl is inefficient.Even if all you were looking at was the cost of building the longer roads needed to accommodate urban sprawl, you would see immediately how wasteful it is. If you look at the link provided earlier, suburban road construction clocks in at about $3.4 million a mile. A MILE. If you stopped spreading people out that way, creating the need for longer and longer roads, you would be saving billions of dollars. Switch that into a public transit system that is efficient, and accessible, and you no longer have a reason for every household to have one, or two cars.

That's all well and good, but in terms of government inefficiency road construction doesn't exactly top my list of concerns. I see your point (and you probably should have included this paragraph in your OP to clarify the third point), but $3.4m a mile isn't an overly staggering sum, and I imagine most of that money is recouped fairly quickly from license fees and gasoline taxes. It's not like they lay out hundreds of miles of road at once; most road construction projects are done in chunks and over time.

This topic is about thinking of new ways of living. I know that threatens some people, who are stuck with the idea that 'how it is is how it has always been'. People will always resist change out of sheer inertia. But your 'counterpoints' here are not compelling, and the utilitarian arguments you tried to make are even weaker.

Yeah, so pointing out that you're freaking out over 300 deaths per year in a country with 11 million children is "not compelling," but banning cars because they're the leading cause of accidental death is? Please. If you're going to advocate banning things on this basis, I suspect you're putting more on the table than you realize. Where do we draw the line? What's an acceptable rate and what isn't? Kids choke to death on hotdogs and marshmallows all the time, and about ten thousand children under the age of 15 are treated in ERs for asphyxiation every year. Do we work to decrease the rate, or ban the cause?

On another note, I dedicated this thread to you around page 15 btw.

Hehe, I'm honored!

[Melkor Unchained]

And one of the easiest ways to curb emissions is to ban unnecessary use of cars.

And this is "easy" how?

By the way, I find it ironic that you accuse me of arguing a strawman, and then accuse me of arguing that murder is analogous to car driving, which I did not argue at all.

I could answer this, but Flameswroth already said it best:

I've seen this happen multiple times and it always confuses me. You made an analogy between the acceptance of deaths caused by car emissions and the deaths caused by murder in order to prove a point on how low rate of incidence does not mean it should be accepted as okay. But then you turn around and say that you never said they were analogous. If they're not comparable, when why compare them? What point does it prove?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the concept of analogy or something, but I wish I understood how you can make a point by comparing things without saying they're comparable...

They could also be safer. Since your argument depends on them being as dangerous, I suggest you find some evidence that indicates that.

For the second time, I never said they were "as dangerous." I'm simply pointing out that an increased volume of railway users is probably not going to lead to a decrease in railway accident rates.

It is not a slippery slope either, as the next leading cause of accidental death may be something that entirely unrelated.

*rubs temples*

In the OP, Neesk suggests that cars (I'm speaking very generally here) ought to be banned because automobile fatalities are the leading cause of accidental death. If being the leading cause of accidental death is a reason to ban something, then she would be obligated to advocate banning anything that happened to be the leading cause of accidental death. I know that sounds silly, but if that's her reason for wanting to ban cars a consistent application of that principle could lead to, say, banning stairs if falling down them should happen to become the leading cause of accidental death. So yes, it is a slippery slope. Sorry.

I don't understand how 'we have to live with the environmental problems caused by others' ends up being interpreted as 'we don't like it'.

Except that you don't "have to live" with the environmental problems. Unless you're prepared to suggest that the countryside is altogether too smoggy, you could always live there.

[Czardas]

Freedom of Choice.

I drive a 2010 Mustang GT. I get around 13mpg in town. You will pry the keys to my car out of my cold dead hands. I paid my luxury tax for it, there's no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to drive it.

If you're worried about your kids go join a commune in pristine northern Canada. Possible health risks to your kids will not change my driving habits.

While you're at it, tell the environmentally concious people to start using crosswalks. They're tempting targets :)

I knew conservatives were pyschopathic dicks!

Actually, not really true. It's more that psychopathic dicks appear to be more attracted to conservatism, since it's a more authoritarian philosophy that permits them to unleash their inner asshole against people who are different from them without being criticised for it. Thus, the people who say things like "I don't care about the pollutants the chemical plant on my property is putting into the groundwater; I get my water from a clean source, and the rest of you don't matter" aren't conservatives per se; they're just dicks (or, online, Internet Tough Guys), and can be safely ignored -- or, in certain circumstances, best communicated with via court order.

Also, if that statement had been serious, I would have been obliged to warn you for trolling.

[FreeSatania]

Freedom of Choice.

I drive a 2010 Mustang GT. I get around 13mpg in town. You will pry the keys to my car out of my cold dead hands. I paid my luxury tax for it, there's no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to drive it.

If you're worried about your kids go join a commune in pristine northern Canada. Possible health risks to your kids will not change my driving habits.

While you're at it, tell the environmentally concious people to start using crosswalks. They're tempting targets

I knew conservatives were pyschopathic dicks!

Actually, not really true. It's more that psychopathic dicks appear to be more attracted to conservatism, since it's a more authoritarian philosophy that permits them to unleash their inner asshole against people who are different from them without being criticised for it. Thus, the people who say things like "I don't care about the pollutants the chemical plant on my property is putting into the groundwater; I get my water from a clean source, and the rest of you don't matter" aren't conservatives per se; they're just dicks (or, online, Internet Tough Guys), and can be safely ignored -- or, in certain circumstances, best communicated with via court order.

Also, if that statement had been serious, I would have been obliged to warn you for trolling.

On a literal note there is nothing particularly 'conservative' about getting 13 Miles to the Gallon.

PS. We have mustangs in Canada too, but we generally prefer fucking big 4x4's ... and not ghey ass hummers, real mens trucks like the Ford F150 and their brethren.

[Euroslavia]

Just a general reminder to keep it civil and stick to debating the topic, rather than moving towards personal insults.

[The Antarctic Lands]

I just laughed for about an hour by reading the OP post, then i cried about he fact that he actually could be a human being with normal brainpower.
Seriously..banning cars? That ought to be one of the least smart statements I've ever read on any intelligent forum. You can't commute to any place, and walking is out of question if you're going to the other side of the world (or any long distance place).
lets ban everything! yes! Lets destroy all forms of technology and development and ban everything that doesn't involve reproductive acts with plants XD, seeing as you seem to be quite the tree-hugger, but no that Isn't enough, lets exterminate the entire human specie so we can't ever do anything evil again to your twisted, mindbogglingly hippy view of reality.

People die, It's a part of the evolution. If you hate cars this bad just move to some backwards development country, get over it. Thank god no leader is like you. Cars are essential for traveling longer distances in shorter moments of time.
As a normal person i like cars, i like driving, racing and traveling without the need of walking. I'm not fat because of this, and I am not suffering from any form of cancer. Please, don't eat up every last bit of green propaganda people throw at ya, at least don't throw your common sense away!

I've noticed that conservatives are far more arrogant than their leftist peers. No one said we should do away with technology that doesn't involve plants. MONORAILS AND TRAINS DON'T. I love that next part too, just the ultimate 'fuck you, I'm an asshole' saying. No one would want that, in fact, what the OP was saying was that cars END human life, you twit.
Of course, but we don't like it when children die. A pretty big alarm goes off in that regard. Oh, and I love that stereotype that people in rural areas are backwards, you're pretty wrong in that regard. Also, haven't we discussed that the cars don't do much in terms of making a trip faster? Trains can go up to 150 mph, remember? Cars can only get up to 60.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Freedom of Choice.

I drive a 2010 Mustang GT. I get around 13mpg in town. You will pry the keys to my car out of my cold dead hands. I paid my luxury tax for it, there's no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to drive it.

If you're worried about your kids go join a commune in pristine northern Canada. Possible health risks to your kids will not change my driving habits.

While you're at it, tell the environmentally concious people to start using crosswalks. They're tempting targets

I knew conservatives were pyschopathic dicks!

Actually, not really true. It's more that psychopathic dicks appear to be more attracted to conservatism, since it's a more authoritarian philosophy that permits them to unleash their inner asshole against people who are different from them without being criticised for it. Thus, the people who say things like "I don't care about the pollutants the chemical plant on my property is putting into the groundwater; I get my water from a clean source, and the rest of you don't matter" aren't conservatives per se; they're just dicks (or, online, Internet Tough Guys), and can be safely ignored -- or, in certain circumstances, best communicated with via court order.

Also, if that statement had been serious, I would have been obliged to warn you for trolling.

On a literal note there is nothing particularly 'conservative' about getting 13 Miles to the Gallon.

PS. We have mustangs in Canada too, but we generally prefer fucking big 4x4's ... and not ghey ass hummers, real mens trucks like the Ford F150 and their brethren.

Say what you will about Hummers, their prowress off-roading ranks up there with Jeeps that use a live rear axle.

[Gift-of-god]

And this is "easy" how?

It is easy in that if you ban private automobile use in urban centres (i.e. unnecessary use of automobiles), you would immediately see a drastic reduction in the air pollution in those areas. These areas also happen to be the most affected outside of major transportation hubs.

For the second time, I never said they were "as dangerous." I'm simply pointing out that an increased volume of railway users is probably not going to lead to a decrease in railway accident rates.

...
*rubs temples*

In the OP, Neesk suggests that cars (I'm speaking very generally here) ought to be banned because automobile fatalities are the leading cause of accidental death. If being the leading cause of accidental death is a reason to ban something, then she would be obligated to advocate banning anything that happened to be the leading cause of accidental death. I know that sounds silly, but if that's her reason for wanting to ban cars a consistent application of that principle could lead to, say, banning stairs if falling down them should happen to become the leading cause of accidental death. So yes, it is a slippery slope. Sorry.

My mistake. I misread. I went back and looked at your initial post and realised I was reading something into your argument that wasn't there.

It is true that something should not be banned because it is the leading cause of deaths. However, it does suggest that we do look into it. If we look at it from a utilitarian perspective, we can do things like calculate how many lives are saved by the use of emergency vehicles compared to how many deaths result from the exhaust of their engines. If we decide to minimise the number of deaths, we could crunch the numbers and then use that to decide what we would allow and what we would not. We would probably end up keeping emergency vehicles, certain construction vehicles, refrigerated trucks and several other vehicle uses.

Except that you don't "have to live" with the environmental problems. Unless you're prepared to suggest that the countryside is altogether too smoggy, you could always live there.

City dwellers have to deal with the consequences of suburban design because suburbanites don't work in the suburbs. They work in the city where other people live. If cars cause cancer, city dwellers have to deal with the problem that every day, thousands of people drive their car into and out of the city and increase the cancer rates of city dwellers. If that doesn't count as having to deal with the environmental consequences of others following the suburban lifestyle, then I don't know what counts.

---

I've seen this happen multiple times and it always confuses me. You made an analogy between the acceptance of deaths caused by car emissions and the deaths caused by murder in order to prove a point on how low rate of incidence does not mean it should be accepted as okay. But then you turn around and say that you never said they were analogous. If they're not comparable, when why compare them? What point does it prove?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the concept of analogy or something, but I wish I understood how you can make a point by comparing things without saying they're comparable...

I never made an analogy. My point was that statistically low numbers of incidence do not, in and of themselves, excuse a lack of action on our part. The counter-argument is that murder and traffic are not comparable because of other factors, i.e that we can use statistically low numbers as an excuse in one place (traffic) but not another (murder) because other issues are involved. This may even be true. That, however, does not change the fact that one cannot simply use the fact that something occurs infrequently from a statistical perspective as a reason to justify a lack of intervention.

[New Ziedrich]

Sometimes I think grenades are acceptable as self defense for pedestrians against reckless automobiles. Then I remember I don't believe in violence and it would not help anything anyway.

I was going to refrain from making this counterpoint, but this post has forced my hand; I'd just like to mention all of the bastard jaywalkers and seemingly self-entitled morons who walk right in front of my car, forcing me to brake or maneuver around them. It's worst when they do this within sight of a crosswalk.

Everyone could do their part to not be a douchebag on the road. However, you are protected behind hundred of pounds of car, while a pedestrian, however douchey he or she may be, is completely exposed.

Drivers in residential areas need to be taking the utmost care as it is. That's part of the pain in the ass of driving. Your risk is killing someone. Our risk is dying. Frankly, I think our risk is higher than yours.

Oh, I know, which is why I didn't really want to bring that up. I figured that it really needed to be mentioned that assholed come in all shapes and sizes, though.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

If we're talking about safety with respect to automobiles, and how much safer and efficient rail travel would be, government and rail companies need to get their fucking act together, then. There are numerous safety considerations and improvements that need to be put in place to handle a much greater traffic load.

[Melkor Unchained]

I've noticed that conservatives are far more arrogant than their leftist peers.

I myself probably am, but it's all a matter of perspective and it generally depends on who you agree with. I get a sort of "we're spreading enlightenment to the ignorant masses" vibe from liberals in this country, and it's more than a little off-putting. But when you get right down to it, I imagine both sides see ignorance or stupidity as the ultimate source of dissent, and that's about as arrogant as it gets.

[Vesser]

To be fair, Neesika isn't calling for a complete ban on "cars"

I hate hydrocarbon burning vehicles. Hate. With a passion. As with many 'causes' I suppose my hatred of cars stems from personal experiences and/or selfish desires. So let me come clean and explain what I hate about cars, and why I think we should ban them. Outright.

lolwut

[Flammable Ice]

While completely banning cars is impractical, there are preferable alternatives for people living in urban areas, such as telecommuting, public transport and the even more radical - putting stuff closer together so you can walk it.

[Holy Paradise]

Instead of banning cars, let's just fix them, m'kay?

[Pope Joan]

Ban them from London if you want to.

But it was filthy long before there were cars; the "mud" in the streets came from the horses, and the air was filled with coal smoke.

Let people drive in to train stations from which they can commute, however. This is what Toronto does, and Tokyo, and it helps.

I only live 21 miles from my place of work but we have no mass transit access at all. What would become of us? And would we have to take a separate bus ride for every two bags of groceries we need to purchase?

[JJ Place]

I hate hydrocarbon burning vehicles. Hate. With a passion. As with many 'causes' I suppose my hatred of cars stems from personal experiences and/or selfish desires. So let me come clean and explain what I hate about cars, and why I think we should ban them. Outright.

1) I don't want my children continuously exposed to exhaust fumes. I think it's inexcusable to be exposing all of us to such high levels of carcinogens on a daily basis. In fact, it seems absolutely insane.

When combined with close proximity to an emissions source, such as a bus or coach station, a child was at 12 times the risk of dying from cancer.

12 times the fucking risk? UNACCEPTABLE. Not to mention the other health problems associated with vehicle exhaust. What sane person wants that? By the way drivers, you too are at risk in your car.

2) I find the direct automobile mortality rate unacceptable. USians! Tens of thousands of you are killed every year in motor vehicle accidents! And you aren't even one of the worst countries for fatal auto crashes! Car crashes are the leading cause of accidental death. The seventh largest killer overall.

Now I don't drive anymore, so my chances of a highway collision (the most likely way to be fatally smashed to a pulp by hundreds of pounds of steel) have lessened. Unfortunately you can get wiped off the face of the earth just crossing the street when some moron blows through a light, a crosswalk, or down your residential street. Yeah, 33 pedestrian deaths in Montreal may not sound so horrible. How about 986 in LA? Compare that to 381 homicides in 2008 in that same city. Fuck worrying about crime, I'm worried about getting plastered all over the pavement!

These are the two main reasons I hate cars, but here's another.

3) I'm tired of cities accommodating themselves to vehicles, rather than people. This may be less of a problem in older cities, but the newer cities are built like fairy-land suburban car paradises. Talk about urban sprawl! Drive through mall experiences! No public space, fuck you who needs sidewalks when I gotsa HUMMER! Strip mall after strip mall. It's an unsustainable way to live, and the fact that we deliberately construct inefficient urban landscapes made for cars, not people, drives me nuts.

I'm aware that our current mode of living means we cannot in one fell swoop eliminate all motor vehicles. We need transport so those of us in urban centres don't starve to death, and so on. But I do not believe we need anything near the amount of vehicles that are currently on the road, and not nearly enough is being done to shift us away from vehicular dependency.

Yeah, I hate second hand smoke, but I hate cars more.

While there are a few problems with cars; most of which can be worked out with a few minor technological advances (I.E. environmental hazards), the benefits to having cars far out-weight the problems with them. Without cars, most transit would have a serious problem serving humanity; there would be serious problems with mobility to people, and it would essentially end living outside cities and still being able to transport yourself from place to place in a reasonable amount of time. Not to mention the problems associated with the economy if we banned cars, especially on small mom and pop shops.

As for deaths associated with cars; currently there are around 40,000 deaths per year with automobiles in the United States. Yet, when you take into account that most of the deaths where self-inflicted, and then you take into account the total amount of deaths, all in all, while you can die in a car accident, it's rather unlikely, especially if you understand what your doing behind the wheel. Other than those two problems, cars are one of the greatest inventions we've found yet, and banning them will only lead to more problems then we have now.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Yeah, 33 pedestrian deaths in Montreal may not sound so horrible. How about 986 in LA? Compare that to 381 homicides in 2008 in that same city. Fuck worrying about crime, I'm worried about getting plastered all over the pavement!

Interesting notes about the 986 deaths you linked to. Reading the NTSB report the article linked to, near the bottom of Page 7, the report finds:

-The majority of killed pedestrians were male, elderly, White, Non-Hispanic, and had no alcohol
involvement, yet they carried out one or more unsafe actions during the crash.
-The majority of drivers in fatal pedestrian crashes were male, between the ages of 21 and 25,
were not drinking, and were not speeding.
-This report also confirmed an earlier published report that almost all drivers survived the fatal
pedestrian crashes, and most drivers committed at least one erroneous action.
-Bad weather does not necessarily contribute to a pedestrian death, but a bad light condition does.
-Nearly 46 percent of pedestrian fatalities are alcohol-involved.
-One in five pedestrians killed were killed in hit-and-run motor vehicle crashes.

So, while it is true that automobile traffic increases the likelihood of death to pedestrians, directly linking these two values is erroneous.

Also, am I reading this right? Are you seriously using a total number of pedestrian deaths over a period of 10 years?