let's ban all cars! no. but we SHOULD do SOMEthing.

[artemis]

Originally Posted by kopek

1)Actually, I can see/accept a world without either or with very strict controls on both. Cars have become as ingrained in America as "Guns, Guts and God". Go back to living near your work rather than commute and all that. But I think the odds of you pulling it off soon are really slim.

Precisely. The world as we see it today isn't the only possible one. It's conceivable that back at the turn of the 20th century people could have said "These newfangled horseless carriages are just too damned dangerous for ordinary people to own!" And then we'd be living in a world with motorized delivery trucks, ambulances, fire engines, etc., but where average people got around on foot or by public transportation. (Like most Third World cities today, in fact, or Amsterdam.)

We don't actually "need" cars as much as the average person thinks we do. But most of us like to have them, and no one's out there actually lobbying to ban sports cars, or red cars, or to slowly but steadily restrict the rights of average people to own cars in the hope of eventually achieving a carless Nirvana. That IS going on with guns, and I think that alone explains the difference in the lobbying activity between AAA and the NRA.

[artemis]

Originally Posted by emacknight

Yes there are. As one example IIRC, guns don't go off when you drop them. That's because there are requirements that specify drop tests.

The car regulations you referenced have more to do with commercial production/distribution and then use on public roads. If I wanted to build my own car I wouldn't have to put air bags in it or even breaks. I would not, however, be allowed to drive it on public roads.

Unless of course I got it registered as some sort of special car like an antique, in which case I've found a nice little loop hole...

That's the problem with comparing guns and cars, people confuse ownership with public use. As far as I'm aware, no one in the US is allowed to "use" a gun in public, that would be unlawful discharge.

The second amendment is about ownership, not use. Likewise, nearly all of the regulations we have concerning motor vehicles relate to their use, not their ownership.

Good points. Also, firearms are very, very simple machines compared to cars. That makes it harder to build in more safety features. Most of the problem with guns don't involve a defective design, they involve defective usage. The gun involved is working precisely as it's supposed to - it's going off when the trigger is pulled.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by emacknight

Yes there are. As one example IIRC, guns don't go off when you drop them. That's because there are requirements that specify drop tests.

There are still not a lot, by contrast, but granted firearms are simpler machines.

As for use of firearms, certainly public use of firearms is legal in several states. I'm surprised you claim otherwise, or else that Texas public hunting permit I bought is a real funny bit of paper.

And certainly, there are plenty of rules and regulations concerning the actual use of firearms in public. Granted, most of them have to do with hunting, but that's still regulation on the use of firearms in public.

If you limit "use" even further to simply carrying it around, public display of long arms is perfectly legal in Texas, though people might get a bit curious or antsy if you choose to exercise that right in the middle of Houston.

[jasg]

Originally Posted by casdave

What is the primary purpose of a gun?

What is the primary purpose of a car?

One of these things is not the same as the other, can you tell which it is?

The AAA and NRA are both lobbying organizations - but one is also a protection racket specializing in politicians.

Can anyone figure out which one?

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

There are still not a lot, by contrast, but granted firearms are simpler machines.

Of course, if we wanted to continue the analogy, we could always require people in public to wear bullet proof vests.

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

As for use of firearms, certainly public use of firearms is legal in several states. I'm surprised you claim otherwise, or else that Texas public hunting permit I bought is a real funny bit of paper.

And certainly, there are plenty of rules and regulations concerning the actual use of firearms in public. Granted, most of them have to do with hunting, but that's still regulation on the use of firearms in public.

If you limit "use" even further to simply carrying it around, public display of long arms is perfectly legal in Texas, though people might get a bit curious or antsy if you choose to exercise that right in the middle of Houston.

Your post highlights the way people tend to confuse the terms "use" with "possession." Use of a firearm isn't the act of carrying it around, anymore than use of a car involves having on the back of a truck. If you look closer at your hunting permit, it says nothing about walking through the woods looking at deer. It is concerned with the use of a firearm to destroy the object it is pointing at. I believe you will find that Texas has plenty of laws/regulations concerning the actual use of a hunting rifle in public (ie discharge of a bullet) . Florida on the other hand is a whole 'nother story.

[Ramanujan]

Originally Posted by Blakeyrat

Where do you live? I daresay banning cars would be practically impossible in 95% or more of the US. I ride a bus to work, but I need to drive my car to the park-and-ride to do so-- and I'm damned lucky there's bus service going my way at all. (In fact, this is actually only the second job I've ever worked where it was possible at all to use transit to get to work.)

i live and work in pittsburgh, and my daily commute is around 6 miles round trip. this fact is largely the result of choices on my part, though i do consider myself lucky to have so many job choices within the city.

what you describe, though, is part of what i consider the problem. the only reasonable solution for you is to spend hours getting angry at other cars (or even their occupants) while presumably crawling your way to and from work each day. there is clearly a design flaw here, and one that is difficult to fix due to any number of reasons. people have tried to contrast AAA with the NRA, but AAA is a powerful organization that does lobby against things that might reduce automobile ownership, such as mass transit or bicycling infrastructure.

[Ramanujan]

Originally Posted by XT

Can we have a link to someone posting that we should ban cars?

is this meant for me? i didn't claim that anyone seriously believed that.

You are making the exact same mistake as the anti-gun folks...an inability to properly assess actual risk and put the numbers in perspective. 30k+ SOUNDS like a large number, but in the perspective of a nation as large as the US, where literally 10's of millions drive every day, it's a drop in the bucket. The risk to reward for automobiles is huge (compared to anything, let alone something like firearms)...our modern society literally could not exist without them.

i think 30,000 IS a large number, and while i agree that the social utility of personal automobile use outweighs that, it doesn't have to be that high. it has always surprised me that we haven't done more to mitigate the risks. when things get too out of hand, we reign them in (e.g. drunk driving), but the death toll seems to hover right around 30-40 thousand. that's the amount we consider tolerable. perhaps we think that many people are bound to die, that it's inevitable, but i contend that it is very much evitable!

[Ramanujan]

Originally Posted by Marley23

So what do you propose we do? Car accident deaths can't be eliminated, but there have been a lot of changes that have made cars safer: widespread use of seatbelts, the crackdown on drunk driving, and changes in the design of cars. It seems to me that deaths in car accidents have decreased a lot over the years. That doesn't mean they can't be further reduced, but it's not a problem that is being ignored.

deaths for people inside cars have been decreasing. this is not true for pedestrians and bicyclists, especially as they have increased in share. while that means there are more of them to die, it also means they deserve more consideration.

there's a lot that i would propose changing. some of it is practically impossible (e.g. the pennsylvania constitution prohibits fuel tax money from being spent on public transit). i mentioned changing age and training requirements for obtaining initial licenses. i would also propose raising fuel taxes significantly, and finding ways to close loopholes for ultra-efficient but still damaging vehicles, like hybrids. i would make it a priority to build and maintain roads in a manner that makes them safe for all users, not just those inside automobiles (this is decidedly not the way the DOT works here, or at the national level before ray lahood [and even still]). i would find a way to destigmatize public transit, and find incentives for people to use it. and i would make parking prices more representative of their true costs and limit surface lots (as well as highways) in urban areas.

oh, and i would also have everyone read traffic: why we drive the way we do (and what it says about us) by tom vanderbilt.

these things mean increased (near term) costs for car users, and are therefore not terribly politically viable. i wish for that to change, but first we must admit we have a problem (and one that goes beyond mere death statistics).

[Ramanujan]

Originally Posted by For You

There are the obvious concerns about safety, pollution and profligacy, these can be addressed more effectively by someone else because, as far as safety goes, I believe cars have become too safe – I would favor banning seatbelts, airbags and windshields just to make driving a less desirable option.

one point jokingly brought up in the book i mentioned above is that the way to make cars safest for everyone is to install a knife in the steering wheel, pointed at the driver's chest. see how much distracted and reckless driving we have then!

One major issue related to cars that always gets overlooked is their de-socializing effect. We get into little closed cages that separate us from everything around us, and driving becomes a martial art where everyone else is the enemy, an impediment to our rightful progress or a potential collision. And between where we are and where we want to be, there is this sort of cinematic interlude going by. This is in fact related to the gun issue inasmuch as we have become a macro-cube-city where interacting with others tends toward being a hostile act.

And because everyone is acquainted with this behavior pattern, the roads have become the sole property of the car. People fear riding a bicycle on the road because cars are large, stupid, painful and the airbags are for some strange reason on the inside. So alternative ways of getting there are gradually consumed by the automobile. Practical public transit does not exist (except in cities) not because it is inefficient (quite the opposite) but because fuel is terrifically underpriced.

So there is your first answer to addressing the problem with cars. You cannot ban them, but you can make them nearly beyond practical reach by raising gas taxes. The revenue from the tripling of gas prices would go in part to improving the alternative transportation infrastructure: more buses and real enforcement of crimes against bicycles and pedestrians.

If we can get out of our cars, we would almost certainly be a healthier people, actually using our muscles to walk or ride places (I could realistically walk two miles to the grocery store, but the car traffic makes that walk rather unpleasant) and more likely to feel like we are moving in the world instead of through it AFAP.

Oh, and one other thing: there was the guy who abducted an 8 y/o girl from a playground by shoving her into the back of his car. Not having a car to do that with sure would have made it a whole lot more difficult for him to do that.

i wonder if you too are a bearded bike-riding hippie (which, incidentally, are the only two things about me that make me hippie-esque). i pretty much agree with all of this. so how do we convince everyone else that hasn't already moved to amsterdam?

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by emacknight

Your post highlights the way people tend to confuse the terms "use" with "possession."

If this wasn't clear, I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by emacknight

As far as I'm aware, no one in the US is allowed to "use" a gun in public, that would be unlawful discharge.

No matter your definition of "use", my use of firearms in hunting is included and well regulated.

So now, I'm confused. At first, you were arguing that the public use of firearms is only regulated to the extent that it is not allowed vs rules dealing with possession. But then you turn around and lecture about public "use" as it relates to hunting.

If your point is that people like to regulate motor vehicles by use and firearms by possession, fine, but it's still wrong.

The extent of that regulation is different, of course. Taking this back to motor vehicles, if you are licensed by the state and your vehicle properly licensed and registered, you are allowed greater latitude in operating your vehicle in public than operating your firearm in public. But that's a difference in degree, not in basis.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Ramanujan

deaths for people inside cars have been decreasing. this is not true for pedestrians and bicyclists, especially as they have increased in share.

In the OP you linked to a cite that says pedestrian deaths have decreased over the years. Deaths in bicycle-car accidents are also down, although they fluctuate more because there are fewer if them and there is probably no per-mile data, which is an important thing to note in car accident data. I'm not sure how fuel taxes are supposed to reduce deaths in car accidents because I am not sure they'd have that much effect on driving. I'm all for greater infrastructure spending and more public transportation, but I am not sure you're characterizing the situation accurately.

[artemis]

I think self-driving cars will do a lot to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist deaths. Flesh-and-blood drivers become distracted; a sensor on the car's bumper which detects an object ahead and slows the car down automatically to avoid a collision does not.

I'm sure it will eventually become illegal to drive human-controlled "dumb" cars on the public roadways. Probably not during my lifetime, but that day will come.

[akennett]

Originally Posted by casdave

What is the primary purpose of a gun?

To turn the chemical potential energy stored in a fuel source into kinetic energy.

What is the primary purpose of a car?

To turn the chemical potential energy stored in a fuel source into kinetic energy.

One of these things is not the same as the other, can you tell which it is?

Having a hard time, actually.

[jtgain]

I'm having a hard time with the idea that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill people. I've fired thousands of rounds in my lifetime and have never once killed a person. I've killed a lot of animals, put holes in a lot of targets, and if God forbid me or my family are attacked one day, I wouldn't hesitate to use a gun to kill that one particular person who might do me harm, but that's not any of my guns' primary purpose.

[Stoneburg]

Originally Posted by For You

Realistically, an actual ban on cars is not going to happen, but seriously, we do need to look at the issues and impacts related to pervasive car use.

There are the obvious concerns about safety, pollution and profligacy, these can be addressed more effectively by someone else because, as far as safety goes, I believe cars have become too safe – I would favor banning seatbelts, airbags and windshields just to make driving a less desirable option.

Although I sympathise with the intent, I think this is the wrong perspective to look at the issue from. The most effective way to approach the issue is to look at how to lower the demand for cars. This is not very hard, because the demand for cars has been intentionally planned and constructed. The reason people use cars is because after the cars invention, we quickly started organising and constructing our living enviroments based on the car as the mode of transportation.

Cars are amazing because they make both planned and unplanned individual transportation over great distances cheap and easy. This has allowed us to spread out and segregate our societies basic functions. Such as housing, shopping and work places. Before the arrival of cars there was a strong incentive to keep these functions as close and integrated as possible. A hundred years ago you couldn't jump into your car and travel 5 miles to shop groceries, so grocery stores needed to be integrated with living enviroments. You couldn't easily commute 10 miles to your work place, so offices and factories needed to either be close to living enviroments or nodes of collective transportation.

But cars also externalize a lot of costs. Such as space, investment and maintenance in infrastructure, as well as enviromental damage and health problems. Some times these costs are internalised to a degree, but usually they aren't. We pay collevtively for most of these costs and there is usually little incentive to keep usage down. One could, and should, create incentives for more effective use of cars, but limiting the demand and need for them is much more important and effective in the long run.

How is it done? Some solutions are eay, others harder. A few examples:
- Completely stop urban sprawl. The current infrastructure already in place is enough to support even the most optimistic population growth projections. Allow only densification when building.
- Actively promote geographical integration of functions. If an area is primarily commercial, promote housing, and vice versa. Suburban areas need commercial functions, commercial areas need living enviroments.
- Ban external shopping malls and most external production investments. The constructions that need to be external for safety or enviromental reasons should be provided with attractive mass transportation systems.
- Abandon functionalist traffic separation principles in favor of more integrated and small scale solutions. Ie: build streets in grids rather than separated roads. This makes the infrastructure both safer, more effective AND more resilient.

External shopping malls is a pet peeve of mine, because they act in a parasitical way on the enviroment. Basically they exploit the externalised cost of cars and the low cost of space. The result is that they "suck" the commercial power out of a city centre and sometimes even end up killing their host.

Originally Posted by For You

One major issue related to cars that always gets overlooked is their de-socializing effect. We get into little closed cages that separate us from everything around us, and driving becomes a martial art where everyone else is the enemy, an impediment to our rightful progress or a potential collision. And between where we are and where we want to be, there is this sort of cinematic interlude going by. This is in fact related to the gun issue inasmuch as we have become a macro-cube-city where interacting with others tends toward being a hostile act.

This is really interesting actually. I've read research that indicates that when travelling at speeds >20mph people tend to become more and more "psycopathic". When travelling at lower speeds you view other trafficants as people, but at higher speeds you start viewing them as obstacles.

Originally Posted by For You

And because everyone is acquainted with this behavior pattern, the roads have become the sole property of the car. People fear riding a bicycle on the road because cars are large, stupid, painful and the airbags are for some strange reason on the inside. So alternative ways of getting there are gradually consumed by the automobile. Practical public transit does not exist (except in cities) not because it is inefficient (quite the opposite) but because fuel is terrifically underpriced.

Practical public transport can never exist out of cities. This is a pipe dream that enviromentalists need to give up. In fact, trying to create it outside of cities is even counter productive. A car is more enviromentally friendly than a bus in a rural area. You need density for mass tranportation.

Originally Posted by For You

So there is your first answer to addressing the problem with cars. You cannot ban them, but you can make them nearly beyond practical reach by raising gas taxes. The revenue from the tripling of gas prices would go in part to improving the alternative transportation infrastructure: more buses and real enforcement of crimes against bicycles and pedestrians.

I think this is a good addition to the overall strategy, but you need a balanced approach.

Originally Posted by For You

If we can get out of our cars, we would almost certainly be a healthier people, actually using our muscles to walk or ride places (I could realistically walk two miles to the grocery store, but the car traffic makes that walk rather unpleasant) and more likely to feel like we are moving in the world instead of through it AFAP.

Agreed. And both these are reinforcing feedback loops. Cars will breed more cars, pedestrians will breed more pedestrians. The saying "If you build it, they will come" tends to hold true. You can not reduce car congestion by building more or bigger roads, because they will only increase car usage and create new congestion.

Originally Posted by John Mace

You'll have to pry my steering wheel from my cold, dead hands!

You can have as many steering wheels as you please, keep a whole room full of them if you want. I would just want you to not feel the need to use your car as often. I want to give you the freedom to walk, ride a bike, take a buss or use a subway instead of forcing you to use your car by making all the other options impossible or impractical.

[artemis]

That is an outstanding post, Stoneburg! when people say we "need" cars, that's generally what they are referring to: the current built environment. And there was nothing inevitable about that environment; it was deliberately constructed.

In addition to the changes you suggest, we could make another one which wouldwork in our current built environment with smaller changes: allow only low-speed motorized vehicles (such as golf carts) within city limits, and only use cars for inter-city trips or visits to rural areas. I've heard there is at least one town in Florida where folks are doing just that. Everyone there pretty much uses only golf carts to get around town. That approach would still allow most of the benefits of personal motorized transport (flexibility of schedule, ease of transporting lots of purchases, etc.), while decreasing the death toll from accidents and speeding, and would still encourage density of construction and a mix of residential and commercial buildings (since gold carts won't have a lot of range). You'd own your own golf cart, and only rent a "real" car when you needed to travel a long distance or visit a very rural area.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by jtgain

But you don't have congressmen, in response to the drunk driving problem, proposing to ban or limit the types of cars people can buy. By regulating drunk driving, you are regulating the use of cars.

The gun rights proponents have no problems with penalties for murder with a gun or discharge within the city limits.

This is why I like the car analogy: People concentrate on what people do while in the cars, not the cars themselves.

And it doesn't apply to anything else for that matter. During and after the OJ Simpson case, I never heard anyone mention once that it was a shame that OJ ever bought a knife or that they were too easy to buy. The focus was on what was done with the knife.

There is big difference in the cost benefit analysis between cars and guns. The benefit of guns are largely theoretical and the total absence of guns would make the need for guns much less urgent. The total absence of cars would make us Amish.

If we can regulate guns the way we regulate cars, I think we'd reach a happy medium.

Make people take a state exam to buy, own or use a gun.

Register gun ownership for all new and existing guns.

We regulate safety features in cars that make them more expensive, we can regulate biometric trigger locks on guns that would make them more expensive but a lot safer.

Cars are fairly well regulated and guns should be too.

Originally Posted by jtgain

I'm having a hard time with the idea that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill people. I've fired thousands of rounds in my lifetime and have never once killed a person. I've killed a lot of animals, put holes in a lot of targets, and if God forbid me or my family are attacked one day, I wouldn't hesitate to use a gun to kill that one particular person who might do me harm, but that's not any of my guns' primary purpose.

Maybe for you but I have seven guns and the only reason I ever got a gun was for self defense, if a gun can't kill someone, I don't want it.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I'm having a hard time with the idea that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill people.

Well even if it's true, why should it matter? After all, some people need killing. That's why policemen carry guns. Nobody seriously gets upset about the fact that policemen carry an object the primary purpose of which is to cause serious bodily harm to people.

Besides which, why should primary purpose matter at all in deciding whether to regulate the use of an object?

The primary purpose of heroin is pain relief. That's why it was invented. So why not make it just as easy to buy in a drug store as aspirin?

The primary purpose of voodoo dolls is to cause harm to people. So why not ban them?

The answer to these questions is that primary purpose is largely irrelevant to the question of how an object or substance should be regulated. What matters is (1) the actual propensity for destructive and/or illegitimate uses, harm, etc.; (2) the likely effect of a proposed regulation; and (3) the benefit and values inherent in use of the object or substance.

"Antis" like to seize upon primary purpose as a means of distinguishing guns from stuff like cars. But they are simply engaged in special pleading.

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Here's some ideas:

We could make sure that all cars are registered with something like an identifying number for vehicles (INV?). This would make it easier to track cars.

Perhaps each person who operates a car should be licensed in some way. Maybe issue them some kind of government document.

Also, before operating a car (which can be dangerous if misused), I think people should be required to pass some kind of test that ensures that they know how to operate one safely.

Finally, let's enact some kind of legislation that makes cars safer. Perhaps they could require that all cars contain some kind of strapping device that would prevent drivers and passengers from being forcibly ejected during a crash.

The rest of this thread has been commentary; this post said it all.

Deaths from car accidents have been taken seriously and no one seriously objects to regulations aimed at reducing traffic deaths. We restrict who can use a car and how they use it, we know who owns each one, we test them for skill and knowledge of the regulations, people are required to follow rules that they think are stupid (like staying stopped at a red light even if there is no visible traffic), we force cars to incorporate a wide variety of safety devices, and on and on. There are regulations on what is street legal for cars.

Can we have mature discussions approaching regulating gun ownership and use in the same spirit? No one fears that laws regulating driving are a slippery slope to make driving illegal and to confiscate all cars. We sometimes have argued about cost benefit of some safety precautions but it is not so polarized.

Lots of people drive; we work to help make the experience as safe as reasonably possible for them and for others. Lots of people own guns; are there reasonably possible options that can make that fact safer for everyone as well?

[JoelUpchurch]

It seems silly to worry about highway fatalities when they will practically be eliminated by self-driving cars. I expect to self-driving cars on the road by 2020 and commonplace by 2030. The safety effort will be to eliminate manually driven vehicles.

Also I should point out that cars are 10 times safer than they were when I was a kid when compared on a passenger mile basis.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811701.pdf

When passenger fatalities are close to 1 per 100 million miles then that is pretty good.

[Stoneburg]

Originally Posted by artemis

That is an outstanding post, Stoneburg!

Thank you!

Originally Posted by artemis

when people say we "need" cars, that's generally what they are referring to: the current built environment. And there was nothing inevitable about that environment; it was deliberately constructed.

Exactly. We tend to quickly adjust to changes, and almost assume that even decisions which we are in complete control of are inevitable or results of natural laws. Unfortunately we also tend to become polarised into thinking of these things as conflicts or either/or situations, rather than a continous flow of processes that we can and should influence.

In my mind it is a tragedy when it happens, since it prevents a development that would be mutually beneficial. If we look at it from a prspective whether you are for or against cars, or whether you are for freedom or the enviroment, we get stuck in pseudo-conflicts. If we instead focus on the overlaying goals, we almost always find a common goal.

Most can probably agree that reducing the need for car travel is a positive thing. As is increasing peoples safety and freedom of movement, reducing enviromental damage, increasing physical health and safety, creating more attractive living enviroments, creating structures that support innovation and entrepeneurship etc etc. Whether you like or dislike cars, these are most likely things that we can agree are good and definetely goals that we can achieve in ways that will benefit everyone.

Originally Posted by artemis

In addition to the changes you suggest, we could make another one which wouldwork in our current built environment with smaller changes: allow only low-speed motorized vehicles (such as golf carts) within city limits, and only use cars for inter-city trips or visits to rural areas. I've heard there is at least one town in Florida where folks are doing just that. Everyone there pretty much uses only golf carts to get around town. That approach would still allow most of the benefits of personal motorized transport (flexibility of schedule, ease of transporting lots of purchases, etc.), while decreasing the death toll from accidents and speeding, and would still encourage density of construction and a mix of residential and commercial buildings (since gold carts won't have a lot of range). You'd own your own golf cart, and only rent a "real" car when you needed to travel a long distance or visit a very rural area.

This is definetely a case of development that would be positive for the vast majority. The only critisism I would have is that you stated the solution as "allow only" rather than "make possible". I think it is better to start from the point of trying to provide better options, rather than forbidding options that you don't want people to choose.

I don't walk to the store because I am forbidden to drive a car there (I'm not, there are even subsidised parking spots there to make it easier), I do it because it is a cheaper and more practical option.

I actually think that the original comparison to gun control in this thread was a bad idea, because it derails the discussion into a much-repeated trench war, but I still can't help myself from making a comparison...

Whether you're pro-gun or not, I think everyone can agree to some pretty basic goals IF they feel that they can do so without having to agree to solutions that they don't like. For example, nobody wants people to die from gun violence. So we could have a productive discussion about that if we started from a point that was more constructive, such as:

What are the underlying causes of gun violence?

Then maybe we will end up agreeing that (I'm just spitballing here...) things such as bullying in school, social isolation, mental health issues or the connection between masculin culture and aggressiveness contribute to gun violence. And if we agree that is the case, we can suddenly start working towards reducing the thing we all want to get rid of without anyone having to be afraid of losing their rights or freedoms. In my experience as a polcitician, this is a much more effective way to achieve reforms with a broad support. And having a consensus or broad support also results in much more effective implementation as well as sustainability.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Deaths from car accidents have been taken seriously and no one seriously objects to regulations aimed at reducing traffic deaths.

I don't believe this is true. Consider the issue of senior citizen drivers causing car accidents and death. Stats have found them to be as likely to cause an accident as teenage drivers, but we have yet to properly address the issue.

In 2006 George Russell Weller drove through an open air market killing 10 and injuring 63. He was 86 at the time. What broad brushes are we willing to paint with in order to prevent that from happening? At the moment, no one gives a shit, we have to wait until the next mass fatality before it will be news again. But imagine if it had been 10 children. What would the AARP have to say about that?

Originally Posted by DSeid

We restrict who can use a car and how they use it, we know who owns each one, we test them for skill and knowledge of the regulations,

Once. We do that once at age 16 and then never again. Does that sound to you like we take it seriously? Not to mention that the testing system is a joke. Considering the potential for harm, why aren't drivers tested more frequently or more strictly--particularly the elderly? If you want to apply that to guns, we'd have the same results: every gun owner tested at 16 before they have a criminal record or mental health issues, and then never again until they're 86 and kill 10 people.

Originally Posted by DSeid

No one fears that laws regulating driving are a slippery slope to make driving illegal and to confiscate all cars.

Again I'd disagree. Look at the reactions when people suggest dealing with elderly drivers. And look at how MADD continues to push for tighter drunk driving laws, year after year. We now have police check points set up for drivers to prove that they're sober. There are people that think all cars should have ignition interlock, and people that are using drunk driving deaths to ban alcohol altogether.

That tragedy last week could have just as easily been from an elderly driver or a drunk driver plowing into a group of children waiting for the bus. Had it been either of those this board would be full of people having the same polarizing conversation.

How many deaths will it take before we ban senior citizens from driving? Well we can't ban them from driving, but perhaps we could have a few regulations. Are there any reasonable regulations we could implement to reduce the number of fatalities caused by elderly drivers? Could we limit the types of the cars they can use? Perhaps limit the speed that they can travel? The roads they're allowed on? Take a moment and apply all the rhetoric about gun laws to elderly drivers and see how they line up.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

It seems silly to worry about highway fatalities when they will practically be eliminated by self-driving cars. I expect to self-driving cars on the road by 2020 and commonplace by 2030. The safety effort will be to eliminate manually driven vehicles.

I think you are probably right. I would guess that also by then, schools will have sophisticated intruder detection systems with cameras and computers with facial recognition software. If somebody who doesn't belong even comes close to entering the school, the school administrators will be notified immediately and the doors will lock him out.

[artemis]

Originally Posted by Stoneburg

This is definetely a case of development that would be positive for the vast majority. The only critisism I would have is that you stated the solution as "allow only" rather than "make possible". I think it is better to start from the point of trying to provide better options, rather than forbidding options that you don't want people to choose.

I don't walk to the store because I am forbidden to drive a car there (I'm not, there are even subsidised parking spots there to make it easier), I do it because it is a cheaper and more practical option.

I agree, your phrasing is a better description of how the process has to occur if it's to be successful. Free choice rather than coercion is needed if a change is going to last. You ultimately can't force people to give up something they value highly, and attempts to do so tend to backfire badly.

One of the interesting things about the golf cart town was that the switch away from cars to golf carts came about spontaneously. Being in sunny Florida, it had lots of older people living there who liked to golf and owned golf carts. A few people tarted driving their golf carts into town, and the idea gradually caught on until today it's the expected way to get around. There's no law forbidding people from driving their cars around town, but doing so gets you odd looks. It's become a social faux pas to use a car rather than a golf cart. They don't need to outlaw car use in town, because no one wants to do it.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Motor vehicles are a linchpin of the economy; it cannot function without them. They make us much, much, much richer.

Some motor vehicles are necessary, but not nearly as many as we use now. And to the extent that they are displacing more cost-effective ways of doing the same or equivalent things, they make us poorer.

Too many people are forced to spend too much of their income on buying/insuring/fueling/maintaining their own personal motor transport system, simply because we haven't built most of our society to include or support any alternative. And too many state and local governments spend too much of their income on building and maintaining roads.

Relying on vast fleets of private internal-combustion cars and trucks, plus vast networks of public asphalt roads, just isn't efficient, or sustainable.

Originally Posted by Stoneburg

The most effective way to approach the issue is to look at how to lower the demand for cars. This is not very hard, because the demand for cars has been intentionally planned and constructed. The reason people use cars is because after the cars invention, we quickly started organising and constructing our living enviroments based on the car as the mode of transportation. Cars are amazing because they make both planned and unplanned individual transportation over great distances cheap and easy. This has allowed us to spread out and segregate our societies basic functions. Such as housing, shopping and work places. Before the arrival of cars there was a strong incentive to keep these functions as close and integrated as possible. A hundred years ago you couldn't jump into your car and travel 5 miles to shop groceries, so grocery stores needed to be integrated with living enviroments. You couldn't easily commute 10 miles to your work place, so offices and factories needed to either be close to living enviroments or nodes of collective transportation.

Bingo. Except I'd argue the "cheap" part. Cars have never really been as cheap as they seemed, because of the split between the mostly-private costs of the fleet and the mostly-public costs of the infrastructure. But cheap gasoline sure helped, for many years. That's over now.

Originally Posted by Stoneburg

Practical public transport can never exist out of cities.

Practical public transport can exist within cities, even modest-sized ones that in today's America have nothing. And it can exist between all those cities.

For a country of our size, technology, and affluence, we should have an environment in which anyone living in a city of 100,000 or more is within foot, bicycle, or trolley range of an intercity rail station where they can get passage to any other city of size.

There's so much progress that could be made on those fronts that, for the foreseeable future, saying we can't ultimately have bus or rail lines to every rural hamlet, while true, mainly functions as a distraction from the substance of the issues.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I think you are probably right. I would guess that also by then, schools will have sophisticated intruder detection systems with cameras and computers with facial recognition software. If somebody who doesn't belong even comes close to entering the school, the school administrators will be notified immediately and the doors will lock him out.

They could probably do that now, but I'm not sure how you could ensure the police would get there in time. I would add a metal detector and an airlock, so they couldn't get in unless someone buzzed them in, if they aren't on the authorized list. It's probably still cheaper than a full-time security guard. I had a computer room I worked in during the 70s. It just had an atrium and a window, so the operators could verify you and buzz you in through the second set of doors. I'd also add secure fencing so no one could get in through the playground.

[Docta G]

Originally Posted by Ramanujan

... this is not a whoosh.

That's sad.

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by emacknight

... Stats have found them to be as likely to cause an accident as teenage drivers, but we have yet to properly address the issue ...

Rather than ask for the cite I'll just pony up with one. You are wrong.

Although drivers in their 60s have the same car crash rate as drivers in their 30s, drivers in their mid-to-late 80s have a car crash rate sharply lower than teens and 20-somethings. ... The number of fatal senior driving accidents has declined more than 40 pecent in the last three decades, according to the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety, and technology to prevent senior car accidents is growing.

The rest of your post is just as specious. We have a vigorous system designed to make sure that drivers are obeying a host of laws that decrease the risks of driving to themselves and others. We accept that the goal is not to prevent all driving accidents or deaths associated with accidents and can have reasonable debates about what is reasonable. But no one is arguing that cars should all be outlawed and no one is seriously worried that they are going to be and that any additional regulation is the first step to eliminating all autos. No one tries to make it illegal for a pediatrician to advise that children should be kept in car seats and boosters to this or that age. OTOH even a pediatrician discussing gun storage safety was such a threat to the NRA that they tried to make asking about gun ownership a crime.

Guns are a particularly ... loaded ... issue. And the debate is usually framed by those at each pole much more than most other issues, even in our otherwise highly polarized political clime. Treat gun safety issues and risk reduction just like we treat car safety issues please.

[DSeid]

From the actual report:

Driver-based crash rates were
highest for drivers ages 16-17 and decreased until ages 60-69, at which point they
essentially leveled off. Mileage-based crash rates were by far the highest for the youngest
drivers, decreased with increasing age until ages 60-69, and increased slightly thereafter,
such that drivers in their 70’s were involved in approximately the same number of crashes
per mile driven as drivers in their 30’s, drivers ages 80-84 had mileage-based crash rates
similar to drivers ages 25-59, and drivers ages 85 and older had mileage-based crash rates
similar to drivers ages 20-24. Rates of driver injuries, and injuries and deaths of other
people outside of the driver’s vehicle (occupants of other vehicles, pedestrians, etc.) tended
to follow patterns similar to those of overall crash involvement. Drivers ages 85 and older
had the highest rates of (their own) death per driver and per mile driven; however, this was
largely due to their diminished ability to survive a crash rather than to their increased
crash rate. In relation to the amount of driving that they did, drivers aged 85 and older
posed about as much risk to other people outside of their vehicle as drivers in their early
20’s did. In relation to their share of the driving population, fewer other people were killed
in crashes involving drivers ages 85 and older than drivers of any other age.

[emacknight]

Older drivers have higher rates of fatal crashes, based on miles driven, than any other group except young drivers, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The point is that we don't treat elderly drivers the way we treat teen drivers, which means we're far from serious when it comes to dealing with driving fatalities. And what you'll notice is that seniors have much more lobbying power than teens. Remember you said, "Deaths from car accidents have been taken seriously and no one seriously objects to regulations aimed at reducing traffic deaths." Well, you're wrong, seniors object, and will put up just as much of a stink as gun owners if you were to try and target them regulations.

In August a 100 year old man plowed into a group of school children injuring 11. You noted that technology is making elderly drivers safer, but it's also allowing the elderly to live long. As baby boomers age they'll make up a larger portion of drivers. Fatality rates end up being U shaped, lots of deaths for teens, and lots for the elderly, but our treatment of the two groups doesn't match up. Why is that?

[emacknight]

Of course, if you actually look at the stats (like this pdf) it should make you wonder why we allow people under 25 to operate a motor vehicle, if we're actually serious about reducing traffic deaths.

[DSeid]

Yes, your cite and my cite agree, teens have the most fatalities by far, and older drivers are so frail they die in crashes more than other adults, even though they have fewer:

Older people are less likely to survive an injury than younger people.

Also from your cite:

Depending on their ability, older drivers may be limited to driving during daylight hours or on nonfreeway types of roads. ... Some 15 states currently require older drivers to take vision tests at license renewal ...

And from your cite the rate of involvement in accidents per 100,000 drivers, both all and fatal, is lower for those over 75 than for any group 44 and younger.

Those over 75 are sometimes frail and may die in an accident that would be just bruising to a younger fitter person but they are safer drivers than most.

Do you even read what you link to? You are simply wrong. Teens are by far involved in the most accidents and the most fatalities by any metric so they are regulated the most. Those over 75 are more frail and despite the fact that they are of no greater risk to others on the road or near it than any other group (by any metric) many states put additional requirements on them for their own safety, proving that they have adequate vision and sometimes restricted the where and when they can drive. If anyone develops a medical condition that limits their ability to drive safely most states will restrict their driving.

Again, IF ONLY we approached gun issues in the same reasoned fashion. Where does the greatest risk comes from and how can we minimize that risk in the manner in a reasonable way?

[Sleeping Synapse]

Rickshaws are a good alternative. It allows for comfortable transportion for the elite, while at that same time keeping the proletariat employed. Win and win.

Failing that, treating death caused by callous driving the same way any other form of murder is treated, would be a step in the right direction.

[Stoneburg]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Practical public transport can exist within cities, even modest-sized ones that in today's America have nothing. And it can exist between all those cities.

For a country of our size, technology, and affluence, we should have an environment in which anyone living in a city of 100,000 or more is within foot, bicycle, or trolley range of an intercity rail station where they can get passage to any other city of size.

There's so much progress that could be made on those fronts that, for the foreseeable future, saying we can't ultimately have bus or rail lines to every rural hamlet, while true, mainly functions as a distraction from the substance of the issues.

Yes I am very much in agreement that there is room for much more public transport in existing cities. My claim is merely that in order to make economical and enviromental sense, things such as buses, subways, trams etc need a density of population that is only found in cities.

A city with a population of 100.000 can be extremely different. Ranging from impossible to supply with public transportation because of low density, to not needing it other than for external transport due to high density.

100.000 people can comfortable live within an area smaller than a square mile*, and is enough to sustain even advanced functions such as hospitals. With good planning, you'd never have to travel more than half a mile. Which would be a 10 minute walk. So really any form of motorised transportation would be pretty unneccesary in most situations, and you could probably get by with just a couple of rental cars or taxis for when you really need one. Mass transportation would only be needed for travel to other cities.


* The current record is "Mong Kok" in Hong Kong, with 340k per square mile. The central district of Eixample in Barcelona has around 300k people living within a 3 square mile area, and is very attractive form what I have heard. Manhattan has around 70k per square mile, which is respectable.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

They could probably do that now, but I'm not sure how you could ensure the police would get there in time. I would add a metal detector and an airlock, so they couldn't get in unless someone buzzed them in, if they aren't on the authorized list. It's probably still cheaper than a full-time security guard. I had a computer room I worked in during the 70s. It just had an atrium and a window, so the operators could verify you and buzz you in through the second set of doors. I'd also add secure fencing so no one could get in through the playground.

And the grounds should be patrolled by robot German Shepherds with laser beams shooting from their eyes.

[For You]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I think you are probably right. I would guess that also by then, schools will have sophisticated intruder detection systems with cameras and computers with facial recognition software. If somebody who doesn't belong even comes close to entering the school, the school administrators will be notified immediately and the doors will lock him out.

Must do better than that, I think. If I read correctly, the Newtown shooter busted his way into the school. I guess we need to make schools into titanium fortresses to deal with these extremely rare events, because we seem to be unable or unwilling to address what drives people to rampaging.

Originally Posted by emacknight

Of course, if you actually look at the stats (like this pdf) it should make you wonder why we allow people under 25 to operate a motor vehicle, if we're actually serious about reducing traffic deaths.

Giving teenagers drivers licenses helps acclimate them to the automobile in the first place. Start them young and they will come to repeat clichés about how crucial the car is to our survival, because it is all they have ever known.

Originally Posted by Stoneburg

100.000 people can comfortable live within an area smaller than a square mile*, and is enough to sustain even advanced functions such as hospitals. With good planning, you'd never have to travel more than half a mile. Which would be a 10 minute walk.

Just by dint of spending more time vertical (walking), city dwellers may be healthier than suburbanites. If mass transit in the form of something like dial-a-ride could be effectively combined with fleet rental service, the need for personally-owned automobiles might be nearly eliminated even in the (redesigned) suburbs. Beyond that, rural areas could be served by order/delivery routes, making grocery shopping a non-travel event.

The solutions are there, they just tend to be to economical for the economy to support them.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

They could probably do that now,

I don't think facial recognition software has reached that point yet.

but I'm not sure how you could ensure the police would get there in time.

Well the doors would lock before the intruder got into the building. That would ordinarily give school administration (and the authorities) plenty of time to assess and deal with the situation.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by For You

Must do better than that, I think. If I read correctly, the Newtown shooter busted his way into the school. I guess we need to make schools into titanium fortresses

I think a titanium fortress is overkill. Good solid doors and locks ought to keep most people out for at least long enough for the authorities to come.

, because we seem to be unable or unwilling to address what drives people to rampaging.

It seems these events are rare enough that they are difficult to predict. How many men between the ages of 18 and 40 were under psychological treatment in America in the past couple months? Probably tens of thousands. If you gave all of their files to the best team of psychologists in the country, could they have predicted with any accuracy who would go on a shooting spree? Maybe they could have narrowed it down to a few thousand.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by casdave

What is the primary purpose of a gun?

Well, MY primary purpose is to protect myself. That doesn't mean it's the same as anyone else's primary purpose, and therein lies the problem.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I don't think facial recognition software has reached that point yet.

The general facial recognition problem it probably too difficult, but we only need to recognize the students, faculty and staff. That seems doable.

I'm not sure if want to use facial recognition of the students in the morning. It would probably cause a traffic Jam. We might have someone actually man the door in the morning. We would just use the facial system after school starts.

If you don't like facial recognition, then we could use thumbprints or some other system.

Well the doors would lock before the intruder got into the building. That would ordinarily give school administration (and the authorities) plenty of time to assess and deal with the situation.

Actually the doors would already be locked. They wouldn't unlock until the system recognized them or someone buzzed them it.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Do you even read what you link to? You are simply wrong. Teens are by far involved in the most accidents and the most fatalities by any metric so they are regulated the most.

Again, you are missing the point. Teens are the ONLY ones regulated, which should raise two questions: why are they allowed to drive in the first place, and why aren't similar regulations applied proportionately? Only two states require seniors to get retested. What strikes me about elderly driving is that it seems to end catastrophically, in that they don't know when to intervene until it's too late and 10 people are dead. It takes a lot to get a senior to stop driving, and you'll see exactly the same answers as gun-right-activists give.

Originally Posted by DSeid

Again, IF ONLY we approached gun issues in the same reasoned fashion. Where does the greatest risk comes from and how can we minimize that risk in the manner in a reasonable way?

We do approach the two issues in the same fashion but I'd hardly call it reasoned. Right now we're dealing with a mass shooting, so people are responding with hysteria. Twenty children could have just as easily been killed by a senior, a drunk, or a texter, and that would have resulted in a nearly identical public response.

If it had been a senior we'd have calls to ban seniors from driving, followed by the AARP or some other lobby group reminding us that driving is a right, and that seniors need cars, and that even though 20 children just died the stats don't reflect an increased risk. Just look at all the seniors that are good drivers, why judge based on this one case.

If it had been a drunk MADD would have had a field day, with calls to further tighten whatever regulation they can get their hands on. Lower blood alcohol levels, more police check points, stiffer penalties, ignition interrupts.

Texting is the one that cracks me up because it has more to do with distracted driving, but we're not willing to go after the root cause, only the low hanging fruit. Texting is something teens do and it's easy to go after a group that can't vote and has no lobby group.

Originally Posted by DSeid

Deaths from car accidents have been taken seriously and no one seriously objects to regulations aimed at reducing traffic deaths.

You are very, very wrong about that. We do not take car deaths seriously, and drivers freak out in exactly the same when we you try to take away their cars. Driving is ingrained in our society, people need cars to function, taking their car means taking away their freedom. We are far from willing to actually regulate driving the way we regulate guns, at least until we see cars limited in the speed they can travel (do you really need to go faster than 55mph) or banned because they look fast.

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by emacknight

Again, you are missing the point. Teens are the ONLY ones regulated...

And again you are out and out WRONG. We are ALL regulated. teens most, the elderly next most (despite their lack of increased risk to anyone other than themselves, which is as true for them as passengers as drivers), then the rest.

Repeating an untrue statement does not make it any more true.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

The general facial recognition problem it probably too difficult, but we only need to recognize the students, faculty and staff. That seems doable.

I'm not sure if want to use facial recognition of the students in the morning. It would probably cause a traffic Jam. We might have someone actually man the door in the morning. We would just use the facial system after school starts.

Well I'm talking about facial recognition which is just as quick and effective as an excellent doorman. I don't think we are there yet and you seem to agree with me.

[Kazo]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned this. Want to get ban happy for the sake of safety, without outright banning motor vehicles? SUVs. They're overweight, they are too tall to be compatible with smaller vehicles' impact protection (door bars, bumpers, etc), they are top heavy and tend to roll, they don't have the same structural standards as the trucks they are based on, and they serve no purpose that other safer vehicles do just as well. Carrying lots of people? Minivan. Lots of cargo but need it covered? Pickup truck. Want a luxurious ride? Lexus/Cadillac/etc. Going offroad? Jeep Wrangler.

There is no reason for an SUV to be driven by a single occupant. Want a nice commuter car strictly fir oneself? Buy a Miata!

[Boyo Jim]

My sister bought a Lexus SUV some years back, and the salesman said, "I hope you don't plan to ever drive this on anything other than a paved road. This is not a vehicle for sport driving. It's a passenger vehicle with a large cargo capacity." She appreciated the honesty -- many car sales people would claim their cars could do pretty much anything.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Well I'm talking about facial recognition which is just as quick and effective as an excellent doorman. I don't think we are there yet and you seem to agree with me.

What I'm talking about is a database of the people at a given school which is workable problem. If you talking about a database of millions of people, then we aren't there yet.

As near as I can tell, the average grammar school only has a few hundred students. I don't know how many has over 1,000.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

What I'm talking about is a database of the people at a given school which is workable problem. If you talking about a database of millions of people, then we aren't there yet.

As near as I can tell, the average grammar school only has a few hundred students. I don't know how many has over 1,000.

I don't understand your point. Here's what you said before:

I'm not sure if want to use facial recognition of the students in the morning. It would probably cause a traffic Jam. We might have someone actually man the door in the morning.

You seem to concede that at the moment, a doorman would do a quicker and more effective job at facial recognition than a computer.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I don't understand your point. Here's what you said before:

You seem to concede that at the moment, a doorman would do a quicker and more effective job at facial recognition than a computer.

Having full time armed security is expensive. Having someone from the staff stand by the door in the morning is cheap, because you are just using someone already on the staff. The point is having it set up so someone just can't walk in and start shooting students. A facial recognition system should work for other times of day and be cheap.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Having full time armed security is expensive. Having someone from the staff stand by the door in the morning is cheap, because you are just using someone already on the staff. The point is having it set up so someone just can't walk in and start shooting students. A facial recognition system should work for other times of day and be cheap.

I still don't understand your point. Do you agree that at the moment, facial recognition software would not be as quick and effective as a doorman?

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I still don't understand your point. Do you agree that at the moment, facial recognition software would not be as quick and effective as a doorman?

What I'm saying is that any system is problematic when hundreds of people are trying to get into the building at the same time. When I went on jury duty, it slowed down a lot just getting people through the metal detectors. In the mornings, it might be easier to have someone watch and keep out the obvious non-children. If you are okay with 6 people per minute, then you can run the face detectors all the time.