Amazing.
The Chicago metropolitan area has about one and a half times the population of denmark and five times the traffic fatalities.
(And 150 times the gun murders, but it’s kind of a given that the US is completely whack on that compared to the rest of the western world)
You should really look into both.
They don’t have 50+ hours of mandatory training before hitting the roads like we do. In some states you can practically just go to an exam and luck out.
Their perception of freedom is messed up and literally causing huge amounts of unnecessary deaths.
There is also a lot more driving in the USA, even in a decent transit area like Chicago.
Very true, we do like our bicycles
Wow, we really need to educate people on safety and strictly license usage based on examination and proven ability.
One of these things is purpose-built for the deliberate infliction of harm. The other is vastly more popular and merely causes harm through negligence.
Sort of like the American political parties, I guess
Traffic engineers use decades-old manuals that ignore safety in favour of driver convenience. This has to change. Streets built by them are a huge public safety issue.
We should never accept crashes that result in serious injuries or deaths as if they are an inevitable force of nature or something. They’re merely a predictable outcome of a badly built system.
You need three prongs, infrastructure, training and enforcement. No one wants to spend the large amount of $ it would take to redesign thousands of miles of roads in each city. There is also the issue of how ridiculously low the bar is set for getting a license and how basic safety inspections are. In my state I can count on one hand how many times I’ve seen highway patrols enforcing traffic laws.
Traffic engineers
They are just doing what they are being told. They don’t have the authority to diviate in practice.
This is a political issue. Everything is captured by the shittiest lobby.
Health care > health insurance and pharma
Infra > cars and oil
Privacy > tech firms
There is nothing a slave can do via direct action in these jobs since they will fire you and out somebody in place who will follow orders.
that ignore safety in favour of driver convenience
How about one better? Municipalities that ignore both safety and driver convenience in favor of feeling good about helping the environment, or so they perceive. The end result of more pollution, more hazardous navigational conditions for everyone, and more problems.
Example, a state law that made it so bicyclists no longer have to come to a stop at intersections. It was a feel-good measure to make things easier for bicyclists so they’re not having to come to a complete stop over and over. In implementation, it just means a car driving 55MPH comes up to a green traffic light intersection that would ordinarily be safe, except one of the cross-directions has trees blocking the side road, so a bike comes chugging down the hill at 35MPH and blazes through their red light right in front of the much heavier and slower to stop car. (C.R.S. § 42‑4‑1412.5)
Now, couple that with another law that allows large trucks, buses, and RVs preferential treatment at roundabouts. All other vehicles must yield to the large vehicle no matter what. And going back to… the bike doesn’t yield to anything. (C.R.S. § 42‑4‑715)
Welcome to Colorful Colorado.
People think the pandemic invited driver chaos, we were bold, and asked the universe, “hold my beer?”
Are you usually this dishonest, or do you have a particular bias against bikes? I dislike liars, and you are a liar. The law you cited explicitly contradicts your strawman
Here is an excerpt of the law you did not read:
If a stop is not required for safety, the pedestrian or person operating a low-speed conveyance shall slow to a reasonable speed and yield the right-of-way to any traffic or pedestrian in or approaching the intersection. After the pedestrian or person operating a low-speed conveyance has slowed to a reasonable speed and yielded the right-of-way if required, the pedestrian or person operating a low-speed conveyance may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.
Here is the law: https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_42-4-1412.5
This doesn’t super surprise me. Driving should be taken more seriously. You’re controlling a 2 ton death machine and it shouldn’t be taken lightly.
We should be retaking driver tests every seven to ten years to keep our license.
Poorly designed roads, signage, and intersections cause a lot of accidents. Think on ramps that throw you into traffic, and off-ramps that want you to get over three lanes after exiting in order to turn right at your cross street.
Lack of traffic enforcement drives up insurance costs and reduces city revenues. Some states have cheaped out on the reflective paint used to stripe roads, so you can’t see lane dividers in the rain. More of that wonderful “deregulation” and people not wanting to pay taxes I guess.
It also doesn’t help that many states are getting rid of car inspections for some bizarre reason. Not great to avoid shit falling off of the car in front of you when you’re going 70 mph.
Yeah my state has gotten rid of inspections and it’s baffling to me.
Texas?
Mine has been arguing this point for a while. Apparently there wasn’t really a drop of issues here when they went into place, so they question the usefulness.
That said, they’re just done incorrectly in the first place. They are done by dealers/shops that lose money in doing them and are instead banking on charging you lots of money for problems they find and hope you get fixed with them. They need be done at an independent run spot with no interest in anything but safety and no way to be bought out.
Inspections were cancelled because it was shown that they actually led to more accidents. A small percentage of the time mechanics didn’t tighten bolts, back on correctly, after removing a wheel to inspect brake pads. The vast majority of accidents are caused by speeding, not because a wheel brakes free and the car swerved.
Hmmm never heard this one. I am pretty sure my state doesn’t require inspection of the actual pads.
This is especially surprising to me because Chicago is one of the few US cities with decent public transportation, so there’s a significant percentage of people that aren’t driving.
Vehicle fatalities are generally far higher than gun fatalities in the US. For decades it was the #1 cause of death under 45, only recently being dethroned to poisonings thanks to fentanyl
For Chicago, this is brought down by very low car ownership rate (by US standards), and a high gun fatality rate (including suicides by gun)
Still surprising guns have kept up though
Side note:
I’ve always been on the fence about including suicide in gun violence statistics because I can see both sides of the argument. Yes, the death probably wouldn’t have happened without the gun since it’s the “quick solution”, but also I don’t really see self harm as “violence” per se…
Given the strong correlation between these two, I hypothesise that in Chicago, cars rather than bullets are shot from guns.
Car guns. Fully automatic.
In absolute numbers.
How many users? How many per people?
I guess it’s because one of these things is a widely used tool, a requirement for work / living in the USA and gives people freedom.
The other is just car.
Driving is orders of magnitude more likely to kill you at any second you’re in a car, than flying is at any second you’re in a plane.
People who are terrified of flying will get in a car and drive like a monkey like it’s no big deal.
Driving is orders of magnitude more likely to kill you at any second you’re in a car, than flying is at any second you’re in a plane.
This is an oft-repeated factoid that comes straight from the airlines bending statistics to meet their desires. It’s true that on a per mile basis, planes are safer. But on a per trip basis, cars actually win on safety.
And this makes some sense once you actually think about it. A car ride is typically going to be a frequent, short distance; An average of like 90% of all driving happens within 5 miles of the person’s home. Whereas air trips are infrequent and cover huge distances. So the accident-per-trip stat is watered down with cars having lots of trips, but the short distances tend to inflate the accident-per-mile number. In contrast, the accident-per-mile stat is watered down with planes covering a lot of miles per trip, but the infrequent nature of the trips means the accident-per-trip number is inflated.
And airlines conveniently only ever quote the accident-per-mile number when comparing safety statistics, because they have a vested interest in making airplanes seem statistically safer. If anything, seeing this factoid repeated is just a reminder that even math can be intentionally biased to fit a certain agenda.
So the point you’re making is that going far away is dangerous? No shit.
My point is that the “planes are safer” stat is, at best, disingenuous. Any single trip is going to be more dangerous in a plane. But people tend to fly less than they drive, so cars are cited as being more dangerous.
Any single trip is going to be more dangerous in a plane
So you’re saying driving from London to Shanghai is safer than flying there?
If guns are so alike to cars, why not require a license that you get by passing a written test on gun safety and a practical test on basic competence and safe usage?
They are not alike. It’s a dumb comparison. Transport (albeit flawed) brings many more advantages than shooting people. That’s why people accept cars more than guns.
And yet a drivers license requires a lot more than a gun.
Driver’s license requirements honestly should be much higher
I’m a European and in my country driving tests are really hard and it takes a lot of very motivated people 3 or more tries and the better part of a year of frequent training to get a license. When I hear Americans talking about their driving test, most of them didn’t even get on the road and did the test on a separate test terrain. All they need is knowing what a traffic sign is and being nearly able to use their highly automated car. The difference in required knowledge and ability is staggering.
Add to that the tendency to drive huge and heavy SUV 's and trucks that are highly dangerous to other road users and you get an extremely deadly situation.
I agree. But a gun license should be harder too.
I agree it was a dumb comparison to start off with.
I wasn’t the one who made it, but the license issue is the logical conclusion if OP insists on the comparison.
America has ~280M cars, and ~500M guns
Americans, at least, are very accepting of guns. There’s a reason the fatality rate is so high
Sorry let me clear that up. I meant people are more accepting of the deaths that cars cause compared to guns
Usually, people don’t get behind the wheel with the intent to kill. We can always discuss the ramifications of drunk driving, speeding and other reckless behaviors that some drivers exhibit when they put the lives of others in danger. It is a discussion that is worth having and it is very important.
However, you cannot tell me that carrying a gun around and waving it in someone’s face is anything other than an attempt to threaten a life. Guns were built explicitly to kill. That is their only purpose. That is why people mostly focus on gun violence. There is intent behind the deaths of every person involved in a shooting while with car crashes, it is rarely the driver’s intent to murder anybody.
It doesn’t mean that car crashes don’t matter and don’t deserve attention, but you comparing the two as if they are the same is frankly ignorant and smells of gun apologist.
They’re not the same. This is privilege speaking, I know, but gun violence mostly occurs between people who know each other. I’m not in those circles or neighborhoods, so only the occasional mass shooting might affect me.
But cars? They’re omnipresent. There’s a steady stream of them in front of my home, so I can’t avoid the danger. My life is threatened by cars every damn day, and my quality of life degraded by them. And you can’t tell me that driving a car around a city is anything but sociopathic disregard for the well-being of others, because that’s what it amounts to.
Cars as bad as guns? No, they’re worse.
I do not understand your mindset, but I very much do hope you will never know what it is like to be trapped in a mass shooting.
You are definitely speaking form a position of privilege.
You don’t understand what fear is like?
Claiming that people driving cars are sociopathic is a bizarre claim. Claiming that cars are worse than the concept of a mass shooting is insane. I reiterate: I hope you never find yourself in a mass shooting. Seeing a car drive by on the road cannot make you remotely as scared as being trapped in a building, knowing someone is shooting, but not knowing where they are, how many there are nor how close they are to getting you or your loved ones.
You cannot compare driving cars in a city to that. That is insane.
Getting trapped in a building with a mass shooter is something very, very unlikely. On the other hand, I face the danger of death by automobile at least twice a day, on my ride to work, and my ride home. More, if I go other places. It may seem not that bad because it’s so normalized. Dying in or under the wheels of a car is something that happens to people every single day, and it barely rates a mention in the local news. Sometimes the victim doesn’t get even get a name. By contrast, the stochastic nature of mass shootings makes them scary, like plane crashes or terrorist attacks, the natural order of things is upended. Death is death, though, and I wouldn’t be less dead if it were a texting driver rather than a gunman.
And the texting driver is a whole hell a of a lot more likely. So, yes, it’s entirely logical that I’m afraid of that. Not being able to understand and denying that fear is exactly the kind of car-induced sociopathy that I’m talking about.
Throwing insults is not a discussion, by the way.
Throwing insults is not a discussion, by the way.
denying that fear is exactly the kind of car-induced sociopathy that I’m talking about.
Lol.
Putting the shoe on and loudly announcing that it fits?
That is a pretty high number of shootings then. Practically everyone drives so that is a lot of miles/person. You have to drive, you don’t have to be shot, that is why it draws media attention.
Chicago is pretty different to most of the US. There is actual reliable public transit. The average resident isn’t doing nearly the driving of the average American
Cars are not designed to inflict harm. This cheap false equivalence tells us a lot.
Right. I can’t ride my gun to work or the grocery store. I get that there’s a lot of negatives associated with car culture, but it’s a tool in a way that firearms are not.
An automobile, at the end of the day, is a luxury item. A toy. Humanity existed for most of its history without cars, and even today, you can get to work or the grocery store without one. (Granted, often not easily, but that’s only because we’ve made it difficult to get there any other way. But making it difficult was a deliberate policy choice designed to exclude poor people.) One could argue that the automobile is an anti-tool, as its use is making our lives materially worse (traffic violence, health impacts, pollution, ecosystem destruction, climate change, the burden on government and personal budgets), but that ignores a car’s major function as a cultural identity marker, and for wealth signaling. We humans value that a lot. Consider, as but one common example, the enormous pickup truck used as a commuter vehicle, known as a pavement princess, bro-dozer, or gender-affirming vehicle.
In that way, they’re exactly the same as firearms, which are most often today used as a cultural identity marker. (Often by the same people who drive a pavement princess, and in support of the same cultural identity.) Firearms are also also luxury toys in that people enjoy going to the firing range and blasting away hundreds of dollars for the enjoyment of it. But beyond that, the gun people have a pretty legit argument, too, that their firearms are tools used for hunting and self-defense. They are undeniably useful in certain contexts, and no substitute will do. One certainly wouldn’t send mounted cavalry with sabers into war today.
