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
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.
Only one of these things draws media attention
Whats that? Trans people?
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.
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.
Craah = Probably unintended
Shootings = Probably very intendedBesides. There are loads of local crash/emergency reports in the local newspaper.
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.
Chicago traffic fatality rate is 6.0, that of Utrecht (where I live) it’s 2.6. (per 100.000 inhabitants). Homicide rate Chicago is 22.8, Utrecht 0.7
Please dont source LLM. You can do better than this.
You had a good point until you revealed it was made by AI.
AI agents get office tasks wrong around 70% of the time. Your figures may be correct, but they are more likely not to be. If you had done your own research this would not have been an issue.
I second this. Pulling any info from ANY AI model without verifying it is dangerous. IMO anything that is AI generated deserves to be smacked with a ban hammer.
Chicago civilians were abducted in the early 1980s and were experimented on. some went back for Johnny and never returned.
Neither of these topics should even be drawing media attention, considering how frequent and non-notable they are. They just report on this stuff every day because it’s cheaper and easier than exclusively finding and reporting on real notable local news, and television news needs filler content for selling ad spots. Ever had a day where there was no news, and they ended early?
I think the math works out that each year the average American has roughly 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in a car crash and a 1 in 200 chance of being injured in a car crash (Though the second stat likely leaves out a lot of unreported injuries). The average American rolls those dice once a year, so plan to live til 75? 1 in 133 chance that you die in a car crash, 1 in 3 chance you’re injured in a car crash at some point.
I’ve known two people who died in car crashes, and at least several dozen who were injured in crashes including several really gnarly pedestrian bystander injuries. And I’m barely middle aged.
Cars are not designed to inflict harm. This cheap false equivalence tells us a lot.
Yeah, cars aren’t even designed to kill people and they still do it just as much as guns. They’re way too dangerous to be legal.
That doesnt make any sense. Since card have other purposes than killing they can be legal.
Since guns only exist to kill they should not be legal. But it is a fight against wind mills since americans love their ability to kill who they want more than they love their kids.
Car drivers kill more people without even trying than shooters kill. Imagine if the car drivers were actually trying to kill people. Cars are probably a hundred or a thousand times as dangerous as guns if you control for intent.
Yet cars are not made to kill and have a purpose in everyday life. Guns dont. But sure, I am all for building more public transportation.
Nobody has ever used a car to accomplish as much good as The Adjuster did
Are you saying that OP is making a “cheap false equivalence”? They are commenting on news coverage, so I don’t follow what you mean.
Yes, OP is very much doing that. They are commenting on how they think that news coverage should do a false equivalence on those two things.
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.
Your car is just as dangerous as a gun. You’re not allowed to wave your gun around at McDonald’s, so why can you drive your car through it? It’s corruption. Cars were going to be banned in cities before the auto industry started passing bribes around.
Cars, roads, and car culture are inflicting harm though, even if it’s seen as a neutral tool by many
Lots of things cause harm while also doing good things. It’s a balance.
The problem is when that balance skews more one way than another.
I hope the next “acceptable casualty” of car culture is you
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.
Per trip is a completely useless metric as you say, that’s the reason.
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?
Phobias are, by definition, irrational.
They should fear neither. Orders of magnitude relative risk to a minute risk is still very little.
Fuck cars and guns, ban both.
cars, like guns, should require a mental check and a license to even purchase and own, be kept in secure storage, and only used in highly regulated locations where safety is guaranteed.
this is not a valid comparison. the number of people in and around cars–and the amount of interactions that the average person has with a car–vastly outstrips those near or using guns. by at least two orders of magnitude, one would estimate.
it’s like saying that the number of papercuts received is marginally higher than the number of intentional stab wounds and the media only focuses on one.
that’s how it should be. one of those two things impacts a larger percentage of the people that encounter it.
That doesn’t make the comparison invalid, it can just be misleading to those with poor data literacy. Knowing how many “preventable” deaths from each source is valuable, but only if people are planning to do something about it.
No one does. Every road safety measure is pretty universally lobbied against.
