I'm a vet who's enjoyed guns for a strong portion of my life, but I need to correct you on something - if you own a gun, you're statistically most likely to hurt yourself or someone in your household with the gun. And by my experience, this has been borne out among friends. I therefore do not own a gun - do not chagrin those that do, but do encourage them to store them safely. We do not live in "the purge"
Second, I do think cycling is dangerous - but choosing to cycle is somewhat akin of choosing to let your kids walk about their neighborhood without supervisions. Yes, it's dangerous - measurably, and largely because of cars, but for other hazards too. However while our children are safer today, there's a host of childhood psychologists saying that we've made their mental health worse. Similarly, telling your kid to take a bus or walk to school is almost certainly safer than givign them a car at 16. But teaching them to drive at 16 makes them a better driver when they're 25. Those next 9 years are harrowing, no doubt.
Why should an adult cycle? Are they doing the right thing by doing so? Well, outside of societal effects (traffic and environment and using less parking, as well as building the necessary critical mass) and the measurable effects on budget - cycling makes one feel good. It's a workout, it can feel freeing and empowering. All of us have to measure the risks with the benefits. But all of us have to decide how much of our lives we should live in fear.
Also, statistically speaking, the safest way to live is in a place where they don't need a car at all - if you can afford it.
It is all self-interest, so not surprising the businessman's opinion.
You do not need an SUV. The average family size has plummeted in the US so you are a big outlier with 3 or more kids. Below that any sedan or station wagon is more than adequate.
Your primary rationale is safety, and you will be safer in the SUV for the same reason that I (230#) will suffer less walking into the average American than someone smaller. Physics is physics.
So the choice is really the prisoners dilemma writ large - we would all be safer if we all drove smaller cars. Smaller means less force in an accident, and small cars can be made very safe against things that aren't huge.
But because we can't trust others to do that, we buy the SUV, so the smart social choice becomes the sucker bet. And we make ourselves feel better by saying we need the space.
You are making the right choice for your family, but that doesn't mean societal behavior is not insane.
"[The driver] views the car’s death toll, in which he potentially participates every time he drives, as no more willed or chosen or preventable than a heart attack or a case of cancer."
Interesting choice of a metaphor - since the driver also is choosing a higher risk of heart attacks and cancer by driving as well.
I think one place your analysis falls down is by looking only at kinetic deaths. For every traumatic death of a cyclist, there are many quiet deaths of 60 year old suburbanites from emphysema, cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. caused by breathing in hours of exhaust every week while commuting (and by car commuting's sedentary lifestyle). So cycling isn't choosing to be risky, it is choosing different risks from driving. And in fact the data shows that the health benefits to cycling substantially outweigh the risks.
As someone who bikes in city traffic, I don't deny that it is dangerous, but I think the dangers can be overblown. Here in Chicago, there were a total of five cyclists killed in traffic crashes in 2023. All of these deaths occurred after dark. One the one hand, that's five deaths too many. On the other hand, that's five people in a city of 2.7 million.
I am 61 and have biked or walked to school/work my entire life. I have not had a car-bike collision since graduating from college. Before that, I was hit 4 times. I learned to look at drivers that I thought might hit me, e.g., in intersections. They seem to notice you if you look at them.
I have largely bought small cars my entire life, buying an SUV just once when I actually needed to drive off-road. I currently have my second large vehicle, an 2011 E250 with ~35k miles which I only use to tow and/or move stuff. I completely agree that large vehicles should only be available to people who need them or should come with a safety tax that is used to create infrastructure to protest pedestrians and bicyclists.
I do think the side of this that gets overlooked is that even insofar as taking precautions to protect one's own family is often reasonable, to the extent that these precautions impose a cost or risk on others *your personal culpability for that increases*. So morally, if you drive an SUV to protect your family and you hit someone/something, you're not only responsible for the damages *but for your decision to make them worse for your own benefit*. This applies not just to actual but hypothetical damages, IMO, at least on a moral level.
The issue is that I'm not sure how we do or even should account for this legally, but I *do* generally think that we probably don't treat collisions and the subsequent damages with a proper sense of weight. I think there should be very few mitigating circumstances that alleviate the responsibility of the driver. And yes, I think this would make driving much more nerve-wracking, and we should probably invest substantially in changing roads and infrastructure to minimize the chance of these collisions...
I know you've previously written about comparing cars to guns, and I think it's apt: operating a powerful machine is an incredible responsibility, and morally we should recognize that, but also practically we should be looking to alleviate the burden *by reducing the risks*, not by just choosing not to care about the damages.
I think this begins to touch on something I have been thinking about lately. We tend to divide ourselves among various lines: urbanite vs suburbanite, cyclist vs driver, etc. I'm wondering if many of these things come down to our (innate?) preference for individualistic or collective solutions. Should 'individual' concerns trump what's best for the 'collective'? Or vice versa? If many of these other divisions (progressive vs conservative, cyclist vs motorist, etc) are at their core about the 'individual' vs the 'collective, does that change how we approach potential solutions?
Riding a bicycle in traffic is dangerous. I don’t do it. I would recommend it to no one. If bicycling and car traffic can be separated, then I would do it. I think too many people view bicycles as a given but there is no practical or moral imperative for cycling. In fact, the chance of accidents sans car traffic in daily commuting on a bicycle is too high.
“What is an individual to do?” They should think “What would the world/my community look like if everyone was doing what I’m doing?” and then proceed from there.
"What is an individual to do?" exactly encapsulates the tragedy-of-the-commons dilemma here. Every choice has trade-offs: costs and benefits, risks and rewards - and those are not the same at a community level as they are at an individual level.
So as individuals, we have to ask ourselves how much risk we are willing to take on in order to benefit our community. And how much risk we want to outsource to our community (making it worse for everyone) to benefit ourselves.
I'm a vet who's enjoyed guns for a strong portion of my life, but I need to correct you on something - if you own a gun, you're statistically most likely to hurt yourself or someone in your household with the gun. And by my experience, this has been borne out among friends. I therefore do not own a gun - do not chagrin those that do, but do encourage them to store them safely. We do not live in "the purge"
Second, I do think cycling is dangerous - but choosing to cycle is somewhat akin of choosing to let your kids walk about their neighborhood without supervisions. Yes, it's dangerous - measurably, and largely because of cars, but for other hazards too. However while our children are safer today, there's a host of childhood psychologists saying that we've made their mental health worse. Similarly, telling your kid to take a bus or walk to school is almost certainly safer than givign them a car at 16. But teaching them to drive at 16 makes them a better driver when they're 25. Those next 9 years are harrowing, no doubt.
Why should an adult cycle? Are they doing the right thing by doing so? Well, outside of societal effects (traffic and environment and using less parking, as well as building the necessary critical mass) and the measurable effects on budget - cycling makes one feel good. It's a workout, it can feel freeing and empowering. All of us have to measure the risks with the benefits. But all of us have to decide how much of our lives we should live in fear.
Also, statistically speaking, the safest way to live is in a place where they don't need a car at all - if you can afford it.
It is all self-interest, so not surprising the businessman's opinion.
You do not need an SUV. The average family size has plummeted in the US so you are a big outlier with 3 or more kids. Below that any sedan or station wagon is more than adequate.
Your primary rationale is safety, and you will be safer in the SUV for the same reason that I (230#) will suffer less walking into the average American than someone smaller. Physics is physics.
So the choice is really the prisoners dilemma writ large - we would all be safer if we all drove smaller cars. Smaller means less force in an accident, and small cars can be made very safe against things that aren't huge.
But because we can't trust others to do that, we buy the SUV, so the smart social choice becomes the sucker bet. And we make ourselves feel better by saying we need the space.
You are making the right choice for your family, but that doesn't mean societal behavior is not insane.
"[The driver] views the car’s death toll, in which he potentially participates every time he drives, as no more willed or chosen or preventable than a heart attack or a case of cancer."
Interesting choice of a metaphor - since the driver also is choosing a higher risk of heart attacks and cancer by driving as well.
I think one place your analysis falls down is by looking only at kinetic deaths. For every traumatic death of a cyclist, there are many quiet deaths of 60 year old suburbanites from emphysema, cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. caused by breathing in hours of exhaust every week while commuting (and by car commuting's sedentary lifestyle). So cycling isn't choosing to be risky, it is choosing different risks from driving. And in fact the data shows that the health benefits to cycling substantially outweigh the risks.
As someone who bikes in city traffic, I don't deny that it is dangerous, but I think the dangers can be overblown. Here in Chicago, there were a total of five cyclists killed in traffic crashes in 2023. All of these deaths occurred after dark. One the one hand, that's five deaths too many. On the other hand, that's five people in a city of 2.7 million.
And the death toll for motorists due to traffic crasges in Chicago is likely much higher. Do you know what that data is?
https://www.chicagolawyer.com/blog/chicago-car-accident-statistics-for-2022/#:~:text=There%20were%20399%20fatal%20car,than%202021's%20457%20fatal%20crashes.
399, including those 5 cyclists. Statewide, 16% of vehicle fatalities involved a pedestrian
But I'd caution the raw numbers probably don't mean cycling is safer, since numbers if cyclists are less
I am 61 and have biked or walked to school/work my entire life. I have not had a car-bike collision since graduating from college. Before that, I was hit 4 times. I learned to look at drivers that I thought might hit me, e.g., in intersections. They seem to notice you if you look at them.
I have largely bought small cars my entire life, buying an SUV just once when I actually needed to drive off-road. I currently have my second large vehicle, an 2011 E250 with ~35k miles which I only use to tow and/or move stuff. I completely agree that large vehicles should only be available to people who need them or should come with a safety tax that is used to create infrastructure to protest pedestrians and bicyclists.
I do think the side of this that gets overlooked is that even insofar as taking precautions to protect one's own family is often reasonable, to the extent that these precautions impose a cost or risk on others *your personal culpability for that increases*. So morally, if you drive an SUV to protect your family and you hit someone/something, you're not only responsible for the damages *but for your decision to make them worse for your own benefit*. This applies not just to actual but hypothetical damages, IMO, at least on a moral level.
The issue is that I'm not sure how we do or even should account for this legally, but I *do* generally think that we probably don't treat collisions and the subsequent damages with a proper sense of weight. I think there should be very few mitigating circumstances that alleviate the responsibility of the driver. And yes, I think this would make driving much more nerve-wracking, and we should probably invest substantially in changing roads and infrastructure to minimize the chance of these collisions...
I know you've previously written about comparing cars to guns, and I think it's apt: operating a powerful machine is an incredible responsibility, and morally we should recognize that, but also practically we should be looking to alleviate the burden *by reducing the risks*, not by just choosing not to care about the damages.
I think this begins to touch on something I have been thinking about lately. We tend to divide ourselves among various lines: urbanite vs suburbanite, cyclist vs driver, etc. I'm wondering if many of these things come down to our (innate?) preference for individualistic or collective solutions. Should 'individual' concerns trump what's best for the 'collective'? Or vice versa? If many of these other divisions (progressive vs conservative, cyclist vs motorist, etc) are at their core about the 'individual' vs the 'collective, does that change how we approach potential solutions?
Riding a bicycle in traffic is dangerous. I don’t do it. I would recommend it to no one. If bicycling and car traffic can be separated, then I would do it. I think too many people view bicycles as a given but there is no practical or moral imperative for cycling. In fact, the chance of accidents sans car traffic in daily commuting on a bicycle is too high.
There's no moral imperative to avoid actions that can kill other people (driving)?
No, not really. Would they die if they were not on bicycles? People don’t die every time someone drives....
People don't die every time someone leaves a loaded gun unsecured either but there is still a moral imperative to secure firearms.
But no prohibition of guns.
“What is an individual to do?” They should think “What would the world/my community look like if everyone was doing what I’m doing?” and then proceed from there.
"What is an individual to do?" exactly encapsulates the tragedy-of-the-commons dilemma here. Every choice has trade-offs: costs and benefits, risks and rewards - and those are not the same at a community level as they are at an individual level.
So as individuals, we have to ask ourselves how much risk we are willing to take on in order to benefit our community. And how much risk we want to outsource to our community (making it worse for everyone) to benefit ourselves.