Do car owners feel bad about all the people and animals they killed?

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Owning a car should be a crime since sooner or later you are going to run someone over.

Also, the claim that you cannot function without a car is false, since humans have functioned without a car for thousands of years.
Its like me saying that I cannot function without my smartphone. Its an obvious lie, but this society is based on lies so I might as well join in.
#2
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Incoherent and incredibly uneducated argument.

With each passing era and advancement in technology involving travel, communication, etc. demonstrates how we functioned prior to, and how we could not function without such advancements in technology thereafter. 

Expectations. Punctuality. Timeliness of communication. The ability to communicate on a moment's notice. 
Interpersonal communication. Immediacy for emergency travel. All these things and more have changed as technology has changed. Thereby increasing each expectation, being somewhere on time, measure and level of communication, etc. 

In the late 1800s everyone knew travel was by horse or by horse & buggy (carriage). Time to get someone was based on the horse, rest, resources and terrain. Where it took days, if not weeks to go relatively short distances to us, presently it can be done in a fraction of the time it took the horse. We simply cannot go back to the horse and buggy days, BK. No business could flourish under such travel restrictions. More people could die if not taken to a hospital in a timely manner. 

So no, it is not a lie. We cannot function as a society let alone a country without motor conveyances. Same for cell phones. I mean really, when was the last time you saw an abundance of payphones on street corners let alone emergency call boxes along the streets, highways and byways? 
#3
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
Incoherent and incredibly uneducated argument.
 Bump

#4
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
I have 4 cars and a motorcycle, put that in your pipe and smoke it
Topic's author
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
 We cannot function as a society let alone a country without motor conveyances.
Is a false statement. Humans functioned for thousands of years without cars.

The claim "We cannot go back to previous modes of transport" is false.
It is irrelevant, since cars are not the only mode of modern transport. But even when considering it relevant, to say that "you cannot walk or sit on a carriage or ride a horse" and to say that "you have to travel very far" are false claims.
Your society wants to travel far because your society feels like traveling far. We see that people in the past usually didnt travel very far, they did it sometimes. It functioned for thousands of years. To claim that it cannot function again is false. Cars are the result of people's greed and not something that you have to use, no matter how much you convince yourself that it is your only option.

"More people would die" is false. The claims "people dying by being run over by cars" and "animals dying by being run over by cars" are true. Death from being run over by a car is worse than the types of death that are prevented by cars, hence we cannot even consider them equal.

"Deaths prevented by cars" are rare, one could even say non-existent. To support this claim, I claim that "cars are not the only form of transport" and "ambulance is the one that should be taking people to the hospital".
You might say "ambulance=car", however most cars are not ambulances, which makes most cars unnecessary. Further, not all ambulances are cars.
Other forms of transport such as electric bikes are better for daily transport, while motorcycles are better for long distance travels, commodity transport and urgencies, especially motorcycles with carriage or sidecar.
Abandoning cars would cause an increase in wealth, since not only lives would be saved but e bikes and motorcycles are actually cheaper and more efficient than cars in energy use.
#6
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
sooner or later you are going to run someone over.
How many people do you think get run over?
I've killed plenty of bugs with my car but nothing else that I'm aware of. You're going to need to provide statistics on how many people die per year from vehicular injuries per capita compared to per capita deaths from horse and carriage injuries.
#7
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Best.Korea
I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, in its entirety, not cherry picked quotes taken completely and utterly out of context, just so you can ramble on. 

The single quote you gave to begin your unsubstantiated diatribe was taken out of context, and everything you immediately wrote thereafter is pure bunk. 

Try again. 
#8
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,296
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Do car owners feel bad about all the people and animals they killed?

Nope. As a proud Audi owner, running over stuff is my passion. There's nothing more refreshing than swerving around at 60+ mph through the great suburbia, seeing what little collectibles I can get on my hood this time.

I've grown quite fond of my Q8, and you could tell if you saw it. The driver's side door is almost completely filled with tally marks, each carrying a blissful memory from when I would hit something new for the first time.

One of my favorites is Mark #174, my first time hitting a skunk. It smelled awful and I was pretty mad at the time, but it was pretty funny, looking back on the day. You would not believe how many times I had to wash the hood of my car. I gotta say, I never knew n-butyl mercaptan could melt and stick to the paint on the hood of a car during a hot summer day. Peculiar, isn't it?

I'm also a member of the American Booze Cruiser Association- Indianapolis Chapter, and let me tell you, we've got quite the competition going on over there. Right now we're having the 2023 Spring City Slamfest Competition, where the goal is to slam into as many pesky cyclists as possible. At 23 hits, I'm currently leading the field and am well on my way to winning my fifth consecutive title.

If I don't win, oh well. I've built up quite the competitive resume and am confident I will be a first ballot Hall of Famer when the city police can get enough evidence to pin me with a charge. Heck, I could be the GOAT someday.

Mailboxes, pets, childrens' toys- I've run over em' all. And yet, I still find something unique to run over at least once a week. Let me tell you- there's no greater time to get in on the action than now. Overseas fashion companies are paying better than ever for premium dog fur, and local crackheads love torn-up bicycles for scrap. And with all the rental cars the Association has right now, the hurdles for newcomers are at an all-time low.

If you want to try it out for yourself, DM me. I've got connections with every high-ranking member in the Association. They could lease you a decent-conditioned Nissan Altima for the same monthly price of a small town, one-bed-one-bath apartment. Of course if you ever want an Audi Q8 like me, you're gonna to need to work your way up through the big leagues. I can give you pointers on things like, how to precisely hit a basketball to pop it under your tire, some time. Just give me the word if you're interested, ok?
#9
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Best.Korea
Owning a car should be a crime since sooner or later you are going to run someone over.
Living should be a crime since sooner or later you are going to do some sort of harm to something. Now kill yourself. Don’t actually kill yourself, but see how fragile this kind of argument is.

Topic's author
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Living should be a crime since sooner or later you are going to do some sort of harm to something.
Is a false statement. Life is important. Cars are not important. Banning cars would decrease harm, but wouldnt decrease the amount of life or wipe it out. Considering the amount of harm is vital for decision making. With all else remaining equal, lowering harm is what we should do. There is no excuse in making people suffer so that you can ride around in the fancy car.
Topic's author
#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
I suggest you go back and read what I wrote
Is a false claim. I already responded to your points and I feel no need to repeat myself.

#12
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Best.Korea
> 
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
I suggest you go back and read what I wrote
Is a false claim. I already responded to your points and I feel no need to repeat myself.
Begin an argument/rebuttal on a false premise, your conclusion will be equally false. That’s what your response was.  So if you’re going to stand by an entirely false (fallacious) retort, so be it. 

As it was completely fallacious, I didn’t read it beyond the first sentence. It’s not worth my time replying to.

Everything I wrote was factually accurate. You disproved nothing. 

Adieu 
#13
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Owning a car should be a crime since sooner or later you are going to run someone over.
You say that like it's a bad thing?

Also, the claim that you cannot function without a car is false, since humans have functioned without a car for thousands of years.
But you can't run someone over without a car.

Its like me saying that I cannot function without my smartphone. Its an obvious lie, but this society is based on lies so I might as well join in.
You might as well run someone over too, don't knock it til you try it.

157 days later

#14
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
I imagine a city or country could be designed,
That cars are not as much of a necessity.

Though if those lines of travel, such as trains, are ever broken, such as in a civil war,
Personal car becomes invaluable.
#15
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
Many European cities are already like that. They were laid out in times where people walked and their public transit fills the gap.

Planning societies and technology around periodic civil war may seem justified on review of history, but there isn't much that can't be destroyed by humans trying to destroy it so it's a pointless endeavor.

A car may help you stay independent of the timetables of government travesties like public transit in the USA but it's hardly independent of a complex energy infrastructure. A bicycle is a much better machine in that regard, and much easier to repair. They'll be the vehicle of choice in post-apocalypse or enemy interruption of logistics.

Also as soon as people start writing some reliable software (opposite of neural nets) with reliable sensors the road kill issue will be solved. Trains also kill anything in their path, they just have fewer paths so they kill less.

The tradeoff between trains and cars is that train wheels are rigid and cause less rolling friction and the longer they are the less proportional air resistance. I think we could benefit from way more trains, but some car like vehicles will always be necessary for flexibility and deep rural areas (like even if a kilometer long driveway could be cheaper as a rail people will still want to go to any point in their property with something strong).
Topic's author
#16
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Electric bicycle is the superior mode of transport. If battery dies, it becomes regular bicycle and can still go.

Electric scooters are also fun.
Topic's author
#17
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Also as soon as people start writing some reliable software (opposite of neural nets) with reliable sensors the road kill issue will be solved.
No. The main, unresolvable problem for self-driving cars is speed. Any speed faster than 15 miles per hour guarantees traffic deaths in case of cars. However, no person wants to buy a car that goes only 15 mph. They want cars that go 40 miles per hour and more. With such speed, breaking path is simply too long for a car to stop in time.

#18
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Best.Korea
I have a bicycle myself,
I like it more when there's less cars on the roads,
Whether due to time or place.

I thought about buying an electric bicycle, but I already had the regular bicycle,
And the laws seemed to vary a lot between cities, regarding electric bicycles, I forget how though.
Topic's author
#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Lemming
Cars are the least safe and the most expensive mode of transport that ever existed.
#20
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
No. The main, unresolvable problem for self-driving cars is speed. Any speed faster than 15 miles per hour guarantees traffic deaths in case of cars.
I've crashed a motorcycle at 30 mph and had only one broken bone, you're exaggerating. The death rate upon impact must be multiplied by the impact rate and that later factor is what computers can (and should have by now) reduced to statistical impossibility.

Also nobody who uses a bicycle for real transit is satisfied with 15 mph, they get the gears and go 30 whenever they can.


They want cars that go 40 miles per hour and more. With such speed, breaking path is simply too long for a car to stop in time.
With tunnels, elevated express ways, or caged in ground level roads: computer controlled cars should be allowed to go 350 km/h.

Computers can maintain braking distance and plan merges where it is maintained.

Every once in a while a car will have a catastrophic failure that kills the people inside but pileups can be eliminated.
#21
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
I like it more when there's less cars on the roads,
Well dedicated bike lanes make them much easier to use.

People build roads based on the vehicles that are popular, so it's a floating equilibrium system. You just have to slowly move towards the new ideal in baby steps.

Topic's author
#22
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
With tunnels, elevated express ways, or caged in ground level roads
Cheaper to just buy a bicycle. Also, no country was ever able to do what you are suggesting. Hell, USA cant even fix regular roads. They all suck. US is in debt already. Also more difficult to cross the street.

I've crashed a motorcycle at 30 mph and had only one broken bone, you're exaggerating.
I said in case of cars. I didnt say death is guaranteed in every case. I said the death is guaranteed. To put it simply, some people will die due to cars going over 15 mph even if computer guided. Also, computers tend to fail. Sensors stop working. Breaks stop working. There is a failure on the road. The car suddenly breaks down. Things happen.
#23
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Cheaper to just buy a bicycle
They aren't mutually exclusive.


Also, no country was ever able to do what you are suggesting. Hell, USA cant even fix regular roads.
When you steal money and reward failure making PB&J sandwiches may prove to be too great a challenge.


I've crashed a motorcycle at 30 mph and had only one broken bone, you're exaggerating.
I said in case of cars.
It should be obvious motorcycles are more dangerous at any given speed.


To put it simply, some people will die due to cars going over 15 mph even if computer guided.
Ah yes I remember you've made this moral error before. If even one person will die then no action can be taken, even if taking the action would save or create more life.


Also, computers tend to fail. Sensors stop working. Breaks stop working.
Welcome to engineering.


Things happen.
Welcome to life.
Topic's author
#24
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It should be obvious motorcycles are more dangerous
No. Its the cars that make motorcycles dangerous. You get hit by a car. Car runs over someone. Cars even pose a threat to bicycles. Maybe you are not interested in saving lives. Motorcycles can be dangerous if driven at high speed. However, they are not dangerous at low speeds. Car has greater mass, longer breaking time and stronger impact. Car is much more likely to kill pedestrian, kill bicycle, kill anything really. Everyone should switch to bicycles. We all know that self driving cars wont work and wont happen. People watch too many movies. Trying to make the least safe mode of transport the safest one doesnt work. Better switch it to something that actually works right now. Sure, I have dreams too of many great fairy tales. They wont become reality.
#25
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,513
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I always wonder if the average american is really conscious about the drawbacks of living in the suburbs. I mean, I imagine it's great to have a house with all the amenities far away from the noisy and cramped city, but what about the negative impact on your lives, like to have to use the car for everything? I understand that a house in the suburbs is cheaper, but I guess your lifestyle should be much of a concern too. 

As far as I know, the health problems in the US, like the obesity, is because of that. I'm not mentioning other social problems that seemingly you are unable to see, like the lack of social cohesion and the mental problems it can entail, especially for the kids.

So I think you americans should assess the tradeoff between the suburbs and the inner city instead of any other secondary stuff like cars.
#26
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
No. Its the cars that make motorcycles dangerous. You get hit by a car. Car runs over someone. Cars even pose a threat to bicycles. Maybe you are not interested in saving lives. Motorcycles can be dangerous if driven at high speed. However, they are not dangerous at low speeds. Car has greater mass, longer breaking time and stronger impact. Car is much more likely to kill pedestrian, kill bicycle, kill anything really
Cars are more dangerous to third parties you are right.


Everyone should switch to bicycles.
No, cycling (and light electric vehicles like electric scooters) should be encouraged and considered core infrastructure.


We all know that self driving cars wont work and wont happen.
I may think they're going about it like cavemen but it is both possible and inevitable.


Sure, I have dreams too of many great fairy tales. They wont become reality.
I refuse on principle to temper my optimism/dreaming with anything but strong argument.
#27
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,170
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
I always wonder if the average american is really conscious about the drawbacks of living in the suburbs.
I am not sure if they have a comprehensive integrated view but they do think about commutes, or did before every possible job became remote.

I hate suburbs because in my view it is a shallow and contrived imitation of liberty. The properties are too small for privacy, farming, keeping animals. It's just grass you are often required by (absurd) law to constantly mow.

Sometimes these cheap stick frame houses are only 20' apart. What is the point of the essential alleys between single family units? If you can't have the benefits of land, you should look for the advantages of communal living. Multifamily structures are more efficient to air condition and by their nature allow for tighter packing and thus more people closer to city centers with all their amenities.

Now American cities are currently shitholes (thanks to being run by the most corrupt of the already delusional democrat party), so the above arguments understandably don't sway that many people... but the cities could be very nice with large interesting parks and good public transit.


As far as I know, the health problems in the US, like the obesity, is because of that.
Well there is no doubt that we would be healthier if we walked more and it's true that a better city layout would make that feasible; but we also eat too much regardless.


I'm not mentioning other social problems that seemingly you are unable to see, like the lack of social cohesion and the mental problems it can entail, especially for the kids.
Not sure what that's in regard to. Until recently one of the few benefits of suburbs was that it created neighborhood communities where kids were allowed to roam around and play with friends where parents would never let kids out on the street in the city.

Of course in a full view of history we can see an increasing paranoia and/or increasing real danger to children that is creeping out from the cities. i.e. they used to let kids roam around in the cities too.


So I think you americans should assess the tradeoff between the suburbs and the inner city instead of any other secondary stuff like cars.
Well it could be argued that personal cars made the suburbs. Before that middle class people could not commute by carriage, so it was either city, town, or homestead. Those were your options.
#28
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,513
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Not sure what that's in regard to. Until recently one of the few benefits of suburbs was that it created neighborhood communities where kids were allowed to roam around and play with friends where parents would never let kids out on the street in the city.

Of course in a full view of history we can see an increasing paranoia and/or increasing real danger to children that is creeping out from the cities. i.e. they used to let kids roam around in the cities too.
Well, that could be right, I also grew up in a sort of suburb, but also in a big city and didn't find much difference. So, I really can't tell to be honest.

Though, I'm stating that based on a research that claims kids in the suburbs suffer more from mental illness than their counterparts in cities. I guess that could explain the many mass shootings commited by kids in suburban schools. I also believe that there are many serial killers in the US because of that lifestyle. But I'm not sure.