Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

T & P said:
Anyways, I challenge anyone who seriously mantains 'death machine' is an appropriate term for cars to declare whether they agree buses can also be described as such, and if they do not, explain why.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are, and the safety mitigations necessary aren't possible with a road system that prioritises private cars.
 
maomao said:
Why? You're the one claiming something counter-intuitive. Plus you'll have to adjust for equivalent safety improvements in other areas of life. And if that was all the evidence you had it would just prove how rare such incidents were that they were worth reporting unlike nowadays when it needs to be particularly grisly to merit mention in the press at all.

I'm free to pick up the SUV anytime btw.
Click to expand...

If you’re not going to attempt to find evidence you’ll just have to take comfort in the fact that I know I’m right.
 
maomao said:
Given your track record I'm not that bothered whether you think you're right or not. When shall I pick up the SUV?
Click to expand...

When you win the bet, unless you want to wait quite a few years until it’s worthless.

The point is that moving about is a risky business, and cars unfairly carry the blame for that at the moment.

Do you reckon people used to refer to boats as death machines?

List of shipwrecks
etc
 
platinumsage said:
When you win the bet, unless you want to wait quite a few years until it’s worthless.

The point is that moving about is a risky business, and cars unfairly carry the blame for that at the moment.

Do you reckon people used to refer to boats as death machines?

en.wikipedia.org

List of shipwrecks of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Ah. Well why didn't you say? People used to die in boats. Might as well do away with indicator lights and seatbelts then.

They don't call you platinum 'often wrong' sage for nothing, do they.
 
maomao said:
So why do over 1.3 million people a year, nearly quarter of a million of them children, die in traffic accidents? Nothing to do with cars at all of course.
Click to expand...
13% of those deaths occur in poor countries which have only 1% of the vehicles. whereas the developed world has 40% of the vehicles and only 7% of the deaths. Poor driver training, lax law enforcement. overcrowding and inadequate maintenance are far more relevant factors than the simple existence of cars.
 
platinumsage said:
I don’t see you arguing for safety measures such as seatbelts and indicators though. Using the boats analogy you’d be there in 1849 calling for boats to banned and replaced with swimming.
Click to expand...
I'm not using the boat analogy you are and it doesn't make sense because you've abstracted era and mode of transport. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.
 
MickiQ said:
13% of those deaths occur in poor countries which have only 1% of the vehicles. whereas the developed world has 40% of the vehicles and only 7% of the deaths. Poor driver training, lax law enforcement. overcrowding and inadequate maintenance are far more relevant factors than the simple existence of cars.
Click to expand...
So are you saying a) that those people would have died without the existence of cars and/or b) 6-800 child deaths a year (UK alone) is completely acceptable. 600 families utterly ruined. Because you're too good to share space with other people because you think they smell.
 
maomao said:
So are you saying a) that those people would have died without the existence of cars and/or b) 6-800 child deaths a year (UK alone) is completely acceptable. 600 families utterly ruined. Because you're too good to share space with other people because you think they smell.
Click to expand...
"What about the children?" is a shit argument and can be used to try and defend any position. All in favour of reducing road traffic deaths but yes at the end of the day banning cars isn't an acceptable route to preventing them.
 
MickiQ said:
"What about the children?" is a shit argument and can be used to try and defend any position. All in favour of reducing road traffic deaths but yes at the end of the day banning cars isn't an acceptable route to preventing them.
Click to expand...
It can't be used to defend 'any' position. It can't for instance be used to defend my position that terrible as they were The Cranberries were significantly better than Oasis. It can only be used in arguments about things that actually do cause significant numbers of child deaths. Like motor transport does. And it's clear you're only fine with reducing deaths when it doesn't inconvenience you.
 
MickiQ said:
"What about the children?" is a shit argument and can be used to try and defend any position. All in favour of reducing road traffic deaths but yes at the end of the day banning cars isn't an acceptable route to preventing them.
Click to expand...
Each year about 100 children are killed and around 250,000 are injured as a result of bicycle-related accidents in the UK.
I wonder how we could prevent this...
 
Saul Goodman said:
Each year about 100 children are killed and around 250,000 are injured as a result of bicycle-related accidents in the UK.
I wonder how we could prevent this...
Click to expand...
We could reduce it considerably by banning private cars. Glad you're finally beginning to see the light.
 
Saul Goodman said:
Fewer pedestrians injured each year. Lower blood pressure for all road users. The benefits definitely outweigh the small inconvenience that a few might suffer.
Click to expand...
Wrong. More sedentary behaviour. More heart attacks. More vehicles on the road. More emissions. More accidents. More asthma.
 
Saul Goodman said:
Wrong. Get the bus or walk = fewer vehicles on the road... and do some exercise like normal people do.
Click to expand...
How are you going to make people do that then? I thought you were all about freedom? Most cyclists who commute to work cycle a distance that is too far to walk and have access to a car. Why are they all going to walk and get the bus?
 
maomao said:
How are you going to make people do that then? I thought you were all about freedom? Most cyclists who commute to work cycle a distance that is too far to walk and have access to a car. Why are they all going to walk and get the bus?
Click to expand...
That's the crux of it. Cyclists are selfish people. If they had any consideration for others they'd get the bus or walk.
 
Saul Goodman said:
That's the crux of it. Cyclists are selfish people. If they had any consideration for others they'd get the bus or walk.
Click to expand...
Correct though only a fraction as selfish as motorists. Most people are selfish. That's why we need limits on wasting resources and the reckless endangerment of lives.
 
maomao said:
Correct though only a fraction as selfish as motorists. Most people are selfish. That's why we need limits on wasting resources and the reckless endangerment of lives.
Click to expand...
We really don't. We need to remove all restrictions from everything, and allow evolution to take its own course. I can't wait for the Mad Max era to arrive.
 
Saul Goodman said:
We really don't. We need to remove all restrictions from everything, and allow evolution to take its own course. I can't wait for the Mad Max era to arrive.
Click to expand...
Well, quite. If you're in favour of most of the population dying then you're going the right way about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yossarian
Entirely unashamed ant car propaganda
Replies
7
Views
434
dessiato
dessiato
ska invita
Car diagnostic computer scanners
Replies
8
Views
339
mauvais
mauvais
A
First car / how do people afford cars when in low paid work?
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Chz
Chz
kebabking
Car buying websites?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
colacubes
colacubes
danny la rouge
Car insurance rocketing
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
4K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
Back
Top Bottom