Would you mind linking to the list you’re referring to?
My off-the-cuff thought was, “join Transportation Alternatives and push for more bike lanes, public transit, etc.”, as I see automobiles as one of the most significant dangers to both urban areas and even the planet. But when I google "ten most dangerous cities," they seem to list places whose danger is more poverty-driven.
Automobiles (and their drivers) kill, maim, or injure significantly fewer people than intentionally aggressive individuals in major cities. For example, in 2017 there were 343 murders in Baltimore [0] (which I knew would be on the list before looking for one) vs. 38 fatalities due to car accidents [1].
These lists are based on crime rates, which to my point above, are driven by more immediate threats to life than indirect ones like the contribution of car exhaust to global warming.
That's highly misleading. Overall cars kill way more people than murderers (at least double) in America. Baltimore just happens to be at the top of the list for murders per capita and apparently slightly below average for auto fatalities. For most cities there is a greater chance of dying from a car crash than from being murdered.
It's not misleading for major cities that I'm aware of, and especially not so for the "most dangerous" ones that the parent brought up.
It doesn't "just happen" that I picked Baltimore, it's highly relevant to the topic the parent posted raised, even if you'd like to redirect the discussion elsewhere and it doesn't represent the US as a whole.
In addition to the effects of car pollution on health, education, etc., car infrastructure is also a big driver of segregation in cities, which leads to a lot of the social problems that engender violence. So shifting infrastructure away from cars is really relevant.
A lot of freeways got built right in the middle of poor neighborhoods. I'm not saying there is a direct causal link with that and murders, but it's pretty hard to ignore the socio-economic effects of those massive infrastructure projects.
I think we generally underestimate the importance of social mixing in our society. Groups are less likely to see other groups as enemies if they're neighbors and take the same train to work every day. Poor people are less likely to feel excluded from society if they have friends from the middle class than if their whole neighborhood is on welfare.
Walkable neighborhoods with good infrastructure where a mixture of all strata of society live are, in my opinion, quite important if you want to prevent problems. Carcentric city planning is directly opposed to that.
Walkability isn't the issue in major cities, nor is proximity to other classes of people. In Baltimore (to stick with my original example), your likelihood of being a crime victim varies block to block, with one block being safe and the next being an open air drug market. That's not unusual for major cities in the US.
The flip side though it that your risk of being murdered is actually something you have a lot of control over. Cities with high murder rates typically have subgroups with extremely high rates of violence. So depending on your personal life and living situation automobiles could be the larger threat.
I think the point was that a street full of car traffic is much less liveable than a street full of cyclists and pedestrians.
Cars are still dangerous and noisy which leads to a stressful atmosphere. Many hide in their cars as if they were tanks, afraid of connecting with anyone outside.
What's needed instead is people coming together to form a community.
Those are just the direct costs. Cars also make a lot of air pollution, which is the #1 killer worldwide. Enabling/enforcing sedentary life, noise pollution, crowding out streets are other indirect but large costs.
Edit: you could add in the costs of minimum parking requirements, which crowd out housing and increase housing prices.
People driving instead of walking or bicycling will be in poorer health, so you'd have to account for that as well, plus the consequences of air pollution, stress from noise, etc.
I think you might be in a minority of people that hear "dangerous" and then think about transportation first. My guess would be most people think of danger as violent crimes. At the same time, people are aware of other types of accidental deaths, but may view those differently because they feel they have more control over them.
yeah, I mean, I'm definitely in the minority of what I think. My life is regularly threatened by reckless drivers, and being a strong, tall-ish white dude, I don't get messed with on the street very often.
That said, I think the numbers back up my perspective. Violent crime just isn't what it was back in the seventies, but we're still in the mindset that danger = criminals.
Transportation and crimes are related, if indirectly. In many major cities, it's hard to get a legit job if you don't have a car, because you can't get to work reliably. Folks who live in poverty and don't have access to legit work will do something to make money, and crimes ensue.
Bikes might not be a great solution in these areas -- they're easy to steal and somewhat unreliable due to weather and other factors. And, if somebody already feels that they're taking a risk hiring a poor person... is it going to help if they're showing up sweaty? Perceptions matter on both sides of the equation -- I won't apply for a job if I don't think that I'd last a week.
Rather than focus on the impact of cars, which is a bit of a "boil the ocean" solution, it would be directly impactful to fund a local restauranteur. It makes local jobs, and makes the neighborhood more livable and walkable.
If I had a billion dollars, I'd do an incubator for small, local businesses focused on sustainability, not disruption.
A few major urban areas with high cost of ownership and good alternative options aside, a car is a self-compounding step out of poverty to most poor people and their problem with them is one of cost.
To tell these people that cars are their problem is tone deaf at best. They have a million bigger problems.
Exactly. When you're an educated, middle class white person, it's easy to say "ditch the car! just get a place near transit. makes it easy to ride downtown to your office job".
What about the poor people who can't afford to live near transit? Or have jobs nowhere near transit? A car is often a requirement for them. And sure, maybe they can take a bus with a couple transfers, but then their commute goes from 45 mins to 90 mins.
Clearly, millions of middle-class Japanese people get by perfectly without a car.
Eastern Europe and Russia is not as rich, of course, but too could be example of huge territory with millions of people living whole their lives without car ownership.
The op that started this didn't suggest people just ditch their cars. He suggested they try to improve their transportation infrastructure to make other modes of transport more of an option.
My off-the-cuff thought was, “join Transportation Alternatives and push for more bike lanes, public transit, etc.”, as I see automobiles as one of the most significant dangers to both urban areas and even the planet. But when I google "ten most dangerous cities," they seem to list places whose danger is more poverty-driven.