People Who Use Cars For Personal Safety

I opted out of CarAddiction back in the early 1990s. I walked and used public transportation. I lived and worked close to downtown, so this wasn't too difficult. Then one day in 1992 I was riding the bus and two kids called the driver fat as they disembarked. The driver reached into his pouch and produced a hand gun. He fired 2 shots at the kids (I couldn't see if he hit them). That was the day I decided to buy another car. -- EricHodges

Something of an AmericanCulturalAssumption, innit?

How so? -- EH

Only in America do you have bus drivers shoot lippy kids.

That sounds like a cultural assumption to me. -- EH

Care to suggest another country where this would be considered anything remotely close to 'normal'?

It isn't considered normal in the USA. Your cultural assumptions are showing. -- EH

It isn't normal, no. But this sort of thing isn't so uncommon. In most ('developed') countries such an event would be national prime-time news; it's almost unheard of. In the US (and yes, I have lived there although I don't at the moment, and I am a (dual) citizen - you are making assumptions about my assumptions), this might not even make the local news.

I don't know what makes the news in other nations (nor would I make assumptions about your assumptions). For facts about handgun violence by nation, see http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000055.html. I still don't see how this is an AmericanCulturalAssumption. It might be a fact of life in the USA, but I don't see the assumption. -- EH

It isn't simply about gun violence, which is a fact of life in the US as with many other countries. The cultural assumption comes in with the idea that a busdriver shooting at 'lippy kids' is a normal enough event to merely cause you to rething your transit options. In most (other) places I have lived, the response would result in a) the driver being jailed for a long time b) the bus company being subjected to extreme scrutiny by police and several levels of municipal authority, and probably c) the city in question commisioning a transit study with an eye to making sure this could never happen again, period.

I have no idea what happened to the bus driver, his employer or the municipal authority. I was just relating my experience. I bought a car. -- EH

You missed the point (I'm sure I made it poorly). In many places, such an event would be so unlikely that it would be *completely* irrational to have this effect your choice of transportation. You related the tale as if it were a rational response to think that if you were in a car instead of the bus, you were 'safer' or whatever because of this tale. In most communities I have lived in or even heard about, that is certainly not true. Perhaps it isn't true where you live either, and you were just responding irrationally - but that isn't how (some) people read it. Hence the 'cultural assumption' comment (which wasn't mine).

You're saying this is an American cultural assumption because I'm not safer in my car than on a bus? First, I disagree with your safety assessment. In all of the years I've been driving a car, I've never shot at anyone. In the 5 years I rode a bus, one driver shot at two people. You can call that anecdotal evidence, but it is all of the evidence I have. Second, I don't see how my "irrational" response involves an American cultural assumption. The location of the bus had nothing to do with my response. I'm not assuming anything about the USA or other nations. -- EH

It's anecdotal because it's based on a single incident that under normal circumstances should be presumed a freak occurrence. I assume that in all the years you've been driving a car, you've never been in a fatal accident. Yet personal experience notwithstanding, I'm sure you agree they are far more common than cases where people have been shot by bus drivers.

I know it's anecdotal, but it's my anecdote. I agree that fatal auto accidents are more common than bus driver shootings, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. By driving my own car I remove an entire category of risk: being shot by the driver. -- EH

You trade it off for numerous other risks; such as being plowed into by a drunk (if it happens while you're on a bus; the LawsOfPhysics give you a better chance of surviving), or being ran into by a pissed-off bus driver, for that matter. "Removing a category of risk" is a RedHerring; if the "category of risk" is one with a smaller probability of occurring then winning the state lottery, you can probably ignore it. But I'm sure you know that. :)

I have never won the lottery. I have been on a bus when the driver discharged a firearm. The probability of the second is not smaller than the first, in my experience. -- EH

In your experience, I'd agree. Overall, judging from news reports (which are admittedly a poor basis to make analyze this sorta thing), more people each year win state lotteries (by which I mean million-dollar prizes; two-dollar scratchoffs don't count here) than get shot at by bus drivers. Of course, depending on where you live; riding the bus might indeed be dangerous. (Bus riders in Israel, for instance, have an elevated chance of getting blown up.)
I'm not suggesting that you should sell your car, get a bus pass, and play folk music on the guitar for the other passengers while riding to your job at the co-op, just arguing statistics with you. :)

But we don't disagree about the statistics. We disagree about the existence of a cultural assumption. -- EH

Murder is a "perfectly normal event". That is not a cultural assumption. -- EH

Where I live, murder is an unusual event, something to be shocked and concerned about. Attempted murder certainly isn't something I would casually detour around, and the idea that it's common place enough to influence my transportation is unthinkable. If this is how it's considered in the USA, it's unique to it, at least among first world countries. -- JG

Where I live, murder is an unusual event. It's still "perfectly normal". I was shocked and concerned. My detour was not casual. The fact that a shooting was common place enough to influence my transportation was thinkable. I have no idea how it's considered in other nations. -- EH

Original responder here again (not RK). JG gets it, but EH seems to be having trouble. The cultural assumption is that this event is not so monumentally weird as to be immediately disregarded from transportation decisions. It is no more likeley that having my car hit by a meteor would make me decide to take the bus. In a country where some courts and individuals consider shooting your paperboy or some random teenager in distress to be acceptable, just because they happen to be in your yard, people have internalized a level of violent response that is simply inconcievable to citizens of many other countries. Whatever the reason, this is a culture that accepts as *normal* (which is not the same as 'good', 'decent', or even 'acceptable') acts which are considered psychotic by much of the rest of the world. Hence the label *cultural* *assumption* (which also wasn't mine, originally, but I do agree).

I suggest that you accept violent actions as normal, wherever you live. Humans are violent no matter what nation they live in. -- EH

Humans, especially disenfranchised humans, are violent. In many parts of the world, humans are often homicidal, and what you discribe is not merely 'violent'. However, in the so-called developed world, the US is pretty much unique in its *acceptance* and indeed romantacism of homicidal behavior, if not its existence. As for your story, I submit that the first reaction of a lot of readers who are not US residents would be to wonder why on earth you didn't *do* something about it. I know if I were in your shoes, it is unlikely that bus driver would still be a bus driver.

You're assuming I didn't do something about it. I exited the bus (along with everyone else) at the next stop. I called the police and offered to be a witness. I don't believe that the US is unique in its acceptance of homicidal behavior. I think you have a romanticised view of the majority of humans. -- EH

You said earlier you have no idea what happened to the driver or company, so I am not assuming much. Did you make sure he was arrested and tried? Did you make sure the bus company policy was investigated? Did the local, if not national news interview you about the incident? It seems to me you have an unrealistic view of the differences between US 'normal' and others 'normal'. How many countries other than the US have you lived in? Among the 'western' world, the US *is* unique in the level of acceptance, romantacism, and indeed encouragement of many violent and in fact homicidal behaviours. There are violent people in every society on earth. Nowhere outside the US and war-torn 3rd world countries are so many citizens armed and likely to target innocents.

No, I did not make sure he was arrested and tried. I didn't make sure the bus company policy was investigated. I saw nothing about the incident in the news. I've only lived in the USA. I suspect by "western world" and "developed countries" you mean Western Europe. Perhaps the US is quite different from Western Europe, but Western Europe is a small segment of the human population. As far as I can tell, humans have been at least this violent and at least this accepting of violence for thousands of years. -- EH

Nope, I mean any country we would even roughly consider a peer economically, socially, by whatever metric. Northern Europe. Western Europe. Canada. Japan. Australia, New Zealand. The sort of actions I describe would come naturally in most of the world we would *like* to be compared to. Are we somehow to be proud that of all the '1st world' countries we alone have managed to maintain such a high level of violence and cultural acceptance of it? Whatever, that is a different argument. The main point being that you now understand what cultural assumption was being made.

No, I don't understand what cultural assumption is being made. -- EH

Eric, it's this simple. Is finding an attempted murderer in charge of a bus something that has a chance of repeating, or not? If it's not, then letting it impact your choice of transportation is unreasonable. Note that's the sort of situation where unreasonable behavior wouldn't be surprising - there's every possibility it would give me a phobia of public transportation, at least for a while. But that doesn't seem to be the case your making. If it is, then there's something seriously wrong with where you live. If there's enough homicidal maniacs that you're likely to find one driving a bus, it's probably not safe to go out in public, either. If so, I would suggest moving as soon as you can manage. Whatever advantages your current home has can't possibly be worth living with the constant possibility of getting shot. Say what you will about how violent people are, there are lots of places you can go where this sort of thing is simply unheard of. And yes, among the industrial nations it is not a serious concern outside the USA. -- JG

Everything that happens has a chance of repeating. It doesn't matter where I live. Homocidal maniacs could be anywhere, in any nation. Are you saying the US has more homocidal maniacs than other nations? Isn't that a bit prejudiced? Do you have evidence? By driving alone I reduce the number of potential homocidal maniacs I travel with, regardless of their frequency in the general population. -- EH

Of course it has a theoretical chance of repeating, but not necessarily high enough to be worth considering, or to be more likely than something new and different (like a car accident). I am saying that outside the US, it certainly isn't, so if it is the case in the US it's unique to it. And yes, you avoid potential maniacs when you drive by yourself, but by that logic you should never contact other people more than absolutely necessary. Do you consider it safe to go out in public? If so, why is this different, and if not, why don't you move to where you can? Such places certainly exist, despite the existence of Robin Hood back in the Middle Ages. There may still be homicidal maniacs where I am, but they show up rarely enough that their actions are considered serious. Something like you describe would have been at the top of local news, not a casual day-to-day event. It's certainly not frequent enough that I feel the need to avoid other people. -- JG

The USA has more criminal psychopaths than any other industrialized nation. And that's because it has more criminals and more psychopaths as a proportion of the population. In fact, most industrialized countries don't even have enough criminal psychopaths to have trained policemen to handle them, which is why police forces all over the planet invariably turn towards the USA.

The prevalence of psychopaths in the USA is proved here by your seeing nothing fundamentally unexpected and shocking with such blatantly psychopathic behaviour as a bus driver shooting a couple of passengers, in public, for having insulted him.

About 10% of the general population is psychopathic. And by secluding yourself, you are making yourself one of those 10%. And THAT is yet more proof of the level to which you have accepted and integrated the psychopathic ideal in American culture. -- rk

Can you cite a reference for that first claim? I find it hard to believe. And what makes you think I saw nothing unexpected or shocking about the bus driver's behavior? -- EH

Any shock you may have had was momentary and fleeting. After all, you changed your day to day life in response to it. People simply don't do that in response to something they deem extraordinary.

Huh? Why don't people change their day to day life in response to unexpected and shocking events?

The USA is the only nation which routinely and systematically lionizes serial killers. This is reflected in the rates of serial killers.

Til Eulenspiegel, Robin Hood, the Krays. The USA is not alone.

You still don't understand what's at stake here so I will state it as baldly and brutally as I can.

It is an AmericanCulturalAssumption that the proper response to a fundamentally psychopathic event is detachment and isolation, more psychopathy. Everywhere in the civilized world, the proper response would be deemed to be extreme emotional attachment (anger, public rage, riots) and ENGAGEMENT.

So if I was civilized, I would have rioted? I don't follow.

The way you've CHOSEN to feel "in control", by disengaging from the public and isolating yourself, is fundamentally psychopathic. More than that, your desire to be completely and totally in control above and beyond any other consideration is by itself INNATELY psychopathic. You've stripped any human feelings and concerns from your decision. You no longer care about anyone else but yourself, in any way, shape or form.

Ah, I see. People who drive cars don't care about anyone else but themselves. Crystal clear now.

You specifically stated you drive a car to avoid other people and ignore threats to the community, right? -- JG

Where did I specifically state that? -- EH

And of course, your choice is completely nutball crazy, objectively self-destructive (as proved by statistics) and doomed to failure. So not only have you chosen to be psychopathic, but you've done so to the detriment of your own well-being (mental, emotional and even physical). There is nothing rational in your decision. There isn't even anything human in your decision. It's just fundamentally American. Anti-human to the core. Savage through and through. You are worse than an animal because animals don't have any choice in what they are, whereas you've CHOSEN to be an animal. -- rk

I was born an animal, just like any other animal. -- EH

People are animals, and are similar to others in physiology. The idea that we're just like any other animal in terms of behaviour is simply false. -- JG

Simply false to you. Simply true to me. -- EH

People exhibit a wide variety of behaviours that are lacking or poorly developed in some, most, or all other animals, to the point where attempting to explain them in the same terms has proven difficult or impossible. Behavioral science isn't a matter of opinion. Neither is the existence of reason or ethics, which are the sorts of things RK was plainly alluding to, whether or not you agree with his assessment of them. If you're not disputing these things, I'm afraid it's extremely unclear what your above point is.

Explaining human behavior in the same terms as other animals isn't difficult for me. We're better mimics, more clever and have more culture than other animals, but the fundamentals are the same. RK didn't allude to anything. He said I was worse than an animal and that I chose to be an animal. I can't be worse than an animal because I am an animal. The worst I can be is the worst animal. I did not choose to be an animal. I was born an animal. -- EH

Somewhere between more clever and more culture, you're glossing over a lot of immense significance. And animal quite often means non-human animal, especially in this sort of context, and I think it's pretty clear that's what was meant. There's no need to seize on technicalities.

Regardless of the significance of cleverness and culture, our behavior can be (and is) described in the same terms as other animals. I don't think RK meant "non-human animal" (for I'm clearly a human animal), but he can speak for himself. These are not technicalities. These are fundamental differences in the way we view existence. I see myself as an animal; specifically a domesticated primate. I see the people around me as animals engaged in the same types of behavior as any other animals on this planet. We are not special. We were not chosen by a deity to rule over the beasts. We are not separate from nature. What we do is no less "natural" than what an ant does. All of this is quite clear to me. What isn't clear is what any of this has to do with car addiction or American cultural assumptions. -- EH

ThreadMode>

Some years ago my nephew, who was state karate champion by the age of 16, was riding on a public (city) bus. While he sat there, a young (19? 20?) man stared at him fixedly, then leapt from his seat, charged down the bus, and attacked my nephew.

My nephew, with an economy of motion, rose briefly, took his assailant's arm, redirected his momentum, broke the man's arm, then sat back down. The bus never slowed. At the next stop, the assailant disembarked. At the following stop, my nephew disembarked. Rather surreal, all in all.

His conclusion was that, regardless of the math of how likely it was this might happen to him again, it had already happened to him, and taking odds that it wouldn't reoccur simply didn't interest him. He sought other transportation. The end result was that he obtained a car and drove himself from then on, despite the increased cost.

Now, it's true that in countries where everyone rides the bus or train, the likelihood of an event like this is quite low. I've ridden trains and busses in Europe and England for years without (violent) incident.

It may well be that in the USA, because of the profile of the predominant bus-riding demographic, this kind of thing is more likely, but the fact is that although I am quite at ease using public transport in the UK & EU, I would pointedly avoid it here in the (Western) USA.

Perhaps if the bus-riding demographic were different and I were surrounded by software engineers, bankers, store managers and clerks, and the like, I might look at it with different eyes. But it's not, and I don't see any percentage in exposing myself to a greater level of risk and inconvenience than needed.

I personally prefer a mode of transport where I get to chose the time and route. Even in Denmark, where there are plenty of busses and trains, I preferred to bike when possible. And note, this has nothing to do with my wishing to avoid contact with humanity, or to ignore problems, or even to become a psychopath. I just want to have more control of where I go and when.

In the (Western) USA, due to the distances involved, this means motorized individual transport -- motorbike, car, pickup, whatever. I don't see "public" transport as ever being more desirable than an independent vehicle of some description. At least, for me.

-- GarryHamilton

My boss (the company prez) drives a Benz and justifies it because "it's the safest car on the road". Personally, I would rather have AWD. I'll be looking hard a Subaru next time around.

Between 1955 and 1975, the United States suffered approximately 58,272 deaths due to the Vietnam War. Between 1991 and 2010, the United States suffered approximately 814,283 'vehicular fatalities'. That is, during about the same length of time, about 14 times as many dead from driving or being on/near a street as occurred from the entirety of our least-popular war.

While it might not be quite accurate to say that you're safer jumping out of a helicopter into a jungle full of predators and tropical diseases while under fire from enemy troops with napalm raining down from above than you are commuting to/from work, it's only a question of how much.

That the war resulted in such extensive negative reaction while people continue to glorify cars and the automotive culture is really amazing. People are weird. I do feel relatively safe in a car though. I just pretend I'm in an airplane and that the bumps in the road are turbulence. Since aircraft are so much safer than cars, that makes me feel safe. I suppose it wouldn't work for everyone, since strangely enough so many people are afraid of flying...

So there are only 14 times the fatalities, given how many 'millions more people drive than go to war? That proves the speed limits are too low and there's far too much obsession with safety. If I wanted to be safe, I'd stay in bed instead of driving a completely wanged-out V8-engined crazy-ass BMW. Have you forgotten that cars are fun'? Obsessive safety is for people who are already dead, but are forced to wait for reality to catch up.

{This does appear to be one for the lies, damned lies, and statistics file. You could put a generous upper bound of 2 trillion hours spent by Americans in Vietnam during that conflict. A generous lower bound of time spent in cars would be 600 trillion. This makes cars at least 20 times safer than being in a country with an active conflict. And because those are generous bounds, it could easily be another other of magnitude safer.}

QwertySyndrome?

In the USA, since public transportation is mostly used by the poor, you tend to have more "riff raff" in public transportation. It creates a kind of viscous cycle where the middle class doesn't use public transportation because it has riff raff, and it has riff raff because the middle class doesn't use public transportation. The riff raff would be spread out thinner if the middle class took public transportation. Note that I'm not saying the poor are "naturally" more likely to misbehave, but people who have mental problems or an unfortunately upbringing are more likely to misbehave. Essentially, some are poor because they have such behavior problems.