I was thinking about this in reference to bicure's "just how dangerous is cycling?" thread.
Perhaps comparing stats for death/injury rates for cyclists and motorists is besides the point.
The relevant questions might be classified into two broad categories:
What are the risks/harms I incur by cycling?
What are the risks/harms I incur by driving?
It seems that generally speaking the risks, or prudential concerns are more or less a wash - i.e. the risks of death/injury by choosing to ride a bike vs. drive a car are broadly equal, particularly if we ignore the health benefits and/or possible emotional benefits of riding (eg riding is more fun than driving)
However, it seems to me that the harms to others for driving are much greater. If we assume that there are far fewer deaths caused to motorists when there is a car/bike collision (I'm taking that one for granted), and that fewer pedestrians are killed in bike/ped collisions relative to car/ped collisions, then the ethical question is whether it is better (or permissible) to drive compared to cycling (or vice versa).
Considering myself, I may well be better off cycling compared to driving (though this seems contentious)
Considering my loved ones, I am far more likely to kill them by driving (running them over, flying off of a guardrail, etc) than by cycling (how many kids are killed by their parents running them over on a bike vs. an SUV)
Considering all other people, again, I am far more likely to kill a complete stranger while driving a car than while cycling.
This analysis, of course, avoids the economic concerns and other possible benefits of driving may be relevant, and I also ignore the possibility that the analysis might lead some to conclude that driving is impermissible, as this would seem to lead to the conclusion that cycling is also impermissible (far more people are killed or injured in bike/ped collisions vs. ped/ped collisions).
I'm not sure if this argument would be welcome in a free ranging discussion of the relative values of various modes of transportation, but logically, it seems to have some traction. I'm keen to hear what the bikeforums think.
twahl
01-30-08, 06:31 PM
I think that the breath of all mammal produce carbon monoxide, and is therefore unethical.
Wordbiker
01-30-08, 06:59 PM
OMG!
I've been driving a lethal weapon! I'd better quit before I kill my entire family!
Good point anyway.
-=Łem in Pa=-
01-30-08, 07:05 PM
I cant really elaborate correctly right now, but people who ride cycles
for transportation (or walk) are generally more laid back, conscientious
and not as prone to anger as people who spend a lot of time in a car. If
you take this phenomenon, one of a few negatives that are peripheral to
driving and how it has affected our society from attitude to infrastructure,
one could make a connection to driving being somewhat unethical.
Im sure ILTB-2 could add more, here :roflmao:
John E
01-30-08, 07:25 PM
When I was an idealistic undergrad, I probably did believe that driving is unethical. Over the years, I have made peace with driving and with riding in other people's cars, but I still think there is a moral obligation to minimize one's driving and to choose a reasonably fuel-efficient vehicle. My compromise is a 4-cylinder 2001 VW Passat station wagon, which I hope to keep for 20 years, and which is big enough to be safe and eminently practical, but which can still squeeze out better than 30 miles per gallon on an open highway. My next car may be hybrid, electric, or clean diesel -- the soon-to-be-released diesel Jetta Sportwagen might fill the bill.
dhofmann
01-30-08, 07:33 PM
Is the convenience of driving justified by the low risk of killing someone?
makeinu
01-30-08, 08:13 PM
This has been discussed before. Prepare to be flamed.
If you save lives by curing cancer or heart disease with a pill or a surgery then you'll be a hero, but if you save the same number of lives by suggesting that people stop driving then you'll be labeled as a lunatic, an ideologue, and a dirty hippy. Go figure.
twahl
01-30-08, 08:23 PM
I've been driving for 25 years. I have never killed anyone or been killed by anyone, never close. The closest I've ever been to death was the result of a bicycle crash where there were no cars involved. I have spent many more hours in my life driving than riding, so what might my calculated odds be? Of course that doesn't take polution factors into consideration, but oddly enough advances in medicine have taken place pretty much along the same timeline as increases in transportation convenience. So now we're keeping people alive artificially well beyond anything that could ever be considered natural.
rajman
01-30-08, 08:23 PM
When I was an idealistic undergrad, I probably did believe that driving is unethical. Over the years, I have made peace with driving and with riding in other people's cars, but I still think there is a moral obligation to minimize one's driving and to choose a reasonably fuel-efficient vehicle. My compromise is a 4-cylinder 2001 VW Passat station wagon, which I hope to keep for 20 years, and which is big enough to be safe and eminently practical, but which can still squeeze out better than 30 miles per gallon on an open highway. My next car may be hybrid, electric, or clean diesel -- the soon-to-be-released diesel Jetta Sportwagen might fill the bill.
I understand the reasoning here - just because there are negative aspects to an action do not mean that it is bad, or impermissible per se. It also makes sense to mitigate the harm we may cause others.
I'm just saying that the argument "it's unsafe to ride a bike" seems to have no legs - it seems to be a wash for the rider, but lots safer for the riders loved ones and the general public.
If someone uses the argument, you might try and point this out - I think it will turn out that either there is some other reason (convenience, cargo capacity, or whatever).
rajman
01-30-08, 08:29 PM
This has been discussed before. Prepare to be flamed.
If you save lives by curing cancer or heart disease with a pill or a surgery then you'll be a hero, but if you save the same number of lives by suggesting that people stop driving then you'll be labeled as a lunatic, an ideologue, and a dirty hippy. Go figure.
Yeah - I can see that might happen. I guess I was looking for some comments on the argument itself. It's not really the intent to say 'driving bad' 'cycling good' (though I am sympathetic to that point of view.
It's rather to suggest that it seems be untenable to hold the 'it's unsafe to cycle' position.
Trucker_JDub
01-30-08, 08:34 PM
I don't think either driving or cycling is bad. I have done both. I have made a career out of driving cross country (USA). I think that you should do what ever makes you happy as long as you do your best not to endanger the lives of others around you threw how you operate your chosen mode of transportation. For example before I was a Clyde I made my LBS rich because I was constantly breaking my MTB on a dried creek bed that I loved to make passes on. But at the same time on weekends I love to go play with hot rods and play in the mud with my ATV. Dose that make me bad?
If you are worrying about someone hitting you and killing you its going to happen when and if it is suppose to. If your 'higher power' says tomorrow you are going to die in a car accident and you think your going to outsmart him/her by staying home they will promptly send a car threw your front door. Try never to live in fear and do what makes you happy. Just don't make a habit of telling others that they are wrong because you will only make their views stronger in there own head.
makeinu
01-30-08, 08:39 PM
Is the convenience of driving justified by the low risk of killing someone?
You're assuming that driving is always more convenient than other options. In some places this is true, but in other places it is not, which brings us to the question: Is living in a place where driving is convenient worth the "low" risk of killing someone?
In my opinion it is not. Others are obviously free to disagree and, unfortunately, gamble with innocent lives with little or no consequence. I've said it before, but in my opinion when a driver of an automobile kills someone he should go to jail for manslaughter. If automobile drivers truly believe the risk is low then let them put their own behinds on the line. Then we won't have the conflict of interest where the automobile driver gets to decide whether the risk is low enough at the expense of putting someone else's life in jeopardy.
EnigManiac
01-30-08, 08:49 PM
I think there is responsible driving and irresponsible driving. I think most people are irresponsible drivers. I'm not talking about their ability to handle their vehicle, but the fact they drive when it is irresponsible to drive. Take a look at any big city with a public transit system. Most folks could take buses or subways or streetcars/trams, etc., but they don't. They drive to every destination regardless of how easy it would be to use public transit, walk or ride a bike. They're selfish and inconsiderate and disrespectful to virtually everyone around them, because they don't give a moments thought to the danger they pose to everyone around them. If they only drove when it was appropriate, as some do, there wouldn't be a problem. Long trips, needing to transport the elderly or small children in inclement weather or, in some cases, even in fair weather or even needing to pick up unmanageable loads like groceries or supplies are all appropriate occasions to drive, among other reasonable circumstances. Unfortunately, most don't consider their travel options and then make the most appropriate choice.
So, no, driving is not unethical. Driving when it is irresponsible, selfish and inconsiderate is.
Just my opinion.
makeinu
01-30-08, 08:55 PM
I don't think either driving or cycling is bad. I have done both. I have made a career out of driving cross country (USA). I think that you should do what ever makes you happy as long as you do your best not to endanger the lives of others around you threw how you operate your chosen mode of transportation.
Okay...I'll do my best to dampen the nuclear waste I spew as I drive my uranium powered home made hotrod across the country. As long as it makes me happy, right? :rolleyes:
For example before I was a Clyde I made my LBS rich because I was constantly breaking my MTB on a dried creek bed that I loved to make passes on. But at the same time on weekends I love to go play with hot rods and play in the mud with my ATV. Dose that make me bad?
If you are worrying about someone hitting you and killing you its going to happen when and if it is suppose to. If your 'higher power' says tomorrow you are going to die in a car accident and you think your going to outsmart him/her by staying home they will promptly send a car threw your front door. Try never to live in fear and do what makes you happy. Just don't make a habit of telling others that they are wrong because you will only make their views stronger in there own head.
I don't like to tell other people they are bad or good. What I would like is for you to drive your hotrods away from me. That way I'll never have to bear the consequences of your actions and whatever you do will be none of my business.
yes
01-30-08, 09:03 PM
At least one ethicist says so (when there is a suitable alternative).
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/transportation-ethics/
On the other hand, I wouldn't judge someone's morality based on driving, because it is a completely socially accepted activity.
At some point, driving drunk, reckless speeding, road rage, etc. rise above the selfish and into the immoral. All of these activities are very unlikely to harm someone. However, they take lots of liberties with other peoples lives.
StrangeWill
01-31-08, 02:52 AM
Idiots and impatient people kill people, they've been killed on bikes, they've been killed in cars, they'll kill themselves walking down the damn sidewalk.
If the amount of affect you had on other people deemed ethic level, VC advocacy would be #1 on unethical due to stress and useless bickering.
Technically by this model, being as way less people die walking then on bikes, cycling is unethical. If something is automatically unethical because a more ethical solution is found, only one (and probably one you really aren't going to like) solution could be found ethical, with the rest unethical.
Anyway, being as theres no global set of "ethics" really, "unethical" is just a slur to use against things you simply don't agree with.
There is a "low" risk of killing someone under any circumstance of improving efficiency (and probably some of just natural methods), that includes cycling, using power tools (or anything power for that matter), or anything that involves high leverage, high ledges, heavy equipment, etc. etc. etc. To pretend that cars are the only one is pretty blind to the truth.
Case and point: People have died in large WAY before cars, stop blaming cars, makes you look really dumb, especially when you fall off a ladder and break your neck worrying about staying away from roadways your entire (hopefully short enough to not reproduce) life.
IMHO: Unethical? No, more ethical ways of transportation? Yes.
Better yet: How the hell are we suppose to become respectable users of the road if we have this constant nose in the air attitude about 99% of the population?
-=Łem in Pa=-
01-31-08, 03:14 AM
Better yet: How the hell are we suppose to become respectable users of the road if we have this constant nose in the air attitude about 99% of the population?
We will never become 'respectable' users of the road in the USA. Wont happen.
Ill retain my attitude, thank you.
Commuter8
01-31-08, 06:21 AM
What is the point in your post? Safety? Ethics?
Ethical behavior was once the cornerstone of our somewhat civilized society. What we have become is anything but. The very fact that there are so many direct automotive deaths and secondary illnesses from our "lifestyle" of suburban living proves that we are no longer thinking, ethical people. The exploitation of non-white people for resources, imperial colonization of once sovereign nations for their resources to fuel our thirst for oil and food is criminal.
But have no fear, the reality of declining oil stocks, wishful thinking about finance and economics will come home to many very soon. I would suggest you ride your bike not to feel superior, but to ensure that you have enough physical and mental health to be of service to your family and community in the coming years.
Change is coming, whether you admit it or not. Just ride your bike and help other do the same.
AlmostTrick
01-31-08, 08:32 AM
Sounds like a lot of "Living Car Free" forum talk. *puts both hands up in the air* Not that there's anything wrong with that.
nekohime
01-31-08, 12:49 PM
I'm in the same boat as EnigManiac and I think that while driving itself is not unethical, the way people drive nowadays is. It's like they forget that they're in a fricking TWO OR MORE TON MACHINE hurtling at more than 25mph most of the time. Worse--not only do they forget, but they recklessly endanger others by driving drunk, speeding, not following traffic rules, etc.
The thought a two-ton weight crushing me scares me, and so does the thought of me crushing someone with a two-ton weight. I wish more people would think like I did--they'd be *much* better drivers.
I live in SoCal, home of irresponsible driving. I know people who *drive* to school or to Starbucks even when it's only 2mi or less away. These people also tend to be inattentive and always in a hurry, and they always think the right of way is their way. Not to mention the fact that they are clogging up the infrastructure and causing traffic problems when if they had taken other means of transportation, they wouldn't be sitting in traffic, boiling their road rage pots.
catherine96821
01-31-08, 01:01 PM
(hopefully short enough to not reproduce) life.
lol
I agree with your post. Something that seems to be really working here in my area of Hawaii, (east Honolulu traffic is nuts) is that everytime I go out to ride, I try and win over motorists by nodding, mouthing thank-you if they yield correctly, etc. I don't really feel like demanding anything from 1500 g of carbon fibre. I don't think they want to kill us, it would actually ruin their day. I don't think the "us against them" and the aggro attitude really helps us, I think it antagonizes motorists. (especialy in these outfits) I understand the legal need to be aggressive with laws and infrastructure, but not from my saddle. I notice for every pause and *interaction* seems there are other motorists observing how it should be done, and the friendly way just seems more effective than the swearing and attitude. (I have done that too, in fact I jumped off and smacked a lady's window once.....too much adrenaline or something, yikes)
Now, I have found some peace in being pleasant towards them and am finding that for the most part, I am getting back what I am putting out there. I know this does not work in some traffic types, but it is working for me here. FWIW....try it!
before somebody accuses me of thinking I'm awesome, I sure haven't perfected this yet.
We just did some 20-40 mile day rides in Socal, and I found it worked there also. I really screwed up in some major intersections and needed some mercy at times. Drivers were pretty okay...
the month before, I really turned some peds off in Monterey with some nasty comments, and ended up crashing my bike, he he. I feel like my attitude might be affecting my riding more than I can even fathom.
Script
01-31-08, 01:09 PM
In Scriptworld there are no cars. There are no power plants. There are no factories. There are no schools. There are no churches. Millions of bison still roam the Great Plains.(Ever try bicycling in a bison herd?) Lo...there are no bicycles. The bipedal humanoids that inhabit the place have no more or less rights than any other creature. There are the occasional wildfires from lightning strikes as well a flash floods and volcanic eruptions. I have noticed that the average temperature of the planet is on the rise. Experts think it's caused by the hot air generated by the humanoids.:D
I evidently don't have the capacity to understand how ethical fits in any of this?
I'm not sure I sense a verdict from the posts here (I guess maybe there is no consensus) -
Is the possible harm to others of any value in considering our actions or not? Specifically, when we discuss wether or not some activity is safe, do we ascribe any value to the safety of others or only ourselves? If not, what is the content of the statment "you should not do that - it's unsafe", if the safety of others is of no interest to the subject?
It seems that the person who utters such a comment is speaking nonsense, unless they are ascribing some value to the safety of another person. If we do in fact consider others as important when judging the safety of a course of action, why do we do so? It seems to me that this is because there is some public good inherent in preserving the lives and health of others. This seems to be the basis of laws against impaired driving for example.
The loaded term 'unethical' was perhaps poorly chosen (though it no doubt elicited some of the response)
maddyfish
01-31-08, 04:02 PM
Sure driving is unethical, to some extent. I commute to my volunteer job .3 miles. It is unethical to drive a car for me, a healthy adult .3 miles. In some situations driving is unethical.
StrangeWill
01-31-08, 04:40 PM
Sure driving is unethical, to some extent. I commute to my volunteer job .3 miles. It is unethical to drive a car for me, a healthy adult .3 miles. In some situations driving is unethical.
Crap, .3 miles? I can CRAWL .3 miles.
We will never become 'respectable' users of the road in the USA. Wont happen.
Ill retain my attitude, thank you.
Why don't you go write some depressing poetry you emo.
iltb-2
01-31-08, 06:46 PM
The loaded term 'unethical' was perhaps poorly chosen (though it no doubt elicited some of the response)
Perhaps? :rolleyes:
-=Łem in Pa=-
01-31-08, 06:55 PM
Crap, .3 miles? I can CRAWL .3 miles.
Why don't you go write some depressing poetry you emo.
Eugenics.....:beer:
maddyfish
01-31-08, 06:59 PM
Crap, .3 miles? I can CRAWL .3 miles.
.
That's the point, it would be unethical to drive .3 miles.
joejack951
01-31-08, 07:03 PM
lol
I agree with your post. Something that seems to be really working here in my area of Hawaii, (east Honolulu traffic is nuts) is that everytime I go out to ride, I try and win over motorists by nodding, mouthing thank-you if they yield correctly, etc. I don't really feel like demanding anything from 1500 g of carbon fibre. I don't think they want to kill us, it would actually ruin their day. I don't think the "us against them" and the aggro attitude really helps us, I think it antagonizes motorists. (especialy in these outfits) I understand the legal need to be aggressive with laws and infrastructure, but not from my saddle. I notice for every pause and *interaction* seems there are other motorists observing how it should be done, and the friendly way just seems more effective than the swearing and attitude. (I have done that too, in fact I jumped off and smacked a lady's window once.....too much adrenaline or something, yikes)
Now, I have found some peace in being pleasant towards them and am finding that for the most part, I am getting back what I am putting out there. I know this does not work in some traffic types, but it is working for me here. FWIW....try it!
before somebody accuses me of thinking I'm awesome, I sure haven't perfected this yet.
We just did some 20-40 mile day rides in Socal, and I found it worked there also. I really screwed up in some major intersections and needed some mercy at times. Drivers were pretty okay...
the month before, I really turned some peds off in Monterey with some nasty comments, and ended up crashing my bike, he he. I feel like my attitude might be affecting my riding more than I can even fathom.
Awesome post!
LittleBigMan
01-31-08, 10:49 PM
my brief take on driving and ethics:
the system we live in is designed to force the masses into cars.
driving is not unethical if you are safe. (but I prefer to ride, it makes much more sense.)
burden
02-01-08, 03:57 AM
Is the possible harm to others of any value in considering our actions or not? Specifically, when we discuss wether or not some activity is safe, do we ascribe any value to the safety of others or only ourselves? If not, what is the content of the statment "you should not do that - it's unsafe", if the safety of others is of no interest to the subject?
I think we have trouble evaluating this stuff, when the primary negative consequences are often broadly defined or impersonal.
Most of us can say, "I have never wounded or killed anyone with my car," and, "I have never been wounded or killed by a car." Statistics are just numbers; it's hard for us to connect them to human lives, especially if there's no meaningful impact on our own lives.
Likewise, problems like pollution or resource-use are in a domain far removed from our daily routine, and are difficult to pin down without a lot of extra information-sifting.
And when most of us have never lived in a world that hasn't been deliberately designed around the requirements of automobiles (and is, in turn, filled with millions of cars), we probably have trouble gaining sufficient perspective to see the real consequences of those design decisions. It's all just utterly normal, whatever the obvious and immediate downsides might be. We "all" drive or own a car. That's just how it is.
Those decisions were first made by our grandparents or great-grandparents. We've inherited the landscape they made, with its deadly, hostile, polluting, resource-consuming, public space-destroying machines, and the concomitant lack of alternatives, and from that point of view, how can we consider ourselves responsible? It's cultural DNA, and who can question the ethics of their own genes?
Maybe we need to move past a personal, anecdotal analysis if we want to examine the ethics of the automobile. The local approach seems to be an obstacle in this thread, in any case.