▲ 205 ▼ There’s a common perception in the U.S. that taking public transit is dangerous. It's actually safer than driving. (www.scientificamerican.com) submitted 4 days ago by grue@lemmy.world [M] to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world 19 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51281013
[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 31 points 4 days ago (1 child) Pretty sure this is a purposeful misunderstanding of why people think public transit is more dangerous than driving. Which means that not only did you not read the article, you didn't even read the excerpt displayed on this page. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social -7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children) No, I did. Ignoring deaths, because that's related to accidents, not the violence I'm referencing... For the transit stats they are comparing Assault, Robbery, Homicide, and "Other Crimes"(which it says includes arson, bombing, and burglary), that are considered "reportable" by the USDOT. For the vehicle stats they are using only Motor Vehicle Theft and Road Rage involving Guns. It does mention that other things like vandalism, assault during traffic stops, and road rage not involving guns exist... but they don't have data. HOWEVER it does not specify if it is Motor Vehicle Theft in general or if it is involving a person in the vehicle, like a carjacking. Given the number cited is over 1 million, they almost certainly are just talking about car theft in general, which is a ludicrous statistic to compare here when talking about "safety". Your car being stolen overnight from your parking spot or while you're at a movie isn't a "safety" issue. That is nothing like having a gun pulled on you from road rage or being robbed at knife point on a bus or subway, but that's the bulk of the numbers they seem to be using for the vehicle statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) Ignoring deaths, because that's related to accidents Why? If a tired worker who just pulled a double shift at McDonald's is arguing with her husband on the hands free and T-bones you, you're just as dead as if a crackhead stabs you for looking at them funny. And the former is way likelier. You should be more afraid of the tired and distracted fry cook. permalink fedilink source parent [–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days ago (1 child) Ignoring deaths, because that’s related to accidents Sure, if you ignore the things that make cars more dangerous, then public transit will look more dangerous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Most people don't think of accidents when they're comparing "safety" of cars versus transit. They're not even considering getting in an accident on transit at all, they're thinking of theft and violence. So when comparing what people think of safety, ignoring the parts they don't consider makes sense when you are talking about the difference in how people perceive safety differences between the two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago Yes, I understand that. All you're saying is that people's perceptions of safety don't match the reality of safety. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social -7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children) No, I did. Ignoring deaths, because that's related to accidents, not the violence I'm referencing... For the transit stats they are comparing Assault, Robbery, Homicide, and "Other Crimes"(which it says includes arson, bombing, and burglary), that are considered "reportable" by the USDOT. For the vehicle stats they are using only Motor Vehicle Theft and Road Rage involving Guns. It does mention that other things like vandalism, assault during traffic stops, and road rage not involving guns exist... but they don't have data. HOWEVER it does not specify if it is Motor Vehicle Theft in general or if it is involving a person in the vehicle, like a carjacking. Given the number cited is over 1 million, they almost certainly are just talking about car theft in general, which is a ludicrous statistic to compare here when talking about "safety". Your car being stolen overnight from your parking spot or while you're at a movie isn't a "safety" issue. That is nothing like having a gun pulled on you from road rage or being robbed at knife point on a bus or subway, but that's the bulk of the numbers they seem to be using for the vehicle statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) Ignoring deaths, because that's related to accidents Why? If a tired worker who just pulled a double shift at McDonald's is arguing with her husband on the hands free and T-bones you, you're just as dead as if a crackhead stabs you for looking at them funny. And the former is way likelier. You should be more afraid of the tired and distracted fry cook. permalink fedilink source parent [–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days ago (1 child) Ignoring deaths, because that’s related to accidents Sure, if you ignore the things that make cars more dangerous, then public transit will look more dangerous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Most people don't think of accidents when they're comparing "safety" of cars versus transit. They're not even considering getting in an accident on transit at all, they're thinking of theft and violence. So when comparing what people think of safety, ignoring the parts they don't consider makes sense when you are talking about the difference in how people perceive safety differences between the two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago Yes, I understand that. All you're saying is that people's perceptions of safety don't match the reality of safety. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) Ignoring deaths, because that's related to accidents Why? If a tired worker who just pulled a double shift at McDonald's is arguing with her husband on the hands free and T-bones you, you're just as dead as if a crackhead stabs you for looking at them funny. And the former is way likelier. You should be more afraid of the tired and distracted fry cook. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days ago (1 child) Ignoring deaths, because that’s related to accidents Sure, if you ignore the things that make cars more dangerous, then public transit will look more dangerous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Most people don't think of accidents when they're comparing "safety" of cars versus transit. They're not even considering getting in an accident on transit at all, they're thinking of theft and violence. So when comparing what people think of safety, ignoring the parts they don't consider makes sense when you are talking about the difference in how people perceive safety differences between the two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago Yes, I understand that. All you're saying is that people's perceptions of safety don't match the reality of safety. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Most people don't think of accidents when they're comparing "safety" of cars versus transit. They're not even considering getting in an accident on transit at all, they're thinking of theft and violence. So when comparing what people think of safety, ignoring the parts they don't consider makes sense when you are talking about the difference in how people perceive safety differences between the two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago Yes, I understand that. All you're saying is that people's perceptions of safety don't match the reality of safety. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] november@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago Yes, I understand that. All you're saying is that people's perceptions of safety don't match the reality of safety. permalink fedilink source parent
