I can agree that cars aren’t great for cities. But some of the research he goes into is really doing it’s best to stretch the truth.
The fumes from a car in the city are not as concerning as the smoke from a cigarette for example. Same for household gas use.
This is exactly the mentality measured in the study. Car exhaust kills tens of thousands annually in the US alone yet it’s so normalized that people not only don’t think about it but actively try to downplay it. That’s cognitive bias at work.
Alright, and smoking kills hundreds of thousands. But more annoyingly, smokers puff their smoke into public spaces, like events, restaurants, streets etc.
They’re disgusting and you have to actively avoid them to not be bothered by them. Cars stick to the road tho.
perhaps a bit of context: I don’t live in the car dependent united states
Hundreds of thousands when you include smokers, sure. Unlike smokers, car drivers are not so considerate as to filter their fumes through their own lungs before exposing the rest of us. But smoking in public is not frowned upon because of its effects on smokers. It is because of its effects on non-consenting bystanders. When you look only at second-hand smoke, which is what the question was really about, the numbers are very similar, in the low 10s of thousands. So again, they are extremely comparable and your attempts to deflect here are exactly the problem we’re discussing.
But more annoyingly, smokers puff their smoke into public spaces, like events, restaurants, streets etc.
Your statement leaves me truly speechless. Where do you think car fumes go, the fucking moon??? It’s amazing that those tens of thousands were able to afford a trip to the moon where they died from breathing car exhaust. Except, no, fumes in the air do not behave differently by source. They disperse and are breathed by people regardless.
I used US statistics because it’s what I’m familiar with. I doubt any developed country is substantially different. Most people drive in most developed countries, even the least car-dominated ones. Maybe pollution is 10-20% lower if that fraction don’t drive but the overall picture is the same even with that reduction.
I’m not talking about the behavior of the fumes, but the perception. Having a smoker next to you is a lot more visible and disgusting than having a car 20 meters away on the road literally already driving away.
That difference in experience makes a massive difference in how bothered people are. Hence there is a sensible reason people might pick different answers
I wear a respirator outside because of the cars. I don’t have to see them even and I can smell them the moment I leave my excessively air filtered house. There is no more go outside for fresh air in North american cities. I can’t run or bike without the respirator or I will feel out of breath instantly, walking feels like a chore. Maybe it’s better deep in the woods but people don’t live there. Compared to some small towns in europe I’ve been to where cars are only used when absolutely needed, we are so polluted yet everyone is blind to it because its always there. People literally drive their cars 400 meters to go to the local shopping center or to drop off their high school age kids at school.
Except it’s not one car. It’s MILLIONS everywhere you go. Inescapable. As much as cigarettes were in the 70’s. Did we do something to change that, I can’t really remember…?
