Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Warning: Driving Kills

By Andrew Simms, Resurgence. Posted November 12, 2005.


We welcome cars into our lives when, rationally, we should be emblazoning them with public health warnings in the same style as cigarette packets.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I don't drive. But my life is dominated by cars. They are around me and inside me; I breathe their fumes every time I walk along a road. As a child I breathed in their glamour and persuaded my parents to buy me countless toy cars.

The first car our family had even looked like a big toy. It was called a Standard Penant. Disturbingly I can remember its number plate more easily than my family's birthdays. When it was sold I mourned the window stickers from Welsh campsites that I had lovingly put on the passenger side window. Freudians have a term for how people invest emotion into inanimate objects. It's called cathexis. It happens a lot with cars.

Now they are everywhere I look. I dodge between them going from any one place to any other. I shout over them to have a conversation walking down the street. I wake up to their sound systems in the small hours as they park or drive by my house. Places that I love have been divided and paved over to make way for cars. Until a new traffic system was introduced to my home town in Essex I could cross into the town center by walking over a road of two lanes. After, I had to cross about 13 lanes.

A car showroom now sits at the corner of that junction. One time I walked past and there were large posters in the window advertising the latest "retro" model of car produced by the manufacturer Chrysler. As I stood outside, the windows picking up reflections of a bleak landscape -- a spaghetti mess of traffic lanes and vulnerable pedestrian islands -- the posters nevertheless invited me to "Buy your soul," by purchasing the PT Cruiser. Dr Faust was at work.

Cars cover and suffocate our lives but somehow their dominance is also strangely invisible. Our unique adaptability as a species has enabled us to acclimatize to their staggering "everywhereness," and not see it as odd. Were the car a disease it would be an epidemic. Yet, spellbound, we embrace the great destroyer and design our lives, communities and countryside around it. We welcome cars into our lives when, rationally, we should be emblazoning them with public health warnings in the same style as cigarette packets. Driving can seriously damage your health, or Driving Kills.

In the century since the first recorded fatal traffic accident, the car has claimed 30 million lives. Traffic accidents are now predicted by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to become the world's third most significant cause of death and disability by 2020. The World Health Organization estimates that 1.2 million people die on roads each year: similar to total fatalities caused by malaria.

Where the unsustainable use of fossil fuels is concerned, nothing is more symbolic than the car. If attitudes towards the car were to change, in much the same way that attitudes towards smoking already have, we might reasonably conclude grounds for hope in the face of the ecological debt of climate change. The opposite is also true.

So deeply is the car built into the organization of society, the running of the economy and the construction of our own identities, that a change in attitudes towards it might signal public readiness for action on climate change. Action that is finally commensurate with the scale of the problem.

The car has not simply stumbled into its current iconic and dominant status. History's biggest red carpet has been rolled out for it. Like a spoilt young prince it was born and brought up with an economic silver spoon in its mouth. Margaret Thatcher, as prime minister when I was growing up, told us we were living in a "great car economy." Roads and car parks were built for it at public expense. Competition, like the railways and trams, had already been deliberately run down in its favour.

In Britain the Beeching Plan, devised by the engineer and chairman of the British Railways Board, Richard Beeching, between 1963 and 1965 paved the way, metaphorically and literally, by shutting down a huge portion of the railway network. His contribution to pulling apart a more environmentally friendly transport system earned him a knighthood.

In the 1920s most significant towns and cities in the United States had their own electric rail systems: the famous streetcar. There were 1,200 separate systems with 44,000 miles of track. The car company General Motors (GM) made a loss in 1921 and feared that the car market had hit a wall. Its answer was to target the street and urban railways with a range of strategies to put them out of business and increase the market for automobiles. A special unit was set up within the company and it was disturbingly successful. Former US Senate Counsel Bradford Snell writes: "GM admitted, in court documents, that by the mid-1950s, its agents had canvassed more than 1,000 electric railways and that, of these, they had motorized ninety per cent."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Adapted from Andrew Simms' new book "Ecological Debt: The Health of the Planet and the Wealth of Nations" (Pluto Press, 2005). Andrew Simms is policy director of the New Economics Foundation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great Article!
Posted by: david09 on Nov 12, 2005 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the frightening but necessary article. It will be a gigantic undertaking to undermine the stranglehold the auto industry has in this country but well worth the effort. Hopefully we can learn to wean ourselves off our dependence on cars before we destroy the environment. The government should be mandating for greater fuel efficiency and cleaner fuels not just in cars but in all forms of energy production.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and there's more
Posted by: menckenman on Nov 12, 2005 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't forget choking chemical fumes which replace the air we breathe, and create the conditions for global warming. Here in LA we call it petroleum weather. It's all about brown air.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

asthma
Posted by: rini on Nov 12, 2005 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally (as an asthma specialist physician), think cars may be responsable for a large part of the huge increase in asthma that we have seen over the past several decades. Diesel fumes from buses and trucks are, in my opinion, the cause of inner city asthma.

I do not speak for all physicians in my specialty. Main stream asthma and allergy physician organizations do not rule out automotive emissions as a contributor to asthma, but tend to focus more on the "hygiene hypothesis" and genetics.

During the Atlanta olympics in car traffic was largely rerouted out of a huge area of the city. ER visits for asthma decreased dramatically. After 9/11 a border bridge from the US to Canada was closed, halting all diesel trucks. Again, respiratory problems decreased temporariily, only to increase when the bridge was reopen.

Who is going to fund extensive epidemiologic studies on this? The drug companies have no incentive. The only beneficiaries would be the public and future generations. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be important enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting
Posted by: erndawg on Nov 12, 2005 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article!

The car is the root of many problems economic, political, social ect.. mass transit is the primary solution trains, buses, trolleys but we love our cars. Clean burning fuel may be an answer but oil companies will never allow it. A change will occur sooner or later volontary or not. People need to wake up to the hold the auto and oil industries have on society.
(dang I wish I could afford a Hummer)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting Posted by: montana freeman
A "Constitutional Inequity" and a "Transportation Monopoly".
Posted by: Wells on Nov 12, 2005 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are 4 basic modes of urban/suburban transport: walking, bicycling, mass transit and cars-trucks. Automobiles present a severe impediment to the other modes, especially when roads, intersections and crosswalks are designed with typically callous disregard for the other means of travel. Because all modes of travel should be preserved, city planning that allows the automobile to dangerously dominate amounts to a Constitutional Inequity and a Transportation Monopoly.

Car-centric urban/suburban development affects this situation in other, more insidious ways. Districts and neighborhoods built for a single purpose, (only housing or only commercial venues or only employment centers), create a demand for long-distance travel from home that cannot be practically met by walking, bicycling or mass transit. A suburban subdivision has a built-in need for daily, long-distance travel only met by driving a car. Central cities where bean-counting occupation cubicles dominate and the freeways leading to them become overwhelmed with traffic.

Transit systems that "attempt" to serve this ill-begotten urban/suburban development model travel pattern are likewise overwhelmed during the rush hours, but run nearly empty in the reverse-commute direction and at all other hours of operation; thus making transit an expensive subsidy.

In short, development patterns are also specifically designed to strengthen the transportation monopoly whereby citizens must purchase, finance, insure, fuel and maintain automobiles and road infrastructure, to the detriment of the natural environment, culture and economies. Add to that list the oil wars that corporation executives who brought us this monopoly have arranged as our patriotic duty to conduct against oil rich nations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Cars Don't Kill People. . ."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 12, 2005 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, cars don't kill people; PEOPLE (talking on cell phones, eating, spilling drinks in their laps, looking at sexy billboards, looking at sexy pedestrians, playing with their sound systems, playing with their mates, playing with themselves...or just plain dumb) kill people!

Yep, beside the negative health effects of exhaust fumes, we've managed to put 4,000-pound (or in the case of the Hummer, NINE-thousand pound) hunks of careening metal in the hands of people who's level of instruction in driving technique is hardly beyond "point-and-shoot." From what I experience both as a driver and a bicyclist, it's a wonder that more people aren't killed. Don't get me wrong: I like cars...a lot; but they are not the best way, let alone the only way, to move 290 million people from point A to point B. . .and each little one of us shouldn't need two tons of pig iron to do that.
(By the way – if you want a rib-tickling, just watch a soccer mom, looking like a chipmunk sitting in a boxcar, trying to maneuver a giant SUV (Singularly Useless Vehicle) around a parking lot designed for compact cars. It's a laugh riot...the captain of the Titanic had it easier...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm glad someone finally said it.
Posted by: sln70 on Nov 12, 2005 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's SO true. All of it.

Another point, of course, is that bigger cars and SUVs take up more space, contributing to traffic congestion and the need for more pavement in the forms of wider roads and larger parking lots.

But so many people have the notion that "it won't hurt if *I* buy one." But it does hurt. I feel a tide turning - people will start to realize that each one of us has power to decide whether or not to make this world an uglier place or not - and I think more and more people will start making better decisions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cars unsafe? Ha!!!
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Nov 12, 2005 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The autocar,the wonder of the age,the rolling deathtrap of love. How can you say a car is unsafe? The model A had a spring bumper system that could withstand a 35mph bump,it was a framed vehicle with steel bodies. They could take alot and dish it out too. In the 1950's my Dad ran his car through a ditch at 50mph and drove away. I drove my tri-cycle into a '58 Chevy,it did'nt even dent.
With today's rides we have so much innovation you can't even think.....about doing your own plugs. A kid going downhill on a trike hits your bumper at 15mph and your airbag depolys for your safety,even if you're not in the car. That's real innovation. With crumple-zones we have a ready made inturnment device should you happen to crash at highway speeds. Power assisted systems have proven themselves to be of great aide when your CD shorts out the car. Yes cars are safety tested,road approved,stylish,blingy,
DEATHTRAPS. Overpriced,over-engineered,pieces of excrement on four wheels. As poorly as cars are made,we have even more poorly trained operators. People are in their own little world inside the driver's compartment. Folks are yaking on the phone,going over proposals,blowing off arguments,agonizing over failed trists and generally driving with their heads so far off the road it's amazing they can operate. Life by the clock has put everyone on eachother's bumper. So tight that a real disaster is comming,in the form of the next 110 car pileup caused by changing the disc. Yeah put warnings on cars,then stamp them on drivers too. The
'Pink Parts' cause more safety issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article, BUT...
Posted by: cabbage on Nov 12, 2005 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think you have to factor in some sort of "come out of the cave factor" within it. What I mean is that any endeavor outside the cold, boring cave will involve some risk. Whether it be a tree falling on you, a car running you down, a lion eating you....or what have you ;-)

point being, the car has enabled us to leave "the cave", and have a form of independent mobility never before seen. but yes...venturing outside the cave has its consequences, and we all, save the Amish, pretty much make the choice to accept the consequences. And even they take risks with the horse and buggy thing...if we could somehow get off the oil train and pursue new technologys to make our cars substantially cleaner and safer, well leaving the cave is going to be less and less dangerous, vehiclewise. i just hope non fossil fuel rigs en masse are a reality soon. enjoyed the article and point of view however, im just saying cars are here, they arent goin away, lets make them as clean and safe as can be engineered...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great article, BUT... Posted by: morticia
Cars are a nuisance, and their drivers too.
Posted by: gordo on Nov 12, 2005 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very few people in this city live anywhere close to work, and few cars contain more than the driver at commuting hours. People engage in behaviour while driving that they would never dream of while lined up for a coffee, or anywhere else in public. The self worth of many is tied to their vehicle, with much adornment and accessorizing of the most prized possession. So many new model cars and trucks are overpowered. As with many things, just because it can be built doesn't necessarily mean that it should. But these are well marketed times, and car companies will continue to sell the freedom of the open road to drivers who spend hours lined up in heavy congestion. All we can do in the mean time is change our own habits to decrease our dependence on the automobile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cars are a nuisance, and their drivers too.
Posted by: gordo on Nov 12, 2005 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very few people in this city live anywhere close to work, and few cars contain more than the driver at commuting hours. People engage in behaviour while driving that they would never dream of while lined up for a coffee, or anywhere else in public. The self worth of many is tied to their vehicle, with much adornment and accessorizing of the most prized possession. So many new model cars and trucks are overpowered. As with many things, just because it can be built doesn't necessarily mean that it should. But these are well marketed times, and car companies will continue to sell the freedom of the open road to drivers who spend hours lined up in heavy congestion. All we can do in the mean time is change our own habits to decrease our dependence on the automobile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cars aren't the problem.
Posted by: Artkansas on Nov 12, 2005 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Babies are. This earth can support a certain level of traffic. The fundamental problem is that we keep adding to the demands for more traffic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cars aren't the problem. Posted by: ConnecttheDots
55,000 needless and tragic deaths
Posted by: Don on Nov 12, 2005 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After three full decades, we still lament the fact that more than 55,000 Americans needlessly and tragically died in VietNam over the duration of that conflict. Yet we accept approximately the same number of equally tragic deaths every year on the nation's highways with hardly a thought unless one of the victims happens to be a friend or family member.

If any company developed a new product and put it on the consumer market, and it caused that many deaths in one year, the product would be recalled without delay and the company's management and owners would most likely end up in prison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» #1 killer of kids Posted by: turil
Inspiration is needed.
Posted by: turil on Nov 12, 2005 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a friend who I know through a bicycling group. He bought a condo in the city, while his high-paying high-tech job is out in the suburbs. He used to claim that he HAD to own and drive his car, he honestly believed that he had no choice.

I pointed out that he voluntarily chose to live far away from his job. He could chose to move, or change jobs. People do it all the time. I also pointed out that he could find better ways to commute, by bike, electric scooter, train, bus, carpooling, or even telecommuting.

I'm proud ot say that he now telecommutes the majority of the time, and either bikes, takes the bus, or carpools the majority of the rest of the time. He's even considering getting rid of his car.

The automobubble (as I like to call it) may be seen as the default transportation option for many people, but there is no reason why it needs to be. When you think about it, we already have a wonderful built in mode of transportation, our feet. Walking should be the default, with other human powered transportation (HPV) as the next best choice. And electric motors and mass transit are the better choices for longer distance travel.

It just takes a litte thinking outside the (metal, motorized) box to live a happy carfree life.

Government policies - mixed-use zoning, as well as more public transit, and better enforcement of traffic laws, lower speed limits, and better driving education for all road users (including bicyclists) - can make it even better, but these policies will only come when the public demands them. In addition to policies, new vehicle designs, especially for HPVs, may help inspire people to see how efficient, fun, comfortable, and responsible travel can be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cars and population in perspective
Posted by: seb2t on Nov 12, 2005 7:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I highly recommend to viewers/readers a book which, though written 25 years ago, is even more important for us to understand than it was when it was written: Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, by William R. Catton, Jr.

I agree that cars and population are a huge problem, but we're way past where we can avoid what we think we can avoid, which is 'die-off'. It's only a question of when, and what form it will take.

It's a superb book - not ideological at all, which is one of its great strengths.

It will make you think about every aspect of your life, if you follow the logical consequences of what the author says.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Montana freeman Posted by: montana freeman
Well what are we going to do about it?
Posted by: zmesberg on Nov 13, 2005 1:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The unfortunate reality is that much of our country is designed in such a way so that car ownership is really the only viable way to get around anymore. I'm not making excuses for the problems cars cause (and obviously there are many,) but unfortunantely it's pretty clear that cars are here to stay for a while. What we really need is to focus on the ways we can minimize the impact that cars cause, things like the encouragement of car pooling and alternative fules. I for one use a moped to get around town and I often marvel at how the person by themselves in the F-350 next me is accomplishing exacly the same thing as I am but at many times the monitary and environmental cost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

problems are also caused by property developers.....
Posted by: Smiggsy on Nov 13, 2005 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of these car ownership problems are also caused by property developers & to a lesser extent slack local government. Regardless of how well a city form is designed to become, or instrumentally enforced through the statutory provisions of good urban planning, new residential development & the spread of the suburbia is overwhelmingly dominated & influenced by private car use becuase of EASIER PROFITS. There is that dirty term which tinges on all things corruptable - MONEY.

Simply put it is much more profitable to develop new suburbs where movement is completely reliant on one's own individual private motor car usage, than to impliment truly effective & useful egalitarion public transport networks. Even when developers don't get there own way they do 2 simple things threaten legal action &/or make generous political donations. Government also needs to become much less reliant on the significant amount of easy tax revenue raised through the sale of gas at the bowser.

BTW the lobbying by big car & oil earlier last century to destroy most city tram networks & build miles of freeways at the expense of us all is also incredibly true. The scandals never end........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GM Red Car Myth?
Posted by: peak oil on Nov 13, 2005 5:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.1134.org/stan/ul/GM-et-al.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Affordable High-Density, Mixed-Use Housing/Zoning
Posted by: musiciscool on Nov 14, 2005 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What? An article criticizing cars but no mention of the need for affordable housing and high-density, mixed-use zoning? Jeez.

Here's a piece I wrote on the subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Car and the demise of communities
Posted by: walkingshaws on Nov 30, 2005 3:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cars have also afforded us the luxury of choice. A good thing? Well actually no. As a consequence we no longer need to have good relationships with our imediate neighbours and there is no or little interaction with people who aren't precisely like us.

Allow me to ellaborate. Modern society in Western countries is superficially more diverse than ever before. However in terms of social interaction, society is more divided than ever.

The car allows those who have access to it to mix exclusively with those they choose to mix with rather than forming meaningful relationships with those who live near them. As a result we have eliminated the need to be tollerant of difference.

People with private transport no longer walk their children to the nearest school, instead they drive them to the school with the best reputation which, incidentally, probably gained its reputation by cultivating a roll which is homogenous in its demographic and largely advantaged or 'middle class'.

Similarly local facilities are lost because of the affordability of transport. As a consequence the car has generated its own niche, it has rendered itself essential as its existance increases the distance between residential areas and the nearest shop, sports centre, community hall or hospital.

Without cars Wallmart wouldn't exist. Without cars our families would be close enough to support us and be supported by us (no need for nurseries or old people homes). Without cars our food would be produced locally. Without cars our employers would not centralise operations. Without cars our children would not become obese. Without cars we would finally begin to talk to our neighbours.

Worth thinking about, isn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]