Hacker News Reader

Comment by xpe | Hacker News Reader

> There is and has been a creeping level of do-gooderism/we-know-best in the US regulatory environment

It feels this way, though I haven't studied it.

> While I'm not suggesting that we go back to every car being a rolling death trap cum molotov cocktail, I'm suggesting more forbearance and a thought to cost/return analysis is probably warranted.

I somewhat agree, but this raises the next question: what is the value of a human life?

It is one thing for a healthcare system or insurance group to try to maximize something (quality of life? remaining life expectancy?) for a particular budget. It is another to tradeoff saving lives against lowering vehicle costs.

View on HN

Government agencies already have a dollar amount for the value of a human life that they are supposed to use when considering safety regulations: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agen...

The US is a car based society, there is trillions of dollars of concrete and steel in the ground making it so, we can change if we want that but it'll take decades and trillions more to replace/overlay the infrastructure we already have.

Pricing people out of vehicles prices them out of access to affordable housing, decent paying jobs and a whole bunch of other things that are important to not living in poverty, by putting vehicles and access to reliable transportation out of reach for the poor, we're effective condemning them to whatever their status quo is.

No one needs a new car. There is a huge used car market with a lot of accessible financing. Isn’t there a trope of the millionaire driving a 15yo sedan?

Not having access to reliable transportation is not the significant factor w.r.t social mobility you are making it out to be.

it used to be you could find a 20 year old, serviceable used car for sub 2500 dollars, now get something serviceable and running, it's closer to double that.

Even when you adjust for inflation, the price for a cheap used car is 30-40% higher than it was a decade ago.

wyre, how would you characterize the effects of reliable transportation towards social mobility?

It seems you only discuss the rich frugal segment. What about the rest? Middle class folks in the suburbs? Poor urban people who drive to work? Etc...

I'm asking in this way because saying "... you are making it out to be" is based on some comparison between your assessment and your perception of another person's writing. That has several layers of indirection. So I would prefer to just ask you directly.

I’ve been car free my entire adult life, I’ve also been broke my entire adult life too. I’ve been fortunate enough to live in places with good cycling infrastructure and public transit; I know that isn’t the case in most places.

That said, I wouldn’t attribute my lack of social mobility to my decision to not own a car/lack of money to own a car.

Automobile financing can absolutely be predatory to low income workers and to a degree it might prohibit some mobility when a large portion of income goes to maintaining a vehicle just to maintain an income. Maybe there should be regulation on predatory financing?

Someone making $20k a year is going to be poor regardless if they own a car or not. Economic mobility comes from having marketable skills that provide value to others and the ability to acquire those skills. A college education is not particularly accessible to low-income folks that need to also work to pay rent and food.

Thanks for sharing your experience. The overall dynamic is much broader of course.

Have you studied statistics? Conducted an analysis? Read a statistical study? Designed an experiment?

This (statistical analysis) is where I'd like to take the conversation, but I wanted to pause and see if that would be mutually interesting.

I'm been "done" with non-systematic understandings for a long time. Typical opinion / "analysis" (as seen even in decent newspapers) is good practice for trotting out arguments, but it rarely synthesizes information broadly and convincingly.

This reminds me of the "If it saves just one life" fallacy...

Even the most ardent believer of this fallacy will often break when confronted with real costs to their own life.

For example:

Cruel Capitalist: If lowering the highway speed limit to 40 miles per hour (64km/hr) would save 20,000 lives per year on US roads, should we do it?

Bleeding Heart: It would be inconvenient, but yes, it would save lives!

Cruel Capitalist: And if lowering the highway speed limit to 20 miles per hour (32km/hr) would save 40,000 lives per year?

Bleeding Heart: You know, maybe some people just aren't meant to live that long. Isn't the planet getting overpopulated anyway?

then we'd all use public transport. do it!

But then we need to limit the speed of public transport.

in a world where cars are not allowed to go fast, public transport would get dedicated tracks where it can go faster. even with busses there would be less traffic because a bus can carry a lot more people than many cars. therefore it would be much safer for pedestrians and the goal of reducing accidents would certainly be achieved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com