15
votes
All the ways car dependency is wrecking us – car harm: a global review of automobility's harm to people and the environment
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- All the Ways Car Dependency Is Wrecking Us
- Authors
- CityNerd
- Duration
- 16:35
- Published
- Mar 27 2024
Comment box
Ray Delahanty ("CityNerd") is a transportation engineer based in the United States who has recently taken an interest in making content about urban planning on YouTube for a wider audience. In this video, Delahanty discusses a 2024 paper by Patrick Miner et al. which categorizes and explains each of the problems that result from widespread automobile use globally.
Delahanty's video summary is engaging and non-technical, but I encourage you to read the paper itself, which is very good. As he remarks, it is well-written and actually pretty accessible as scientific literature goes.
Car harm: A global review of automobility's harm to people and the environment
Abstract (emphasis mine):
In this context, "automobililty" refers to the use of an automobile vehicle (informally a "car") to travel, not to the concept of physically moving oneself with one's body.
Sections of the article include:
The paper suggests a number of interventions which we could take to reduce the negative impacts of automobiles on the world and society, including:
The authors are also very clear to note that electric vehicles solve almost none of them problems that cars create:
You are welcome to form your own opinions about your lifestyle, but this ENORMOUS body of research is undeniable. Automobiles cause an incredible amount of damage to society; they unequally distribute this damage to the least privileged and poorest members while benefitting the wealthiest and most advantaged; they criminally destroy natural wildlife habitats and harm the environment; they encourage the destruction of human habitats via dangerous land use, impermeable surfaces, and increased heat; and they cause irreparable damage to the physical and mental health of people around the world, especially vulnerable persons with disabilities, seniors, and children, including billions of deaths and injuries.
It is important to prioritize the well-being of society when making decisions about your own lifestyle and especially when voting for political candidates. I ask that you consider these negative effects of cars more seriously than you probably do now. I hope that this may encourage you to seek changes to your own lifestyle (i.e. the reduction in number of vehicles you own; relocation to a place where cars are not needed; adjustments to your movement patterns to facilitate a car-free or car-lite lifestyle; political votes toward candidates who seek to reduce car dependency; and community engagement with organizations who seek to do the same.
Delahanty suggests that conscientious viewers join local advocacy organizations that may, among other things, seek to improve the design of their communities; reduce car speeds and access; eliminate minimum parking requirements; promote travel by public transit, bicycles, walking, and other forms of micromobility; encourage infrastructure that prioritizes human-scale activity rather than car-oriented activity; support better integration of human habitats into natural wildlife habitats via the removal of some car infrastructure; redesign cities and towns to better withstand natural disasters by reducing infrastructure which reinforces car dependency; and more. I agree with this takeaway and recommend that you do these things.
I haven't read all of the article or your long reply. But 'electric vehicles solve almost none of them problems that cars create' feels hilariously wrong. Emissions pollution is the single biggest harm of cars, and cars have almost singlehandedly fueled the entire oil industry, to say that EVs wouldn't be a significant improvement is just ridiculous.
I don't have much to comment on, of course cars are dangerous, but there is a reason they became so ubiquitous, especially in the US: they are convenient, that's really it, that's all it takes sometimes. They had an edge over other forms of transport in final mile, and they were viewed as a luxury item, and a car culture emerged. I'm all for more dense, walkable/bikeable areas...I think it'll happen eventually, but in the mean time if we could replace all fossil fuels vehicles with EVs, then we'd be in a much better place ecologically, not to mention safety of newer cars as well as lower noise and pollution just for pedestrians nearby.
I'm honestly trying not to kneejerk too hard as I've seen this constant deluge of "fuck cars" slowly growing on the web, when it feels like there is a lack of nuance in considering why people like cars, why cities subsidized car infrastructure, and approaching more realistic ways to reduce car traffic, car dependence, and the share of fossil fuels vehicles. For one, increased push for remote work could remove a lot of vehicle miles from roads, more dense housing, more (protected) bike lanes, etc.
Comment box
I would recommend reading the article.
That isn't my position, simply that the externalities of automobiles are largely unsolved by electric vehicles. The health impacts of automobiles are far from exclusively related to emissions; the two billion people injured by vehicle collisions speaks to this, as do those suffering (unknowingly) from particulate matter from vehicle tyres. Mining pollution, manufacturing pollution, and end-of-life pollution also involves emissions which are materially similar to those of burning fossil fuels for propulsion and do not evaporate when you consider EVs. Electrification generally reduces lifetime emissions and is beneficial to society, but does not address the overall harms of car dependency.
Personally I find that the larger problem with automobiles is not gaseous exhaust emissions but really the way that they shape lifestyle in an inherently unsustainable way. The article speaks to this somewhat in its analysis of social and economic inequality, land use, sedentary lifestyles, reductions in childhood independence, and so on. Collectively I find these issues to be more significant than CO2 emissions, which are well-understood and comparatively simple to fix without massive lifestyle, cultural, legal, and infrastructure changes.
I don't expect people to read most of what I write, nor to know me personally, but I am a strong proponent of electric vehicle adoption. Actually I think that some people on this website would call me 'rabidly' in favor of EVs to an extent they would find unreasonable. The reason I highlighted that remark is because this community (Tildes) is full of people who already agree with the premise that EVs are a good solution to the climate crisis. I wish to reinforce the reality that EVs are just a very, very small part of the solution; focusing solely on emissions is insufficient, both because EVs do not solve that problem, and because that is not the only problem.
Well, cities in the US mostly subsidized car infrastructure in the 20th century to reinforce the racially segregated status quo, which the journal article actually mentions. Today, that is still a reason car infrastructure is prioritized while public transportation is not, although people will not admit it. Around the world, cars are a status symbol and infrastructure that supports them actively disenfranchises people without vehicles; in many cases, including in developed and supposedly progressive countries, this disenfranchisement continues to be enacted intentionally or, at best, is overlooked.
There are quite obviously reasons that people like automobiles, but this article is a meta-analysis of the costs associated with car dependency specifically. It does not argue that automobiles should not exist or that people's desire for them is necessarily immoral. But delving into more scientific literature around car dependency reveals many hidden costs of car-dependent infrastructure (including the reality that most localities literally cannot afford it because it is so ridiculously inefficient); there are many perverse incentives in government and in the private sector to prioritize car infrastructure at the expensive of human life and otherwise human-based spaces, and bad actors have historically taken advantage of these incentives to convince the general public that automobiles are both more good and less bad than they really are.
At a certain point, what people want has to take a back seat, so to speak, to public safety, financial resilience, environmental health, and more.
Delahanty proposes that conscientious individuals engage with local community organizations and government to push forward ideas such as the ones you propose. Personally, I commit a large portion of my time toward such initiatives (in real life, not on the internet). I am not sure how many people here really participate in civic life, but I bet it could be higher.
It just seems like, and I agree that emissions aren't the only problem, but emissions are killing us far more than any amount of automobile crashes, tire particles, or poor walkability ever could. It's the single biggest issue about car use, and there should be MASSIVE subsidization of EVs to replace ICE if we hope to limit the harms of cars. But I get that you're on board with that.
I've gone back and read the full article linked, and frankly.....it just doesn't move me much. It isn't that I don't believe them, or that I think the interventions suggested are bad, it's just......I feel like despite extensive references, there isn't enough explanations of the causality of things, especially when, whether I'm correct or not about it, it feels like they are omitting a possible answer. The article says that black people in Brazil are disproportionally suffering fatalities.....I check the study and it shows that 52.8% of road related deaths were black skin color.....Brazil is half black! The reference for women being more likely to be injured in a car accident I couldn't find the relevant page of that book available free online, and while I am inclined to believe it: it feels disingenuous to so heavily load "When they are involved in a crash" given the Brazil study shows us that 82% of auto related deaths were men! Why does the article not discuss the disproportionate harm that cars are doing to men vs women? It's like, I HATE having to go through something and nitpick every source because I can't trust that the information they are presenting to me is the entire story, EVEN WHEN I agree with the thrust of their argument! That's incredibly frustrating. It's the exact same to their points about how crash death rates are highest in Africa and Southeast Asia despite fewer cars per person: anyone could tell you that the adherence to road safety and infrastructure in those places is worse than in Europe, Japan/Korea, the US etc etc. It's easily explained, we don't need to talk about it as if the car is somehow intrinsically racist and this is a point to that, it feels WAY too much having a social justice axe to grind when all the other points are much more concrete and don't require any sort of harkening back to colonialism. It's........I don't know, it bothers me. It's also the same cherrypicking the ages where the leading cause of death is, 5-29, when when I checked broader statistics recently, even outside infant mortality and looking at just adults, accidental poisoning recently usurped automobile accidents (in the US).
All that is to say: I want denser, more walkable cities, I do not think we need to overemphasize or coerce data to that end: denser areas are often desirable, and people on tildes in prior arguments with me have pointed to the increased cost in highly walkable areas as a premium people are willing to pay, so if cities want some of that premium they will densify and add the things people want, most of the interventions the article suggested. All in all, it just makes me roll my eyes, which is bad, but I suppose overall it's fine? I don't really know what I'm getting at at this point, it just struck a nerve I suppose.
Comment box
Thankfully this is already happening. IMO, the pivot to EVs isn't happening fast enough, but there is a lot of inertia both in government and in industry to develop infrastructure to incentivize greener vehicles on the producer end and to support an electrified network on the consumer end. Here are two developments of note:
So one of the reasons I feel comfortable expressing my dissatisfaction with EVs is that the movement here is all but unstoppable already. I will still defend EVs from people who falsely believe them to be more environmentally damaging than ICEs, or are just uneducated about the benefits in general, but I'm not interested in hiding the fact that they are still cars, and cars still suck.
I'm not necessarily able to dispute that (whether or not you are correct), which is why I omitted some of the race-based statistics from those countries in my summary. But I am pretty familiar with the scientific literature on car-centric design, and I can attest that the environmental, health, economic, financial, and energy-focused critiques the article provides are substantively in line with other research. It is always possible to find little nitpicks, but the thrust of the paper is nevertheless accurate.
It's a little hard to defend an entire literature review because it covers so many topics, but for a start, I might point you toward Donald Shoup's writings on parking reform as an example of a fundamental space inefficiency of cars and how that affects life in towns and cities. Really scintillating reading, I know, though I think it underscores the innate problems cars (which always require storage) offer to urbanized landscapes. Inefficient land use, including for parking lots and parking garages, makes higher density very difficult and expensive because it is correlated with higher housing costs per a given area. That increases the cost of living for everyone in an area, which exacerbates social and economic inequality. Just an example.
I could extend that analysis much further, especially as it pertains to people with disabilities, seniors, children, etc. who experience the externalities of car-based cities in unique ways. But that is itself a huge series of topics. If you want to read more about the underlying connections between car-dependency and the issues presented, I do suggest looking at some of the academic sources in more depth, and I can give more precise reading suggestions for some (not all) of these things. I can also provide some personal anecdotes to demonstrate some correlations discussed in literature, or clarification based on cities I am familiar with of how these factors influence life.
My account bio lists a few accessible internet creators who talk about urban planning and environmental matters. CityNerd is one of them, though there are others. Almost all content you find on YouTube is going to be geared toward simplicity, but Delahanty and Amos are examples of professionals in their fields who have worthwhile perspectives. Folks like Martin and Slaughter are not (AFAIK) credentialed in the same way, but still produce interesting content. Blog-based content, such as public transit discussion (especially on bus networks) from consultants like Walker and train/high-speed rail discussion from Levy, can be comparatively detailed; especially Levy, who I quote here all the time. (They have an excellent blog called Pedestrian Observations which gets quite technical about railways, if you are interested in that sort of thing.) They are also responsible for many publications from organizations like the Effective Transit Alliance and the Transit Costs Project, and TransitMatters. As far as local advocacy goes, Strong Towns produces both accessible and actionable media beyond probably any other creator I've mentioned, who tend to be less focused on real-world advocacy.