If I'm walking past a tall building I think it's reasonable to expect that an Honda Civic is not suddenly going to drop from the sky above me?

Is it? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/11/car-fa...

OMG! Where's the video taken just moments before on the 7th floor? I know Texas isn't much for government regulations but I'd think building codes for parking garages would require, you know, barriers and walls. To keep people from driving off into oblivion.

Nope, they can use just steel cables. Plus it had already happened at the same garage less than an year before: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/car-dangling-from-parkin...

The city, which inspects buildings after construction is complete, has no record of having inspected those cables since the garage at Brazos and East Sixth streets was finished in 1981, city spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola said

Using multiple strings of high-tension, half-inch cables as a parking lot barrier in lieu of concrete walls is increasingly common, according to an Austin structural engineer, and is listed as an acceptable alternative in city and international building standards.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local/year-old-cables-played...

Never heard the old saying "it rains cars and dogs"?

OK, now I'm paranoid.

You might also think you wouldn't get hit by a car in your second floor apartment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2018/01/1...

You might as well. If not Honda Civics, large chunks of ice and/or solid sheets of it regularly fall from buildings in the winter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/winter-weather...

Cranes toppling is also not that uncommon of an occurrence.

It could pop the curb and hit you

People know roads are dangerous, and they have crash barriers, speed limits etc.

Right, but 60km/h is inside the speed limit for many roads without barriers, which is why I used it as an example. In fact, if you take a slightly heftier car like a CR-V, it can be within urban speed limits (48km/h - 30mph) and still have an higher kinetic energy.

The 60kmh are usually quieter, non-residential zones with good clearance between the road and the pavement.

But that does not prevent them from entering a car ride with their own babies. So, yes, people know that roads are dangerous. But no one ever gives a second thought when entering a car ride, even with their own kids, even when they know nothing about the skill/ability of the driver.

Not to mention that you are literally placing the life of you and your fellow riders in the hands of every driver in the incoming traffic...I mean, think about that chance, where 1 in a 1000+ drivers you encounter is doing either one of these..

1. Texting and driving 2. Is drunk 3. Just having a very bad day..

Tell me, what is the justification for taking your family on a joy ride on a highway..

Truth is, the capitalistic society at large encourages vehicle use. That thousands of lives are lost in accidents every year is mentioned, but not highlighted. There are things that warn you about the dangers of smoking. But there are no such thing that prompts you to ask the question, "Is this ride really necessary?" when you are getting into a car.

A lot of things that we do can be attributed to just this selective shunning of society.

I'm not sure why you mention children, I think people are paranoid about child safety, but that's kind of a tangent..

Cars have all sorts of safety features, crumple zones, mandatory seat-belts etc. It's more dangerous to be hit by a car than be inside it I reckon, though car-on-car collisions would be an additional hazard to drivers.

> think about that chance, where 1 in a 1000+ drivers you encounter

is 0.001 the actual figure for that probability? larger motorways with counter-flow traffic usually have lane separators.

I'm not sure what "having a bad day" means, but drivers caught drink driving are harshly punished. also, it should be possibly to spot suspicious drivers early on in many instances.

I'd argue whether a driver who was not paying attention is likely to do anything as severe as swerve into counter-traffic harshly enough for the collision to result in severe death or injury.

> the capitalistic society at large encourages vehicle use

As opposed to what kind of society? People like driving cars even if it's not economical.

> thousands of lives are lost in accidents every year is mentioned, but not highlighted

what's that as a percentage of all car use? Dangerous or inattentive driving is the cause of most accidents; the same is not true of smoking. And generally, technology and regulation is improving.

Uh.. accidental deaths are the #1 cause of death between the age 1 and age 44 in the US.

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10lcid_all_deaths_by_...

And the largest part of that has until recently been car accidents (comprising the larger transportation related catagory)

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/164522/20160612/car-crashe...

Now apparently its drug overdose, which is one of those cases where intent (aka suicide) isn't always clear.

But by far the most dangerous thing your average american does everyday is get in a car, and that is by a large margin.

*this is why the focus on "terrorism" and "gun control" both piss me off, seatbelt, airbag, backup cameras, etc laws save more lives every month than all the terrorism related activity in the last couple decades, despite the government spending orders of magnitude more on the latter.

Again, what's that relative to car usage?

> by far the most dangerous thing your average american does everyday is get in a car, and that is by a large margin

Not true if the frequency is ignored. Landmines kill fewer Americans, but stepping on one is more dangerous than stepping in a car.