Slightly more comfortable than what? Horses? Bicycles? Walking?

There were 158,493 registered deaths in Australia in 2018, [1] of which 1137 were due to motor vehicle accidents [1].

Motor vehicle related deaths don't even rate in the top 20 causes of death. [also 1]

The rate of motor vehicle related deaths in Australia peaked in 1970 at 30.4 per 100,000 population per year, and has been on a steady decline since and now sits at 4.6 per 100,000 per year.[2]

This seems reasonable to me.

1. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/0/47E19CA15036B04BC...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

According to [1] in the US road traffic accidents are the 17th-most-common cause of death across all age ranges.

But among 15-24 year olds? Number 1 cause of death. In fact you have to reach age 45 before road traffic accidents are even outside the top five.

If you really want to ramp up the rhetoric, compare road deaths to mass shootings and September 11th. Where's the trillion-dollar invasion of Detroit to overthrow the Drivetrain Of Evil?

[1] https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-ag...

Well, if we are going to do that, we need to compare the utility of those mass shootings compared to the utility of a car.

It should really be compared with other accidents. Cyclist deaths, bathtub drownings, slipping on banana peels. Choking on food perhaps. Have the feeling it would rank pretty high in its cohort.

> Slightly more comfortable than what? Horses? Bicycles? Walking?

Buses, trains, trams, scooters, many other ways.

71% of Aussies live in major cities, and most have no need for a car. Yet we are one of the most car addicted people in the world. Billions wasted every year on this. Ridiculous.

> for slightly more comfortable transport

In some large metro areas, maybe. Outside of that bubble millions of people depend on a car to even be able to work.

By singling out an economically and socially productive segment of rural communities to attack, he is in fact attacking those communities as a whole.

(Incidentally, it's not just a matter of food. Where do you think the concrete, asphalt and timber cities are made out of comes from? I've not seen many quarries or forests in major cities. Rural communities as a whole, not just farmers specifically, make urban life possible.)

Personally, I view a city that is safe from cars as the greater freedom. It means my children can walk to school/friends/store without the very real danger of being killed. Cars are the number one cause of death for children.

We have an urban growth boundary now which tries to limit further sprawl, but it can't change the fact that the Portland metro area is 2 million people most of whom live in single-family homes, or maybe low density suburban apartment complexes.

DC, where most people drive, averages about 70 minutes.

Commuters in Dallas, where everyone drives, spend just 54 minutes a day commuting: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Hou...

Sometimes transit or walking simply isn't an option, and in those cases I drive. But given the choice, transit might take a bit longer but it's much lower stress. If a kid jumps out in front of the bus and gets run over, that would ruin my day but not my life. If the same happens when I'm driving a car, that's life altering.

There are lower-stake considerations too: the money I spend on bus fares would doubtlessly otherwise be spend on parking; or I would need to schedule enough time to hunt for free parking which just adds more uncertainty and risk to my day.

But personally, I prefer to take the subway and read and relax for half an hour before and after work, instead of having to drive in rush hour.

You _can't_ drive to central paris. London you're looking at a £15 charge and a time penalty of ~15-45 minutes.