At the risk of flogging a dead horse: Automobiles vs. cigarettes

[taterguy]

Thanks to a concerted PR effort, we all know in excruciating detail what the negative effects of cigarette usage are.

Can anyone provide a really good reason that we don't have the same information about automobile usage?

Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that the automobile industry provides employment to more people than the tobacco industry.

I also concede that cars can be truly useful whereas cigarettes have virtually no redeeming qualities.

It still bugs me that cars get a free pass.

What do you guys think?

[havocmom]

1. $$$

If the peons can't get to work, they can't make $$$ for their masters.

I would like a figure on what cars cost. A real figure that considers all policies that enable the excessive reliance on cars right down to what consumers pay to house and wax them. The amount would amaze and sadden us all.

Have long thought Henry Ford was the anti-christ with his program to make it possible for everyone to have a car.

[taterguy]

3. We'll never get a figure about what cars cost

Even something as simple as a small city budget is impossible to decipher.

But who needs to know what we're paying? As long as we get there as quickly as possible.

[havocmom]

6. And we drive around in circles, feeling superior

to lemmings.

[Kolesar]

2. Personal transportation is technology that enables our economy

Transporting workers, sales staff to clients, and even transporting products to market.

[doc03]

4. There was a report on CNN Monday that cell phones

have replaced cigarettes as the greatest cause of cancer. :scared:

[taterguy]

5. That's why I communicate with smoke signals

Damnit, I'm not even drunk yet and I still can't resist the temptation to make a lame joke.

[doc03]

7. Good idea lets burn down Fox news

[taterguy]

9. No can do, I dig the First Amendment

Free speech would be rather meaningless if it only applied to people and organizations that I agreed with anyway

[doc03]

11. Wow! I'm surprised at that on DU lately if you

oppose Obama you are un-American and any of the talking heads that say anything derogatory about him they want fired.

[izzie]

8. I am sure dirt goes into the air more from cars than cig.

That is not even counting the sh-- that is put in the air from businesses but no one would get after those places. It is just easy to go after cig. Always interesting to watch a guy in a large SUV tell you to stop the cigs. as the dirt comes out of his car. Good move as he talks on his car phone and drinks his beer in his big AC SUV. Makes one want to give up smoking and take us his good habits.

[Kolesar]

10. Smokers could improve their image by not throwing butts on the ground

Out the car window, near the building entrance, on the trail in the Metropark. very irritating

[Wizard777]

12. There was this wonderful invention called an ashtray. But it's disappearing from our society.

What the best way to get people to litter? Don't give them any trash cans. The same with ashtrays. The greater majority of smokers will use an ashtray if there is one available. If not they will throw their butts on the ground with all the other trash from the people you didn't set trash cans out for.

[Kolesar]

15. So that's why they throw them out of car windows and drop them on my park trails?

Should the Metroparks put ashtrays every 1000 yards along every trail for their convenience??

[Wizard777]

18. Astrays used to be standard on cars. Now they are optional.

Sure why not put out the ashtrays? If they put them out every 1000 yards. They can also use them as distance markers for the walkers and runners. Everybody wins.

[Kolesar]

39. Smokers could put their cigarettes up their asses, lit end first

That's what my non-smoking friend told his girlfriend when she wanted to know where to put out a cigarette. They are not dating any more.

[Johonny]

13. actually they did go after cars

In many states. The air quality is certainly vastly improved from the 70s in many cities due to emission regulations placed on cars. Of course car emmisions would be a huge factor if people intentionally sucked on their tail pipes. Still there are ill health effects for people that work in closed environments with cars. But since Smog has been attacked for years, I think the original poster is nuts to think cars have some how gotten a free pass. They haven't.

[taterguy]

17. When was the last time you saw a PSA that discourages people from driving?

I can't turn on my TV without seeing someone breathing through a hole in their neck begging people not to ever smoke a cigarette.

When we see an ad like that with a person telling people not to use cars then you can call me nuts.

Or you're welcome to call me nuts for some other reason.

It's a free country.

ps: I'm not sure what your source is for the claim that air quality is improved. It's true that cars are cleaner now than they were 30 years ago. However, there are a hell of a lot more of them which cancels out the fact that individual cars are emitting fewer pollutants. There were more ozone alert days in my city last year than ever before. YMMV of course.

[LanternWaste]

32. It's a cost-benefit analysis

"When we see an ad like that with a person telling people not to use cars then you can call me nuts. "

I think there's a cost-benefit analysis in using cars which you implied in your OP (cars being useful vs. smokes being not useful).

And while there may not be any specific PSA's on your television regarding automobiles specifically, I think that the increased awareness of environmentalism (though digital and print media) covers that very thing (plus much, much more).

[taterguy]

38. Shouldn't you have as much information as possible when performing a cost-benefit analysis?

Every day I decide whether or not to drive to work.

Truthfully, if there's rain in the forecast I frequently drive.

Maybe I'd make a different choice if it was constantly drummed into my psyche that I was engaging in behavior that was hazardous to the health of myself and others.

Would that be such a bad thing?

[LanternWaste]

42. Probably-- unless the information is so glaringly obvious as to

"Shouldn't you have as much information as possible when performing a cost-benefit analysis?"
Probably-- unless the information is so glaringly obvious as to discount the need for the general summation of it. Much like the mad scientist who wants to blot out the sun to prevent sunburn-- the cost-benefit analysis is pretty damned obvious except to those who will not see.

"Every day I decide whether or not to drive to work."
The circumstances of many people dictate that they do not in fact have a practical choice, only a theoretical one...

"Maybe I'd make a different choice if it was constantly drummed into my psyche that I was engaging in behavior that was hazardous to the health of myself and others."
I imagine that the environmental concerns, dramatically on display in all modes of media and entertainment would have done that by now. If not, it's certainly possibly to habitualize yourself into it.

"Would that be such a bad thing?"
Who in fact is saying it's not a bad thing?

Anyways, I'm afraid I've missed your precise point in the response...

[taterguy]

44. Every cigarette you smoke takes 5-10 minutes off your life span

That's reasonably common knowledge.

Where's the equivalent stat for automobile usage?

Yes, people are aware the automobiles damage the environment. However, there's no link between specific trips they take and specific consequences. If I ride my bike to work in the rain I know that I'll be miserable and unproductive all day. I don't know what the exact effect on the Earth will be.

It's true that many people don't have viable options other than an automobile for transportation. It's also true that millions of people take car trips every day that could be done by other means.

Why are these trips being taken if there's sufficient education about the negative impacts of driving?

That's what bothers and concerns me.

[LanternWaste]

45. the choice is not practical for many, many people--

"Why are these trips being taken if there's sufficient education about the negative impacts of driving?"

I think it simply because the choice is not practical for too many people-- only a theoretical one to be played in the mind recesses.

And yet, we see even here on DU that many individuals have given driving all together. And I imagine many other people not on DU do the same. As for me, I carpool with co-workers. And carpooling is becoming an ever greater and obvious option.

Simply because you may not perceive that positive actions are being taken does not in fact, mean they are not being taken.

And, if you're quite curious about the negative impact of emissions vs. the individual vs. lifespan, I would hazard a guess that the sources are out there, just waiting for you to collate them and present them.



But your original premise that cars get a free ride is simply absurd...

[taterguy]

47. Here's a theoretical choice I play out in the recess of my mind

A trip less than two miles in pleasant weather on streets with very little traffic.

I see cars doing that every day in my neighborhood.

Please explain why it wouldn't be practical to get to that destination in something other than a car.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Do you understand how to read science

Of course not, otherwise you would understand that OVERALL air quality has improved nation wide

There are CITIES, particular cities, where this has not been seen as much

Houston comes to mind, but there is a direct relationship to Mr. Bush's time as a governor and his gutting of state laws

And of course Los Angeles where it is partly the AMOUNT of vehicles

Hell. EMPIRICALLY I can tell you the AIR QUALITY in Mexico City is better than twenty years ago. When I go visit I don't get sick as often as I used to.

By the way I have seen PSAs pointing out that people with certain conditions (can you say Asthma) should not go out during smog alerts... which are occurrences of twice or thrice a year in both Los Angeles and where I live.

I take it you DO NOT live in a large city.

[Mountainman]

14. Why do they have crash test dummies ?

[The Straight Story]

16. Maybe all cars should have big warning labels on them about second hand smoke from driving

And laws that don't allow kids in cars on freeways during rush hour since driving so slow exposes them to it much more than normal....

[blues90]

19. It's the money , however cars do a lot of damage

First they focused on the leaded fuel and i did see tests on the new lead free fuels and they are no very hopeful either .

When I see cars in bumper to bumper traffic with tailpipes so close to the grill of the next car I have to wonder how much crap is breathed in daily . Plus what about all the tires that wear , where does all that black dust go and what does it do ?

[SidDithers]

20. Maybe because cars have a societal purpose, and cigs don't?...

We tolerate the presence of auto exhaust in exchange for the easy transportation.

There's no real societal benefit for ciggies, is there.

Sid

[LanternWaste]

21. I don't think cars get a free pass by any stretch of the imagination...

I certainly don't think that cars (and their drivers) get a free pass. We have to get a license, and renew it every X number of years; we have to pass an automobile inspection/certification test every year; we have to have at least a minimum amount of insurance.

The automobile industry itself is becoming more and more regulated-- consumer (and government) pressure is redefining the acceptable emission, fuel and safety standards for new vehicles.

We have stop signs, stop lights, speed limits and appropriate highway lanes for particular behavior.

And as far as I know, there's a LOT more rules, regulations, policies and protocols for owning and operating a motor vehicle than there are for smoking-- which is, I think limited only by where you may or may not smoke.

So no-- I don't think cars get a free pass by any stretch of the imagination...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. What's Wrong With Cars? Should We Like, Still Be Using Horse And Buggies? ROFL

Not sure what information you're talking about.

[taterguy]

24. Cars make it difficult to breathe

And I'm one of those weirdos that thinks breathing is a good thing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. ROFLMAO!!!!!

:rofl:

That was funny.

[taterguy]

27. Premature death and disease is hilarious

Unless it involves someone that you actually care about

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. ROFLMAO!!!!!

:rofl:

That was even MORE funny!!!

[devilgrrl]

23. I think bicycles are even deadlier than both!

:silly: ;-) :silly:

[taterguy]

26. How so?

[devilgrrl]

30. You can fly over the handlebars when you hit a pot hole!

It's dangerous I tell you!


:silly:

[taterguy]

40. I'd have to lose about 50 pounds before I was in danger of flying over anything

Sigh

[devilgrrl]

43. You can get your finger caught in the spokes.

Ouch!

[flvegan]

29. Yes, and why not the same info on eating meat?

:popcorn:

sweet, buttery

:popcorn:

[taterguy]

34. Shouldn't that be some synthetic form of butter?

Ya know, one that's not made by exploiting animals?

[flvegan]

36. Movie theater

butter is totally synthetic.

[taterguy]

37. Not where I go to the movies

[flvegan]

46. Seriously, Is that honestly the best you have?

I mean, I appreciate your anti-vehicular posts, and I do love that you bike here, there, everywhere.

BUT...when you wag that finger at others...

Your eating of meat is of lesser impact than me driving an H2.

So, then...I guess it tastes good. Folks want to.

Folks drive bigass SUVs because they want to.

6 of one, half a dozen of another.

Sorry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Cars get a free pass? shakes head

that is why we have smog controls in California.

It truly boggles the mind. They don't get a free pass, and ANY journal on science, has linked living near freeways or main roads to higher risks of cancer

Now if you think they get a free pass... ok... I believe you, truly

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. "It still bugs me that cars get a free pass."

Actually, there are one or two laws in place limiting vehicular emissions.

:eyes:

[Winterblues]

41. Cars are required to have cataletic converters on them, cigarettes are not.

Cars have different types of engines that power them. Some are electric and create no pollution except in the original power source which could be solar for all we know. Cars have come a long way over the years to fight pollution but cigarettes have gone in the exact opposite direction. They have added more chemicals to make them far more addictive than in the early years. Deaths from tobacco related causes are the single most preventable cause of death in the USA