Ah is that why there seemed to be this thing called Vehicular Manslaughter in American TV shows? I don't know if we have that here in Australia but I always wondered why such a thing existed since surely it was just... manslaughter whether a vehicle was involved or not.

They'll sit in that traffic blaring their horn and fantasizing about flying over all the traffic.

What? First of all, Amtrak is often more comparable to air travel as far as alternatives go.
Second, those Amtrak delays are genuinely upwards of 5 hours. I had a trip leaving at 9 pm, and they had me waiting at that seedy train stop until 1am.
Not their fault though, it was Union Pacific's fault.

There are a lot of things people do while driving that are dangerous but very common. Things like driving with the high beam, speeding, tailgating, using a phone while driving etc.

The problem is that enforcing the rules is hard. You would either need a large percentage of the population to be police officers, or to put traffic cameras on every street.

Yup, that's why we all need to continue advocating for transit and safe streets.

you're forced to drive in a place that's designed to force you to drive

It's not a failure of the alternative modes of transport

You just need to redesign the place

You can be forced to do something while still being aware of the issues. Your interpretation seems to be: I can't change it therefore it makes sense to mentally ignore it. But being forced to drive while being aware that car fumes are toxic to health aren't mutually exclusive positions.

Your still viewing things from a motor normative lense with statements like I need to drive to get to work and I need to park my car. This sort of thinking naturalizes things that are actually part of a system that can change if we decide to. We can collectively decide to ban cars and humanity could continue to thrive, there's nothing necessary about cars. They may be personally necessary in the current system, but the system itself isn't, and this is critiquing the system not individual decisions.

The point of critical theory like this is to look at things we take for granted or think are necessary, show that they actually aren't natural or necessary, and expose some of the problems we ignore because we think the problem is required to live.

You have to step outside the system and look at it like you don't come from car centric culture and with the knowledge that it's a choice and not necessary. From that point of view questions like why is it ok to spew toxic fumes in a populated area? Makes sense since you know the system is a societal choice, not just the way things have to be.

With that knowledge you can try and change the system. That doesn't mean never driving, because it may be necessary to live, but driving less and taking public transit when you can and advocating and supporting public transit and biking infrastructure over car infrastructure.

They also ask about personal property being left in the street and stolen. People said that if someone leaves their stuff in the street and it’s stolen, then it’s their fault. But when it switched to cars, it was suddenly not their fault.

If they'd asked a question about a bike locked up to a bike rack that would probably be more equivalent. I think if they'd asked if you left your car unlocked with the keys in thr ignition then people would say that's your own fault if the car gets stolen too..

Marketing too, but carbrain is real

If you care enough to, you can go through day by day and change the activities at each time.

Where is it going