[nfw2]

Bart seems much more cleaner and safer now than in years past. I don't know if free mental space is the main benefit of transit. During rush hour, you can't do much outside of listen to something, which you can do while driving too.

Not having to deal with parking and the fact that driving is actually very dangerous seem like stronger points in transits favor.

Fwiw, driving also has some negative je ne sais quoi for me that goes beyond the functional advantages. Maybe it's the aesthetic onslaught of ugly concrete, noise, heat and smell of sitting in traffic for an hour on the highway. Maybe there's something about getting around on your feet that makes me feel viscerally connected to the city. Maybe it's just the exercise that compounds over time. But I hate driving.

[nradov]

Driving is actually not "very dangerous" if you're sober, not distracted, and driving a properly maintained modern car. Like most any activity the risk isn't zero but you can cut it down a lot.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...

[nfw2]

Drunk people hit sober people, most people get distracted sometimes, and oil changes don't make your car safer.

Driving is very dangerous compared than transit. It is not very dangerous compared to knife fights or getting cancer.

[nradov]

I do stuff for fun that's more dangerous than driving so I guess perspectives vary.

[laurencerowe]

Driving is very safe at city speeds for those inside the big metal box. Less so for the pedestrians and cyclists on the outside.

[TylerE]

I know this goes against the HN groupthink, but a lot of those accidents are not the car or the drivers fault. I live in a small college town. We have huge problems with students just walking right off the curb, especially when drunk.

[borski]

The pedestrian is not the one driving the weapon. It is your fault if you hit a pedestrian, even if they walk right off the curb, even if they’re drunk.

Unless they intentionally jump in front of your car in an attempt to commit suicide, it is always on you to ensure you can stop and respond to an emergency, and a pedestrian is such a thing, imho.

[laurencerowe]

I think this is more a design problem with US road infrastructure. City streets are much wider than in other countries which encourages drivers to drive more quickly and allows them to pay less attention. We'd have far fewer pedestrian and cyclist fatalities if we didn't require streets to be so wide.

[borski]

I agree.

[TylerE]

No, if the pedestrian walks out in the known-dangerour street without so much as a glance, not a crosswalk, that is categorically not the cars fault. Idiots are gonna idiots. Just like all the cyclists that get hit around here for not obeying stop signs.

ALL users of the road are responsible for following the rules. Not being in a car isn't a "I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, whyever I want" pass.

[borski]

If you walk around yielding a knife, and you accidentally walk into someone who wasn’t paying attention, it is definitely your fault.

If you drive a car and accidentally drive into someone who isn’t paying attention, that is also on you.

You are holding the bigger weapon. That means you have the higher requirement for safety, imho.

I track cars and race, fwiw, so it’s not like I don’t like cars.

[throwaway2037]

    > Bart seems much more cleaner and safer now than in years past.

Did you ride in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and (early) 2000s? It was fine. How narrow is your "years past"?

[nfw2]

My point is Bart feels safe now and that it seems to be trending up not down. I am talking about the trend I have observed living in the bay area for the past 15 years. Why would not including the 70s in my window of comparison invalidate my point?