xkcd #2940: Modes of Transportation
Title Text:
My bold criticism might anger the hot air balloon people, which would be a real concern if any of them lived along a very narrow line directly upwind of me.
alt-text:
A chart that categorizes various modes of transportation based on their practicality and danger level:
Zone of Practicality:
- Trains
- Airliners
- Boats
- Walking
- Cars
- Scooters
- Bicycles
Zone of Specialty and Recreational Vehicles:
- Motorcycles
- Helicopters
- Light aircraft
- Go karts
- Skateboards
- Rollerblades
- Skis
- Unicycles
- Sleds
- Bumper cars
?????:
- Hot air balloons
“Hot air balloons are the optimal mode of transportation, if your optimization algorithm has a sign error.”
I cant believe bicycles and scooters are perceived as more dangerous than cars. They're slower, offer better visibility, and kill way less people.
Less dangerous to others, but more dangerous to the users themselves, I suppose.
Because of cars
Not only. I live in Norway, where pedestrians have right of way and drivers are extremely careful. Discounting the risk from cars, there's still more personal danger to users of scooters as opposed to cars. If you have an accident on a scooter, you'll get scrapes, bruises, broken bones. As compared to a car, where unless you've really screwed up, you're unlikely to take any injuries at all.
Source: scooter user who HAS broken bones
The chart needs a third dimension: danger to you, danger to others, and convenience for travel.
I think most normal people can understand the difference intuitively without needing it spelled out.
I just saw a pedestrian get hit by a person on a bike and end up with a concussion. Bicyclists don’t give a fuck about others
Driving a car makes it more likely for your species to go extinct. Infinitely more dangerous than a bicycle.
your beef is with internal combustion engine, not with the car.
Microplastics from heavy vehicles scrubbing away their tires is a bigger issue than tailpipe emissions, which is why tailpipe emissions are the only thing focused on with regards to regulatory standards. Can’t have people thinking BEVs are similar/worse for the environment than a small car.
ok, that's fair, never thought of that...
Replace every single ICE with a BEV. Still plenty of beef.
Shame this comic doesn't draw a distinction
Hit a pothole going 25mph in your car. Hit the same pothole going 25mph on your scooter. I'll come visit you in the hospital after the scooter one and we can talk about how cars are obviously safer.
I ride an electric scooter, all it takes is one crack in the road that I'm less than prepared for and I'm going down hard.
I wonder what kind of scooter most people pictured when reading the comic
That is a good point, mine is the second variety, electric one similar to the ones you see littering any major Urban area waiting to be rented. Although even the largest scooter is still far less safe over a pothole or around a rainy curve than a car, typical accident in the car you mess up the car and get a bruise from the airbag, but a typical scooter accident can be a lot more gnarly.
I think most people in the USA refer to the third item as a moped, which only gives you two categories for scooter. Scooter and electric scooter, and then moped and electric moped.
I own an electric scooter very similar to the second one pictured (minus the RGB) so that's what I was thinking of.
The roads are shit here. So badly cracked that I vibrate violently when I try to ride my scooter over them at like 10km/h. And that's while dodging potholes.
Heeeeell no. I had I minor fall on a scooter last week. I slipped at medium speed because of an uneven wet floor. I'm still fucked up and can't walk properly
They are more dangerous exactly because of the existence of cars. Cars are a small fortress that makes others less safe while keeping its contents safer. Unless they hit another fortress.
Even if there were no cars, I imagine biking is still less safe than walking. Just like running is less safe than walking.
I'm almost afraid to ask where you've been walking.
That only makes sense if you cycle among cars, but that makes cars dangerous, not bikes. If you remove cars out of equation by cycling on pavement or cycle route, the danger is gone.
Pedestrians get hit by cars all the time yet walking is rated the safest.
If you remove air out of the equation the danger of helicopters are gone
Pedestrians don't get hit by cars quite as much as cyclist, proportionally to their number, because cyclists are right in the street sharing the space with cars, trucks and buses. Cycling on the sidewalk is not allowed, and cycling lanes are often very dangerous. I understand that this chart is talking about danger to the passengers, not to others.
A mere fender bender on a car might be a life or death situation if you're riding a motorcycle.
Hmm. It seems that Sync posted my draft comment 😔
Well try getting hit by a car while walking. According to this xkcd you'll be the safest.
I believe the danger axis is about danger to the passengers, not others
Tell you what, you drive your bike into a car and maybe the concussion will change your thinking enough to make it believable that bikes are more dangerous.
We're not rating danger for the damn planet here. It's obviously danger for the user - that's the one who's buying the product. Why would anyone care about the safety of others over their own safety?
As long as I can slice vegetables using my car door I don't give a damn about pedestrians.
I will literally shit inside any human being I don't personally know (and some that I do know) if it makes my life 0.02% more comfortable. What's your point?
The tone and content of this message indicate ~~a severe lack of empathy and a high degree of self-centeredness, verging on sociopathic tendencies~~ lulz, you know how to underscore a perspective right there! I wonder if that is a brand new sentence…
No need to indulge but since you got me thinking about self interest and empathy:
If you had the opportunity to gain an extra hour of sleep the next time you wanted it, but in return, someone you don't know would experience moderate discomfort for ten years. Would you be willing to make that trade-off?
We're talking about me now? No. Of course not. Just like I wouldn't knowingly buy a car whose making process involves some random people being shit inside of. I find hyperbolic exaggerations funny and I like to use them for making a point.
The point was - you don't purchase things for others, you purchase them for yourself. A car can be a major money spender - you buy it because it gives YOU safety, and it's silly to act like you're a bad person for spending your money in a way that benefits you. But some Knights of the Broken Tire are out here pretending like they're damn selfless, like they spent all their house money on housing the homeless not their own family, and like they chose to carry that 2 year old through traffic on a bycicle, not a fucking minivan. Fuck right off with this hypocritical shit. It's okay to want the safety of yourself and your family, that's how the entire world works. You're not gonna get blamed for buying a car, drop the selfless, holier-than-thou act, nobody's buying it.
Good way to distract from and undermine your points, as in this case.
I have it on good authority they got banned for abusing the report feature, so I guess we'll never know how they might respond.
Oh I think you made the point better than me. As it is written somewhere, live by the sword die by the sword. I hope you enjoy your bowl of shit.