Originally Posted by livedarklions

.

1) The relative size of the problems has nothing to do with whether either, both or neither should be discussed as being primarily a "public health" problem. You've made no case for relabeling cars in this way other than they kill more people than are killed riding under the influence. That's not an argument that makes any sense.

RESPONSE: The relative size of the problem has everything to do with what we prioritize as public health problems. That is why the statistic is cited. The researchers make the argument that drugs seriously injure 2% of people and that makes drugs a significant health problem. Cars injure way more people and that would make cars a much more significant health problem.

2) No one here is arguing or has ever argued that the danger cars create for people should not be discussed nor that we should just give up advocacy. I have no problem with you being an advocate, I just think you're giving us a prime example of bad advocacy. My point is that you haven't said anything that makes me think that relabeling this as primarily a public health problem instead of a law enforcement/engineering/education/economic problem is going to move the ball in any meaningful way. And by denigrating unnecessarily a public health approach to an issue of drug abuse, you simply alienate people who actually consider the abandonment of the "war of drugs" approach a very important thing.

RESPONSE: My approach is to not be distracted from the real problem which is cars. This study distracts from that. As an advocate, it is important to keep our eye on the ball and not get distracted by a 1 or 2% problem and instead focus on what is 98% of the problem. That is a responsible advocacy approach.

3) Our entire economy is not reliant on drugs, and certainly nowhere near the extent that it is on motor vehicles. Crashing our economy would itself create a rash of public health problems, so even in terms of public health the range of structural reforms are constrained by that reality. Where are you going with this? Do you think cars should be eradicated as a public health scourge? Do you think the relabeling somehow will make that more palatable?

RESPONSE: The total value of pharmaceutical spending in the US in 2018 was $335 billion. Total spent on automobiles was $82 billion. Your assertion that changing the way we travel and live would crash the economy is alarmist and doesn't take into account the public health savings, vehicle savings, road maintenance savings and much much more. I think that the use of the automobile should be reduced and speeds reduced.

4) So you're ok with trucks, they can do whatever? I can't tell what you're actually identifying as the actual public health problem. If you mean all motor vehicles on roads, then good luck spelling out what the practical implications of getting them banned as public health problems. If it's just cars that are going to get banned, we already kind of did that when auto manufacturers figured out that trucks have lesser safety standards and invented the SUV as the category buster.

RESPONSE: Vehicles are a public health problem. No one suggested getting them banned. Those are your words, not mine.

5)Be careful, you're looking for medical people to weigh in on here. What makes you think they might not see the presence of cyclists on the road as being the public health problem? You think they're any more anxious to give up their SUVs than any other interest group?