cars are not cost effective

D: if it sounds like I am anti-car, well that is probably true.
I have spent my life as a pedestrian and cyclist.
I have been nearly kneecapped so many times at crosswalks it just isn't funny.
I have been cut off with great visibility so many times cycling on the road, ditto.
I have ended up on one car hood at a crosswalk. All the time in the world, great visibility - and she guns it. I sometimes imagine that crosswalks are what the army calls a 'kill zone' - an area where one herds the foe to slaughter them, rather than a safe crossing.

Cars are not cost effective. Drivers explain to me that they pay fees for their cars and licenses, plus taxes, so they are paying their way. I hate to burst their bubble (no actually I don't).
They don't.
I need to introduce a term from economics here. The term is negative externality.
That is a negative drawback of a product/service that is not paid in the price tag.
That does not mean nobody pays it. Somebody does. Collectively, via government taxes or lost productivity to an individual, we all do.

There are 2 main costs that motor vehicles incur:
1) health costs (and related loss of productivity/disability) from accidents
2) health costs from the pollution that combustion motors produce.
The actual manufacture of the vehicle produces a significant fraction of the vehicle's overall pollution, but we will address that another day. I already have those numbers.

Anyway, let's look at the breakdown.
From the Medical Journal of Australia:
"In Australia, pedestrian injury is the leading cause of death among
1-14-year-olds.1 In 2000, 38 child pedestrians in this age
group died and about 1140 (29 per 100 000) were
hospitalised, often with lengthy stays, because of injuries sustained
when hit by a vehicle." I imagine our numbers are similar.

From http://www.davidsuzuki.org/:
"Estimates of the number of preventable premature deaths, mainly among
senior citizens, caused annually by air pollution in Canada range from
5,900 to 16,000. The most recent study by the federal government
estimated 5,900 premature deaths annually in eight major cities.

“In a country that cherishes its health care system, we offer weaker
protection from air pollution than the U.S., Australia, or the European
Union,” says David Boyd, report author and Trudeau Scholar"

D: both the old and the young suffer. Pollution is linked to asthma in kids, BTW.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419

"A 1994 report on the adverse effects of particulate air pollution, published in the Annual Reviews of Public Health, noted a 1 percent increase in total mortality for each 10 mg/m³ increase in particulate matter. Respiratory mortality increased 3.4 percent and cardiovascular mortality increased 1.4 percent. More recent research suggests that one possible link between acute exposure to particulate matter and sudden death may be related to sudden increases in heart rate or changes in heart rate variability.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared that "tens of thousands of people die each year from breathing tiny particles in the environment.""

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/ebuic-febnc/index-eng.php

"In 1995 preventable injuries cost Canadians $8.7 billion or $300 for every citizen. Falls accounted for $3.6 billion or more than 40 per cent of the total amount. Motor vehicle crashes cost almost $1.7 billion or 20 per cent of the $8.7 billion."

"

Preventing motor vehicle crashes

Wearing seat belts and installing air bags can reduce motor vehicle injuries by 61 per cent. Drinking and driving is responsible for about 40 per cent of all fatal motor vehicle crashes. It is estimated that mortality can be reduced by 20 per cent through a reduction in drunk driving. Reducing speed limits by 10 km an hour could lead to a 15 per cent decrease in mortality, with the number of deaths lowered and severity of injury reduced.

With a 10 per cent reduction in crashes caused by poor road design and maintenance, and based on the assumption that 20 per cent of those injured end up in hospital, there would be 1,100 fewer deaths each year. By implementing a prevention strategy based on buckling up, driving sober, slowing down and looking first on the roads, there would also be 2,800 fewer hospitalizations, 19,000 fewer injuries treated outside a hospital setting and over 750 fewer injuries leading to permanent disability. The net savings to Canadians amount to over $500 million annually."

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/air/out-ext/effe/health_effects-effets_sante_e.html
"A recent study examined the economic value of reducing the health effects of air pollution by introducing cleaner vehicles and fuels in Canada. This study found that the economic value of avoiding these health effects was $24 billion over a period of 24 years, compared to a cost of $6 billion to implement the program. This methodology has been used by Health Canada and Environment Canada in a number of initiatives to examine the benefits of control measures..."

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/stats/overview/2004/menu.htm
"

There were 2,778 deaths due to motor vehicle traffic collisions in the year 2001 - a rate of 8.9 deaths per 100,000 population.^1,2 In 2000-2001 there were 24,403 hospital admissions for traffic-related injuries, corresponding to a rate of 79 hospitalizations per 100,000 population.³ Many victims are young and traffic collisions are a leading cause of premature death and long term disability.

Since Canada has one of the highest per capita vehicle ownership rates in the world, it is not surprising that vehicle occupants account for approximately three quarters of all road users killed and seriously injured each year. The remaining victims are vulnerable road users: pedestrians, motorcyclists and bicyclists.¹ When health care costs, property losses and other factors are considered, the economic cost of traffic collisions to Canadians is as high as $25 billion annually."

D: pretty staggering, huh?

Note there are 2 separate themes here. One is the heavy use of motor vehicles, the other is the pollution they emit from their combustion engines.

Of course, plugging a hybrid into a wall for electricity still produces combustion if that power source is a coal plant!

I have not even touched upon wear and tear of road infrastructure from use.

A gallon of gasoline produces of 20 pounds of CO2. I produce 1 pound by living a day, and maybe 2 if I bike hard that day.
I produce what pollution the food required to be made. Since modern agriculture can be called the science of turning oil and land into food, this is quite a lot still.
For example, a typical North American diet requires as much petroleum to produce as a typical commuter car uses in a year.
However, if I consume a bit more food per day cycling, these equations still greatly favour me.

In summary, society foots the majority of the bill that vehicle drivers incur.
If these costs were factored into gasoline prices at the pump, imagine how much it would be!
Please note that owning a car that is left in the garage does not emit combustion pollutants. Such a car still made pollution simply by being made, though.

In case you didn't guess, I am all for making vehicle drivers pay the actual cost to society of operating their motor vehicles.
Cars are not cost effective.