Ode to the poem: why memorising poetry still matters for human connection

Committing poetry to memory is so much more than a rote exercise.Taylor Ann Wright/UnsplashMemorising poetry was once common in classrooms. But it has, for the most part, gone out of style. There are ...

Veronica Alfano, Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University - avatar Veronica Alfano, Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

From Donald Glover to Phoebe Waller-Bridge: what exactly does a showrunner do?

Donald Glover is the showrunner on Atlanta, 'perhaps the most curious credit in the history of the small screen'. imdb/FX NetworksWhat do J.J. Abrams, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Shonda Rhimes, David Lynch...

Darren Paul Fisher, Head of Directing, Department of Film, Screen and Creative Media, Bond University - avatar Darren Paul Fisher, Head of Directing, Department of Film, Screen and Creative Media, Bond University

Surge in pre-poll numbers at 2019 federal election changes the relationship between voters and parties

Another issue is that pre-polling gives an advantage to the major parties over the smaller ones, due to the latter having fewer resources.AAP/Bianca de MarchiOn the morning of the last Monday in April...

Stephen Mills, Hon Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney - avatar Stephen Mills, Hon Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

How many people have eating disorders? We don't really know, and that's a worry

Eating disorders disproportionately affect females and young people.From shutterstock.comLast week, federal health minister Greg Hunt announced that more than 60,000 Australians will be asked about th...

Laura Hart, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne - avatar Laura Hart, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne

Scott Morrison tells public servants: keep in mind the 'bacon and eggs' principle

Morrison describes the “the bacon and eggs principle" where "the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed".AAP/Shutterstock/The ConversationScott Morrison has a sharp lecture for bureaucrat...

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra - avatar Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Frydenberg outlines financial sector reform timetable

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has issued a timetable for the government’s dealing with the recommendations from the royal commission into banking, superannuation and financial services, which aims t...

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra - avatar Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

For the first time in centuries, we're setting up a generation to be worse off than the one before it

The avocado latte is indeed a thing, but young Australians are spending less on luxuries than they used to, while older Australians are spending more. ShutterstockEach new generation of Australians si...

Kate Griffiths, Senior Associate, Grattan Institute - avatar Kate Griffiths, Senior Associate, Grattan Institute

Frydenberg outlines financial sector reform timetable

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has issued a timetable for the government’s dealing with the recommendations from the royal commission into banking, superannuation and financial services, which aims t...

The Conversation - avatar The Conversation

For the first time in centuries, we're setting up a generation to be worse off than the one before it

The avocado latte is indeed a thing, but young Australians are spending less on luxuries than they used to, while older Australians are spending more. ShutterstockEach new generation of Australians si...

The Conversation - avatar The Conversation

Before Trump eyed Greenland: Here’s what happened last time the US bought a large chunk of the Arctic

Most of Greenland is covered by Arctic ice. AP Photo/John McConnicoEditor’s note: Reports that President Donald Trump has urged aides to look into buying Greenland make us think of the last time...

William L. Iggiagruk Hensley, Visiting Distinguished Professor, University of Alaska Anchorage - avatar William L. Iggiagruk Hensley, Visiting Distinguished Professor, University of Alaska Anchorage

VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the Pacific Islands Forum wash-up, media freedom and the public service

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tuvalu.AAP/Mick TsikasMichelle Grattan talks to University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor and President Professor Deep Sa...

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra - avatar Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Pacific Island nations will no longer stand for Australia's inaction on climate change

The Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Tuvalu this week has ended in open division over climate change. Australia ensured its official communique watered down commitments to respond to climate change, g...

Michael O'Keefe, Head of Department, Politics and Philosophy, La Trobe University - avatar Michael O'Keefe, Head of Department, Politics and Philosophy, La Trobe University

Glamorising violent offenders with 'true crime' shows and podcasts needs to stop

Even in death, the voice of Carl Williams is louder than that of his victims. Intimate prison letters written by the convicted murderer and drug trafficker to his ex-wife, Roberta – herself arre...

Xanthe Mallett, Forensic Criminologist, University of Newcastle - avatar Xanthe Mallett, Forensic Criminologist, University of Newcastle

Case in Victoria could set new legal precedent for stealthing, or removing condom during sex

A surgeon has been committed to stand trial next year in a case involving stealthing, believed to be the first of its kind in Australia.ShutterstockIn September 2018, a prominent Melbourne surgeon an...

Brianna Chesser, Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Justice, RMIT University - avatar Brianna Chesser, Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Justice, RMIT University

Driverless cars – autonomous vehicles – are coming. The topic is a constant presence in media; The New York Times Magazine recently devoted most of an issue to it.

The technological imperative is strong: if we have the technology, we have to use it. The economic imperative is even stronger. Many industries see big dollar signs. Governments want to be somewhat cautious, but they don’t want to be left behind.

The sales pitches are becoming clear: driverless cars will free drivers to do other things; driverless cars will reduce congestion because they can travel closer together; driverless cars will create massive economic opportunities.

We are also told driverless cars will be much safer, because human error causes more than 90% of crashes.

Understanding how cars affect our health

Human-operated cars affect health in three main ways, all negatively. How might driverless cars be healthier?

First, car crashes killed around 1.25 million people worldwide, 1,200 of whom were Australian, in 2015. The claims that driverless cars will kill fewer people are credible, but unproven.

Safety improvements will depend on the technology in the cars, which is currently being developed and tested. Safety also depends on how the surrounding environments are engineered or re-engineered to keep people and things from darting in front of driverless cars.

Second, cars kill people by creating pollution. Cars with internal combustion engines produce gases and particulates, which cause lung disease. Motor vehicles are also one of the biggest sources of carbon dioxide worldwide, which causes climate change.

The polluting effects of electric cars depend on how the electricity they use is generated. Thus, the pollution-related benefits of driverless cars depend on the mix of petroleum-powered versus electric-powered vehicles.

This mix is difficult to predict and likely to differ by country. The pollution effects of driverless cars will also depend on whether they travel more or fewer total kilometres than today’s cars.

Third, cars kill people because we sit while we drive, reducing healthier modes of transport like walking, cycling, or even taking public transport. Public transport is a healthy mode of travel because people generally have to walk or cycle to, from and between stops and stations.

Little physical activity and too much sitting independently contributes to the chronic diseases that kill most people in the world. Those diseases are usually heart diseases, strokes, multiple cancers, and diabetes.

Driverless cars will do nothing to reduce the effects of cars on chronic diseases unless they are introduced in a way that reduces the time people spend sitting in cars.

Further reading: Why transport projects aren’t as good for your health as they could be

More than 90% of the negative health impacts of cars result from the effects on physical activity, sitting, and chronic disease.

For example, modelling found that if 10% of motorised transport in Melbourne was shifted to walking or cycling, improvements in disability-adjusted life-years for every 100,000 people (an indicator of quantity and quality of life) would be -34 (worse) for road trauma (mainly because cyclists might not be protected from cars), +2 for lung diseases, and +708 for the combination of heart diseases and type 2 diabetes.

Models for five other cities (Boston, Copenhagen, Delhi, London and Sao Paulo) supported the same conclusion.

Virtually all of the health impacts of cars are due to increasing risks for very common chronic diseases. Therefore it will not matter if people are sitting in driverless or people-driven cars.

One of the implications of these findings is that the people planning for driverless cars should explicitly consider the health consequences of driverless cars. Injuries from crashes and air pollution are routinely considered in transportation planning, but impacts on physical activity and chronic diseases are not.

Further reading: How do we restore the public’s faith in transport planning?

Transportation planning goals and methods need to incorporate chronic disease impacts generally, but especially when planning a major disruption like accommodating driverless cars. Ideally, public health professionals will be at the table as questions are asked and decisions are made.

image Mina92/Shutterstock What will the ‘car 2.0’ era look like? It is completely unclear what a world with driverless cars will look like. The driverless future depends mainly on who is making decisions about driverless cars, and the outcomes are likely to vary across countries. Most of the discussion so far has been about the technology’s ability to keep driverless cars from running into each other and people on the streets. Automobile companies, including both legacy (like Ford and Mercedes-Benz) and new entrants (like Tesla and Amazon) will certainly be speaking up, with an eye to maximising their profits and speeding up the transition. But who will be responsible for looking out for the public good? The biggest health impacts are likely to be based on how cities are changed to accommodate driverless cars. It is clear that designing cities to be optimal for “car 1.0” has been a long-term disaster for health and environmental sustainability. Roads designed to meet transportation goals of moving as many cars as fast as possible are dangerous and unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. Suburban-style developments are based on the assumption that people will drive everywhere they go. But building low-density housing, the separation of residences from jobs and shops, and disconnected street networks enforce automobile dependency. Urban design and land use policies that create these environments have become common worldwide and have been shown to have numerous physical (chronic diseases), mental (stress), and social (isolation) health problems. People are just starting to brainstorm how cities may change for “car 2.0”. The range in visions is enormous, with equally large implications for health. I have heard of two contrasting visions that would have very different health effects. Further reading: From Smart Cities 1.0 to 2.0: it’s not (only) about the tech One vision is that people will continue to own private cars, but they will be driverless. The cars drive the owner to work, then they either go park themselves nearby or go back home and wait in the garage until the end of the workday. This would be a dream for car companies, because everyone would keep buying cars, and they would wear out faster because the cars might make two work roundtrips per day instead of one. This scenario would make traffic worse and would provide essentially no health benefits compared to car 1.0. A second vision assumes that driverless cars would be considered as part of a broader concept of urban mobility that focuses on moving people instead of cars. The emphasis would be on active modes, with greatly improved access to public transport and corporate-owned shared driverless cars used as supplements to the other (healthier) modes. There would be fewer cars, which would be in use most of the time, so the need for parking would be dramatically reduced. Think about what could be done with the huge amounts of land now used for parking. Sidewalks could be widened, protected bicycle paths could be added to many streets, and linear parks could be created. Parking lots and garages could be redeveloped into much more profitable people-oriented uses, revitalising cities and opening land for affordable housing. Cities would benefit from an increased tax base, allowing them to expand public transport. People would benefit by avoiding the huge costs of owning a car. image Vectorfusionarts/Shutterstock Which future will we choose? The transition to driverless cars is an opportunity to create more walkable/bikeable/sustainable/liveable cities that provide a multitude of benefits for residents, businesses and governments. However, we could waste the opportunity so that car 2.0 merely continues the mistakes and negative health and environmental consequences that car 1.0 has been delivering for the past century. Further reading: We must plan the driverless city to avoid being hostage to the technology revolution The critical difference lies in who is making the decisions and what the criteria for success are. Public health professionals should be among the decision-makers, because the consequences are too important to leave to engineers and corporate leaders. The main criteria should deal with how to use driverless car technology to make people’s lives better and make our cities healthier, more liveable, and more sustainable – not to maximise profits.

Read more http://theconversation.com/driverless-cars-could-be-better-or-worse-for-our-health-its-up-to-us-87242