6 ms·

Decades ago when I was in Indiana, which liked and still likes cars, I knew some people from NYC, and they hated cars, any and all cars. Ever since then, NYC h

by graycat 10y ago

Decades ago when I was in Indiana, which liked and still likes cars, I knew some people from NYC, and they hated cars, any and all cars. Ever since then, NYC has had a lot hatred for cars. NYC just doesn't like cars. And, no surprise, now the NYT from NYC doesn't like cars. I've lived in Tennessee, Indiana, Maryland, and upstate NYS, and all those places like cars, and those places have liked cars for all the decades NYC hated cars. So, the OP is from the NYT in NYC and is about hating cars. So, from the decades of history, I'm not surprised or impressed. E.g., I have a car in my garage. I own it 100%. It costs me $500 or so a year in auto insurance. Since I drive it about 5000 miles a year, there is nearly no cost for maintenance and the insurance costs me, what, about 10 cents a mile. The gasoline costs me about 17 cents a mile. So, all things considered, we're looking at ballpark 30 cents a mile. And the NYT wants me to replace my car with what? No thanks. Yes, it's easy for NYC and its NYT to believe that they have the right answers for everything for everyone on the two coasts and everywhere between. Alas, mostly NYC and the NYT are in an echo chamber and at odds with nearly everyone else in the US except for parts of a few of the largest cities and some of the West Coast. Long ago I concluded that quite broadly NYC and the NYT are out of step with nearly all the rest of the US. So, the NYT doesn't like cars -- I didn't expect anything else and am not influenced at all. Of course, there is the old screaming that humans are evil, sinners, that humans are doing terrible transgressions against kittens, puppies, flowers, the grass, the air, the water, the land, the oceans, the great natural order, etc. and that these transgressions are leading quickly to terrible retributions. Then, the claim goes that if we act quickly, we can achieve redemption. Of course, the redemption will require sacrifice. It's a trilogy -- transgression, retribution, redemption. And we can add on sacrifice. I'm not nearly the first person to think of such things! So, we hear from the NYT that cars show that humans are evil, sinful transgressors .... Gee, not nearly new. I'm having a tough time finding what the NYT is good for. Apparently so are many others since, IIRC, now the NYT is planning to shrink its staff, vacate several floors of its main building, and lease the space to others. The NYT used to have some utility: It was printed on paper which was good for starting fires, wrapping dead fish heads, and in the outhouse out back. Whatever side one was on in the election, everyone can see that the NYT was strongly on the side that lost. Since I put new batteries in my loser detector, it has been making loud noises in response to any mention of the NYT! To me, the NYT fills a much needed gap in journalism and would be illuminating if ignited and still printed on paper. I continue to pay attention to the NYT occasionally, first, to remind myself of how much I miss good journalism and, second, to have details to argue that the NYT should just go out of business.

bogomipz 10y ago
>"So, the OP is from the NYT in NYC and is about hating cars. So, from the decades of history, I'm not surprised or impressed." Except the article is using Los Angeles as an example and the train picture and two of the women they spoke to in the article were Angelinos. This is is significant because Los Angeles has traditionally been an epicenter of "car culture." Also since you seem to be implying an editorial bias against cars I will add that NYTimes has a regular automotive section of their paper, where they cover the industry and do new car reviews and quite decently at that. This article is from that automotive section. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- graycat 10y ago
  Again, the OP NYT article saying that people will be buying fewer cars is because the NYT hates cars, cars not just in NYC but also cars in, in this case, LA. The NYT and much of NYC believe that cars and gasoline are sinful and evil.
woodandsteel 10y ago
Did you read the article? I say that because it wasn't about New Yorkers hating cars, it was about auto manufacturers deciding that Americans are going to be buying a lot fewer cars in the future, and then gave Los Angeles as an example of why. If you are so much smarter than the auto manufacturers are on this matter, perhaps you should become a consultant to them and earn big bucks explaining how they are going wrong.
- graycat 10y ago
  > Did you read the article? I say that because it wasn't about New Yorkers hating cars, it was about auto manufacturers deciding that Americans are going to be buying a lot fewer cars in the future, and then gave Los Angeles as an example of why. I saw the part about buying fewer cars, etc. But flying over NYC and the NYT at 20,000 feet and also from decades of history I concluded that the NYT was eager to draw their conclusion about "fewer cars," in LA, Boston, NYC, because -- right -- the NYT hates cars and likes to fabricate silly stories to grab eyeballs. I did not address the idea that people will be buying fewer cars because that seems to me to be beyond absurd, in NYC, Boston, and especially LA, although for different reasons especially between NYC and LA. Indeed, IMHO, a significant fraction of the cars being sold now will get dumped relatively soon -- causing people to buy more cars instead of fewer -- because of the long list of electronic this and that that will fail and need maintenance -- before the shocks, suspension bushings, engine, transmission, brakes, and corrosion problems -- but where owners will discover that in the car industry good maintenance on such electronics is difficult to find and expensive. Heck, one car repair guy thought that connecting my radio antenna might give him an electric shock! E.g., one bright guy I know with experience just flatly states "Never own a BMW out of warranty." For car manufacturers looking into self driving cars, all electric cars, super small cars (pregnant roller skates), cars with solar panels on the roof, hydrogen powered cars, cars that burn corn stalks, cars with pedals for driving up hill, etc., sure, they have to stay informed. Maybe, maybe, maybe, against nearly all common sense, the NYT, etc. will talk enough people with enough money into buying goofy, far out cars, and in that case the car manufacturers want to be in position to sell such cars. No way can I believe that the big collection of goofy cars will become significant. Uh, I'm a car nut, e.g., once was made a Full Member of the SAE. To me, finding anything at all realistic about cars in the NYT is like looking for Levi's 501 blue jeans on the runway of a NYC fashion show! Or, the NYT is having fun saying that the cars they hate are on the way out. Wrong. The NYT is on the way out.

by graycat 10y ago

bogomipz 10y ago

>"So, the OP is from the NYT in NYC and is about hating cars. So, from the decades of history, I'm not surprised or impressed." Except the article is using Los Angeles as an example and the train picture and two of the women they spoke to in the article were Angelinos. This is is significant because Los Angeles has traditionally been an epicenter of "car culture." Also since you seem to be implying an editorial bias against cars I will add that NYTimes has a regular automotive section of their paper, where they cover the industry and do new car reviews and quite decently at that. This article is from that automotive section. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
graycat 10y ago
Again, the OP NYT article saying that people will be buying fewer cars is because the NYT hates cars, cars not just in NYC but also cars in, in this case, LA. The NYT and much of NYC believe that cars and gasoline are sinful and evil.

woodandsteel 10y ago

Did you read the article? I say that because it wasn't about New Yorkers hating cars, it was about auto manufacturers deciding that Americans are going to be buying a lot fewer cars in the future, and then gave Los Angeles as an example of why. If you are so much smarter than the auto manufacturers are on this matter, perhaps you should become a consultant to them and earn big bucks explaining how they are going wrong.

graycat 10y ago
> Did you read the article? I say that because it wasn't about New Yorkers hating cars, it was about auto manufacturers deciding that Americans are going to be buying a lot fewer cars in the future, and then gave Los Angeles as an example of why. I saw the part about buying fewer cars, etc. But flying over NYC and the NYT at 20,000 feet and also from decades of history I concluded that the NYT was eager to draw their conclusion about "fewer cars," in LA, Boston, NYC, because -- right -- the NYT hates cars and likes to fabricate silly stories to grab eyeballs. I did not address the idea that people will be buying fewer cars because that seems to me to be beyond absurd, in NYC, Boston, and especially LA, although for different reasons especially between NYC and LA. Indeed, IMHO, a significant fraction of the cars being sold now will get dumped relatively soon -- causing people to buy more cars instead of fewer -- because of the long list of electronic this and that that will fail and need maintenance -- before the shocks, suspension bushings, engine, transmission, brakes, and corrosion problems -- but where owners will discover that in the car industry good maintenance on such electronics is difficult to find and expensive. Heck, one car repair guy thought that connecting my radio antenna might give him an electric shock! E.g., one bright guy I know with experience just flatly states "Never own a BMW out of warranty." For car manufacturers looking into self driving cars, all electric cars, super small cars (pregnant roller skates), cars with solar panels on the roof, hydrogen powered cars, cars that burn corn stalks, cars with pedals for driving up hill, etc., sure, they have to stay informed. Maybe, maybe, maybe, against nearly all common sense, the NYT, etc. will talk enough people with enough money into buying goofy, far out cars, and in that case the car manufacturers want to be in position to sell such cars. No way can I believe that the big collection of goofy cars will become significant. Uh, I'm a car nut, e.g., once was made a Full Member of the SAE. To me, finding anything at all realistic about cars in the NYT is like looking for Levi's 501 blue jeans on the runway of a NYC fashion show! Or, the NYT is having fun saying that the cars they hate are on the way out. Wrong. The NYT is on the way out.