7 ms·

Can we try to get through one thread on HN without frothing at the mouth about how much we hate cars? Message received, you happen to be in a situation where yo

by chc 9y ago

Can we try to get through one thread on HN without frothing at the mouth about how much we hate cars? Message received, you happen to be in a situation where you don't need a car — I am genuinely happy for you, as well as envious. But it is not necessary or helpful for someone to bang on about it in every single thread that has anything to do with building stuff. It doesn't help anything, and it just annoys people who don't have your good fortune and feel like you're agitating to take away something they need.

CodeCube 9y ago
If people don't bang on about it, nothing will ever change ... seriously, everyone will simply move on and build the next urban sprawl center, and the next shitty road, out to the next desolate subdivision because that's what's easy. No one wants to be agitated. Well, too bad, we _should_ be agitated. Those without the good fortune _should_ raise hell to the city planners, and attend city council meetings, and vote in local elections. btw, I live in a place that definitely is an urban sprawl, and is in danger of getting worse as more and more people move here (Orlando, FL). So, I'm in the same place as it sounds like you are ... and I wish _more_ people would bang on
- gozur88 9y ago
  >If people don't bang on about it, nothing will ever change ... It's not going to change anyway. The car haters on HN are in the minority of Americans.
  - L_Rahman 9y ago
    It's already changing in statistically significant ways: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-decline-of-the-drivers-license/425169/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-d...
    - gozur88 9y ago
      >It turns out that Millennial behavior during the recession—living in the basement rather than driving to work, and biking and sharing rides elsewhere—did not reflect a preferred lifestyle so much as an accommodation to the longest recession and slowest recovery in modern U.S. history. >By year-end 2016 road travel had hit an all-time high, north of 3.2 trillion vehicle-miles. Gasoline demand has followed apace, also hitting new highs. So much for peak driving. http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/05/29/millennial_behavior_is_about_to_make_fools_of_peak_energy_demand_theorists_110227.html http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/05/29/millennia...
      - to3m 9y ago
        That's an interesting article. It didn't gel with my experience of people's motivations for buying cars in the UK, so I had a skim anyway, because what the fuck do I know about America (answer: I went there on holiday once), and ended up clicking on the link about how millenials prefer SUVs: http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/ and finding a list of the top 10 used cars that millenials buy. Now look at that list of used cars. No, seriously. Just look. Then come back here, because I want your upvote. Now here's s 3 of them to refresh your memory. 3 out of 10. That's 30%. Nearly a third. 3. Subaru WRX — 26.4% share 5. Volkswagen R32 — 25.7% share 7. Nissan GT-R — 25.4% share What the fuck is this. These are not normal people cars. Practicality? Is that what millenials like? That's what the article claims! But judging by this list, all I can say is: my arse. The R32 has a fucking V6. In a hatchback. Are we mocking millenials here? Because if so, let me join the queue. If you want practical, you can find something better. Or are we mocking the article? Well, am I allowed to join two queues? Because count me in if so! These are not practical cars. Or are we mocking the theory that millenials are buying cars. Well, let me join that queue as well, and frankly I don't care if that's not permitted. Because if the VW R32 is the 5th most popular car sold to millenials, and the 3rd is the Subaru WRX, and the 7th is the Nissan GT-R, then I'll bet that your average ordinary normal millenial is probably not, on average, buying a car. Because these are stupid cars that car people buy. They are not cars that average ordinary normal people go for. Also: check carsalesbase.com! Total USA sales for WRX+STi were around 100,000 since 2010. The market for second hand examples is probably not very large. The Nissan GT-R? Never sold more than 2,000 per year. There's, like, less than 20,000 in the entire country. And that's the 7th most popular second hand car buy for millenials. The explanation of course may just be that the snake people are buying a huge amount of Dodge Magna and Chrysler Pacificas. That would make sense - these two cars do indeed look relatively practical. Or maybe that they're buying a lot of new cars, since this is a table of used car purchases. And that would make sense too, since new cars, while a bit expensive, do probably have good fuel economy, good in-car functionality (iPod, Bluetooth, etc.), and don't require much in the way of upkeep. But as evidence that millenials are buying a lot of SUVs, I do dare to claim that this is bullshit. (And if you call me out on that, then I will downgrade that to merely saying that it does not follow from the evidence provided - which, in my opinion, is the same thing.) (One of the other links - http://www.autonews.com/article/20170227/RETAIL/302279963/the-millennials-are-coming http://www.autonews.com/article/20170227/RETAIL/302279963/th... - has a section entitled "Need, not want", which fits better with what seems to me to be the general trend. And over time this will probably result in greater sales for SUVs and family-friendly cars and the like, I suppose, for obvious reasons. But I still suspect there's something of a change here, and that people will be purchasing what 15-20 years ago might have been an aspirational-type vehicle with a minivan-/estate-type mindset. Which, of course, just as how you today think nothing of having the equivalent of a 1980s Cray supercomputer in your pocket, running off battery power, is evidence of progress.)
  - serhei 9y ago
    I suspect that part of the reason cities like San Francisco, New York, and Vancouver are so ludicrously expensive in North America are because there are far more people that hate cars than there are cities which are amenable to their preferences. So, if a minority, then a very under-served one. Those cities are going to stay expensive unless the supply of walkable cities increases.
    - Decade 9y ago
      I don’t think so. Besides my weird urbanist friends, and very poor people, I don’t know anybody who doesn’t at least want to have a car.
    - malyk 9y ago
      434,000 people ride Bart everyday in the Bay Area. But 270,000 cars still cross the Bay bridge every day and another 112,000 cross the golden gate. And obviously there's everyone driving up/down the peninsula. I generally agree though, but to think that SF in particular is anti-car isn't exactly true. Much better than the rest of the country, but not as public transit friendly as it could/should be.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      It's difficult to disentangle high priced housing from the availability of high paying jobs. Some of those people are in NYC or SF because that's the only way they're going to make $300k. I would hate every minute of living in either of those cities, but I still might do it for a few years for the cash.
- mason240 9y ago
  I can't wait for electric SDCs. They will be the final nail in the coffin of anti-folks.
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    What?
    - shaggerty 9y ago
      I think he means electric single driver cars.
      - kbaker 9y ago
        Electric Self-Driving Cars maybe.
    - mason240 9y ago
      Electric self driving cars.
- chc 9y ago
  If you have some good ideas about how to solve the problem of transportation in America, absolutely go talk to the relevant authorities. Heck, you might even start a startup around it, because this is a problem that many cities have poured money into with little success. What is not useful is going into vaguely related threads on Hacker News and posting extended analogies between cars and abusive boyfriends. Seriously, look at this entire sprawling "I like cars"/"I don't like cars" subthread that has derailed discussion of the actual article and tell me: Has it brought America one iota closer to a solution?
  - __jal 9y ago
    > has derailed discussion of the actual article Unlike complaining about what people choose to talk about, which has a long track record of success.
wutbrodo 9y ago
You know that this is a post about _infrastructure_, right? How does it not occur to you that talking about the culture around cars (and its effect on politics/policy) might perhaps be relevant?
brookside 9y ago
Society is not moving away from a car-based infrastructure. The majority of people have no issues with a car-based society. MORE people need to be making a stink. If this annoys you...sorry not sorry.
- chc 9y ago
  Everyone on the planet could weep in unison about the continued existence of cars and it wouldn't improve a thing. If this is a problem you sincerely want to solve, create real-world solutions, not angry Internet rants.
  - seanp2k2 9y ago
    How do we convince home owners in Cupertino, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Atherton, etc that BART down the peninsula won't "bring inner city crime" to their perfect neighborhood? We've already lost that battle; Berryessa BART opens in the next year or so and it runs down east bay, so SJ <-> SF will still be faster driving except during rush hours. Caltrain is an option but neither run 24.7 either. Coming from a rust belt state with a private bus service that frequently didn't show up at all, I understand that we're in a much better public transit situation than the majority of America, which is really sad, but I place a lot of the blame on NIMBYs, mortgage interest tax deduction (a form of welfare that almost no one receiving it argues against), and how home ownership here basically makes or breaks you (if you rent and don't benefit from the credit rating (renting doesn't count toward your credit history or score)): https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenceyun/2015/10/14/how-do-homeowners-accumulate-wealth/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenceyun/2015/10/14/how-do-h...
EdSharkey 9y ago
I cock an eyebrow at the car haters too, especially these days. We're on the cusp of autonomous self-driving cars! A transport revolution, lives saved, traffic optimized, pollution reduced, etc, etc. Why all the drip-drip-drip poison words about cars? Does GP and our numerous sibling commenters have a case of the premature sour grapes? Are they wrong even after all the pot banging? Consider cars today: polluting, wasteful in time/money/energy/lives, loud, dangerous killers ... transformed into cars tomorrow: a nimble, safe, convenient, "zero-carbon" (battery-powered), direct and fast conveyance! The old arguments evaporate in a cloud of red smoke! We who are so blessed to own (or hire) cars can all feel GREAT about avoiding the urban density, travel villages, inconvenient bus routes, foul smelling light rail cars with their stabby/gropey fellow passengers, etc! Soon, we'll travel in comfort, productive and safe in our cars, as we merrily scoot from our far-flung, clean, beautiful, sprawling suburbs to our glittering commute destinations on the other side of the map forever! Smiles everywhere you look! The above is all just theory. I mean, who knows what is really behind peoples' complaints these days.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  The old arguments evaporate in a cloud of red smoke Only if you exclude traffic congestion as a problem. Self-driving cars can help with some optimization (i.e. closer following distance on freeways, less traffic disruption due to erratic drivers), but they aren't going solve the overriding problem of too much traffic in the city. San Francisco is already experiencing extra congestion from the precursor to self-driving cars, car sharing [1] And wide-spread use of self driving cars may make congestion even worse. Instead of the office worker driving to work and parking in the garage all day long, his car will drop him off, then will go drive around and look for someone else to pick up (or will seek cheap parking outside of the city center), so that's an extra car on the road. And anyone that's tried to drive past a school in the morning or afternoon knows that traffic is going to be a nightmare during commute hours when every office building is surrounded by cars that are dropping off/picking up the 1000+ workers in each building. Not to mention that your "zero-carbon" (battery-powered)" cars don't exist, even if powered by solar cells (that were created by non-carbon fuel sources), the processes that go into mining materials and manufacturing a car still emit tons of CO2 and we are a long way away from making all manufacturing carbon neutral. Single occpancy cars are just not very efficient at moving people. A single train can carry 2000+ passengers and deliver them every few minutes. In comparison, car freeway lane carries around 1000 cars/hour.
Johnny555 9y ago
Many people don't just "happen" to be in a situation where they don't need a car, they actively put themselves in that situation by making many lifestyle choices. I changed jobs (twice) to move closer to home. I used to have a job with a 45 - 60 minute car commute (the train was over 2 hours due to the need to make 2 connections), then took a job that was only about 10 miles away (just under an hour by bike, 12 - 30 minutes by car depending on traffic). I took a bit of a pay cut for that job, but it was worth it for saving about an hour/day commuting. Then I moved to a job that was 2 miles away (10 minutes by bike or by car). My job also happens to be close to shops, restaurants, etc -- everything I need for daily living. And I get around 1.5 hours/day of my life back compared to when I had the original, longer commute. But I didn't just "happen" to end up living where I don't need a car, I actively sought it out.
- refurb 9y ago
  Sounds like you have the luxury of picking and choosing your jobs. Most American's don't.
  - Johnny555 9y ago
    Slavery has been illegal for over 150 years. Many people say that they don't have the option to change jobs, yet when they get laid off or the factory where they work shuts down, they find a way to survive even if they have to make sacrifices to do so.
    - lawpoop 9y ago
      There has to be a name for this-- Godwin's corollary , or something. FWIW, people living in poor rural areas, the rust belt, Reservations, etc. are surviving, true, but doing so in conditions that aren't quite first-world.
      - Johnny555 9y ago
        You mean the kind of people that can't afford a car, yet are stuck in decaying suburbia that can't afford to keep up infrastructure and where it's hard to provide social services to a far-flung population? People for whom the American dream of a car for everyone has left them stuck in one place when they can't afford that car. People that need an expensive car because it's the only way to get to their far-flung job, or get groceries, or go a doctor's appointment? Where even if there's a bus, it only runs a few times a day and may require long transfers to go across town. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs-and-the-new-american-poverty/384259/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs... https://www.wired.com/2016/07/cash-strapped-towns-un-paving-roads-cant-afford-fix/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/cash-strapped-towns-un-paving-...
karmelapple 9y ago
Just to be clear, I do not live in a situation where I do not need a car. I am unsure why you think that. Advocating for something means thinking it's a good idea. That's all. I have a car and driving it can be fun, but saving many lives and accidents would be even better.

by chc 9y ago

CodeCube 9y ago

If people don't bang on about it, nothing will ever change ... seriously, everyone will simply move on and build the next urban sprawl center, and the next shitty road, out to the next desolate subdivision because that's what's easy. No one wants to be agitated. Well, too bad, we _should_ be agitated. Those without the good fortune _should_ raise hell to the city planners, and attend city council meetings, and vote in local elections. btw, I live in a place that definitely is an urban sprawl, and is in danger of getting worse as more and more people move here (Orlando, FL). So, I'm in the same place as it sounds like you are ... and I wish _more_ people would bang on

gozur88 9y ago
>If people don't bang on about it, nothing will ever change ... It's not going to change anyway. The car haters on HN are in the minority of Americans.
- L_Rahman 9y ago
  It's already changing in statistically significant ways: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-decline-of-the-drivers-license/425169/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-d...
  - gozur88 9y ago
    >It turns out that Millennial behavior during the recession—living in the basement rather than driving to work, and biking and sharing rides elsewhere—did not reflect a preferred lifestyle so much as an accommodation to the longest recession and slowest recovery in modern U.S. history. >By year-end 2016 road travel had hit an all-time high, north of 3.2 trillion vehicle-miles. Gasoline demand has followed apace, also hitting new highs. So much for peak driving. http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/05/29/millennial_behavior_is_about_to_make_fools_of_peak_energy_demand_theorists_110227.html http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/05/29/millennia...
    - to3m 9y ago
      That's an interesting article. It didn't gel with my experience of people's motivations for buying cars in the UK, so I had a skim anyway, because what the fuck do I know about America (answer: I went there on holiday once), and ended up clicking on the link about how millenials prefer SUVs: http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/ and finding a list of the top 10 used cars that millenials buy. Now look at that list of used cars. No, seriously. Just look. Then come back here, because I want your upvote. Now here's s 3 of them to refresh your memory. 3 out of 10. That's 30%. Nearly a third. 3. Subaru WRX — 26.4% share 5. Volkswagen R32 — 25.7% share 7. Nissan GT-R — 25.4% share What the fuck is this. These are not normal people cars. Practicality? Is that what millenials like? That's what the article claims! But judging by this list, all I can say is: my arse. The R32 has a fucking V6. In a hatchback. Are we mocking millenials here? Because if so, let me join the queue. If you want practical, you can find something better. Or are we mocking the article? Well, am I allowed to join two queues? Because count me in if so! These are not practical cars. Or are we mocking the theory that millenials are buying cars. Well, let me join that queue as well, and frankly I don't care if that's not permitted. Because if the VW R32 is the 5th most popular car sold to millenials, and the 3rd is the Subaru WRX, and the 7th is the Nissan GT-R, then I'll bet that your average ordinary normal millenial is probably not, on average, buying a car. Because these are stupid cars that car people buy. They are not cars that average ordinary normal people go for. Also: check carsalesbase.com! Total USA sales for WRX+STi were around 100,000 since 2010. The market for second hand examples is probably not very large. The Nissan GT-R? Never sold more than 2,000 per year. There's, like, less than 20,000 in the entire country. And that's the 7th most popular second hand car buy for millenials. The explanation of course may just be that the snake people are buying a huge amount of Dodge Magna and Chrysler Pacificas. That would make sense - these two cars do indeed look relatively practical. Or maybe that they're buying a lot of new cars, since this is a table of used car purchases. And that would make sense too, since new cars, while a bit expensive, do probably have good fuel economy, good in-car functionality (iPod, Bluetooth, etc.), and don't require much in the way of upkeep. But as evidence that millenials are buying a lot of SUVs, I do dare to claim that this is bullshit. (And if you call me out on that, then I will downgrade that to merely saying that it does not follow from the evidence provided - which, in my opinion, is the same thing.) (One of the other links - http://www.autonews.com/article/20170227/RETAIL/302279963/the-millennials-are-coming http://www.autonews.com/article/20170227/RETAIL/302279963/th... - has a section entitled "Need, not want", which fits better with what seems to me to be the general trend. And over time this will probably result in greater sales for SUVs and family-friendly cars and the like, I suppose, for obvious reasons. But I still suspect there's something of a change here, and that people will be purchasing what 15-20 years ago might have been an aspirational-type vehicle with a minivan-/estate-type mindset. Which, of course, just as how you today think nothing of having the equivalent of a 1980s Cray supercomputer in your pocket, running off battery power, is evidence of progress.)
- serhei 9y ago
  I suspect that part of the reason cities like San Francisco, New York, and Vancouver are so ludicrously expensive in North America are because there are far more people that hate cars than there are cities which are amenable to their preferences. So, if a minority, then a very under-served one. Those cities are going to stay expensive unless the supply of walkable cities increases.
  - Decade 9y ago
    I don’t think so. Besides my weird urbanist friends, and very poor people, I don’t know anybody who doesn’t at least want to have a car.
  - malyk 9y ago
    434,000 people ride Bart everyday in the Bay Area. But 270,000 cars still cross the Bay bridge every day and another 112,000 cross the golden gate. And obviously there's everyone driving up/down the peninsula. I generally agree though, but to think that SF in particular is anti-car isn't exactly true. Much better than the rest of the country, but not as public transit friendly as it could/should be.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    It's difficult to disentangle high priced housing from the availability of high paying jobs. Some of those people are in NYC or SF because that's the only way they're going to make $300k. I would hate every minute of living in either of those cities, but I still might do it for a few years for the cash.
mason240 9y ago
I can't wait for electric SDCs. They will be the final nail in the coffin of anti-folks.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  What?
  - shaggerty 9y ago
    I think he means electric single driver cars.
    - kbaker 9y ago
      Electric Self-Driving Cars maybe.
  - mason240 9y ago
    Electric self driving cars.
chc 9y ago
If you have some good ideas about how to solve the problem of transportation in America, absolutely go talk to the relevant authorities. Heck, you might even start a startup around it, because this is a problem that many cities have poured money into with little success. What is not useful is going into vaguely related threads on Hacker News and posting extended analogies between cars and abusive boyfriends. Seriously, look at this entire sprawling "I like cars"/"I don't like cars" subthread that has derailed discussion of the actual article and tell me: Has it brought America one iota closer to a solution?
- __jal 9y ago
  > has derailed discussion of the actual article Unlike complaining about what people choose to talk about, which has a long track record of success.

wutbrodo 9y ago

You know that this is a post about _infrastructure_, right? How does it not occur to you that talking about the culture around cars (and its effect on politics/policy) might perhaps be relevant?

brookside 9y ago

Society is not moving away from a car-based infrastructure. The majority of people have no issues with a car-based society. MORE people need to be making a stink. If this annoys you...sorry not sorry.

chc 9y ago
Everyone on the planet could weep in unison about the continued existence of cars and it wouldn't improve a thing. If this is a problem you sincerely want to solve, create real-world solutions, not angry Internet rants.
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  How do we convince home owners in Cupertino, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Atherton, etc that BART down the peninsula won't "bring inner city crime" to their perfect neighborhood? We've already lost that battle; Berryessa BART opens in the next year or so and it runs down east bay, so SJ <-> SF will still be faster driving except during rush hours. Caltrain is an option but neither run 24.7 either. Coming from a rust belt state with a private bus service that frequently didn't show up at all, I understand that we're in a much better public transit situation than the majority of America, which is really sad, but I place a lot of the blame on NIMBYs, mortgage interest tax deduction (a form of welfare that almost no one receiving it argues against), and how home ownership here basically makes or breaks you (if you rent and don't benefit from the credit rating (renting doesn't count toward your credit history or score)): https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenceyun/2015/10/14/how-do-homeowners-accumulate-wealth/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenceyun/2015/10/14/how-do-h...

EdSharkey 9y ago

I cock an eyebrow at the car haters too, especially these days. We're on the cusp of autonomous self-driving cars! A transport revolution, lives saved, traffic optimized, pollution reduced, etc, etc. Why all the drip-drip-drip poison words about cars? Does GP and our numerous sibling commenters have a case of the premature sour grapes? Are they wrong even after all the pot banging? Consider cars today: polluting, wasteful in time/money/energy/lives, loud, dangerous killers ... transformed into cars tomorrow: a nimble, safe, convenient, "zero-carbon" (battery-powered), direct and fast conveyance! The old arguments evaporate in a cloud of red smoke! We who are so blessed to own (or hire) cars can all feel GREAT about avoiding the urban density, travel villages, inconvenient bus routes, foul smelling light rail cars with their stabby/gropey fellow passengers, etc! Soon, we'll travel in comfort, productive and safe in our cars, as we merrily scoot from our far-flung, clean, beautiful, sprawling suburbs to our glittering commute destinations on the other side of the map forever! Smiles everywhere you look! The above is all just theory. I mean, who knows what is really behind peoples' complaints these days.

Johnny555 9y ago
The old arguments evaporate in a cloud of red smoke Only if you exclude traffic congestion as a problem. Self-driving cars can help with some optimization (i.e. closer following distance on freeways, less traffic disruption due to erratic drivers), but they aren't going solve the overriding problem of too much traffic in the city. San Francisco is already experiencing extra congestion from the precursor to self-driving cars, car sharing [1] And wide-spread use of self driving cars may make congestion even worse. Instead of the office worker driving to work and parking in the garage all day long, his car will drop him off, then will go drive around and look for someone else to pick up (or will seek cheap parking outside of the city center), so that's an extra car on the road. And anyone that's tried to drive past a school in the morning or afternoon knows that traffic is going to be a nightmare during commute hours when every office building is surrounded by cars that are dropping off/picking up the 1000+ workers in each building. Not to mention that your "zero-carbon" (battery-powered)" cars don't exist, even if powered by solar cells (that were created by non-carbon fuel sources), the processes that go into mining materials and manufacturing a car still emit tons of CO2 and we are a long way away from making all manufacturing carbon neutral. Single occpancy cars are just not very efficient at moving people. A single train can carry 2000+ passengers and deliver them every few minutes. In comparison, car freeway lane carries around 1000 cars/hour.

Johnny555 9y ago

Many people don't just "happen" to be in a situation where they don't need a car, they actively put themselves in that situation by making many lifestyle choices. I changed jobs (twice) to move closer to home. I used to have a job with a 45 - 60 minute car commute (the train was over 2 hours due to the need to make 2 connections), then took a job that was only about 10 miles away (just under an hour by bike, 12 - 30 minutes by car depending on traffic). I took a bit of a pay cut for that job, but it was worth it for saving about an hour/day commuting. Then I moved to a job that was 2 miles away (10 minutes by bike or by car). My job also happens to be close to shops, restaurants, etc -- everything I need for daily living. And I get around 1.5 hours/day of my life back compared to when I had the original, longer commute. But I didn't just "happen" to end up living where I don't need a car, I actively sought it out.

refurb 9y ago
Sounds like you have the luxury of picking and choosing your jobs. Most American's don't.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  Slavery has been illegal for over 150 years. Many people say that they don't have the option to change jobs, yet when they get laid off or the factory where they work shuts down, they find a way to survive even if they have to make sacrifices to do so.
  - lawpoop 9y ago
    There has to be a name for this-- Godwin's corollary , or something. FWIW, people living in poor rural areas, the rust belt, Reservations, etc. are surviving, true, but doing so in conditions that aren't quite first-world.
    - Johnny555 9y ago
      You mean the kind of people that can't afford a car, yet are stuck in decaying suburbia that can't afford to keep up infrastructure and where it's hard to provide social services to a far-flung population? People for whom the American dream of a car for everyone has left them stuck in one place when they can't afford that car. People that need an expensive car because it's the only way to get to their far-flung job, or get groceries, or go a doctor's appointment? Where even if there's a bus, it only runs a few times a day and may require long transfers to go across town. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs-and-the-new-american-poverty/384259/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs... https://www.wired.com/2016/07/cash-strapped-towns-un-paving-roads-cant-afford-fix/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/cash-strapped-towns-un-paving-...

karmelapple 9y ago

Just to be clear, I do not live in a situation where I do not need a car. I am unsure why you think that. Advocating for something means thinking it's a good idea. That's all. I have a car and driving it can be fun, but saving many lives and accidents would be even better.