4 ms·

It's just a hassle. For you the cost in time and money is worth it. For other people like myself it's just not. I know "virtue signaling" is the hot new way to

It's just a hassle. For you the cost in time and money is worth it. For other people like myself it's just not. I know "virtue signaling" is the hot new way to disagree with people on the internet but you should use it in a more discriminating manner. Getting a permit is not free in terms of time or money. Getting a license takes even MORE time (pointless outdated mandatory education classes) and MORE money (lessons). That's not even considering taking the written and driving tests themselves. Or going to the DMV. Yeah I know, all of this is super easy, look at the kind of people who drive, how hard could it be? But you know what I could be doing with my TIME and with my MONEY instead? All the things I want to do that I value more than driving. Obviously this thinking is just amplified when you take into consideration gas/insurance/maintenance. And this doesn't even get into the psychological impact of driving a car. You know what one of my favorite things in the world is? Reading a book on my 2 hour commute home on the train. My sister just recently got her license and I can honestly say (no virtue signaling I promise) that it has taken a psychological toll on her. She would admit herself that being a driver has made her a more angry and on edge person than she was before. Also it's pretty rosy speculation to suggest access to national parks has anything to do with motivation for car ownership. I think it's safe to say that can be covered almost entirely by "I need it for my job."

msrpotus 9y ago
Driving isn't easy. You can kill someone with a car if you don't know what you're doing. If anything, it should take more time and more classes/lessons to get a driver's license.
romwell 9y ago
>All the things I want to do that I value more than driving. This paints you as a very limited person if you are living in the US, because the "things that you want to do" exclude: -pretty much all the great outdoor activities and nature that the US has to offer (National/State Parks); -getting to know your own country and traveling within it -going to any place or event outside the city (for most people, shelling out $100+ on Uber each way is a barrier) I know where you're coming from, I used to live in NYC and didn't drive. I got my license when I moved to TX for grad school at the age of 24 - and I didn't even need it to get to work (I've been biking to campus for 7 years). But I did use the car for all the "rosy" things, and with that came the realization of how much I was missing out on. The thing is, you don't even know what you are missing out on. You are a person who doesn't travel, and says they don't want to. You are practically tied to your community. How often do you get beyond the 50-mile radius of your home? 100-mile radius? Now, if you were living in Europe, that wouldn't be the case. You would be able to travel without owning a car. Owning a car there has smaller marginal benefits. But you don't live in Europe. Public transportation in the US is horrible, even when you add a hefty dose of Uber/Lyft to it. It's a sad state of affairs, and I wish it weren't that way. I support public transport initiatives when I can. Choosing not to have a license is voluntarily confining oneself to a very small subset of the country. Uber won't get you to the Rockies. A rental will (so you don't need to own a car), but you still need to drive it. Yes, it's a hassle (at first; after some time, people start to enjoy it). Yes, it takes effort, time and money. But to say that you don't WANT to have the benefits it gives you in this country, one must at least somewhat be aware of what they are. Of course, to each - their own. But I got to see the total solar eclipse. And you might read how amazing it was in a book on a train one day. PS: I apologize for the somewhat-deliberately provoking tone. On a softer note, have you read "On The Road" by Jack Kerouac? If so, do you honestly say that you want none of that? If not, you're in luck, because reading it is a marvelous experience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Road This book is culturally significant; but as a side effect, it might change how you see driving.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  - nyc has a huge park right in the middle of it and many large ones like prospect and forest park in brooklyn. Upstate new york has some of the greatest hiking in the country. Any number of stops 2 hours or less north of the city will take you to breathtaking natural sights - I have been to nearly every state in the US. Amtrak and public transit. - living in a major city means most of the events are here, not in surrounding isolated areas >"You are a person who doesn't travel, and says they don't want to." Like I said I've been all over the US and I definitely never said I don't want to travel. It takes a serious lack of imagination to believe you need a license to go places. >"You are practically tied to your community." Yup all 9 million of them in their diverse splendor. BTW for the non driving curious it's very easy to do all of this touristy "I drive because I can go to national parks!!!!" stuff. While travelling around the US for 4 months (without a car) I found that almost every hostel I stayed at offered numerous daily vans for groups who wanted incursions to almost anywhere interesting in the area. Like I said many drivers don't even know these things exist because they're so tied to car culture. In my experience with travel a car is for people with specific destinations. If you're more of a "the trip is the experience" type of person, you lose a lot of local color by just shutting yourself in your own world from point A to point B. edit: in response to your edit, I think my original comment addressed your "on the road" suggestion well enough. Let me suggest one thing about your tone. If you find driving a car romantic in the vein of "On the Road" more power to you, I'm not gonna tell you what you know you understand and enjoy. But on the other hand I think you should step back for a minute and think about how much you REALLY know about public transit in the United States considering you willingly admit navigating public transit isn't really your cup of tea. Maybe rather than buying all of the "can you believe America doesn't have bullet trains!!!" hacker news echo chamber you should consider that living a perfectly fulfilling licenseless life is not just possible but actually preferable, yes, here in the "dire broken infrastructure" of the united states.
  - romwell 9y ago
    > nyc has a huge park Right, I keep forgetting that New Yorkers think that Central Park is nature. I still say it is to make my wife rage, though. >Any number of stops 2 hours or less north of the city will take you to breathtaking natural sights Two hours north will take you to a dismal lack of public transportation. Again, how often do you explore these natural sights? >I think you should step back for a minute and think about how much you REALLY know about public transit I've lived in NYC for 2 years, then in Suffolk County for 5 years, and then in a Texas college town for a year without a car, relying on cycling and public transportation. I've also spent a summer in Seattle riding its buses, and can say that that system really works. But when I say that there's not practical public transportation in this country, I do mean it, and not for a lack of trying. NYC has it, Seattle has it, most cities do not. And even in NYC, not having a car meant that I would rarely visit anyone in Queens when I was living in Brooklyn. Here in South Bay Area, it takes 2+ hours to get to SFO or OAK by public transit vs. 45 minutes by car; this ratio is not uncommon in places where public transit exists. This is what I call by "no practical public transportation". It is certainly possible to reach places using Amtrak/Greyhound/local bus shuttles, but often it is outright unpleasant to do so, and takes way too much time. I apologize for underestimating the efforts you took to explore the country. Nevertheless, there really is a huge chunk of it that one misses unless they drive. You can say that what you can't reach is not "interesting". I say - that's where the "color" is. A lot of my most vivid memories of traveling (including talking to random people) come from places not accessible by public transport. >If you're more of a "the trip is the experience" type of person, you lose a lot of local color I heavily disagree. I'd drive to places and then walk/bike/explore - and one would miss out on this "color" because buses don't go there. Anyhow, when I was living in NYC, I was saying a lot of the same things, and it was very stressful to try to learn how to drive in NYC (I haven't). Nevertheless, given your interest in exploring, I believe that getting a driver's license will be a worthwhile investment of your time and money. Finally, regarding: >It takes a serious lack of imagination to believe you need a license to go places. So, how would I go from College Station, TX to Bastrop State Park? How about Sam Houston National Forest? Enlighten the unimaginative one, and I'll acknowledge my utter ignorance. Yes, you don't need a license to "go places", but you certainly do to go to specific places, and in general, it makes going places much more pleasant, and with far less advance planning. To make an analogy, wheelchair users are still able to "go places", but the places they can go to, and the places they will go to (and how often) are going to be affected by this mode of transportation.

msrpotus 9y ago

Driving isn't easy. You can kill someone with a car if you don't know what you're doing. If anything, it should take more time and more classes/lessons to get a driver's license.

romwell 9y ago

>All the things I want to do that I value more than driving. This paints you as a very limited person if you are living in the US, because the "things that you want to do" exclude: -pretty much all the great outdoor activities and nature that the US has to offer (National/State Parks); -getting to know your own country and traveling within it -going to any place or event outside the city (for most people, shelling out $100+ on Uber each way is a barrier) I know where you're coming from, I used to live in NYC and didn't drive. I got my license when I moved to TX for grad school at the age of 24 - and I didn't even need it to get to work (I've been biking to campus for 7 years). But I did use the car for all the "rosy" things, and with that came the realization of how much I was missing out on. The thing is, you don't even know what you are missing out on. You are a person who doesn't travel, and says they don't want to. You are practically tied to your community. How often do you get beyond the 50-mile radius of your home? 100-mile radius? Now, if you were living in Europe, that wouldn't be the case. You would be able to travel without owning a car. Owning a car there has smaller marginal benefits. But you don't live in Europe. Public transportation in the US is horrible, even when you add a hefty dose of Uber/Lyft to it. It's a sad state of affairs, and I wish it weren't that way. I support public transport initiatives when I can. Choosing not to have a license is voluntarily confining oneself to a very small subset of the country. Uber won't get you to the Rockies. A rental will (so you don't need to own a car), but you still need to drive it. Yes, it's a hassle (at first; after some time, people start to enjoy it). Yes, it takes effort, time and money. But to say that you don't WANT to have the benefits it gives you in this country, one must at least somewhat be aware of what they are. Of course, to each - their own. But I got to see the total solar eclipse. And you might read how amazing it was in a book on a train one day. PS: I apologize for the somewhat-deliberately provoking tone. On a softer note, have you read "On The Road" by Jack Kerouac? If so, do you honestly say that you want none of that? If not, you're in luck, because reading it is a marvelous experience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Road This book is culturally significant; but as a side effect, it might change how you see driving.

verylittlemeat 9y ago
- nyc has a huge park right in the middle of it and many large ones like prospect and forest park in brooklyn. Upstate new york has some of the greatest hiking in the country. Any number of stops 2 hours or less north of the city will take you to breathtaking natural sights - I have been to nearly every state in the US. Amtrak and public transit. - living in a major city means most of the events are here, not in surrounding isolated areas >"You are a person who doesn't travel, and says they don't want to." Like I said I've been all over the US and I definitely never said I don't want to travel. It takes a serious lack of imagination to believe you need a license to go places. >"You are practically tied to your community." Yup all 9 million of them in their diverse splendor. BTW for the non driving curious it's very easy to do all of this touristy "I drive because I can go to national parks!!!!" stuff. While travelling around the US for 4 months (without a car) I found that almost every hostel I stayed at offered numerous daily vans for groups who wanted incursions to almost anywhere interesting in the area. Like I said many drivers don't even know these things exist because they're so tied to car culture. In my experience with travel a car is for people with specific destinations. If you're more of a "the trip is the experience" type of person, you lose a lot of local color by just shutting yourself in your own world from point A to point B. edit: in response to your edit, I think my original comment addressed your "on the road" suggestion well enough. Let me suggest one thing about your tone. If you find driving a car romantic in the vein of "On the Road" more power to you, I'm not gonna tell you what you know you understand and enjoy. But on the other hand I think you should step back for a minute and think about how much you REALLY know about public transit in the United States considering you willingly admit navigating public transit isn't really your cup of tea. Maybe rather than buying all of the "can you believe America doesn't have bullet trains!!!" hacker news echo chamber you should consider that living a perfectly fulfilling licenseless life is not just possible but actually preferable, yes, here in the "dire broken infrastructure" of the united states.
- romwell 9y ago
  > nyc has a huge park Right, I keep forgetting that New Yorkers think that Central Park is nature. I still say it is to make my wife rage, though. >Any number of stops 2 hours or less north of the city will take you to breathtaking natural sights Two hours north will take you to a dismal lack of public transportation. Again, how often do you explore these natural sights? >I think you should step back for a minute and think about how much you REALLY know about public transit I've lived in NYC for 2 years, then in Suffolk County for 5 years, and then in a Texas college town for a year without a car, relying on cycling and public transportation. I've also spent a summer in Seattle riding its buses, and can say that that system really works. But when I say that there's not practical public transportation in this country, I do mean it, and not for a lack of trying. NYC has it, Seattle has it, most cities do not. And even in NYC, not having a car meant that I would rarely visit anyone in Queens when I was living in Brooklyn. Here in South Bay Area, it takes 2+ hours to get to SFO or OAK by public transit vs. 45 minutes by car; this ratio is not uncommon in places where public transit exists. This is what I call by "no practical public transportation". It is certainly possible to reach places using Amtrak/Greyhound/local bus shuttles, but often it is outright unpleasant to do so, and takes way too much time. I apologize for underestimating the efforts you took to explore the country. Nevertheless, there really is a huge chunk of it that one misses unless they drive. You can say that what you can't reach is not "interesting". I say - that's where the "color" is. A lot of my most vivid memories of traveling (including talking to random people) come from places not accessible by public transport. >If you're more of a "the trip is the experience" type of person, you lose a lot of local color I heavily disagree. I'd drive to places and then walk/bike/explore - and one would miss out on this "color" because buses don't go there. Anyhow, when I was living in NYC, I was saying a lot of the same things, and it was very stressful to try to learn how to drive in NYC (I haven't). Nevertheless, given your interest in exploring, I believe that getting a driver's license will be a worthwhile investment of your time and money. Finally, regarding: >It takes a serious lack of imagination to believe you need a license to go places. So, how would I go from College Station, TX to Bastrop State Park? How about Sam Houston National Forest? Enlighten the unimaginative one, and I'll acknowledge my utter ignorance. Yes, you don't need a license to "go places", but you certainly do to go to specific places, and in general, it makes going places much more pleasant, and with far less advance planning. To make an analogy, wheelchair users are still able to "go places", but the places they can go to, and the places they will go to (and how often) are going to be affected by this mode of transportation.