4 ms·

Electric cars don't solve: * kids being killed if they try to play in the street * urban centres being destroyed by parking lots * elderly people being terrifi

Electric cars don't solve: * kids being killed if they try to play in the street * urban centres being destroyed by parking lots * elderly people being terrified to cross the street * Dead cyclists etc...

toomuchtodo 8y ago
They do solve allowing those of us who want to live in rural areas to do so in an environmentally friendly way. No cities please.
- klipt 8y ago
  80% of Americans live in cities. That means if they all moved to rural areas, the population density of rural areas would go up 5X. Would they still be rural then?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - thrower123 8y ago
    That's actually a good question... There is so much land, especially west of the Mississippi, that is almost completely unpeopled that I'm not sure that distributing the people concentrated in the most dense 1000 sq miles would make a significant increase. We need a Randall Monroe What If?
    - magduf 8y ago
      Much of the land west of the Mississippi isn't arable land or livable in any way, unless you do what they did in Phoenix and pump the rivers dry. That isn't sustainable; it's an environmental disaster.
- Ma8ee 8y ago
  Then use the cars in rural areas where they have a place. They don't belong in cities, electric or not. And one of the reasons that cities are better for the environment is less need of transportation.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    But are cities better for people if you're cramming everyone into less space and want them to move about less? If research says no, we shouldn't be promoting cities, but ways of reducing environmental impact while also reducing density when zoning/land use planning. "In fact, the Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health estimates that city dwellers face a nearly 40 percent higher risk of depression, 20 percent higher chance of anxiety, and double the risk of schizophrenia than people living in rural areas."
    - Ma8ee 8y ago
      I won’t get into the completely different discussion about mental health. You don’t state where your quote comes from, but it would be interesting to know if they say anything about what exactly living in a city makes people more depressed. But your point about move about less: people living in cities actually move more. You’re much likely to walk or bicycle to shops or work when the distance is one and a half mile than when it’s ten.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Quote is directly from the linked article for this thread. I don’t want to be restricted to shopping, work, or entertainment that is walking distance or possibly public transit if I’m feeling adventurous, which is what living in a city constrains you to.
        Ma8ee 8y ago
        I guess you are joking. Or are you seriously trying to say that you have more choices because you are living in a rural area and have to take the car whenever you want to go anywhere? Just as an example, where I am sitting right now, I have more than 30 restaurants and cafés that I can reach within 5 minutes walk. If I don't mind walking a bit longer, or taking the subway a few stops, for a total traveltime of say 20 minutes, I can reach hundreds, most likely thousands, of restaurants. Shopping and entertainment are similar. And this is far from a mega-city, but a city with around a million people.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  I live in a very rural area. On three sides of my acreage are cattle. When I drive in to the city, which I do sometimes, I am imposing a cost on everyone living in that city because I chose to drive. I still do it sometimes - if I'm going to Ikea I'm not carrying my stuff home on the train - but let's not pretend it isn't a burden on others.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

toomuchtodo 8y ago

They do solve allowing those of us who want to live in rural areas to do so in an environmentally friendly way. No cities please.

klipt 8y ago
80% of Americans live in cities. That means if they all moved to rural areas, the population density of rural areas would go up 5X. Would they still be rural then?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- thrower123 8y ago
  That's actually a good question... There is so much land, especially west of the Mississippi, that is almost completely unpeopled that I'm not sure that distributing the people concentrated in the most dense 1000 sq miles would make a significant increase. We need a Randall Monroe What If?
  - magduf 8y ago
    Much of the land west of the Mississippi isn't arable land or livable in any way, unless you do what they did in Phoenix and pump the rivers dry. That isn't sustainable; it's an environmental disaster.
Ma8ee 8y ago
Then use the cars in rural areas where they have a place. They don't belong in cities, electric or not. And one of the reasons that cities are better for the environment is less need of transportation.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  But are cities better for people if you're cramming everyone into less space and want them to move about less? If research says no, we shouldn't be promoting cities, but ways of reducing environmental impact while also reducing density when zoning/land use planning. "In fact, the Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health estimates that city dwellers face a nearly 40 percent higher risk of depression, 20 percent higher chance of anxiety, and double the risk of schizophrenia than people living in rural areas."
  - Ma8ee 8y ago
    I won’t get into the completely different discussion about mental health. You don’t state where your quote comes from, but it would be interesting to know if they say anything about what exactly living in a city makes people more depressed. But your point about move about less: people living in cities actually move more. You’re much likely to walk or bicycle to shops or work when the distance is one and a half mile than when it’s ten.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Quote is directly from the linked article for this thread. I don’t want to be restricted to shopping, work, or entertainment that is walking distance or possibly public transit if I’m feeling adventurous, which is what living in a city constrains you to.
      - Ma8ee 8y ago
        I guess you are joking. Or are you seriously trying to say that you have more choices because you are living in a rural area and have to take the car whenever you want to go anywhere? Just as an example, where I am sitting right now, I have more than 30 restaurants and cafés that I can reach within 5 minutes walk. If I don't mind walking a bit longer, or taking the subway a few stops, for a total traveltime of say 20 minutes, I can reach hundreds, most likely thousands, of restaurants. Shopping and entertainment are similar. And this is far from a mega-city, but a city with around a million people.
CalRobert 8y ago
I live in a very rural area. On three sides of my acreage are cattle. When I drive in to the city, which I do sometimes, I am imposing a cost on everyone living in that city because I chose to drive. I still do it sometimes - if I'm going to Ikea I'm not carrying my stuff home on the train - but let's not pretend it isn't a burden on others.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]