3 ms·

I've thought long and hard about the automobile and it's allure. As much as I hate the inefficiencies, I still believe that for a vast majority of humans, the a

I've thought long and hard about the automobile and it's allure. As much as I hate the inefficiencies, I still believe that for a vast majority of humans, the automobile is their private abode, that takes them to places. We are explorers by heart and ever since the invention of the wheel, we have coveted vehicles. They are our private sanctuaries that propel us from one location to another. No other mode of transport, be it a bus, train or god forbid a plane, provides this level of comfort. We covet our automobiles so dearly that we have decided to ignore the perils of air pollution and traffic stress on our own health. If this is not a testament of our love for the automobile then I don't know what is. That being said, it's quite clear that the automobile in it's current form is highly space inefficient. The 4 wheeled structure has not undergone any change since the dawn of chariots. I think a change is coming, not sure when, perhaps with the advent of flying cars from Sebastian Thrun.

simongray 7y ago
> I still believe that for a vast majority of humans, the automobile is their private abode, that takes them to places. We are explorers by heart and ever since the invention of the wheel, we have coveted vehicles. They are our private sanctuaries that propel us from one location to another. No other mode of transport, be it a bus, train or god forbid a plane, provides this level of comfort. I think this is a cultural artefact of a car-centric society. Cars are not really viewed in this way in my culture (Denmark). They're just another mode of transportation, nothing special about them compared to bicycles, busses, trains, etc. People go with what is most convenient. If you need to get some office work done remotely, then being a passenger in a train saves more time than driving a car. If you want exercise built in to your commute, bicycles are better. In an urban setting, cars are in fact seen as a hassle. They're mostly loved by people in rural areas. I don't deny that cars have their place, but the kind of exploration potential that a car offers (relatively infrequent, longer distances) can easily be served by rented cars. There is no reason to own a car just to go on infrequent car trips.
- bb123 7y ago
  But your comment glosses over the part about rural people though. The reason these people love them is because there is no alternative and I don't really see how we can change that. Mass transit doesn't make sense in rural areas.
  - 317070 7y ago
    But (electric) bikes do? Yeah, you will probably own a car living in a rural area, but where I was from, when you went to the city you either switched modes (car+walk/scoot) or cycled to the city. The group of people who really has no alternative is actually quite small. And over here, there is a small but growing opinion that those people maybe should live in the city in the first place? Right now they are making city life more noisy, smelly, toxic, ugly and unsafe for the city person on his cycle, and that basically for free. Is it really a right to exchange other peoples environment for your comfort?
    - bb123 7y ago
      Totally agree cars are not the right mode of transport for cities. I'm a big fan of park and ride solutions for this - drive to the outskirts, dump the car and ride the train/bus in. I don't think it is really fair however to ask people who live in rural areas to move to cities. In general rural areas are more deprived so I would hazard a guess that many of them couldn't afford to live in the city even if they wanted to. Plus we do need people in rural areas - agriculture and tourism are both important industries.
    - garretraziel 7y ago
      > And over here, there is a small but growing opinion that those people maybe should live in the city in the first place? I live in central Europe and there is actually quite opposite debate: people are moving to cities in large quantities, so rural areas are becoming emptier and poorer every day. Not everyone can and should live in a big city.
  - simongray 7y ago
    > But your comment glosses over the part about rural people though. The reason these people love them is because there is no alternative and I don't really see how we can change that. Mass transit doesn't make sense in rural areas. I didn't gloss over it, it just wasn't relevant to the point I was making. The topic is banning cars in cities, not banning them in general. Anyway, I don't see a reason to force rural people to not use a car. There's plenty of space out in the country, so let them have their cars. Obviously, we need to transition all cars away from combustion engines in the near future, but that is a separate issue.
avar 7y ago
Helicopters, hovercrafts and yachts also have this appeal. Nobody's saying cars will go away, just that the entirety of human infrastructure might not be constructed around them.
- glogla 7y ago
  > Helicopters, hovercrafts and yachts also have this appeal. Nobody's saying cars will go away, just that the entirety of human infrastructure might not be constructed around them. That's crazy overstatement. Railways are not built for cars. Water pipes are not built for cars. Airports are not built for cars. Power plants and transformers and power lines are not built for cars. Dams are not built for cars. Ports are not built for cars. Houses are not built for cars.
  - avar 7y ago
    That's obviously not the point being made, but it's funny how you've still managed to name things that in the West are at least built around the needs of cars in most cases. How many dams have helipads? Not many, how many can be driven over? That railway bridge? Sized to allow car traffic underneath. Many airports have about as much car parking (or more) as runways measured by footprint, same for many power plants. Houses either have a garage or can't be legally built without parking in many jurisdictions, how many of those require helipads?
kiliantics 7y ago
> We covet our automobiles so dearly that we have decided to ignore the perils of air pollution and traffic stress on our own health. This is not how we got here. The reason most cities are built around cars is because of a long and successful campaign by special interest groups to remake cities (human living in general, even) around the automobile. I never chose for things to be this way because of how much I like cars (I don't). Almost no one was ever given a real choice for things to be this way. It just happened because it was profitable and because corrupt governments did not force external costs to be paid for by those making the profits.

simongray 7y ago

> I still believe that for a vast majority of humans, the automobile is their private abode, that takes them to places. We are explorers by heart and ever since the invention of the wheel, we have coveted vehicles. They are our private sanctuaries that propel us from one location to another. No other mode of transport, be it a bus, train or god forbid a plane, provides this level of comfort. I think this is a cultural artefact of a car-centric society. Cars are not really viewed in this way in my culture (Denmark). They're just another mode of transportation, nothing special about them compared to bicycles, busses, trains, etc. People go with what is most convenient. If you need to get some office work done remotely, then being a passenger in a train saves more time than driving a car. If you want exercise built in to your commute, bicycles are better. In an urban setting, cars are in fact seen as a hassle. They're mostly loved by people in rural areas. I don't deny that cars have their place, but the kind of exploration potential that a car offers (relatively infrequent, longer distances) can easily be served by rented cars. There is no reason to own a car just to go on infrequent car trips.

bb123 7y ago
But your comment glosses over the part about rural people though. The reason these people love them is because there is no alternative and I don't really see how we can change that. Mass transit doesn't make sense in rural areas.
- 317070 7y ago
  But (electric) bikes do? Yeah, you will probably own a car living in a rural area, but where I was from, when you went to the city you either switched modes (car+walk/scoot) or cycled to the city. The group of people who really has no alternative is actually quite small. And over here, there is a small but growing opinion that those people maybe should live in the city in the first place? Right now they are making city life more noisy, smelly, toxic, ugly and unsafe for the city person on his cycle, and that basically for free. Is it really a right to exchange other peoples environment for your comfort?
  - bb123 7y ago
    Totally agree cars are not the right mode of transport for cities. I'm a big fan of park and ride solutions for this - drive to the outskirts, dump the car and ride the train/bus in. I don't think it is really fair however to ask people who live in rural areas to move to cities. In general rural areas are more deprived so I would hazard a guess that many of them couldn't afford to live in the city even if they wanted to. Plus we do need people in rural areas - agriculture and tourism are both important industries.
  - garretraziel 7y ago
    > And over here, there is a small but growing opinion that those people maybe should live in the city in the first place? I live in central Europe and there is actually quite opposite debate: people are moving to cities in large quantities, so rural areas are becoming emptier and poorer every day. Not everyone can and should live in a big city.
- simongray 7y ago
  > But your comment glosses over the part about rural people though. The reason these people love them is because there is no alternative and I don't really see how we can change that. Mass transit doesn't make sense in rural areas. I didn't gloss over it, it just wasn't relevant to the point I was making. The topic is banning cars in cities, not banning them in general. Anyway, I don't see a reason to force rural people to not use a car. There's plenty of space out in the country, so let them have their cars. Obviously, we need to transition all cars away from combustion engines in the near future, but that is a separate issue.

avar 7y ago

Helicopters, hovercrafts and yachts also have this appeal. Nobody's saying cars will go away, just that the entirety of human infrastructure might not be constructed around them.

glogla 7y ago
> Helicopters, hovercrafts and yachts also have this appeal. Nobody's saying cars will go away, just that the entirety of human infrastructure might not be constructed around them. That's crazy overstatement. Railways are not built for cars. Water pipes are not built for cars. Airports are not built for cars. Power plants and transformers and power lines are not built for cars. Dams are not built for cars. Ports are not built for cars. Houses are not built for cars.
- avar 7y ago
  That's obviously not the point being made, but it's funny how you've still managed to name things that in the West are at least built around the needs of cars in most cases. How many dams have helipads? Not many, how many can be driven over? That railway bridge? Sized to allow car traffic underneath. Many airports have about as much car parking (or more) as runways measured by footprint, same for many power plants. Houses either have a garage or can't be legally built without parking in many jurisdictions, how many of those require helipads?

kiliantics 7y ago

> We covet our automobiles so dearly that we have decided to ignore the perils of air pollution and traffic stress on our own health. This is not how we got here. The reason most cities are built around cars is because of a long and successful campaign by special interest groups to remake cities (human living in general, even) around the automobile. I never chose for things to be this way because of how much I like cars (I don't). Almost no one was ever given a real choice for things to be this way. It just happened because it was profitable and because corrupt governments did not force external costs to be paid for by those making the profits.