4 ms·

Cars only represent freedom when you live in poorly designed suburbs. When you live in a dense city cars choke the streets and make travel impossible for at lea

by imgabe 7y ago

Cars only represent freedom when you live in poorly designed suburbs. When you live in a dense city cars choke the streets and make travel impossible for at least four hours a day. Cars are killing us.

pdonis 7y ago
> Cars only represent freedom when you live in poorly designed suburbs. No, cars represent freedom if you live anywhere other than a dense city. Which is most of the usable land area of the planet.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lassor_feasley 7y ago
  As someone who has lived in cities, suburbs, and rural regions, (and has studied this issue a lot) cars definitely represent dependance to me. If you grew up somewhere rural or suburban, you basically became a parasite to your parents, and were totally dependent on them for all of your transportation until 16 or 17 when you got a license & car. Even then you're probably gonna be a financial burden (and financially dependent) on your parents to purchase you a car if you are lucky. If you grew up in a city (or a Stars Hollow style small town), you likely got to claim that independence at a much younger age. As a US parent who works, you are VERY likely to spend more time on your commute than with your children if you drive. We talk about 'everyone gets a trophy' culture; what many don't realize is everyone gets a trophy because if you are responsible for driving your kid to the pitch for practice, as the parent you'll be damned if your kid isn't a winner (do kids even care about little statues?). Then, when you age, you are once again going to have to go into a phase of dependance on others for your transit much earlier than people who live in walkable communities. This is both because walkers will be healthier and remain physically able longer, and because even if they did not, they could just walk to doctors appointments, grocery stores, and other destinations necessary to their independence. All of these things are, if not unique to the American experience of the past 50 years, at least magnified here... and I have not even gotten into suburban housing policy and the financial impacts on households of car ownership and on governments of road maintenance (spoiler: its not good). I'd give Strong Towns a serious read; I think you might find that Chuck Marohn is better aligned with your worldview than you think.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > If you grew up somewhere rural or suburban, you basically became a parasite to your parents, and were totally dependent on them for all of your transportation until 16 or 17 when you got a license & car. I grew up in suburbs. I rode the bus to school and rode my bike to the swimming pool and other places I wanted to play. For a couple of years in high school before I got a license, yes, my parents had to drive me places, but it certainly wasn't for my entire childhood. > As a US parent who works, you are VERY likely to spend more time on your commute than with your children if you drive. For my commute, driving to work takes me about an hour door to door. Taking public transit takes me about an hour and a half. For people who car pool to work in my area (I don't), the disparity can be even larger because of HOV lanes and free use of express lanes on the freeway. Comparisons I've seen between public transit times and driving times often aren't door to door--they only count the actual travel time on the train or bus, not the time spent getting to the station (and parking if you don't live close enough to it to walk), and the time getting to the office after leaving the train or bus. That said, I have nothing whatever against walkable communities (in fact, at some point as I age I will probably try to move to one, for the reasons you give). The freedom cars represent to me is not so much associated with the necessary tasks of life but with the fun ones. For example, I like to drive to Shenandoah National Park to hike. No way public transit is going to get me there. My wife and I like to go to the beach every so often. No way public transit is going to get us there. And so on.
nwallin 7y ago
I think you're missing the point. Cars represent freedom the same way a semitransparent American flag flapping in the wind superimposed over a bald eagle represents freedom, not the way a library card, bus pass, and a health insurance plan that lets you see out of network providers with a low deductable represent freedom. It's a symbol, not a practical increase in your ability to do stuff without constraint. In many areas, guns are the same way. They're a symbol that represents freedom and independence to a lot of people. When we formulate arguments in our worldviews and express these arguments to people with vastly different worldviews, it's worse than saying nothing. We sound crazy, out of touch, or malicious.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  Cars are most definitely a freedom. If I own a car I can literally get up and drive anywhere I want whenever I want. If I live in the middle of nowhere and it takes the police half an hour to get to my home and I don’t own a weapon I can become victimized easily. I have a better chance of defending myself and my family if I own a firearm. If I live in a city and have never fought someone or practiced self defense I have a much higher likelihood of being victimized. I have less freedom. You don’t understand your limits to your freedom until someone is taking it from you. In that moment only you can defend it. The cops aren’t there, no one else is going to help you, it’s only you.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Cars represent freedom the same way a semitransparent American flag flapping in the wind superimposed over a bald eagle represents freedom...They're a symbol Um, what? A symbol wouldn't get me places I need to go.
- imgabe 7y ago
  No. It is a mistake to think this is a metaphor. I grew up in a rural area. Until I left for college, I couldn't go visit my friends or really do anything without my parents driving me or loaning me a car. Cars in a very literal way represented freedom. Now I live in a city and via walking and public transportation I can get to literally any other major city in the world. That's freedom.
jeromegv 7y ago
Exactly. It’s only freedom if you have the choice to drive. If there’s no alternative for driving to go pickup groceries, pickup kids from schools and go to work, are you living in freedom? Have to pay insurance, get in a car that is more likely to kill you than any sickness, pay that same car to drive it, to store it, etc. It’s funny how I felt liberated after moving next to a subway station downtown. I now have the choice between 3 mode of transport, with all their benefits. I still drive but I’m not forced to anymore, that for me is freedom.

by imgabe 7y ago

pdonis 7y ago

> Cars only represent freedom when you live in poorly designed suburbs. No, cars represent freedom if you live anywhere other than a dense city. Which is most of the usable land area of the planet.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lassor_feasley 7y ago
As someone who has lived in cities, suburbs, and rural regions, (and has studied this issue a lot) cars definitely represent dependance to me. If you grew up somewhere rural or suburban, you basically became a parasite to your parents, and were totally dependent on them for all of your transportation until 16 or 17 when you got a license & car. Even then you're probably gonna be a financial burden (and financially dependent) on your parents to purchase you a car if you are lucky. If you grew up in a city (or a Stars Hollow style small town), you likely got to claim that independence at a much younger age. As a US parent who works, you are VERY likely to spend more time on your commute than with your children if you drive. We talk about 'everyone gets a trophy' culture; what many don't realize is everyone gets a trophy because if you are responsible for driving your kid to the pitch for practice, as the parent you'll be damned if your kid isn't a winner (do kids even care about little statues?). Then, when you age, you are once again going to have to go into a phase of dependance on others for your transit much earlier than people who live in walkable communities. This is both because walkers will be healthier and remain physically able longer, and because even if they did not, they could just walk to doctors appointments, grocery stores, and other destinations necessary to their independence. All of these things are, if not unique to the American experience of the past 50 years, at least magnified here... and I have not even gotten into suburban housing policy and the financial impacts on households of car ownership and on governments of road maintenance (spoiler: its not good). I'd give Strong Towns a serious read; I think you might find that Chuck Marohn is better aligned with your worldview than you think.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > If you grew up somewhere rural or suburban, you basically became a parasite to your parents, and were totally dependent on them for all of your transportation until 16 or 17 when you got a license & car. I grew up in suburbs. I rode the bus to school and rode my bike to the swimming pool and other places I wanted to play. For a couple of years in high school before I got a license, yes, my parents had to drive me places, but it certainly wasn't for my entire childhood. > As a US parent who works, you are VERY likely to spend more time on your commute than with your children if you drive. For my commute, driving to work takes me about an hour door to door. Taking public transit takes me about an hour and a half. For people who car pool to work in my area (I don't), the disparity can be even larger because of HOV lanes and free use of express lanes on the freeway. Comparisons I've seen between public transit times and driving times often aren't door to door--they only count the actual travel time on the train or bus, not the time spent getting to the station (and parking if you don't live close enough to it to walk), and the time getting to the office after leaving the train or bus. That said, I have nothing whatever against walkable communities (in fact, at some point as I age I will probably try to move to one, for the reasons you give). The freedom cars represent to me is not so much associated with the necessary tasks of life but with the fun ones. For example, I like to drive to Shenandoah National Park to hike. No way public transit is going to get me there. My wife and I like to go to the beach every so often. No way public transit is going to get us there. And so on.

nwallin 7y ago

I think you're missing the point. Cars represent freedom the same way a semitransparent American flag flapping in the wind superimposed over a bald eagle represents freedom, not the way a library card, bus pass, and a health insurance plan that lets you see out of network providers with a low deductable represent freedom. It's a symbol, not a practical increase in your ability to do stuff without constraint. In many areas, guns are the same way. They're a symbol that represents freedom and independence to a lot of people. When we formulate arguments in our worldviews and express these arguments to people with vastly different worldviews, it's worse than saying nothing. We sound crazy, out of touch, or malicious.

almost_usual 7y ago
Cars are most definitely a freedom. If I own a car I can literally get up and drive anywhere I want whenever I want. If I live in the middle of nowhere and it takes the police half an hour to get to my home and I don’t own a weapon I can become victimized easily. I have a better chance of defending myself and my family if I own a firearm. If I live in a city and have never fought someone or practiced self defense I have a much higher likelihood of being victimized. I have less freedom. You don’t understand your limits to your freedom until someone is taking it from you. In that moment only you can defend it. The cops aren’t there, no one else is going to help you, it’s only you.
pdonis 7y ago
> Cars represent freedom the same way a semitransparent American flag flapping in the wind superimposed over a bald eagle represents freedom...They're a symbol Um, what? A symbol wouldn't get me places I need to go.
imgabe 7y ago
No. It is a mistake to think this is a metaphor. I grew up in a rural area. Until I left for college, I couldn't go visit my friends or really do anything without my parents driving me or loaning me a car. Cars in a very literal way represented freedom. Now I live in a city and via walking and public transportation I can get to literally any other major city in the world. That's freedom.

jeromegv 7y ago

Exactly. It’s only freedom if you have the choice to drive. If there’s no alternative for driving to go pickup groceries, pickup kids from schools and go to work, are you living in freedom? Have to pay insurance, get in a car that is more likely to kill you than any sickness, pay that same car to drive it, to store it, etc. It’s funny how I felt liberated after moving next to a subway station downtown. I now have the choice between 3 mode of transport, with all their benefits. I still drive but I’m not forced to anymore, that for me is freedom.