8 ms·

dear Tesla. I live in a city.

by codecamper 6y ago

allendoerfer 6y ago
Inside a (properly designed) city you should not need (to own) a car at all.
- lazyjones 6y ago
  Perhaps not everything in life is about need. I presume what you actually wanted to say is: you don't want other people in cities to own cars.
  - Tepix 6y ago
    Owning a car in a city is dumb. For some cities.
    - lazyjones 6y ago
      Why? For which cities? I live in the historic city center of a large European city and own a car. It's very comfortable, safe (especially during pandemics) and useful (for transporting things) and it's almost essential for me because I pick up the kids from their mother almost every weekend and that's a 40 Km drive one way, which takes about 3 times as long with public transport (and would force me to bring them back earlier, make it a real hassle to visit any sort of outdoor activity with them etc.). I have yet to see anyone argue their condescending views about owning cars in cities with actual arguments, all I typically get is veiled hate for car owners from young, childless egoists who want more space for themselves. But let's hear why you think it's dumb!
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
        63.2% of Parisians don't have a car. I'm one of them: I ride my bike (or a velib) and only use public transport when traveling to the suburbs and in the countryside (with children, too). I rarely drive, a handful of days every year at most (for some holidays, and to move out around once in a decade). You say "It's very comfortable, safe and useful" but that just your POV. Your car is definitely not comfortable to the vast majority of Parisians, nor safe or useful (you do realize you contribute to all the traffic, noise and fumes?). >childless egoists who want more space for themselves How much space does your car take? Do you realize they are countless families who simply walk, bike and take public transport and who don't really count because no one care about them since they're silent, take no space at all, and don't need car subsidies to support big auto? Things are getting better nowadays, precisely because we're starting to focus on the comfort and safety of the many (not the few).
        lazyjones 6y ago
        > Your car is definitely not comfortable to the vast majority of Parisians, nor safe or useful (you do realize you contribute to all the traffic, noise and fumes?). Alright, other people might have issues with it, but why is it "dumb"? And my car makes almost no noise and emits absolutely no fumes. I have issues with noisy people, that doesn't mean it's dumb to be noisy. > How much space does your car take? Do you realize they are countless families who simply walk, bike and take public transport and who don't really count because no one care about them since they're silent, take no space at all, and don't need car subsidies to support big auto? I have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Yes, my car is big. Other people have big apartments, big gardens or are simply obese. The question here was: why is it "dumb"?
        rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
        Because cars in dense cities have far more disadvantages than benefits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city#Effects Cars are dumb for the many, not for you personally at this very moment. We can easily build carfree cities (by improving bike infrastructure and public transport), what is dumb is focusing on short-term benefits for one's personal comfort/safety. I don't know one resident of a car-free city who regret the transition. Would you?
        lazyjones 6y ago
        > Because cars in dense cities have far more disadvantages than benefits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city#Effects In the imagination of some people perhaps. Since I have the choice to use or not use a car every single day, I know the advantages and disadvantages very well. > I don't know one resident of a car-free city who regret the transition. Would you? I don't know any car-free cities except tiny ones on tourist-heavy islands. And yes, I would move to some other city.
      - allendoerfer 6y ago
        I am one of those young, childless egoists and would argue, that most people do not need to own a car in cities. Renting from time to time when I actually need one works great for me. There are edge-cases and people living 40km away from their children, who are too young to use public transport, might be one of them. I am not saying it should not be allowed to own a car. There will always be edge cases, but if we optimize our rules a bit, many of the great reasons to own a car might go away. Often it is the other way round and people commute into the city to their workplace. I think we can quite easily work towards fixing this one. I do have an argument, though: Your CO2 footprint is unsustainably big, even with an EV car, and your children have to face the consequences. Climate aside, it is also ironic, that young children are the ones benefitting the most from carless environments, which is kind of the reason why young families often move out the the suburbs.
        lazyjones 6y ago
        > but if we optimize our rules a bit, many of the great reasons to own a car might go away. The reasons are mostly unaffected by your adjusted "rules" (read: prohibitions). It won't get any less convenient and time-saving because you make it more expensive. You can never replace my saved time with anything worthwhile. Especially when I don't believe in the "greater good", whatever it is for you today (apparently the CO2 footprint). > Your CO2 footprint is unsustainably big, even with an EV car, and your children have to face the consequences. No, it's not. And first and foremost I am responsible for spending as much time as possible with my children and to keep them safe. Sorry if it feels inconvenient and scary for you, but it's not a priority for me. > it is also ironic, that young children are the ones benefitting the most from carless environments, which is kind of the reason why young families often move out the the suburbs. Perhaps you don't know much about young families. Most leave to the suburbs because there are too many people in the cities (= high cost of living and housing). And you know what's essential in the suburbs? Yes, cars.
        allendoerfer 6y ago
        > Especially when I don't believe in the "greater good", whatever it is for you today (apparently the CO2 footprint). Ah, there it is. I get, why you are asking "for whom?" all the time. Talking about the planet here, based on scientific facts. If you don't believe in them, it's hard to argue. > I am responsible for spending as much time as possible with my children But leaving a better world behind for your children is not something you are responsible for? Since you are calling me all kind of things, I will start doing the same: I personally think, you have constructed yourself a reality where you are doing the right thing. From somebody citing a big word like responsibility, I would expect also thinking about the world he is leaving behind for his children. But it works for you this way, so you are doing it this way. That's okay, you are human. I do the same in a different area of life. I just want you to be taxed for it (or lets start with not being subsidized for it), so less people do it in that way. It is not my problem, that you are living 40km away from your children. If you wanted to use a rocket or a tank to drive to them, you could not do that either. I am btw. not saying that your lifestyle is the worst and I can also see that this is something that happened somehow and you did not plan it like this. It might be something that will always stay there. I just think it is not optimal. I think commuting to work by car (which many, many people are doing) is a way worse problem and also easier to improve.
  - allendoerfer 6y ago
    This is a thread about EVs and how a particular feature (range) that is worse than ICU cars is improving over time, which everyone wants, because we need cleaner cars for the environemnt. Nobody in here is taking the position of saying: Who cares? Just use ICU cars forever, there is no problem at all. So I am argueing a specific point about cities. Because EV cars might be better, but are still objectively bad compared to public transport. So no, it's not about what I want, it's about the underliying point of the whole thread: What I (or really we/our children) need other people to do.
    - lazyjones 6y ago
      > but are still objectively bad compared to public transport For whom? Certainly not for the owner. > So no, it's not about what I want, it's about the underliying point of the whole thread: What I (or really we/our children) need other people to do. You don't even have children. So you confirmed my interpretation: it's what you want from other people, not as you initially claimed what they need.
      - allendoerfer 6y ago
        You are refusing to accept, that I am talking within the context of this thread. There are some premises here, which I explained in detail and take for granted in further sentences I am writing. I refuse to define everything to first principle in every sentence, because your only goal seems to be to go one step further up and suddenly you are right. In that sense, you or anyone does not need to do anything at all, because you don't even have to live. But then this whole discussion becomes really pointless.
- codecamper 6y ago
  I agree, but what city is properly designed? They are most often designed for cars. In Europe they were designed for walking & that's a big part of why I prefer Europe. But there is no city where you need a 400 mile range to your car.

dear Tesla. I live in a city.

allendoerfer 6y ago

Inside a (properly designed) city you should not need (to own) a car at all.

lazyjones 6y ago
Perhaps not everything in life is about need. I presume what you actually wanted to say is: you don't want other people in cities to own cars.
- Tepix 6y ago
  Owning a car in a city is dumb. For some cities.
  - lazyjones 6y ago
    Why? For which cities? I live in the historic city center of a large European city and own a car. It's very comfortable, safe (especially during pandemics) and useful (for transporting things) and it's almost essential for me because I pick up the kids from their mother almost every weekend and that's a 40 Km drive one way, which takes about 3 times as long with public transport (and would force me to bring them back earlier, make it a real hassle to visit any sort of outdoor activity with them etc.). I have yet to see anyone argue their condescending views about owning cars in cities with actual arguments, all I typically get is veiled hate for car owners from young, childless egoists who want more space for themselves. But let's hear why you think it's dumb!
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
      63.2% of Parisians don't have a car. I'm one of them: I ride my bike (or a velib) and only use public transport when traveling to the suburbs and in the countryside (with children, too). I rarely drive, a handful of days every year at most (for some holidays, and to move out around once in a decade). You say "It's very comfortable, safe and useful" but that just your POV. Your car is definitely not comfortable to the vast majority of Parisians, nor safe or useful (you do realize you contribute to all the traffic, noise and fumes?). >childless egoists who want more space for themselves How much space does your car take? Do you realize they are countless families who simply walk, bike and take public transport and who don't really count because no one care about them since they're silent, take no space at all, and don't need car subsidies to support big auto? Things are getting better nowadays, precisely because we're starting to focus on the comfort and safety of the many (not the few).
      - lazyjones 6y ago
        > Your car is definitely not comfortable to the vast majority of Parisians, nor safe or useful (you do realize you contribute to all the traffic, noise and fumes?). Alright, other people might have issues with it, but why is it "dumb"? And my car makes almost no noise and emits absolutely no fumes. I have issues with noisy people, that doesn't mean it's dumb to be noisy. > How much space does your car take? Do you realize they are countless families who simply walk, bike and take public transport and who don't really count because no one care about them since they're silent, take no space at all, and don't need car subsidies to support big auto? I have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Yes, my car is big. Other people have big apartments, big gardens or are simply obese. The question here was: why is it "dumb"?
        rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
        Because cars in dense cities have far more disadvantages than benefits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city#Effects Cars are dumb for the many, not for you personally at this very moment. We can easily build carfree cities (by improving bike infrastructure and public transport), what is dumb is focusing on short-term benefits for one's personal comfort/safety. I don't know one resident of a car-free city who regret the transition. Would you?
        lazyjones 6y ago
        > Because cars in dense cities have far more disadvantages than benefits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city#Effects In the imagination of some people perhaps. Since I have the choice to use or not use a car every single day, I know the advantages and disadvantages very well. > I don't know one resident of a car-free city who regret the transition. Would you? I don't know any car-free cities except tiny ones on tourist-heavy islands. And yes, I would move to some other city.
    - allendoerfer 6y ago
      I am one of those young, childless egoists and would argue, that most people do not need to own a car in cities. Renting from time to time when I actually need one works great for me. There are edge-cases and people living 40km away from their children, who are too young to use public transport, might be one of them. I am not saying it should not be allowed to own a car. There will always be edge cases, but if we optimize our rules a bit, many of the great reasons to own a car might go away. Often it is the other way round and people commute into the city to their workplace. I think we can quite easily work towards fixing this one. I do have an argument, though: Your CO2 footprint is unsustainably big, even with an EV car, and your children have to face the consequences. Climate aside, it is also ironic, that young children are the ones benefitting the most from carless environments, which is kind of the reason why young families often move out the the suburbs.
      - lazyjones 6y ago
        > but if we optimize our rules a bit, many of the great reasons to own a car might go away. The reasons are mostly unaffected by your adjusted "rules" (read: prohibitions). It won't get any less convenient and time-saving because you make it more expensive. You can never replace my saved time with anything worthwhile. Especially when I don't believe in the "greater good", whatever it is for you today (apparently the CO2 footprint). > Your CO2 footprint is unsustainably big, even with an EV car, and your children have to face the consequences. No, it's not. And first and foremost I am responsible for spending as much time as possible with my children and to keep them safe. Sorry if it feels inconvenient and scary for you, but it's not a priority for me. > it is also ironic, that young children are the ones benefitting the most from carless environments, which is kind of the reason why young families often move out the the suburbs. Perhaps you don't know much about young families. Most leave to the suburbs because there are too many people in the cities (= high cost of living and housing). And you know what's essential in the suburbs? Yes, cars.
        allendoerfer 6y ago
        > Especially when I don't believe in the "greater good", whatever it is for you today (apparently the CO2 footprint). Ah, there it is. I get, why you are asking "for whom?" all the time. Talking about the planet here, based on scientific facts. If you don't believe in them, it's hard to argue. > I am responsible for spending as much time as possible with my children But leaving a better world behind for your children is not something you are responsible for? Since you are calling me all kind of things, I will start doing the same: I personally think, you have constructed yourself a reality where you are doing the right thing. From somebody citing a big word like responsibility, I would expect also thinking about the world he is leaving behind for his children. But it works for you this way, so you are doing it this way. That's okay, you are human. I do the same in a different area of life. I just want you to be taxed for it (or lets start with not being subsidized for it), so less people do it in that way. It is not my problem, that you are living 40km away from your children. If you wanted to use a rocket or a tank to drive to them, you could not do that either. I am btw. not saying that your lifestyle is the worst and I can also see that this is something that happened somehow and you did not plan it like this. It might be something that will always stay there. I just think it is not optimal. I think commuting to work by car (which many, many people are doing) is a way worse problem and also easier to improve.
- allendoerfer 6y ago
  This is a thread about EVs and how a particular feature (range) that is worse than ICU cars is improving over time, which everyone wants, because we need cleaner cars for the environemnt. Nobody in here is taking the position of saying: Who cares? Just use ICU cars forever, there is no problem at all. So I am argueing a specific point about cities. Because EV cars might be better, but are still objectively bad compared to public transport. So no, it's not about what I want, it's about the underliying point of the whole thread: What I (or really we/our children) need other people to do.
  - lazyjones 6y ago
    > but are still objectively bad compared to public transport For whom? Certainly not for the owner. > So no, it's not about what I want, it's about the underliying point of the whole thread: What I (or really we/our children) need other people to do. You don't even have children. So you confirmed my interpretation: it's what you want from other people, not as you initially claimed what they need.
    - allendoerfer 6y ago
      You are refusing to accept, that I am talking within the context of this thread. There are some premises here, which I explained in detail and take for granted in further sentences I am writing. I refuse to define everything to first principle in every sentence, because your only goal seems to be to go one step further up and suddenly you are right. In that sense, you or anyone does not need to do anything at all, because you don't even have to live. But then this whole discussion becomes really pointless.
codecamper 6y ago
I agree, but what city is properly designed? They are most often designed for cars. In Europe they were designed for walking & that's a big part of why I prefer Europe. But there is no city where you need a 400 mile range to your car.