9 ms·

So much of what is beautiful about cars is the ability to choose one that fits your needs, desires, and lifestyle. Whether you are commuting 40 miles each way

by zaroth 6y ago

So much of what is beautiful about cars is the ability to choose one that fits your needs, desires, and lifestyle. Whether you are commuting 40 miles each way to work, hauling large loads for work everyday, bringing your ATV to the trail, or your trash to the dump. Being able to hit the road in your own private vehicle is a great joy of life, and an essential liberty in America. So much so it’s quintessential of the “American Dream”. Some people look at these things, and then decide they personally don’t like them, and only see a massive opportunity to regulate or tax them out of existence. Or they see the negative first order effects (e.g. traffic fatalities or pollution) and don’t consider both the first order benefits, nor the second-order costs of eliminating the thing itself. I doubt I’ll convince anyone, but at least here is my alternative thinking on this. It is extremely important to reduce traffic fatalities, and reduce pollution per mile. Likewise it is also extremely important to allow people to choose their preferred modes and means of transportation. It is merely a lack of creativity to pit these two goals against each other. We are on the cusp of a clean energy and clean vehicle revolution, as well as what will arguably be one of the greatest technological accomplishments of humanity; a self driving car. Dreams of regulating away SUVs or the right of private car ownership are over. Preferences will not be shaped by excessive gasoline taxes much longer. And passenger vehicles will only continue to become safer and cleaner from here on out. Ultimately the war against private passenger transport will be lost to the Robotaxi. The marginal cost per mile will be lower than public transit, so they will be left to compete on point-to-point speed, safety, and convenience. And by safety I mostly am referring to safe from crime and safe from viruses, not collisions which will be exceedingly rare. Some cities might have a public transport system that can compete, but most will not.

tshaddox 6y ago
Another way of looking at it is that no matter how beautifully you describe American car culture or how much you romanticize it, it has immense externalities. The externalities don’t depend on how much people enjoy using cars however they please.
kennywinker 6y ago
> It is merely a lack of creativity to pit these two goals against each other. Exactly. Lightweight, low-speed electric vehicles still allow you to hit the open road, haul a load of trash to the dump, or commute in from the burbs. There is nothing about that freedom that is dependent on being able to go from 0-60 in a specific time, or having a specific top speed.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Kennywinker, you’ve posted about a dozen times in this thread, you clearly feel strongly about it. But no, you can’t haul your trash, or your ATV in that thing. You certainly can’t fit a rear-facing child seat in the back with a passenger in front. It’s a glorified golf cart. It’s illegal to sell in the US for good reason. You probably couldn’t even take it on the highway because it wouldn’t be safe at the minimum required speed. Actual subcompact cars (that are relatively much bigger than this one) have been discontinued in the US because people generally won’t buy them. People don’t generally choose a car primarily based on its acceleration, although it’s a factor. Decent acceleration can be a safety feature aside from being quite pleasant. And I would guess that most people have no clue what their car’s top speed is, let alone approach it. (Well, unless it’s the golf cart in question, then I supposed it’s highly relevant). I was hesitant to reply from the onset because it seems to me that you’re making a caricature out of any opposing viewpoint and domineering the discussion.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    Hello! Yes, it's something I've thought about quite a bit over the past ~10 years. > But no, you can’t haul your trash, or your ATV in that thing. When I moved apartments last year, I did the move using an electric cargo trike. You don't need a large vehicle to move a lot of stuff. Smaller vehicles like the one in the article would necessitate cargo trailers for larger hauling tasks. But that's an easily solvable problem with a local community trailer-share. > You certainly can’t fit a rear-facing child seat in the back with a passenger in front. You're right, of course you can't. I was not ever suggesting this ONE vehicle would solve everyone's problem. I was, however, suggesting that vehicles LIKE this could. I.e. a small, low speed, lightweight electric minivan. Or a micro-pickup truck, if you were a regular ATV-er > You probably couldn’t even take it on the highway because it wouldn’t be safe at the minimum required speed. That's a matter of convention, not a natural law of the road. I'm suggesting that we transition away from fast + big + crush whatever we hit, as the optimization for cars - and instead optimize for small + light + low speed non-fatal collisions. > you’re making a caricature out of any opposing viewpoint and domineering the discussion. It is not my intent to caricature or domineer. I see a lot of people in this thread defending the status quo in a similar way to the way you are - I'm just trying to share that there are some simple ways we could dramatically rethink the core premises we've all taken for granted - ways that might end up creating a safer + greener world.
Dumblydorr 6y ago
I believe in the right tool for the job. Getting people and goods from A to B is a job that's done incredibly inefficiently and unsafely. Our society would be cleaner, quieter, and safer if we right-sized our vehicles.
- zaroth 6y ago
  The market is widely regarded as the best way to find exactly these solutions (right tool for the job). Your thesis is that people are throwing away on the order of $30-$50k every 8 years or so, in order to do something inefficiently and unsafely. If that were true, these golf cart vehicles would sell like mad. As it is, “subcompacts” have failed to sell in the US. I posit that there is very significant utility in larger vehicles that your personal experience is simply failing to account for. Humbly consider that for millions of Americans they decide to spend their hard earned money on a large vehicle because in fact it provides massive utility to them and their family. Besides, our transportation system is a modern marvel, and the safest way to achieve mobility per mile ever in human history. So to call it incredibly inefficient and unsafe is not merely hyperbolic it’s just untrue. I suspect we can and will continue to make transportation safer per mile into the future. I see no evidence whatsoever that miniaturizing vehicles is the way to do that, certainly not without outlawing or somehow segregating the bigger ones, which is neither practical nor economically or socially viable.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    > The market is widely regarded as the best way to find exactly these solutions There is no such thing as "the market". There are innumerable markets on Earth. Some do a good job at accounting for externalities, while some do a terrible job of it. No market is perfect! >for millions of Americans they decide to spend their hard earned money on a large vehicle because in fact it provides massive utility to them and their family Nobody is disputing that large cars are useful for people who drive them. The claim is that the utility they provide to the driver is massively offset by unaccounted for negative externalities. Road wear, brake dust, and fuel consumption is all higher with heavier vehicles. If those costs were paid by the drivers and owners of heavy vehicles, those people would be more likely to purchase smaller and lighter vehicles. >somehow segregating the bigger ones Why is that not practical? Why should passenger vehicles drive on the same roads that are constantly torn up by heavy trucks? I imagine most people would be pleased to drive on smooth roads with less air pollution.
lexusgx 6y ago
These are good points, but we have to remember that the car industry is backed by a powerful lobby that makes car ownership particularly convenient. I argue that it's _too_ convenient at the current point in time. The problem that makes vehicles incompatible with other modes of transportation (mostly cycling, but increasingly walking) is that cars are increasingly made "safer" at a social cost -- namely, visibility of pedestrians/cyclists and vehicle mass (and therefore momentum). Cars are much heavier today than before, and they have worse visibility of the road than before. This is to make the driver safer, and it comes at the cost of the safety of non-car drivers around. Cyclists and pedestrians have (almost) no voice when it comes to regulation of automotive safety. There isn't even a notion of "whole community safety" when automotive safety is discussed. The only thing that seems to matter is whether the driver is protected, and this has created a safety imbalance. In the rare moments that something is done, we focus mostly on driving speed. I think we can do more. We should be asking ourselves: Is there an engineering solution to ensure that foot traffic, bike traffic, and car traffic can peacefully coexist to move people around as effectively and harmlessly (environment, other people, etc) as possible?
- judge2020 6y ago
  Cyclists and pedestrians do have a voice, but only in places where they exist and account for a sizable amount of the population. Why suburban and rural living is so popular has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, but it's the fact of the matter, so: cities that are extremely spread out will end up predominantly car-dependent, while cities with extremely dense populations like large metros will end up accommodating for their pedestrians and cyclists in road design.
  - QuesnayJr 6y ago
    I used to live in Texas, which should be perfect for biking (it's very flat), but the reality is that it's too dangerous. The serious bikers would travel in packs for safety.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Cyclists and pedestrians don't account for a sizeable amount of the population in places where there is no infrastructure for them. Build cities designed for them and they will magically appear.
QuesnayJr 6y ago
It's literally the case that urban living is what's regulated out of existence, and it's suburban and rural living that gets subsidized in a (very successful) scheme by politicians to buy votes. But the political realities are what they are, so voters will continue to demand those subsidies while pretending they are the ones that are being regulated.

by zaroth 6y ago

tshaddox 6y ago

Another way of looking at it is that no matter how beautifully you describe American car culture or how much you romanticize it, it has immense externalities. The externalities don’t depend on how much people enjoy using cars however they please.

kennywinker 6y ago

> It is merely a lack of creativity to pit these two goals against each other. Exactly. Lightweight, low-speed electric vehicles still allow you to hit the open road, haul a load of trash to the dump, or commute in from the burbs. There is nothing about that freedom that is dependent on being able to go from 0-60 in a specific time, or having a specific top speed.

zaroth 6y ago
Kennywinker, you’ve posted about a dozen times in this thread, you clearly feel strongly about it. But no, you can’t haul your trash, or your ATV in that thing. You certainly can’t fit a rear-facing child seat in the back with a passenger in front. It’s a glorified golf cart. It’s illegal to sell in the US for good reason. You probably couldn’t even take it on the highway because it wouldn’t be safe at the minimum required speed. Actual subcompact cars (that are relatively much bigger than this one) have been discontinued in the US because people generally won’t buy them. People don’t generally choose a car primarily based on its acceleration, although it’s a factor. Decent acceleration can be a safety feature aside from being quite pleasant. And I would guess that most people have no clue what their car’s top speed is, let alone approach it. (Well, unless it’s the golf cart in question, then I supposed it’s highly relevant). I was hesitant to reply from the onset because it seems to me that you’re making a caricature out of any opposing viewpoint and domineering the discussion.
- kennywinker 6y ago
  Hello! Yes, it's something I've thought about quite a bit over the past ~10 years. > But no, you can’t haul your trash, or your ATV in that thing. When I moved apartments last year, I did the move using an electric cargo trike. You don't need a large vehicle to move a lot of stuff. Smaller vehicles like the one in the article would necessitate cargo trailers for larger hauling tasks. But that's an easily solvable problem with a local community trailer-share. > You certainly can’t fit a rear-facing child seat in the back with a passenger in front. You're right, of course you can't. I was not ever suggesting this ONE vehicle would solve everyone's problem. I was, however, suggesting that vehicles LIKE this could. I.e. a small, low speed, lightweight electric minivan. Or a micro-pickup truck, if you were a regular ATV-er > You probably couldn’t even take it on the highway because it wouldn’t be safe at the minimum required speed. That's a matter of convention, not a natural law of the road. I'm suggesting that we transition away from fast + big + crush whatever we hit, as the optimization for cars - and instead optimize for small + light + low speed non-fatal collisions. > you’re making a caricature out of any opposing viewpoint and domineering the discussion. It is not my intent to caricature or domineer. I see a lot of people in this thread defending the status quo in a similar way to the way you are - I'm just trying to share that there are some simple ways we could dramatically rethink the core premises we've all taken for granted - ways that might end up creating a safer + greener world.

Dumblydorr 6y ago

I believe in the right tool for the job. Getting people and goods from A to B is a job that's done incredibly inefficiently and unsafely. Our society would be cleaner, quieter, and safer if we right-sized our vehicles.

zaroth 6y ago
The market is widely regarded as the best way to find exactly these solutions (right tool for the job). Your thesis is that people are throwing away on the order of $30-$50k every 8 years or so, in order to do something inefficiently and unsafely. If that were true, these golf cart vehicles would sell like mad. As it is, “subcompacts” have failed to sell in the US. I posit that there is very significant utility in larger vehicles that your personal experience is simply failing to account for. Humbly consider that for millions of Americans they decide to spend their hard earned money on a large vehicle because in fact it provides massive utility to them and their family. Besides, our transportation system is a modern marvel, and the safest way to achieve mobility per mile ever in human history. So to call it incredibly inefficient and unsafe is not merely hyperbolic it’s just untrue. I suspect we can and will continue to make transportation safer per mile into the future. I see no evidence whatsoever that miniaturizing vehicles is the way to do that, certainly not without outlawing or somehow segregating the bigger ones, which is neither practical nor economically or socially viable.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  > The market is widely regarded as the best way to find exactly these solutions There is no such thing as "the market". There are innumerable markets on Earth. Some do a good job at accounting for externalities, while some do a terrible job of it. No market is perfect! >for millions of Americans they decide to spend their hard earned money on a large vehicle because in fact it provides massive utility to them and their family Nobody is disputing that large cars are useful for people who drive them. The claim is that the utility they provide to the driver is massively offset by unaccounted for negative externalities. Road wear, brake dust, and fuel consumption is all higher with heavier vehicles. If those costs were paid by the drivers and owners of heavy vehicles, those people would be more likely to purchase smaller and lighter vehicles. >somehow segregating the bigger ones Why is that not practical? Why should passenger vehicles drive on the same roads that are constantly torn up by heavy trucks? I imagine most people would be pleased to drive on smooth roads with less air pollution.

lexusgx 6y ago

These are good points, but we have to remember that the car industry is backed by a powerful lobby that makes car ownership particularly convenient. I argue that it's _too_ convenient at the current point in time. The problem that makes vehicles incompatible with other modes of transportation (mostly cycling, but increasingly walking) is that cars are increasingly made "safer" at a social cost -- namely, visibility of pedestrians/cyclists and vehicle mass (and therefore momentum). Cars are much heavier today than before, and they have worse visibility of the road than before. This is to make the driver safer, and it comes at the cost of the safety of non-car drivers around. Cyclists and pedestrians have (almost) no voice when it comes to regulation of automotive safety. There isn't even a notion of "whole community safety" when automotive safety is discussed. The only thing that seems to matter is whether the driver is protected, and this has created a safety imbalance. In the rare moments that something is done, we focus mostly on driving speed. I think we can do more. We should be asking ourselves: Is there an engineering solution to ensure that foot traffic, bike traffic, and car traffic can peacefully coexist to move people around as effectively and harmlessly (environment, other people, etc) as possible?

judge2020 6y ago
Cyclists and pedestrians do have a voice, but only in places where they exist and account for a sizable amount of the population. Why suburban and rural living is so popular has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, but it's the fact of the matter, so: cities that are extremely spread out will end up predominantly car-dependent, while cities with extremely dense populations like large metros will end up accommodating for their pedestrians and cyclists in road design.
- QuesnayJr 6y ago
  I used to live in Texas, which should be perfect for biking (it's very flat), but the reality is that it's too dangerous. The serious bikers would travel in packs for safety.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Cyclists and pedestrians don't account for a sizeable amount of the population in places where there is no infrastructure for them. Build cities designed for them and they will magically appear.

QuesnayJr 6y ago

It's literally the case that urban living is what's regulated out of existence, and it's suburban and rural living that gets subsidized in a (very successful) scheme by politicians to buy votes. But the political realities are what they are, so voters will continue to demand those subsidies while pretending they are the ones that are being regulated.