5 ms·

This article was about advertising and selling the "fun of driving" in a era that was much different than today. Your complaints have nothing to do with what th

by oblib 6y ago

This article was about advertising and selling the "fun of driving" in a era that was much different than today. Your complaints have nothing to do with what the author offered: "Many people who don't really enjoy cars are now..." "Even those who enjoy driving should not be allowed to have too much fun and take risks on public roads" You've conflated the author's story into something entirely different in order to complain about something that has nothing at all to to with what the author was sharing. You know, if you look for something to complain about everywhere you look you will always find something to complain about. That is one of the easiest things ever to do. I think you should re-read that article with the intent to learn and feel and experience what they're sharing because it's not about you, and you completely missed what it is about.

mrpopo 6y ago
I entirely understand that the article was exposing a different era, thank you. Even in this era, I would argue that selling the "fun of driving" was irresponsible, because it brought us the car infrastructure that we live in today. Who else should I complain to?
- tjr225 6y ago
  I _love_ cars. I also _love_ bicycles. I'm not saying I'm normal but perhaps I can provide some perspective. Even before I went fully remote 2 years ago I took a combination of bicycle and train to work here in Seattle where public transportation is okay at best. Before that I biked 10 miles one way to an office in Missouri after selling my car. I don't depend on cars for my lifestyle so if I do have a car I want it to be one I enjoy taking to the store or driving to the mountains or whatever. They are cool machines and driving can be fun.
- oblib 6y ago
  I don't think it's fair to equate the "fun of driving" with reckless driving. The difference between driving a little sports car with the top down and a 4door sedan or big SUV on a curvey mountain road is not all about how fast you can go. They're just a lot more fun. One of my favorite cars was a little Suzuki Samurai. It wasn't at all fast but it was a blast to drive with the top down and go 4wheeling on the National Forest roads. Consider "lowriders". Those aren't famous for being fast, they're famous for going slow, but they're a lot of fun to cruise the strip in. I think people fumbling with their phone while driving is a bigger issue right now than people speeding and racing.
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    The person you're replying to isn't talking about bad drivers, they're talking about bad infrastructure that was designed to comply with the "fun of driving" marketing narrative: unnecessarily wide roads, parking everywhere, speed limits higher than what is safe, deceptive landscaping and painting to make drivers comfortable at unsafe speeds, nonenforcement of speed limits and red lights, highly segmented zoning to artificially give people a reason to use cars that would otherwise be unnecessary, etc etc etc.
    - oblib 6y ago
      That "bad infrastructure" bit was in their response to my first comment, which I did not address at all on in my second comment. Your observations on "to artificially give people a reason to use cars" is more of the same thing because it's also not at all relevant to the linked essay. I get what you're both complaining about, but I'll again point out that you're missing the art in the story linked here and if you focus on that it's pretty good stuff.
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      What the? Speed limits where I live are lower than they should be, not higher. Painting is designed to aid drivers, and improve safety, not induce greater speed. Speed limits are enforced, for people receive tickets all the time. There is plenty of transport available where I live, to take the bus or other public transport -- or even bike, to get to where you want! All of your examples do not apply here. They're made up. I do realise that in the US, you have these weird zoned areas, instead of having supermarkets in communities and so on. But to have people get upset, and demande wider roads (for safety), to demand roads are better marked (for safety), then have someone come along 20 years later and yell "why are these roads so wide and well marked, that's unsafe" is a bit much to stomach.
      - hannasanarion 6y ago
        Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety. Trees are cut down and signs widely spaced so that drivers can go fast while feeling like they are going slow. And as a side effect, these wide roads make walking and cycling less feasible, because destinations are forced to be more distant, and the higher speeds enabled by the wide roads make walking and cycling more inherently dangerous. There is a strong relationship between lane width and pedestrian fatalities.[1] As for enforcement, you try going to a city council meeting anywhere in America, call for speed cameras on every street, and see if you can get out without eggs on your face from all the drivers who think it's their right to break the law and endanger others when cops aren't present. 1. https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Streets_Accepted_Paper_for_CITE_Conference_Regina_June_2015_ https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Stree...

by oblib 6y ago

mrpopo 6y ago

I entirely understand that the article was exposing a different era, thank you. Even in this era, I would argue that selling the "fun of driving" was irresponsible, because it brought us the car infrastructure that we live in today. Who else should I complain to?

tjr225 6y ago
I _love_ cars. I also _love_ bicycles. I'm not saying I'm normal but perhaps I can provide some perspective. Even before I went fully remote 2 years ago I took a combination of bicycle and train to work here in Seattle where public transportation is okay at best. Before that I biked 10 miles one way to an office in Missouri after selling my car. I don't depend on cars for my lifestyle so if I do have a car I want it to be one I enjoy taking to the store or driving to the mountains or whatever. They are cool machines and driving can be fun.
oblib 6y ago
I don't think it's fair to equate the "fun of driving" with reckless driving. The difference between driving a little sports car with the top down and a 4door sedan or big SUV on a curvey mountain road is not all about how fast you can go. They're just a lot more fun. One of my favorite cars was a little Suzuki Samurai. It wasn't at all fast but it was a blast to drive with the top down and go 4wheeling on the National Forest roads. Consider "lowriders". Those aren't famous for being fast, they're famous for going slow, but they're a lot of fun to cruise the strip in. I think people fumbling with their phone while driving is a bigger issue right now than people speeding and racing.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  The person you're replying to isn't talking about bad drivers, they're talking about bad infrastructure that was designed to comply with the "fun of driving" marketing narrative: unnecessarily wide roads, parking everywhere, speed limits higher than what is safe, deceptive landscaping and painting to make drivers comfortable at unsafe speeds, nonenforcement of speed limits and red lights, highly segmented zoning to artificially give people a reason to use cars that would otherwise be unnecessary, etc etc etc.
  - oblib 6y ago
    That "bad infrastructure" bit was in their response to my first comment, which I did not address at all on in my second comment. Your observations on "to artificially give people a reason to use cars" is more of the same thing because it's also not at all relevant to the linked essay. I get what you're both complaining about, but I'll again point out that you're missing the art in the story linked here and if you focus on that it's pretty good stuff.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    What the? Speed limits where I live are lower than they should be, not higher. Painting is designed to aid drivers, and improve safety, not induce greater speed. Speed limits are enforced, for people receive tickets all the time. There is plenty of transport available where I live, to take the bus or other public transport -- or even bike, to get to where you want! All of your examples do not apply here. They're made up. I do realise that in the US, you have these weird zoned areas, instead of having supermarkets in communities and so on. But to have people get upset, and demande wider roads (for safety), to demand roads are better marked (for safety), then have someone come along 20 years later and yell "why are these roads so wide and well marked, that's unsafe" is a bit much to stomach.
    - hannasanarion 6y ago
      Roads are widened and paint lines extended for driver comfort, not for safety. Trees are cut down and signs widely spaced so that drivers can go fast while feeling like they are going slow. And as a side effect, these wide roads make walking and cycling less feasible, because destinations are forced to be more distant, and the higher speeds enabled by the wide roads make walking and cycling more inherently dangerous. There is a strong relationship between lane width and pedestrian fatalities.[1] As for enforcement, you try going to a city council meeting anywhere in America, call for speed cameras on every street, and see if you can get out without eggs on your face from all the drivers who think it's their right to break the law and endanger others when cops aren't present. 1. https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Streets_Accepted_Paper_for_CITE_Conference_Regina_June_2015_ https://www.academia.edu/12488747/Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Stree...