4 ms·

Public transportation didn't succeed as much as it should have probably because a significant amount of people hate it. Schedules, dirty environments, people u

by deburo 6y ago

Public transportation didn't succeed as much as it should have probably because a significant amount of people hate it. Schedules, dirty environments, people uncomfortably close to each other during traffic hours, static dropoff locations. We might get there with Uber-like carpods if autonomous driving ever succeeds.

Synaesthesia 6y ago
I much prefer public transport and only use a car because its kind of necessary where I live. (South Africa) I think you'll find it interesting to learn about thow the car corporations convinced the US govt to focus on motorways instead of public transportation, which had huge implications for the way the US works.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  If what my cousin told me of driving in South Africa still holds from back when he went there to get his master's degree, I dont think I could blame anyone for being more comfortable not driving.
- matz1 6y ago
  >the car corporations convinced the US govt but US govt is the representative of what significant amount of US people want. Public transportation sucks because it doesn't take you to where you want, when you want, from where you want.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    > but US govt is the representative of what significant amount of US people want. How so? When you have a "choice" between a limited set of candidates, serious restrictions on voting rights (eg. following a conviction), and when candidates aren't bound to any form of contract (they can promise anything, do the opposite)? Also, what's even a democracy in an age of mass corporate media? I don't know about the USA, but here in France all major media are owned by billionaire sociopaths, and i can count on one hand the number of nationwide independent newspapers. Also, voter turnout for last USA presidential election was only 62% of voting age population, not accounting for minors and immigrants. That's not even close to representing anything. That's nothing like a "democracy" (power of the people). Democracy is when people make decisions for their lives. Not when they have to choose between a few power-greedy politicians to make decisions for them. > Public transportation sucks because it doesn't take you to where you want, when you want, from where you want. Only because we let governments/politicians dismantle public services to the point they're essentially useless. It is not the case everywhere, and was not always the case through history.
    - matz1 6y ago
      >How so? The government people are elected by the people. >When you have a "choice" between a limited set of candidates Choice is still a choice. If there is a limited set of candidate then they can themselves try to be the candidate (not implying that it is easy) >serious restrictions on voting rights (eg. following a conviction) Reasonable restriction >when candidates aren't bound to any form of contract (they can promise anything, do the opposite)? Democracy doesn't care about that. Its up to the people. Its still democracy even if people choose lying politician. >Also, voter turnout for last USA presidential election was only 62% People are free to make decision to vote or not vote, democracy doesn't mean people are forced to vote. >Only because we let governments/politicians dismantle public services to the point they're essentially useless. It is not the case everywhere, and was not always the case through history. Where is the case of public transportation that can take you where you want, when you want and from you want ?
      - southerntofu 6y ago
        > The government people are elected by the people. By a tiny fraction of the people, because we are presented with no alternative. Most people would rather give their own opinion than elect corporate-sponsored sociopaths. Also for perspective, given our respective country's history, "the people" voting used to be white men above a certain age, if not only landowners. > Choice is still a choice. That's not how consent works: not being able to refuse is not consent. If you're unfamiliar with this concept from other areas of human life, you can read up interpretations of GDPR consent regarding cookie banners. > they can themselves try to be the candidate (not implying that it is easy) It's more than "not easy". It's rigged. In France there's at least a semblance of equal chances: if you get a certain number of mayors to support your candidacy, your campaign is paid for by the State and all candidates have free campaign clips produced by national television (following their directives) and broadcast on most channels ; also this will cover printing fees for your ballots. Also, donations to political campaigns are only allowed from individuals (not companies) and have a limit (a few thousand euros). Also, there's strict regulations (though never respected) on airtime equality between candidates/parties for the whole duration of the campaign. Despite these better chances, the system in France is still rigged through other means and the result is terrible as well. But at least in France there's an appearance of plural opinion during the campaign. The United States doesn't even try to pretend. > Reasonable restriction I strongly disagree. Everybody breaks the law rather often (because there's so many of them) but whether you will face consequences is mostly a factor of race and class. For example, higher-classes kids doing drugs are usually not the target of police repression and therefore have no fear for their voter rights. Also, it's just one of the many factors leading to people not able to vote. See for instance voter purgers, or for when they are in fact capable to vote, gerrymandering. > democracy doesn't mean people are forced to vote. I agree. However, no matter who votes, those who refuse to vote will still be governed against their will. That's not democracy: democracy is empowering citizens to take decisions in their lives and the lives of their communities. Government is the powerful entity above that prevents people from taking decisions in their lives and the lives of their communities. > Where is the case of public transportation that can take you where you want, when you want and from you want ? Trams, buses, trains, shared bikes, shared cars. There's a bunch of those. They may be slightly less convenient in some situations compared to an individual car. However, when you take into account maintenance cost and breakage factor, you're not necessarily better off. If you're not convinced, i recommend reading Ivan Illich who does a perfect demonstration that walking is faster and more efficient (when everything is accounted for) than car transportation. Of course i'm not saying everyone should always walk. There's plenty of good reasons to use a car, if only for accessibility concerns.
southerntofu 6y ago
> We might get there with Uber-like carpods if autonomous driving ever succeeds. In theory, why not? However, this relies on car-oriented road infrastructure as it is today, which has a serious environmental price (seriously look it up), and also some social impact. So it's still a very "expensive" solution. But even given roads, it would be interesting to run a survey of ecological impact of autonomous electronic vehicles compared to conventional (gasoline) cars. I'm pretty sure an autonomous vehicle full of electronics would have a considerably more negative impact, if only because of all the gasoline needed to mine/refine all the fancy rare earths and metal you'll need for that (but there's considerably more externalities to account for). Also worth considering: here in southern France it's really not uncommon, when the bus is not too crowded, that i just ask the friendly driver to take a small detour and drop me where i need. That's the kind of thing you can envision in a civilized society, where not everyone is only thinking about their own personal duties and desires.

by deburo 6y ago

Synaesthesia 6y ago

I much prefer public transport and only use a car because its kind of necessary where I live. (South Africa) I think you'll find it interesting to learn about thow the car corporations convinced the US govt to focus on motorways instead of public transportation, which had huge implications for the way the US works.

zdragnar 6y ago
If what my cousin told me of driving in South Africa still holds from back when he went there to get his master's degree, I dont think I could blame anyone for being more comfortable not driving.
matz1 6y ago
>the car corporations convinced the US govt but US govt is the representative of what significant amount of US people want. Public transportation sucks because it doesn't take you to where you want, when you want, from where you want.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  > but US govt is the representative of what significant amount of US people want. How so? When you have a "choice" between a limited set of candidates, serious restrictions on voting rights (eg. following a conviction), and when candidates aren't bound to any form of contract (they can promise anything, do the opposite)? Also, what's even a democracy in an age of mass corporate media? I don't know about the USA, but here in France all major media are owned by billionaire sociopaths, and i can count on one hand the number of nationwide independent newspapers. Also, voter turnout for last USA presidential election was only 62% of voting age population, not accounting for minors and immigrants. That's not even close to representing anything. That's nothing like a "democracy" (power of the people). Democracy is when people make decisions for their lives. Not when they have to choose between a few power-greedy politicians to make decisions for them. > Public transportation sucks because it doesn't take you to where you want, when you want, from where you want. Only because we let governments/politicians dismantle public services to the point they're essentially useless. It is not the case everywhere, and was not always the case through history.
  - matz1 6y ago
    >How so? The government people are elected by the people. >When you have a "choice" between a limited set of candidates Choice is still a choice. If there is a limited set of candidate then they can themselves try to be the candidate (not implying that it is easy) >serious restrictions on voting rights (eg. following a conviction) Reasonable restriction >when candidates aren't bound to any form of contract (they can promise anything, do the opposite)? Democracy doesn't care about that. Its up to the people. Its still democracy even if people choose lying politician. >Also, voter turnout for last USA presidential election was only 62% People are free to make decision to vote or not vote, democracy doesn't mean people are forced to vote. >Only because we let governments/politicians dismantle public services to the point they're essentially useless. It is not the case everywhere, and was not always the case through history. Where is the case of public transportation that can take you where you want, when you want and from you want ?
    - southerntofu 6y ago
      > The government people are elected by the people. By a tiny fraction of the people, because we are presented with no alternative. Most people would rather give their own opinion than elect corporate-sponsored sociopaths. Also for perspective, given our respective country's history, "the people" voting used to be white men above a certain age, if not only landowners. > Choice is still a choice. That's not how consent works: not being able to refuse is not consent. If you're unfamiliar with this concept from other areas of human life, you can read up interpretations of GDPR consent regarding cookie banners. > they can themselves try to be the candidate (not implying that it is easy) It's more than "not easy". It's rigged. In France there's at least a semblance of equal chances: if you get a certain number of mayors to support your candidacy, your campaign is paid for by the State and all candidates have free campaign clips produced by national television (following their directives) and broadcast on most channels ; also this will cover printing fees for your ballots. Also, donations to political campaigns are only allowed from individuals (not companies) and have a limit (a few thousand euros). Also, there's strict regulations (though never respected) on airtime equality between candidates/parties for the whole duration of the campaign. Despite these better chances, the system in France is still rigged through other means and the result is terrible as well. But at least in France there's an appearance of plural opinion during the campaign. The United States doesn't even try to pretend. > Reasonable restriction I strongly disagree. Everybody breaks the law rather often (because there's so many of them) but whether you will face consequences is mostly a factor of race and class. For example, higher-classes kids doing drugs are usually not the target of police repression and therefore have no fear for their voter rights. Also, it's just one of the many factors leading to people not able to vote. See for instance voter purgers, or for when they are in fact capable to vote, gerrymandering. > democracy doesn't mean people are forced to vote. I agree. However, no matter who votes, those who refuse to vote will still be governed against their will. That's not democracy: democracy is empowering citizens to take decisions in their lives and the lives of their communities. Government is the powerful entity above that prevents people from taking decisions in their lives and the lives of their communities. > Where is the case of public transportation that can take you where you want, when you want and from you want ? Trams, buses, trains, shared bikes, shared cars. There's a bunch of those. They may be slightly less convenient in some situations compared to an individual car. However, when you take into account maintenance cost and breakage factor, you're not necessarily better off. If you're not convinced, i recommend reading Ivan Illich who does a perfect demonstration that walking is faster and more efficient (when everything is accounted for) than car transportation. Of course i'm not saying everyone should always walk. There's plenty of good reasons to use a car, if only for accessibility concerns.

southerntofu 6y ago

> We might get there with Uber-like carpods if autonomous driving ever succeeds. In theory, why not? However, this relies on car-oriented road infrastructure as it is today, which has a serious environmental price (seriously look it up), and also some social impact. So it's still a very "expensive" solution. But even given roads, it would be interesting to run a survey of ecological impact of autonomous electronic vehicles compared to conventional (gasoline) cars. I'm pretty sure an autonomous vehicle full of electronics would have a considerably more negative impact, if only because of all the gasoline needed to mine/refine all the fancy rare earths and metal you'll need for that (but there's considerably more externalities to account for). Also worth considering: here in southern France it's really not uncommon, when the bus is not too crowded, that i just ask the friendly driver to take a small detour and drop me where i need. That's the kind of thing you can envision in a civilized society, where not everyone is only thinking about their own personal duties and desires.