6 ms·

While you largely have a point, I think you're perhaps a little too optimistic about the big picture, especially when factoring in timelines. Simply saying no

by etripe 5y ago

While you largely have a point, I think you're perhaps a little too optimistic about the big picture, especially when factoring in timelines. Simply saying no to cars doesn't solve the problem of transporting goods of any kind, e.g. a family load of food shopping for the week, furniture or building materials when doing a house renovation. And while covid has nudged employment towards a more decentralised model, some countries (the US comes to mind, especially in rural areas or AFAIK cities like LA) don't really have a public transport alternative, for instance.

ArekDymalski 5y ago
>family load of food shopping for the week I think that shopping for the week is a result of car ownership, not the other way. I grew up in a family without a car and buying fresh stuff from the local shop everyday was normal. I think I developed the habit of weekly shopping when I turned 25 and started more demanding job. In case of furniture/moving - that's something that could be done be services. Etc.
lucideer 5y ago
I think you're perhaps being slightly too absolutist about what opposing cars would mean: we will always need cars. We just don't need them for 90%+ of current personal journeys. Even if we were wildly successful in opposing cars & reversing much of the car-focused infrastructure we have in place, many would still use cars for large weekly shops, furniture & building material movement... But: - building materials is hardly "personal" & unlikely to be a regular need for most households. Car rental or professional builders' work vehicles fill most of the needs here. - same goes for a lot of furniture movements: shop delivery services or moving company vehicles - less road infrastructure and more localised urban planning drastically reduce the time-cost of low-volume grocery shopping. Couple that with the moves we're already seeing toward online grocery delivery and you get a massive reduction in the need for large weekly car-journey shopping We'll always need cars: opposing isn't eliminating completely, it's just eliminating unnecessary use.
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  > opposing isn't eliminating completely, it's just eliminating unnecessary use. Some opposing is for eliminating it completely on a long enough timescale. We've gotten extremely bad at talking about longterm goals and longterm outcomes in politics. If I say "Ban cars. Reforest Parking Lots." as my political slogan the opposition comes out in droves acting like I said "if elected King-Mayor with magic powers to actually enact legislation on day one, I will sign into law a ban on all cars and no one can legally drive them and everyone will be stuck with no transit options, good day" whether that is what I believe and whether or not any of them realize that "Reforest Parking Lots" is an ecologically slow process and don't expect that to happen overnight. This lack of an ability to sell long term vision, because so many are willfully and obtusely taking the shortest term views on the world, on bumper stickers and in political slogans is just crippling to so many of our political narratives right now. It's especially crippling in our ability to truly compromise on a lot of issues. Instead of starting from a long term vision of "We believe we should ban cars because that could lead to a better society at some point in the future" we have to do all of this leg work to start with a "pre-compromise" of our vision, the smaller/simpler "pragmatic" option we think will "sell" to the public such as "let's build shops closer to people's homes" (which is great, but doesn't address the root problem it addresses a symptom/co-factor), and in so doing opponents don't have to meet us in the true middle ("well, let's not ban cars just yet, but what if we…") and instead arrive at an even weaker compromise of the compromise ("well moving shops closer to people's homes is an admirable goal, but it's a free market so let's just lazily incentivize that with tax write-offs and see if they take the bait" doesn't get us any closer to "let's get people to drive less", it's still a good idea, but it's definitely not anywhere on the radar of "meet me halfway on banning cars here").
- fragmede 5y ago
  We, humanity, will always need cars. But we, as individuals, one-per-person, shouldn't. Having a car should be looked at the same way that we look at someone who says they have a horse, a jet, a tank, a yacht, a rocketship. Bemusement at that person's life choices. How ridiculous and ostentatious a life they must lead. Offended by the level of waste from a single person. (Privately, envious of their wealth.) Like, why don't I have my own personal jet? There's the tiny detail of the cost (O($50mm) new, O($3mm) used, plus fuel and on-going maintenance. Unless you learn to fly yourself, the pilot/crew is an additional, non-trivial, ongoing expense.), but that aside, we don't see it as something remotely normal, and it's a disgusting waste. The necessary cultural shift involves moving all cars, but especially large truck/SUVs, into that same category. That's the shift that's going to take generations, and only with monumental, concerted effort to rebuild our entire infrastructure along side it before that's even remotely possible. We can't even manage to spend the money to maintain our current infrastructure properly, so it looks impossible from where I'm standing. (But that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.)(Electric self-driving cars don't change the calculus here, either.)
chucksta 5y ago
Most major US cities did not start out as car centric locations (even the south and west), but we made them all so within the span of 100 years. Doesn't seem unreasonable it could be undone as quickly
addicted 5y ago
If you don't have car centric living then the way you buy groceries changes, for example. You don't load up on weekly groceries. You buy smaller amounts every few days on your way back from work. For one thing, grocery stores, etc. now locate themselves near public transport, as opposed to a 20-30 minute drive away from the closest place anyone lives. And when it comes to moving furniture, etc. you rent a car. Or even better, since you don't have to buy a single car to use over many years to justify its expense, when you want to move furniture you can rent a van. When you want to take your kids for a camping adventure requiring offroading you can rent an AWD. If you need to go a 100 miles all on proper roads you can rent an EV and save on gas.

by etripe 5y ago

ArekDymalski 5y ago

>family load of food shopping for the week I think that shopping for the week is a result of car ownership, not the other way. I grew up in a family without a car and buying fresh stuff from the local shop everyday was normal. I think I developed the habit of weekly shopping when I turned 25 and started more demanding job. In case of furniture/moving - that's something that could be done be services. Etc.

lucideer 5y ago

I think you're perhaps being slightly too absolutist about what opposing cars would mean: we will always need cars. We just don't need them for 90%+ of current personal journeys. Even if we were wildly successful in opposing cars & reversing much of the car-focused infrastructure we have in place, many would still use cars for large weekly shops, furniture & building material movement... But: - building materials is hardly "personal" & unlikely to be a regular need for most households. Car rental or professional builders' work vehicles fill most of the needs here. - same goes for a lot of furniture movements: shop delivery services or moving company vehicles - less road infrastructure and more localised urban planning drastically reduce the time-cost of low-volume grocery shopping. Couple that with the moves we're already seeing toward online grocery delivery and you get a massive reduction in the need for large weekly car-journey shopping We'll always need cars: opposing isn't eliminating completely, it's just eliminating unnecessary use.

WorldMaker 5y ago
> opposing isn't eliminating completely, it's just eliminating unnecessary use. Some opposing is for eliminating it completely on a long enough timescale. We've gotten extremely bad at talking about longterm goals and longterm outcomes in politics. If I say "Ban cars. Reforest Parking Lots." as my political slogan the opposition comes out in droves acting like I said "if elected King-Mayor with magic powers to actually enact legislation on day one, I will sign into law a ban on all cars and no one can legally drive them and everyone will be stuck with no transit options, good day" whether that is what I believe and whether or not any of them realize that "Reforest Parking Lots" is an ecologically slow process and don't expect that to happen overnight. This lack of an ability to sell long term vision, because so many are willfully and obtusely taking the shortest term views on the world, on bumper stickers and in political slogans is just crippling to so many of our political narratives right now. It's especially crippling in our ability to truly compromise on a lot of issues. Instead of starting from a long term vision of "We believe we should ban cars because that could lead to a better society at some point in the future" we have to do all of this leg work to start with a "pre-compromise" of our vision, the smaller/simpler "pragmatic" option we think will "sell" to the public such as "let's build shops closer to people's homes" (which is great, but doesn't address the root problem it addresses a symptom/co-factor), and in so doing opponents don't have to meet us in the true middle ("well, let's not ban cars just yet, but what if we…") and instead arrive at an even weaker compromise of the compromise ("well moving shops closer to people's homes is an admirable goal, but it's a free market so let's just lazily incentivize that with tax write-offs and see if they take the bait" doesn't get us any closer to "let's get people to drive less", it's still a good idea, but it's definitely not anywhere on the radar of "meet me halfway on banning cars here").
fragmede 5y ago
We, humanity, will always need cars. But we, as individuals, one-per-person, shouldn't. Having a car should be looked at the same way that we look at someone who says they have a horse, a jet, a tank, a yacht, a rocketship. Bemusement at that person's life choices. How ridiculous and ostentatious a life they must lead. Offended by the level of waste from a single person. (Privately, envious of their wealth.) Like, why don't I have my own personal jet? There's the tiny detail of the cost (O($50mm) new, O($3mm) used, plus fuel and on-going maintenance. Unless you learn to fly yourself, the pilot/crew is an additional, non-trivial, ongoing expense.), but that aside, we don't see it as something remotely normal, and it's a disgusting waste. The necessary cultural shift involves moving all cars, but especially large truck/SUVs, into that same category. That's the shift that's going to take generations, and only with monumental, concerted effort to rebuild our entire infrastructure along side it before that's even remotely possible. We can't even manage to spend the money to maintain our current infrastructure properly, so it looks impossible from where I'm standing. (But that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.)(Electric self-driving cars don't change the calculus here, either.)

chucksta 5y ago

Most major US cities did not start out as car centric locations (even the south and west), but we made them all so within the span of 100 years. Doesn't seem unreasonable it could be undone as quickly

addicted 5y ago

If you don't have car centric living then the way you buy groceries changes, for example. You don't load up on weekly groceries. You buy smaller amounts every few days on your way back from work. For one thing, grocery stores, etc. now locate themselves near public transport, as opposed to a 20-30 minute drive away from the closest place anyone lives. And when it comes to moving furniture, etc. you rent a car. Or even better, since you don't have to buy a single car to use over many years to justify its expense, when you want to move furniture you can rent a van. When you want to take your kids for a camping adventure requiring offroading you can rent an AWD. If you need to go a 100 miles all on proper roads you can rent an EV and save on gas.