5 ms·

They are no true sustainability advocate at this point, and this is an element of opportunism in this as well.

aww_dang 5y ago
Yes, but the green angle still sells and government subsidies are still being paid.
epistasis 5y ago
Without a huge reduction in their use, it's really hard to square car use with human health. For example, most damaging air pollution, and the most microplastics in ocean near SF, comes from tires. EVs don't fix that. And then there are all the health problems that come from requiring people to use a car to visit friends, or get a loaf of bread, or really do anything. Cars are killing us in many ways.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  80-90 years of mobility or 85-95 years trapped in one place is not a hard choice to make, especially when 60+ of those years are still in the future. Yes, the pollution from cars is terrible. I lived by a major freeway for three years. No, the solution is not to give up all their benefits. For one thing, SF could actually enforce air quality standards inside apartment buildings, especially those near the freeways. Also future storm drain systems could be designed to settle out microplastics (many storm systems do have settling/collection ponds anyway).
  - epistasis 5y ago
    The choice isn't cars or no cars, that's a completely false dichotomy. The choice is to legalize other forms of mobility beyond a car. People in the US are so car-addled that when I suggest something like this, they can't even imagine a life where they can buy groceries without using a car. It's quite shocking!
    - trothamel 5y ago
      Like what? There are problems sharing the road with vehicles that can't keep up with the flow of traffic. Apart from those, what isn't legal?
      - epistasis 5y ago
        Building mixed use neighborhoods where you can walk to a corner store is illegal in most of the US.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      The choice isn't cars or no cars, that's a completely false dichotomy. Apologies for reading too much into your comment, then. Many in SF seemed to espouse just such a dichotomy. People in the US are so car-addled that when I suggest something like this, they can't even imagine a life where they can buy groceries without using a car. It's quite shocking! I lived in downtown SF, walked to the grocery store, etc. I do miss being able to take BART and not having to have a DD, but otherwise I prefer the unscheduled nature of car life for all the quotidian practical needs. Even in SF, transit wouldn't get me to the beach or to hiking, etc. unless maybe I wanted to wait for an hour and have to walk way too far at both ends.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        > I prefer the unscheduled nature of car life See what he means. There is no reason transport needs to force a schedule life on you. Good transit is frequent enough that when you decide to go you just walk out the front door to the station and wait for the ride to show up - it will be soon enough. But you have never seen that so it hasn't occurred to you that it is possible.
        nitrogen 5y ago
        But you have never seen that so it hasn't occurred to you that it is possible. I don't believe it is possible, no. Even in places with frequent trains during the day, they typically stop at night. Say I need to take someone to a doctor and fill a prescription at 3AM. The usual pharmacy and urgent care are closed. Is there a city on earth that has trains to exactly where I need to go, every five minutes, at 3AM? Will the train get me there as fast as, or faster than, a car? IMO transit is incredibly useful for situations where everyone is doing the same things at the same times. But it forces you onto a schedule and a destination, with little flexibility.

Yes, but the green angle still sells and government subsidies are still being paid.

Without a huge reduction in their use, it's really hard to square car use with human health. For example, most damaging air pollution, and the most microplastics in ocean near SF, comes from tires. EVs don't fix that. And then there are all the health problems that come from requiring people to use a car to visit friends, or get a loaf of bread, or really do anything. Cars are killing us in many ways.

nitrogen 5y ago
80-90 years of mobility or 85-95 years trapped in one place is not a hard choice to make, especially when 60+ of those years are still in the future. Yes, the pollution from cars is terrible. I lived by a major freeway for three years. No, the solution is not to give up all their benefits. For one thing, SF could actually enforce air quality standards inside apartment buildings, especially those near the freeways. Also future storm drain systems could be designed to settle out microplastics (many storm systems do have settling/collection ponds anyway).
- epistasis 5y ago
  The choice isn't cars or no cars, that's a completely false dichotomy. The choice is to legalize other forms of mobility beyond a car. People in the US are so car-addled that when I suggest something like this, they can't even imagine a life where they can buy groceries without using a car. It's quite shocking!
  - trothamel 5y ago
    Like what? There are problems sharing the road with vehicles that can't keep up with the flow of traffic. Apart from those, what isn't legal?
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Building mixed use neighborhoods where you can walk to a corner store is illegal in most of the US.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    The choice isn't cars or no cars, that's a completely false dichotomy. Apologies for reading too much into your comment, then. Many in SF seemed to espouse just such a dichotomy. People in the US are so car-addled that when I suggest something like this, they can't even imagine a life where they can buy groceries without using a car. It's quite shocking! I lived in downtown SF, walked to the grocery store, etc. I do miss being able to take BART and not having to have a DD, but otherwise I prefer the unscheduled nature of car life for all the quotidian practical needs. Even in SF, transit wouldn't get me to the beach or to hiking, etc. unless maybe I wanted to wait for an hour and have to walk way too far at both ends.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      > I prefer the unscheduled nature of car life See what he means. There is no reason transport needs to force a schedule life on you. Good transit is frequent enough that when you decide to go you just walk out the front door to the station and wait for the ride to show up - it will be soon enough. But you have never seen that so it hasn't occurred to you that it is possible.
      - nitrogen 5y ago
        But you have never seen that so it hasn't occurred to you that it is possible. I don't believe it is possible, no. Even in places with frequent trains during the day, they typically stop at night. Say I need to take someone to a doctor and fill a prescription at 3AM. The usual pharmacy and urgent care are closed. Is there a city on earth that has trains to exactly where I need to go, every five minutes, at 3AM? Will the train get me there as fast as, or faster than, a car? IMO transit is incredibly useful for situations where everyone is doing the same things at the same times. But it forces you onto a schedule and a destination, with little flexibility.