5 ms·

> Let go of pride and commute by bicycle. It has nothing to do with pride. Cars are comfortable and convenient. You get a nice seat, air the temperature you w

by donw 4y ago

> Let go of pride and commute by bicycle. It has nothing to do with pride. Cars are comfortable and convenient. You get a nice seat, air the temperature you want it, and can carry actual cargo. It's easy to run a complete loop of errands after your workday, because you can store stuff in your car. I went from around ten years of riding the trains in Tokyo to driving a car around a Japanese suburb. Japanese public transportation is excellent, easily best on Planet Earth, and the car wins hands-down.

favflam 4y ago
The pride remark is anecdotal on my part, but based on SUV sales I would argue that my point is close to true in the US. Cars are a luxury. If you are willing to pay a tax based on engine displacement , give priority on roads to pedestrians and cyclists, and still prefer car-travel, then it is a win-win. If you want city governments to prioritize car-travel over everyone else, then it is a win-lose. The only winner will be car-owners who can spare the cash flow. The economics on transporting 1s of kgs of food by 1000s of kgs of metal no longer makes sense in the United States for the majority of people as they have poor cash flow and poor balance sheets. I think economically speaking delivery trucks and local supermarkets should take most of the burden.
- notch656a 4y ago
  >I think economically speaking delivery trucks and local supermarkets should take most of the burden. Currently car owners disproportionately pay for roads that those without cars enjoy. They pay for roads (in their own fuel tax, purchase tax on automobile, and often in registration fees) that allow heavy delivery trucks to bring food and medicine and various goods to local shops and addresses where the car-less can access them. This all despite a car wears remarkably less on a road than the semis that truck in these goods so the car-less (and others) can access them locally. If anything, pedestrians and bike riders underpay for a road system they take advantage of. In fact one can ride a bicycle and be a near complete free-rider to the road system, if your income is low enough, despite still availing yourself of benefits such as trucked in food/medicine/goods.
blitzar 4y ago
> It has nothing to do with pride. Why dont people take the bus? Because the bus is for poor people. I guess technically it isnt pride - its ego and virtue signalling.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xienze 4y ago
  No? It’s about convenience. My town actually has a little bus line. But the closest bus stop is a mile and a half or so away from my house. How do I get there? Walk? Once I get there, I have to wait for the bus, which could mean a wait of at least ten minutes or so. Assuming it’s not late. Let’s assume it drops me off exactly where I want to go — the grocery store 5 miles from my house. Now let’s also assume the bus doesn’t make any other stops and takes the most direct route possible. Great, I’ve spent at least 45 minutes each way to make a 5 mile trip. And I’m limited to buying only as much as I can comfortably carry. And oh yeah, I have to walk another mile and a half with those bags once I’m dropped off. But yeah, my objection is sitting in a bus with poor people.
  - noahtallen 4y ago
    Your argument isn’t really that cars are superior to the bus in general, just that your local public transit is poorly designed. When everyone treats this argument as if cars are always superior no matter what, no one wants to invest in making public transit actually better.
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      Well, the problem is we have to take what we have. The argument that someone a country away lives a way because of some sort of pride is plain arrogance. We use cars because there is no reasonable alternative for most people. If we even try to consider alternatives, there simply isn't nothing short of wasting half a day on public transit. It's not that public transit is superior, or that cars are superior. It's that method A is the most reasonable way to get around nearly 99% of the trips I need to take, and is affordable for me, so I will take that. In Europe, that tends to be bikes and public transit. In America, it's personal vehicles. It's the nature we're both in. That in of itself doesn't make one superior to the other.

by donw 4y ago

favflam 4y ago

The pride remark is anecdotal on my part, but based on SUV sales I would argue that my point is close to true in the US. Cars are a luxury. If you are willing to pay a tax based on engine displacement , give priority on roads to pedestrians and cyclists, and still prefer car-travel, then it is a win-win. If you want city governments to prioritize car-travel over everyone else, then it is a win-lose. The only winner will be car-owners who can spare the cash flow. The economics on transporting 1s of kgs of food by 1000s of kgs of metal no longer makes sense in the United States for the majority of people as they have poor cash flow and poor balance sheets. I think economically speaking delivery trucks and local supermarkets should take most of the burden.

notch656a 4y ago
>I think economically speaking delivery trucks and local supermarkets should take most of the burden. Currently car owners disproportionately pay for roads that those without cars enjoy. They pay for roads (in their own fuel tax, purchase tax on automobile, and often in registration fees) that allow heavy delivery trucks to bring food and medicine and various goods to local shops and addresses where the car-less can access them. This all despite a car wears remarkably less on a road than the semis that truck in these goods so the car-less (and others) can access them locally. If anything, pedestrians and bike riders underpay for a road system they take advantage of. In fact one can ride a bicycle and be a near complete free-rider to the road system, if your income is low enough, despite still availing yourself of benefits such as trucked in food/medicine/goods.

blitzar 4y ago

> It has nothing to do with pride. Why dont people take the bus? Because the bus is for poor people. I guess technically it isnt pride - its ego and virtue signalling.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xienze 4y ago
No? It’s about convenience. My town actually has a little bus line. But the closest bus stop is a mile and a half or so away from my house. How do I get there? Walk? Once I get there, I have to wait for the bus, which could mean a wait of at least ten minutes or so. Assuming it’s not late. Let’s assume it drops me off exactly where I want to go — the grocery store 5 miles from my house. Now let’s also assume the bus doesn’t make any other stops and takes the most direct route possible. Great, I’ve spent at least 45 minutes each way to make a 5 mile trip. And I’m limited to buying only as much as I can comfortably carry. And oh yeah, I have to walk another mile and a half with those bags once I’m dropped off. But yeah, my objection is sitting in a bus with poor people.
- noahtallen 4y ago
  Your argument isn’t really that cars are superior to the bus in general, just that your local public transit is poorly designed. When everyone treats this argument as if cars are always superior no matter what, no one wants to invest in making public transit actually better.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    Well, the problem is we have to take what we have. The argument that someone a country away lives a way because of some sort of pride is plain arrogance. We use cars because there is no reasonable alternative for most people. If we even try to consider alternatives, there simply isn't nothing short of wasting half a day on public transit. It's not that public transit is superior, or that cars are superior. It's that method A is the most reasonable way to get around nearly 99% of the trips I need to take, and is affordable for me, so I will take that. In Europe, that tends to be bikes and public transit. In America, it's personal vehicles. It's the nature we're both in. That in of itself doesn't make one superior to the other.