3 ms·

I am proposing to make prices reflect the real cost. Even today many can't afford a car, this doesn't mean transportation as a whole is unaffordable for them. I

I am proposing to make prices reflect the real cost. Even today many can't afford a car, this doesn't mean transportation as a whole is unaffordable for them. It is possible to live without a car, you know. > I live in Sweden where you have busses going to even the most remote of places. Sounds good. I live in Germany where you don't have that, I still don't need a car, even though I use one once in a while because it's so cheap. > The farther you are from a big city center, the more yo need a car. So what? Doesn't mean you need a car at the end of the day, let alone own a car, especially when you're not living in the US. It only means cars are more helpful than at the city centre. The same probably holds for your own helicopter

dmitriid 4y ago
> > The farther you are from a big city center, the more you need a car. > So what? Doesn't mean you need a car at the end of the day, let alone own a car. And your proposal is what exactly? BTW car sharing and carpools have been a thing for a while, including EVs. They are 2x or 3x more expensive than owning a car. And also not available as soon as you move about 10-10 kilometers away from the city center. I live in a suburb with a population of 60k people, 11 km from the city center. There 20-ish charging outlets (3.7 kW and 11 kW) mostly in paid parking lots (2 EUR per hour after second hour of parking). There are two car pools offering a total of 10 cars at completely ridiculous prices (Volvo's M, I'm looking at you: >25 EUR just to start the car, 30 EUR for 10km purely electric, 27 EUR for 10 km ICE). > It only means cars are more helpful than at the city centre. Exactly. They are more helpful, and your proposal is to make them unaffordable for people who need them > The same probably holds for your own helicopter Reductio ad absurdum isn't nearly as strong of an argument as you think it is. You can't pretend that the cost of EVs (both the cars and the infrastructure needed for them) isn't an issue just because you say "ah, they don't need it all the time" or "yeah, but steelman argument is public infrastructure". This just pushes reckoning with reality farther away, possibly beyond the point where it can be solvable.

dmitriid 4y ago

> > The farther you are from a big city center, the more you need a car. > So what? Doesn't mean you need a car at the end of the day, let alone own a car. And your proposal is what exactly? BTW car sharing and carpools have been a thing for a while, including EVs. They are 2x or 3x more expensive than owning a car. And also not available as soon as you move about 10-10 kilometers away from the city center. I live in a suburb with a population of 60k people, 11 km from the city center. There 20-ish charging outlets (3.7 kW and 11 kW) mostly in paid parking lots (2 EUR per hour after second hour of parking). There are two car pools offering a total of 10 cars at completely ridiculous prices (Volvo's M, I'm looking at you: >25 EUR just to start the car, 30 EUR for 10km purely electric, 27 EUR for 10 km ICE). > It only means cars are more helpful than at the city centre. Exactly. They are more helpful, and your proposal is to make them unaffordable for people who need them > The same probably holds for your own helicopter Reductio ad absurdum isn't nearly as strong of an argument as you think it is. You can't pretend that the cost of EVs (both the cars and the infrastructure needed for them) isn't an issue just because you say "ah, they don't need it all the time" or "yeah, but steelman argument is public infrastructure". This just pushes reckoning with reality farther away, possibly beyond the point where it can be solvable.