7 ms·

Good luck selling that idea (in America, at least).

zppln 4y ago
You'll have great trouble selling that idea in many parts of Europe as well.
rootusrootus 4y ago
There isn't any reason people in America couldn't choose such things. They just don't. If the selling of the idea is failing, maybe the idea is the problem and not the people you're selling it to.
- anthonypasq 4y ago
  how exactly would this work if you have multiple small children, or are disabled, or a variety of other things. Why is there this insistence that Americans are just 'big dumb'
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    You're replying to the wrong person.
  - EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
    [dead]
  - kaesar14 4y ago
    I find the city to be better for small children and for disabled people than car focused suburbs to be honest. It means stuff is closer to get to and both groups of people are not completely reliant on other people driving them around to get to places. I do not believe the only way a world can be livable for disabled people, small children, and elderly people, is to pave the entire country in tens of millions of miles of roads and drive on them with heavy and dangerous polluting machines.
    - slt2021 4y ago
      city downtowns are filled with criminals, homeless, and drug addicts. not very kid friendly env
  - wpm 4y ago
    What fraction of the driving population do you assume drive because it's their only mobility option? Do the blind, seizure prone, or folks otherwise unable to drive a car due to health reasons count too?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > isn't any reason people in America couldn't choose such things I mean, sure. I don’t want to. I lived without a car in New York and it was great. I live with a car in a low-density area and it’s also great. There should be a carbon tax, but that’s a fancy way of saying some people get cars and some don’t. (Specifically: I don’t want to walk or bike when it’s -20° F. I don’t want to load up my skis every time on a bus, I literally can’t with a snowmobile, and I enjoy doing those things.)
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  To be sure many Americans will worry about the danger of being in the smallest vehicle on the road — having to contend with SUVs, full-size pickup trucks. But just as the Japanese found a foothold in the U.S. auto market in the 70's, if there were an electric car for under $10K I suspect a lot of people would find that their fears could be somewhat tempered.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > if there were an electric car for under $10K We are very close to finding out, at least for the moment. In Oregon the combined federal & state tax incentives make a Chevy Bolt a $10.6K car.
  - 778hbff 4y ago
    > if there were an electric car for under $10K Somebody should make a concept car that is electric but without any electronics (apart from battery and the motors, obviously). Apart from the battery, what's expensive in a modern electric car is that you are essentially sitting in a giant smartphone with 4 wheels. Why is that necessary? Electric motors provide the unique opportunity to create vastly simpler (and thus cheaper) cars than ICE versions. This could over-compensate for the battery costs. But seems car manufacturers fill it with more electronics. I'm sure there are market opportunities for cars that just bring you safely from A to B without having some semi-self-driving-but-not-really Twitter client on board that opens the doors with an app on your mobile. I'm fine using a key, thank you very much.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      > Why is that necessary? Electric motors provide the unique opportunity to create vastly simpler (and thus cheaper) cars than ICE versions. The majority of the market (dollars-wise, at least) doesn't want a vastly simpler car though. They like having heated leather seats, heated steering wheels, comfortable interiors with good AC and heat, and a decent stereo. Also, its not like you're realistically going to cut the price in half taking out the stereo. The actual car thing is the vast majority of the price.
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  Our cities are designed for cars. Hell, most of our society is designed around owning a car. It is horrendously impractical in a lot of places to go without a car. Our public transit systems are largely garbage, if they exist at all. Bike lanes are extremely rare, and are really just used as free car parking. Take my commute to work for instance. It's about 3 miles, but it would be impossible to bike, as there are huge and dangerous hills. Likewise, walking would be very difficult. It takes about 10 minutes to drive to work, and a bus would be over 40 minutes. We have major infrastructural failures that make it very impractical to exist without a car in most cases.
  - rangersanger 4y ago
    Our suburbs are designed for cars. Our cities are retrofitted for cars. That might seem pedantic but I’m not trying to be. The point is that we do actually have significant areas of population which are ready to be reworked to prioritize cycling without completely changing the way we live. Suburbs can also prioritize safe cycling. Take a look at bentonville Arkansas. It has a tiny downtown but most of it looks and functions like a suburb. They’ve made it safe for everyone to ride their bikes to commute and for pleasure. It’s not a blueprint by any means, it’s a passion project by some rich folks, but it’s proof that the suburbs can be retrofitted with a vision and will.
    - fowkswe 4y ago
      Bentonville's core is vastly different from the surrounding suburb/exurb/metro area which is mostly 0.5+ acre lots built in confined subdivisions connected via 4-8 lane arterial stroads - typical American car style suburban planning. The damage is done, retrofitting this development pattern to suit cycling over F150 throughput is just not something that will be achievable in the Bentonville, or the greater US. I live in Kansas City and there is a valiant effort happening here to put in meaningful cycling infrastructure. There are bollard protected lanes from downtown out to the inner ring suburbs, additionally we have a residential grid that would allow safe cycling around town, but the new lanes are going completely unused. Visit the KC reddit and look at the vitriol being spewed - 'why are my tax dollars being wasted on this', 'i cant park', 'it ruins business'... These are the people coming from our outer ring suburbs where cycling is just not an option - they can't even fathom a place without cars.
EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
At least in large cities, lots of (mostly young) people are already fully on board with a largely car-free future. It's increasingly common to dream of not owning a car at all, instead of having a dream car. All of my american friends my age have some resentment that they're practically forced to own a car even in dense cities. So urban planners just need to enable a car-free lifestyle, and the shift will happen on its own. Contrast in European and Asian cities, it is already extremely common to not own a car. In my city, even the people I know who own cars only use them for long journeys or when public transit is insufficient. And these bike/trike EVs are the dominant method for deliveries (mail, packages, food, etc... all use electric bikes) since they're cheaper to drive and maintain, drivers don't need a special commercial license, and they can be faster than traffic a lot of the time. It's a lifestyle shift, but it's definitely doable to sell this idea.

You'll have great trouble selling that idea in many parts of Europe as well.

There isn't any reason people in America couldn't choose such things. They just don't. If the selling of the idea is failing, maybe the idea is the problem and not the people you're selling it to.

anthonypasq 4y ago
how exactly would this work if you have multiple small children, or are disabled, or a variety of other things. Why is there this insistence that Americans are just 'big dumb'
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  You're replying to the wrong person.
- EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
  [dead]
- kaesar14 4y ago
  I find the city to be better for small children and for disabled people than car focused suburbs to be honest. It means stuff is closer to get to and both groups of people are not completely reliant on other people driving them around to get to places. I do not believe the only way a world can be livable for disabled people, small children, and elderly people, is to pave the entire country in tens of millions of miles of roads and drive on them with heavy and dangerous polluting machines.
  - slt2021 4y ago
    city downtowns are filled with criminals, homeless, and drug addicts. not very kid friendly env
- wpm 4y ago
  What fraction of the driving population do you assume drive because it's their only mobility option? Do the blind, seizure prone, or folks otherwise unable to drive a car due to health reasons count too?
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> isn't any reason people in America couldn't choose such things I mean, sure. I don’t want to. I lived without a car in New York and it was great. I live with a car in a low-density area and it’s also great. There should be a carbon tax, but that’s a fancy way of saying some people get cars and some don’t. (Specifically: I don’t want to walk or bike when it’s -20° F. I don’t want to load up my skis every time on a bus, I literally can’t with a snowmobile, and I enjoy doing those things.)
JKCalhoun 4y ago
To be sure many Americans will worry about the danger of being in the smallest vehicle on the road — having to contend with SUVs, full-size pickup trucks. But just as the Japanese found a foothold in the U.S. auto market in the 70's, if there were an electric car for under $10K I suspect a lot of people would find that their fears could be somewhat tempered.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > if there were an electric car for under $10K We are very close to finding out, at least for the moment. In Oregon the combined federal & state tax incentives make a Chevy Bolt a $10.6K car.
- 778hbff 4y ago
  > if there were an electric car for under $10K Somebody should make a concept car that is electric but without any electronics (apart from battery and the motors, obviously). Apart from the battery, what's expensive in a modern electric car is that you are essentially sitting in a giant smartphone with 4 wheels. Why is that necessary? Electric motors provide the unique opportunity to create vastly simpler (and thus cheaper) cars than ICE versions. This could over-compensate for the battery costs. But seems car manufacturers fill it with more electronics. I'm sure there are market opportunities for cars that just bring you safely from A to B without having some semi-self-driving-but-not-really Twitter client on board that opens the doors with an app on your mobile. I'm fine using a key, thank you very much.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    > Why is that necessary? Electric motors provide the unique opportunity to create vastly simpler (and thus cheaper) cars than ICE versions. The majority of the market (dollars-wise, at least) doesn't want a vastly simpler car though. They like having heated leather seats, heated steering wheels, comfortable interiors with good AC and heat, and a decent stereo. Also, its not like you're realistically going to cut the price in half taking out the stereo. The actual car thing is the vast majority of the price.
rolenthedeep 4y ago
Our cities are designed for cars. Hell, most of our society is designed around owning a car. It is horrendously impractical in a lot of places to go without a car. Our public transit systems are largely garbage, if they exist at all. Bike lanes are extremely rare, and are really just used as free car parking. Take my commute to work for instance. It's about 3 miles, but it would be impossible to bike, as there are huge and dangerous hills. Likewise, walking would be very difficult. It takes about 10 minutes to drive to work, and a bus would be over 40 minutes. We have major infrastructural failures that make it very impractical to exist without a car in most cases.
- rangersanger 4y ago
  Our suburbs are designed for cars. Our cities are retrofitted for cars. That might seem pedantic but I’m not trying to be. The point is that we do actually have significant areas of population which are ready to be reworked to prioritize cycling without completely changing the way we live. Suburbs can also prioritize safe cycling. Take a look at bentonville Arkansas. It has a tiny downtown but most of it looks and functions like a suburb. They’ve made it safe for everyone to ride their bikes to commute and for pleasure. It’s not a blueprint by any means, it’s a passion project by some rich folks, but it’s proof that the suburbs can be retrofitted with a vision and will.
  - fowkswe 4y ago
    Bentonville's core is vastly different from the surrounding suburb/exurb/metro area which is mostly 0.5+ acre lots built in confined subdivisions connected via 4-8 lane arterial stroads - typical American car style suburban planning. The damage is done, retrofitting this development pattern to suit cycling over F150 throughput is just not something that will be achievable in the Bentonville, or the greater US. I live in Kansas City and there is a valiant effort happening here to put in meaningful cycling infrastructure. There are bollard protected lanes from downtown out to the inner ring suburbs, additionally we have a residential grid that would allow safe cycling around town, but the new lanes are going completely unused. Visit the KC reddit and look at the vitriol being spewed - 'why are my tax dollars being wasted on this', 'i cant park', 'it ruins business'... These are the people coming from our outer ring suburbs where cycling is just not an option - they can't even fathom a place without cars.

EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago

At least in large cities, lots of (mostly young) people are already fully on board with a largely car-free future. It's increasingly common to dream of not owning a car at all, instead of having a dream car. All of my american friends my age have some resentment that they're practically forced to own a car even in dense cities. So urban planners just need to enable a car-free lifestyle, and the shift will happen on its own. Contrast in European and Asian cities, it is already extremely common to not own a car. In my city, even the people I know who own cars only use them for long journeys or when public transit is insufficient. And these bike/trike EVs are the dominant method for deliveries (mail, packages, food, etc... all use electric bikes) since they're cheaper to drive and maintain, drivers don't need a special commercial license, and they can be faster than traffic a lot of the time. It's a lifestyle shift, but it's definitely doable to sell this idea.