4 ms·

Unless you have a family. It has to be there when you need it. Here in Québec we had an elected official who used to preach against cars and then once she got

Unless you have a family. It has to be there when you need it. Here in Québec we had an elected official who used to preach against cars and then once she got elected bought a SUV because, like everyone else with kids, she needed it for her family. The "you shouldn't need to own a car" attitude is arrogant and authoritarian in nature.

matsemann 4y ago
No, the authoritarian and arrogant attitude is from those thinking it's their right to drive everywhere at whatever cost to others. And you're missing the point. Why do you need a car because of family? Think further than your own nose tip. Wouldn't it be nice with a society where you didn't have to drive to do any little chore? And the few times you needed to drive, a care from some car sharing service was available outside your apartment building?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- stcredzero 4y ago
  Most people shouldn't need to own a car. Do you understand why making such proclamations about other's lifestyles is authoritarian? Also, it's not so reasonable to declare others "authoritarian" because of the detection of an externality. Unless, one has nominated one's self as a superior arbiter of truth. If you are equal, then it's up to you to convince others.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    > Do you understand why making such proclamations about other's lifestyles is authoritarian? No, I don't. I don't say people shouldn't own a car. I say people shouldn't need to. Please explain how that's authoritarian. And please stop calling me authoritarian and arrogant just because you disagree with my views.. > Also, it's not so reasonable to declare others "authoritarian" because of the detection of an externality. Unless, one has nominated one's self as a superior arbiter of truth. If you are equal, then it's up to you to convince others. No, the base case is no cars. The authoritarian view is to demand everyone else has to bend to your will. Children playing outside my house? No, they can't, stcredzero has decided that should be a high speed road for their car. Want to enjoy a peaceful evening? No, stcredzero has overruled you and decided their engine sound is more important. Want to eat outside at a restaurant? No, stcredzero has decided that space is for storing their metal box. Who is really the authoritarian?
    - stcredzero 4y ago
      No, I don't. I don't say people shouldn't own a car. I say people shouldn't need to. Please explain how that's authoritarian. My apologies if you took it this way. If you aren't making prescriptions for other people's lives, then you have nothing to fear or be offended about. Only you know the contents of your own mind. No, the base case is no cars... Who is really the authoritarian? Isn't that relative to what the status quo is right now? To answer that question, ask: Who is asking that people be convinced, and volunteer to change? If you live somewhere, where there are no cars, then your base case doesn't imply having others change. If you live somewhere, where there are already cars, then your base case implies you want people to change.
- jbm 4y ago
  You are talking over the parent poster, not trying to understand the situation. Your rosy picture is not in line with my life experience. I lived in Tokyo where I took the train and walked everywhere. I also lived in Quebec, which is cold and inhospitable during parts of winter. If you have a car, it's possible to do far more in Quebec than Tokyo. I had a car rental service in tokyo that I used (Times Rentalcar) and often when I needed a car, it was not available — even reserving a week in advance. Moreover how, exactly, do you intend on restructuring the life of people in cold areas? Are you going to show them Strongtown and Notjustbikes videos and shame them into moving into high density areas? Speaking of authoritarianism, I even had police in Tokyo ask me for my papers in my house in front of my young children. You may not like it, but "safe" high density living also has a strong police aspect to it with less privacy. I hope you aren't part of an unappreciated minority group in your high density walkable community.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    No, the other poster is taking my original post and twisting it. I haven't said people shouldn't be allowed to have cars. I've said we should strive for a society where you don't need to have a car. Of course that won't be possible everywhere or for everyone. But it should be possible for many more than it currently is. Your example of the car rental service is kinda my point. It's not good enough now, but if it were always available, that would make it possible for many more to ditch owning a car themselves and only rent as needed. We shouldn't look at status quo and use that to decide, we should look at bigger structural changes. FWIW I currently live in a small mountain town with 2500 people at 1000 meters above sea level, with -18 C yesterday and ~30 cms of snow today. So I know a lot about living in remote and cold areas. And please don't accuse me of "shaming" people, that's wrong of you. I want to give people more opportunities, not less. For many cars is the only choice, and an expensive one. Walking, biking, public transit as additional choices would make lives better for many.
- Tade0 4y ago
  > Why do you need a car because of family? Logistics. With a car the schedule is much more flexible and that is a major advantage when you have small children. Also with four or more people on board it's not really that terrible in terms of space efficiency. If you want to lower traffic/car ownership single-occupant vehicles are your low-hanging fruit, not families.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    But could you imagine a future where you didn't need to bother with all that logistics? What if school, soccer practice and work were all in walkable or bikeable distance, for instance? I'm not advocating people to be forced to sell their cars, I'm advocating for moving towards a society not based around everyone having to drive everywhere.
    - Tade0 4y ago
      > What if school, soccer practice and work were all in walkable or bikeable distance, for instance? They are for me now and actually always have been. I walk my child to daycare 1300 meters every weekday because I live in a somewhat walkable European city. I also work remotely but if I didn't I would probably commute by tram, because my stop is less than 250m away. Shopping is done via one of those delivery services that appeared during the pandemic. Alternatively I could go to the supermarket and farmers' market, both of which are within 500m of my apartment or just buy something in one of the corner stores that are even closer - I don't do that because contrary to what the Not Just Bikes guy says, daily shopping goes from quaint to annoying really quick when you have a family. I also grew up in a commie superblock where I had a school, playground, culture centre, supermarket, pharmacy, dentist, library and even a clinic not only within walking distance, but reachable without going through a single zebra crossing because most of the parking spaces were in streets parallel to the main roads wrapping around the superblock. With all that I still have a car, which I drive less than 7000km annually, because there are use cases where public transport just doesn't do it for me, namely: weekend trips to places which either have poor or non-existent public transport or visits to my extended family, from which I return too late to catch the direct line back home which functions only during the day. If everyone followed my model of living we would have even less cars than countries advertising themselves as cycling-oriented like the Netherlands and Denmark, where people with families also generally have cars if they can afford it. Cars are a massive convenience when you have unpredictable little humans to watch over.
- dumbfounder 4y ago
  There is plenty of authoritative and arrogant attitude to go around. Our most precious resource these days is time. If it takes longer it is not acceptable. Once you solve that issue at the same or lower price point then people will (start to) get onboard. I am a car guy and I think that owning a car sucks.
vl 4y ago
We essentially came to simple choice: less people, higher standard of living, more people, shittier standard of living. Either choice will require unpopular measures, but at least let’s make the choice consciously. I’m convinced “more people” way will lead to terrible authoritarian tyrannical society. So my choice is less people and cars are fine.
adrianN 4y ago
I have two kids and no car. Not every family needs a car.
adrianN 4y ago
I have two kids and no car. Not every family needs a car.

matsemann 4y ago

No, the authoritarian and arrogant attitude is from those thinking it's their right to drive everywhere at whatever cost to others. And you're missing the point. Why do you need a car because of family? Think further than your own nose tip. Wouldn't it be nice with a society where you didn't have to drive to do any little chore? And the few times you needed to drive, a care from some car sharing service was available outside your apartment building?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 4y ago
Most people shouldn't need to own a car. Do you understand why making such proclamations about other's lifestyles is authoritarian? Also, it's not so reasonable to declare others "authoritarian" because of the detection of an externality. Unless, one has nominated one's self as a superior arbiter of truth. If you are equal, then it's up to you to convince others.
- matsemann 4y ago
  > Do you understand why making such proclamations about other's lifestyles is authoritarian? No, I don't. I don't say people shouldn't own a car. I say people shouldn't need to. Please explain how that's authoritarian. And please stop calling me authoritarian and arrogant just because you disagree with my views.. > Also, it's not so reasonable to declare others "authoritarian" because of the detection of an externality. Unless, one has nominated one's self as a superior arbiter of truth. If you are equal, then it's up to you to convince others. No, the base case is no cars. The authoritarian view is to demand everyone else has to bend to your will. Children playing outside my house? No, they can't, stcredzero has decided that should be a high speed road for their car. Want to enjoy a peaceful evening? No, stcredzero has overruled you and decided their engine sound is more important. Want to eat outside at a restaurant? No, stcredzero has decided that space is for storing their metal box. Who is really the authoritarian?
  - stcredzero 4y ago
    No, I don't. I don't say people shouldn't own a car. I say people shouldn't need to. Please explain how that's authoritarian. My apologies if you took it this way. If you aren't making prescriptions for other people's lives, then you have nothing to fear or be offended about. Only you know the contents of your own mind. No, the base case is no cars... Who is really the authoritarian? Isn't that relative to what the status quo is right now? To answer that question, ask: Who is asking that people be convinced, and volunteer to change? If you live somewhere, where there are no cars, then your base case doesn't imply having others change. If you live somewhere, where there are already cars, then your base case implies you want people to change.
jbm 4y ago
You are talking over the parent poster, not trying to understand the situation. Your rosy picture is not in line with my life experience. I lived in Tokyo where I took the train and walked everywhere. I also lived in Quebec, which is cold and inhospitable during parts of winter. If you have a car, it's possible to do far more in Quebec than Tokyo. I had a car rental service in tokyo that I used (Times Rentalcar) and often when I needed a car, it was not available — even reserving a week in advance. Moreover how, exactly, do you intend on restructuring the life of people in cold areas? Are you going to show them Strongtown and Notjustbikes videos and shame them into moving into high density areas? Speaking of authoritarianism, I even had police in Tokyo ask me for my papers in my house in front of my young children. You may not like it, but "safe" high density living also has a strong police aspect to it with less privacy. I hope you aren't part of an unappreciated minority group in your high density walkable community.
- matsemann 4y ago
  No, the other poster is taking my original post and twisting it. I haven't said people shouldn't be allowed to have cars. I've said we should strive for a society where you don't need to have a car. Of course that won't be possible everywhere or for everyone. But it should be possible for many more than it currently is. Your example of the car rental service is kinda my point. It's not good enough now, but if it were always available, that would make it possible for many more to ditch owning a car themselves and only rent as needed. We shouldn't look at status quo and use that to decide, we should look at bigger structural changes. FWIW I currently live in a small mountain town with 2500 people at 1000 meters above sea level, with -18 C yesterday and ~30 cms of snow today. So I know a lot about living in remote and cold areas. And please don't accuse me of "shaming" people, that's wrong of you. I want to give people more opportunities, not less. For many cars is the only choice, and an expensive one. Walking, biking, public transit as additional choices would make lives better for many.
Tade0 4y ago
> Why do you need a car because of family? Logistics. With a car the schedule is much more flexible and that is a major advantage when you have small children. Also with four or more people on board it's not really that terrible in terms of space efficiency. If you want to lower traffic/car ownership single-occupant vehicles are your low-hanging fruit, not families.
- matsemann 4y ago
  But could you imagine a future where you didn't need to bother with all that logistics? What if school, soccer practice and work were all in walkable or bikeable distance, for instance? I'm not advocating people to be forced to sell their cars, I'm advocating for moving towards a society not based around everyone having to drive everywhere.
  - Tade0 4y ago
    > What if school, soccer practice and work were all in walkable or bikeable distance, for instance? They are for me now and actually always have been. I walk my child to daycare 1300 meters every weekday because I live in a somewhat walkable European city. I also work remotely but if I didn't I would probably commute by tram, because my stop is less than 250m away. Shopping is done via one of those delivery services that appeared during the pandemic. Alternatively I could go to the supermarket and farmers' market, both of which are within 500m of my apartment or just buy something in one of the corner stores that are even closer - I don't do that because contrary to what the Not Just Bikes guy says, daily shopping goes from quaint to annoying really quick when you have a family. I also grew up in a commie superblock where I had a school, playground, culture centre, supermarket, pharmacy, dentist, library and even a clinic not only within walking distance, but reachable without going through a single zebra crossing because most of the parking spaces were in streets parallel to the main roads wrapping around the superblock. With all that I still have a car, which I drive less than 7000km annually, because there are use cases where public transport just doesn't do it for me, namely: weekend trips to places which either have poor or non-existent public transport or visits to my extended family, from which I return too late to catch the direct line back home which functions only during the day. If everyone followed my model of living we would have even less cars than countries advertising themselves as cycling-oriented like the Netherlands and Denmark, where people with families also generally have cars if they can afford it. Cars are a massive convenience when you have unpredictable little humans to watch over.
dumbfounder 4y ago
There is plenty of authoritative and arrogant attitude to go around. Our most precious resource these days is time. If it takes longer it is not acceptable. Once you solve that issue at the same or lower price point then people will (start to) get onboard. I am a car guy and I think that owning a car sucks.

vl 4y ago

We essentially came to simple choice: less people, higher standard of living, more people, shittier standard of living. Either choice will require unpopular measures, but at least let’s make the choice consciously. I’m convinced “more people” way will lead to terrible authoritarian tyrannical society. So my choice is less people and cars are fine.

adrianN 4y ago

I have two kids and no car. Not every family needs a car.

adrianN 4y ago

I have two kids and no car. Not every family needs a car.