5 ms·

I really wished this demonisation of the car stopped. Modern cars are way more climate friendly than merely 10-20 years ago and many climate-conscious persons d

by kensai 4y ago

I really wished this demonisation of the car stopped. Modern cars are way more climate friendly than merely 10-20 years ago and many climate-conscious persons do pool to commute. But we need to understand. There are cases where the car is a must. Unavoidable. Imagine having toddlers, having to do heavy groceries, and living in a place with difficult landscape or challenging weather. Imagine having a neurological disease or some other disability.

digdugdirk 4y ago
Replace the words "the car" with "good public transit" and your last paragraph makes equal if not more sense. There's different ways of living a life, and the current trend shouldn't be seen as car demonization. I see it more as a new generation seeing the current US car-centric society and pushing for a better (for the life they want to live) alternative.
- kensai 4y ago
  It depends where you live. Good public transit is unfortunately the exception in many places and not the rule. Cars are still needed in many use cases.
  - spyremeown 4y ago
    You're almost getting it. So, so close. >Good public transit is unfortunately the exception in many places and not the rule. Then let's make it better! :-)
    - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
      >”You're almost getting it. So, so close.” >” Then let's make it better! :-)” Why respond with such condescension? And, why follow it up with such a hollow and glib call to action?
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > Good public transit is unfortunately the exception in many places and not the rule. This is a fixable problem. The biggest issue is... > Cars are still needed in many use cases. ... the people who say this and, as a result, block any attempt to improve public transit whatsoever. Even worse, some are apt to frame it a "war on cars" because they're spending money on transportation that's not going to cars.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      My village has about 300 people in it, so call it 300 return trips per day. Those trips might be east to the small city. Or west to the mid-sized down. There's a bus in those directions, about once every 2 hours, last one at 6pm so useless for evening activities, or commuting further on the train. It's just gone past my front door now, it's rare to see more than 2 or 3 passengers on board other than at college time. My options for going further - to London or Manchester 1) bus to the station, train to london, tube across london, then return on tube, train, and get a taxi back from the station 2) drive to the station in the morning, park, drive back in the evening (last train arrives about midnight) 3) drive the entire journey, under 3 hours so about the same amount of time Same if I go to Manchester and Birmingham, but the drive is about half the time of public transport. They might be south towards the big village. Or north to another big town. There's no bus services there. Now you might say "just put on more public transport". My wife drives to work at a hospital 25 miles away. I suspect you could meet the entire daily demand from my village in that direction with a single minibus. The route doesn't pass any other major settlements, it's south-west down the lanes. How frequently would a bus need to run to be useful? Every hour? How early would it start? How late would it run? How many people would it take on each journey, and how much would it cost to run? How much pollution would it cause? What benefits would there be? Public transport doesn't work below a certain density. If you want to depopulate the country and put everyone in tower blocks in the city - leaving the country for the rich - then just be honest about it.
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        > If you want to depopulate the country and put everyone in tower blocks in the city - leaving the country for the rich - then just be honest about it. I don't want to do this. But the fact that you immediately go to the suggestion that I do is emblematic of the "war-on-cars" mentality. Just so much as mention wanting to improve public transit and you get a screed that concludes that I'm an evil person with ulterior motives. No, public transit doesn't work everywhere. I'm not going to even try to pretend that it does. And consequently, I'm not going to attempt to propose it in places where it doesn't work. So why do the "war-on-car" people so vehemently oppose public transit when its proposed in the places where it very obviously works?
quectophoton 4y ago
In the country I live in, you can't get a bus or train after a certain hour of night. If you had business in a different city that's a few hours distance, and you miss the last bus of the day, you'll need to wait at least 6-8 hours to be able to get the first bus or train of the next day. In this case you can probably still find a taxi, but then we're back to the car situation. (EDIT: Of course the problem would also be solved if you could get a bus or train any time of the day.)
spyremeown 4y ago
>But we need to understand. There are cases where the car is a must. Unavoidable. Imagine having toddlers, having to do heavy groceries, and living in a place with difficult landscape or challenging weather. Imagine having a neurological disease or some other disability. Bud, nobody is taking the car away from those kinds of use cases. It's very clear for most people that cars are necessary in those situations, and that's fine. What we're demonising is the car as the only way to go about getting from A to B. If you watch some of the urban planning videos on the topic, or lurk the r/f*cars subreddit you'll quickly see that most people also* want to make the driving experience better! And by better they don't mean to build one more lane, but sensible infrastructure that makes sense for everybody, not just the cars. The whole point is about inclusion: why isn't using a car unavoidable?
- kensai 4y ago
  Bud, no. The demonising is complete and utter. To the point in some cities in Europe ecoterrorists attack parked cars. Some cases are so ridiculous, they've even attecked parked Teslas and other electric cars. Fact of the matter is the following: not everyone lives near a fantastic commuting infrastructure, let alone can physically achieve moving from A to B against the elements or their other problems.
scatters 4y ago
Imagine having a neurological disease or some other disability that means that you can't drive.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  Well, my mom has Parkinson's. Can't walk/bike/take public transport anywhere so I have to drive her around (mainly to therapy). How could I possibly manage without a car?
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Bicycling would be out of the question. Family, neighbors, taxi service, or mass transit seems to be the only available options.
- kensai 4y ago
  Who told you that? Not all neurological diseases or disabilities mean you cannot drive. And even if you cannot YOURSELF (as the patient) drive, you certainly can have some car with a special badge to park closer to your destination.
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  These are more common than those that require automobility, but aren't discussed because they don't help the cause. Most common disabilities are eyes, hearing, and mental. None of those can drive.
  - kensai 4y ago
    And as I said, it does not matter if you can drive YOURSELF. These cars get special permits for the relatives to drive the disabled person to the destination. But other than that, you are wrong again. The most common neurological disabilities actually affect motor and sensitivity. Are people are allowed to drive.
david-gpu 4y ago
> Imagine having toddlers, having to do heavy groceries, and living in a place with difficult landscape or challenging weather. Imagine having a neurological disease or some other disability. I tick all of those boxes and never had a car. I live in the city, walking and using public transit. Toddlers love to walk and to be carried in the stroller. Cars from the suburbs are a constant inconvenience for us living in inner cities: they are a danger to pedestrians and cyclists alike, they make our streets noisy and our air polluted. If people liked the suburbs so much, they would stay there. But no, they want the convenience and services of the city while shoving the externalities of their lifestyle onto other people.
- kensai 4y ago
  So what do you imply? That (inner) cities will be only for your carless people? Good for you that you tick the boxes and still not use the car. I know of people that cannot manage this. The inner cities are also places were the suburbs people come to work and play. So space in underground parkings or other accomodations is expected. Imagine if the sububs people decided to say to you (inner) city people that you are not allowed to go to their green parks and recreation areas because you are "shoving externalities of your (city) lifestyle to them". Jesus.
  - david-gpu 4y ago
    Inner city areas should be designed primarily for the people living there, not for the convenience of suburbanites passing by. Regarding green spaces, they easily coexist in dense walkable neighborhoods.
    - kensai 4y ago
      Thankfully you are not to decide this. Inner city areas contain many offices and amenities that are critical for the whole population, regardless where they live. I hear such outrageous arguments all the time by inner city dwellers. Just because they own or rent a microscopic appartment in a condo, they think they own the city and all must abide to their lifestyle.
  - 4y ago
CalRobert 4y ago
You're right, we should imagine having young children. I want my children to ride a bike to school and not die.
- vanilla_nut 4y ago
  I grew up essentially a prisoner in a rural US community before I could drive. Kids need to be able to explore independently! Thank you for understanding this.
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    Trying! It's been a long journey.
afiori 4y ago
"When you are privileged equality feels like oppression" Cars have reasons to exists and a no-car future is neither likely nor desirable; but today they are overused as an inefficient but easy solution.
bbojan 4y ago
> Imagine having toddlers, having to do heavy groceries, and living in a place with difficult landscape or challenging weather. Here in Switzerland I see people biking with toddlers AND heavy groceries all the time. And the landscape and weather are definitely challenging. I have a neighbor who drives her 3 small kids around on a bicycle (one in the rear child seat, two in a trailer). In her defence it's an e-bike.

by kensai 4y ago

digdugdirk 4y ago

Replace the words "the car" with "good public transit" and your last paragraph makes equal if not more sense. There's different ways of living a life, and the current trend shouldn't be seen as car demonization. I see it more as a new generation seeing the current US car-centric society and pushing for a better (for the life they want to live) alternative.

kensai 4y ago
It depends where you live. Good public transit is unfortunately the exception in many places and not the rule. Cars are still needed in many use cases.
- spyremeown 4y ago
  You're almost getting it. So, so close. >Good public transit is unfortunately the exception in many places and not the rule. Then let's make it better! :-)
  - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
    >”You're almost getting it. So, so close.” >” Then let's make it better! :-)” Why respond with such condescension? And, why follow it up with such a hollow and glib call to action?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > Good public transit is unfortunately the exception in many places and not the rule. This is a fixable problem. The biggest issue is... > Cars are still needed in many use cases. ... the people who say this and, as a result, block any attempt to improve public transit whatsoever. Even worse, some are apt to frame it a "war on cars" because they're spending money on transportation that's not going to cars.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    My village has about 300 people in it, so call it 300 return trips per day. Those trips might be east to the small city. Or west to the mid-sized down. There's a bus in those directions, about once every 2 hours, last one at 6pm so useless for evening activities, or commuting further on the train. It's just gone past my front door now, it's rare to see more than 2 or 3 passengers on board other than at college time. My options for going further - to London or Manchester 1) bus to the station, train to london, tube across london, then return on tube, train, and get a taxi back from the station 2) drive to the station in the morning, park, drive back in the evening (last train arrives about midnight) 3) drive the entire journey, under 3 hours so about the same amount of time Same if I go to Manchester and Birmingham, but the drive is about half the time of public transport. They might be south towards the big village. Or north to another big town. There's no bus services there. Now you might say "just put on more public transport". My wife drives to work at a hospital 25 miles away. I suspect you could meet the entire daily demand from my village in that direction with a single minibus. The route doesn't pass any other major settlements, it's south-west down the lanes. How frequently would a bus need to run to be useful? Every hour? How early would it start? How late would it run? How many people would it take on each journey, and how much would it cost to run? How much pollution would it cause? What benefits would there be? Public transport doesn't work below a certain density. If you want to depopulate the country and put everyone in tower blocks in the city - leaving the country for the rich - then just be honest about it.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      > If you want to depopulate the country and put everyone in tower blocks in the city - leaving the country for the rich - then just be honest about it. I don't want to do this. But the fact that you immediately go to the suggestion that I do is emblematic of the "war-on-cars" mentality. Just so much as mention wanting to improve public transit and you get a screed that concludes that I'm an evil person with ulterior motives. No, public transit doesn't work everywhere. I'm not going to even try to pretend that it does. And consequently, I'm not going to attempt to propose it in places where it doesn't work. So why do the "war-on-car" people so vehemently oppose public transit when its proposed in the places where it very obviously works?

quectophoton 4y ago

In the country I live in, you can't get a bus or train after a certain hour of night. If you had business in a different city that's a few hours distance, and you miss the last bus of the day, you'll need to wait at least 6-8 hours to be able to get the first bus or train of the next day. In this case you can probably still find a taxi, but then we're back to the car situation. (EDIT: Of course the problem would also be solved if you could get a bus or train any time of the day.)

spyremeown 4y ago

>But we need to understand. There are cases where the car is a must. Unavoidable. Imagine having toddlers, having to do heavy groceries, and living in a place with difficult landscape or challenging weather. Imagine having a neurological disease or some other disability. Bud, nobody is taking the car away from those kinds of use cases. It's very clear for most people that cars are necessary in those situations, and that's fine. What we're demonising is the car as the only way to go about getting from A to B. If you watch some of the urban planning videos on the topic, or lurk the r/f*cars subreddit you'll quickly see that most people also* want to make the driving experience better! And by better they don't mean to build one more lane, but sensible infrastructure that makes sense for everybody, not just the cars. The whole point is about inclusion: why isn't using a car unavoidable?

kensai 4y ago
Bud, no. The demonising is complete and utter. To the point in some cities in Europe ecoterrorists attack parked cars. Some cases are so ridiculous, they've even attecked parked Teslas and other electric cars. Fact of the matter is the following: not everyone lives near a fantastic commuting infrastructure, let alone can physically achieve moving from A to B against the elements or their other problems.

scatters 4y ago

Imagine having a neurological disease or some other disability that means that you can't drive.

Animatronio 4y ago
Well, my mom has Parkinson's. Can't walk/bike/take public transport anywhere so I have to drive her around (mainly to therapy). How could I possibly manage without a car?
nobodyandproud 4y ago
Bicycling would be out of the question. Family, neighbors, taxi service, or mass transit seems to be the only available options.
kensai 4y ago
Who told you that? Not all neurological diseases or disabilities mean you cannot drive. And even if you cannot YOURSELF (as the patient) drive, you certainly can have some car with a special badge to park closer to your destination.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
These are more common than those that require automobility, but aren't discussed because they don't help the cause. Most common disabilities are eyes, hearing, and mental. None of those can drive.
- kensai 4y ago
  And as I said, it does not matter if you can drive YOURSELF. These cars get special permits for the relatives to drive the disabled person to the destination. But other than that, you are wrong again. The most common neurological disabilities actually affect motor and sensitivity. Are people are allowed to drive.

david-gpu 4y ago

> Imagine having toddlers, having to do heavy groceries, and living in a place with difficult landscape or challenging weather. Imagine having a neurological disease or some other disability. I tick all of those boxes and never had a car. I live in the city, walking and using public transit. Toddlers love to walk and to be carried in the stroller. Cars from the suburbs are a constant inconvenience for us living in inner cities: they are a danger to pedestrians and cyclists alike, they make our streets noisy and our air polluted. If people liked the suburbs so much, they would stay there. But no, they want the convenience and services of the city while shoving the externalities of their lifestyle onto other people.

kensai 4y ago
So what do you imply? That (inner) cities will be only for your carless people? Good for you that you tick the boxes and still not use the car. I know of people that cannot manage this. The inner cities are also places were the suburbs people come to work and play. So space in underground parkings or other accomodations is expected. Imagine if the sububs people decided to say to you (inner) city people that you are not allowed to go to their green parks and recreation areas because you are "shoving externalities of your (city) lifestyle to them". Jesus.
- david-gpu 4y ago
  Inner city areas should be designed primarily for the people living there, not for the convenience of suburbanites passing by. Regarding green spaces, they easily coexist in dense walkable neighborhoods.
  - kensai 4y ago
    Thankfully you are not to decide this. Inner city areas contain many offices and amenities that are critical for the whole population, regardless where they live. I hear such outrageous arguments all the time by inner city dwellers. Just because they own or rent a microscopic appartment in a condo, they think they own the city and all must abide to their lifestyle.
- 4y ago

CalRobert 4y ago

You're right, we should imagine having young children. I want my children to ride a bike to school and not die.

vanilla_nut 4y ago
I grew up essentially a prisoner in a rural US community before I could drive. Kids need to be able to explore independently! Thank you for understanding this.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  Trying! It's been a long journey.

afiori 4y ago

"When you are privileged equality feels like oppression" Cars have reasons to exists and a no-car future is neither likely nor desirable; but today they are overused as an inefficient but easy solution.

bbojan 4y ago

> Imagine having toddlers, having to do heavy groceries, and living in a place with difficult landscape or challenging weather. Here in Switzerland I see people biking with toddlers AND heavy groceries all the time. And the landscape and weather are definitely challenging. I have a neighbor who drives her 3 small kids around on a bicycle (one in the rear child seat, two in a trailer). In her defence it's an e-bike.