4 ms·

Eh, this is a very city-centric view. As discussed many times past, including on HN, if you live in or near a major city, and in a country or area which priori

by mft_ 4y ago

Eh, this is a very city-centric view. As discussed many times past, including on HN, if you live in or near a major city, and in a country or area which prioritises goood public transport, you can get by admirably --even better-- without a car. As soon as you move even a little away from the metropolis, and/or to somewhere that doesn't prioritise good public transport, access (at least) to a car becomes close to a necessity for many activities. This rule holds true in my direct experience in the UK, US, Switzerland, and Germany. For example, in the US compare living in Denver to a small town a couple of hours' drive out in the sticks. Or in the UK, living in one of the major cities to virtually anywhere in the countryside.

narrowtux 4y ago
Nobody is talking about taking away cars from people who live outside of cities. Yet this argument always comes up when problems with cars in densely populated areas are discussed.
- BizarreByte 4y ago
  This probably occurs because people and governments love one size fits all solutions. There’s a good chance any rules about cars made in the city will spill over and cause issues for people in the country, it happens all the time in regards to other things so why not this?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - narrowtux 4y ago
    Open your eyes and look at the "one size fits all" solution that we have today. Cars upon cars upon cars. Alternatives such as public transport, walking and cycling have always been gimped in favour of car traffic, lest the car driving populace complain.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  That's because the tone of "problems with cars in densely populated areas" and those discussing them tend to completely ignore the significant part of the population that the argument is redundant for.
  - trgn 4y ago
    They don't ignore that part of the population. It's just exhausting to always have to equivocate when it is the obvious. Yes, obviously, cars are a necessity in more remote places. Nobody's taking away your cars. Maybe this needs a shorthand. Just preface every discussion with "*not about you, fur trapper!"
  - spacemadness 4y ago
    Yes, talking about adding bike lanes in cities and improving public transportation should really infuriate the rural demographic that continually think everything is about them and their way of life. These ideas must all come from the cult of anti-car that wants to come into every tiny city and change everything overnight apparently. It’s typical status quo paranoia that always tries to halt any progress in these areas.
    - mellosouls 4y ago
      the rural demographic that continually think everything is about them and their way of life Rubbish, these articles are nearly always written by and supported by the dominant voice in the mainstream media - young, liberal city-dwellers, who seem to have no concept that there is a huge part of the population who are funding their "progress", often at the expense of their own infrastructure and quality of life.
      - spacemadness 4y ago
        I mean, sure, that is in fact the ridiculously paranoid narrative that keeps that argument afloat. Those damn city slickers.
kubb 4y ago
True, the car is necessary in some more places. You wouldn't be able to bring groceries, furniture, building materials, tools etc. without it. But whenever I can avoid driving, I prefer to do that.
- antiframe 4y ago
  I buy groceries every week. Several times a week when I want something fresh. There are three shops in walking distance. I don't buy furniture every week. Nor building materials. It's cheaper for me to rent a car for those occasions than to maintain a private car 24/7 for that. Cars being necessary for some tasks does not mean it's necessary to own and garage one they will sit idle most of the time.
  - kubb 4y ago
    The more remote places don't have grocery stores in walking distance. And when you need a car, you might have to bike 20 km to a carshare parking.
sumtechguy 4y ago
I live in a city with light rail and busses everywhere. Everything I want to do in this city is 20-30 min driving. Put the bus/train into it? Make that 1-2 hours or longer if I have to transfer. Then hope whatever I want is near a train/bus stop. I have traded money for time. The cost of my car buys me time. If I did not value my time I would use the public transportation more. The places near my work if I wanted to 'walk to work' cost nearly 3x-4x what I am currently paying. So I have to trade off some time for money. It takes a balance of what you want and can afford. It mostly depends on how you see time and the options afforded to you by where you live and can afford. But mostly depending on how you see these two sentences 'there are 24 hours in a day to do whatever I want' or 'there are only 24 hours in a day and that is not enough'.
- dymk 4y ago
  It sounds like you're describing my experience with Seattle's public transit system. As much as I want to love it, driving almost anywhere in the city was faster (even taking into account time to find parking). Not to mention, in my own car I don't have to deal with (other peoples') pee and needles.

by mft_ 4y ago

narrowtux 4y ago

Nobody is talking about taking away cars from people who live outside of cities. Yet this argument always comes up when problems with cars in densely populated areas are discussed.

BizarreByte 4y ago
This probably occurs because people and governments love one size fits all solutions. There’s a good chance any rules about cars made in the city will spill over and cause issues for people in the country, it happens all the time in regards to other things so why not this?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- narrowtux 4y ago
  Open your eyes and look at the "one size fits all" solution that we have today. Cars upon cars upon cars. Alternatives such as public transport, walking and cycling have always been gimped in favour of car traffic, lest the car driving populace complain.
mellosouls 4y ago
That's because the tone of "problems with cars in densely populated areas" and those discussing them tend to completely ignore the significant part of the population that the argument is redundant for.
- trgn 4y ago
  They don't ignore that part of the population. It's just exhausting to always have to equivocate when it is the obvious. Yes, obviously, cars are a necessity in more remote places. Nobody's taking away your cars. Maybe this needs a shorthand. Just preface every discussion with "*not about you, fur trapper!"
- spacemadness 4y ago
  Yes, talking about adding bike lanes in cities and improving public transportation should really infuriate the rural demographic that continually think everything is about them and their way of life. These ideas must all come from the cult of anti-car that wants to come into every tiny city and change everything overnight apparently. It’s typical status quo paranoia that always tries to halt any progress in these areas.
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    the rural demographic that continually think everything is about them and their way of life Rubbish, these articles are nearly always written by and supported by the dominant voice in the mainstream media - young, liberal city-dwellers, who seem to have no concept that there is a huge part of the population who are funding their "progress", often at the expense of their own infrastructure and quality of life.
    - spacemadness 4y ago
      I mean, sure, that is in fact the ridiculously paranoid narrative that keeps that argument afloat. Those damn city slickers.

kubb 4y ago

True, the car is necessary in some more places. You wouldn't be able to bring groceries, furniture, building materials, tools etc. without it. But whenever I can avoid driving, I prefer to do that.

antiframe 4y ago
I buy groceries every week. Several times a week when I want something fresh. There are three shops in walking distance. I don't buy furniture every week. Nor building materials. It's cheaper for me to rent a car for those occasions than to maintain a private car 24/7 for that. Cars being necessary for some tasks does not mean it's necessary to own and garage one they will sit idle most of the time.
- kubb 4y ago
  The more remote places don't have grocery stores in walking distance. And when you need a car, you might have to bike 20 km to a carshare parking.

sumtechguy 4y ago

I live in a city with light rail and busses everywhere. Everything I want to do in this city is 20-30 min driving. Put the bus/train into it? Make that 1-2 hours or longer if I have to transfer. Then hope whatever I want is near a train/bus stop. I have traded money for time. The cost of my car buys me time. If I did not value my time I would use the public transportation more. The places near my work if I wanted to 'walk to work' cost nearly 3x-4x what I am currently paying. So I have to trade off some time for money. It takes a balance of what you want and can afford. It mostly depends on how you see time and the options afforded to you by where you live and can afford. But mostly depending on how you see these two sentences 'there are 24 hours in a day to do whatever I want' or 'there are only 24 hours in a day and that is not enough'.

dymk 4y ago
It sounds like you're describing my experience with Seattle's public transit system. As much as I want to love it, driving almost anywhere in the city was faster (even taking into account time to find parking). Not to mention, in my own car I don't have to deal with (other peoples') pee and needles.