3 ms·

That's not at all true in the industrialized world. Gibraltar is maybe one place you might not need a car, it's a tiny country with a bus reaching everywhere. Y

That's not at all true in the industrialized world. Gibraltar is maybe one place you might not need a car, it's a tiny country with a bus reaching everywhere. Yet there are 1444 cars per 1000 people. If you look at cars/1000 people though the US is top with 890 sure, but New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Austrailia, Poland, Italy are all above 750. France, Germany, UK, Switzerland, Austria, Spain, Japan are all above 600. Switzerland especially is often cited as a great example of how a well run public transport system works, yet 82% of people have a car

rpastuszak 4y ago
> _in most cases_ I'm in my mid 30s, lived in 5 different countries (incl. UK, Austria, Poland, Portugal) and use a car perhaps 4 times per month (cab, when I'm feeling lazy). Again, I put the emphasis there for a reason: I'm not saying that we don't need cars _at all_. What I'm saying is that we need _much fewer_ cars and there are many people like me. When I need to take a longer trip, I rent a cab. It costs me a fraction of what I'd need to pay if I drove. Owning a car is a bit like watching TV vs. YT/VoD: it's partially driven by habits (also generation, culture, social status). I'm not speaking in absolute terms here. With better infrastructure we could reduce the need even further.
- iso1631 4y ago
  You use the word most. But reality is most adults have cars in all those countries. Cars are expensive, if they didn't need one they wouldn't have one. These include countries with very good public transport. Japan, Switzerland etc. You are very much in the minority.
  - rpastuszak 4y ago
    > Cars are expensive, if they didn't need one they wouldn't have one. I know so many people, even in places like London or Vienna, so with extremely good transport systems, who bought expensive cars because that's what most people in their families do. Sometimes it's a status symbol, sometimes a pattern people fall into due to upbringing. It's similar, although not identical to people in their 20s or 30s owning a TV set yet spending most of their screen time on their phones or laptops. And, again, this is not a binary issue. The point I'm trying to convey here is that: 1. cars are useful, but 2. it's perfectly plausible to have a _significantly smaller_ amount of cars than we do and it would be a net improvement 3. with improvements in both transport systems (3.1) and _also_ education (3.2, also sic!) we get more people closer to 2. 4. 3.1. and 3.2 can be done in parallel, which means that now, more people than we think _don't_ need cars We're not there yet but were getting there. > You are very much in the minority. Of course, what made you think I implied otherwise? I feel like our discussion started with a big misunderstanding of each other's opinion earlier in the thread.
  - stefs 4y ago
    for many people cars are a luxurious convenience. they also enable bad behavior and come at a terrible cost for everyone, including non-drivers. the reasons for this are manifold, but the problem is, that often there are no practical alternatives because we build our society around car dependency. this creates a dependency spiral: it's hard to quit cars, so people don't (even try), and because everyone has cars, we build infrastructure for it. it is possible to get out of it in certain areas, usually cities - but even if one manages, they still have to pay the cost: not just the financial burden, the health problems, but also the reduction in safety (especially for kids) and quality of living. vienna has excellent public transport and the car ownership rate is less than 400 per 1000 inhabitants. of those 400, how many are necessary and how many are just out of convenience? as for my (austrian) country-dwelling extended family: every adult owns their own car, but i'd estimate at least every second car is not strictly necessary.
    - rpastuszak 4y ago
      > the reasons for this are manifold, but the problem is, that often there are no practical alternatives because we build our society around car dependency. This. I think what got lost in translation in the discussion between iso1631 and me is that we read the phrase "we don't need cars" differently. We need cars because we're making ourselves need them more than we should.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  "Owning a car is a bit like watching TV vs. YT/VoD: it's partially driven by habits" This. Thank you, 50+, living in Germany, never owned a car (have a drivers license), never going to own a car. When friends say "we need a car" they mean that they moved outside the city in a big house but want to go to the city every day and drive their children to a sports club every second day. Sure they "need a car". It's like I go diving and I "need an oxygen tank". Yes, sure, if you go diving.

rpastuszak 4y ago

> _in most cases_ I'm in my mid 30s, lived in 5 different countries (incl. UK, Austria, Poland, Portugal) and use a car perhaps 4 times per month (cab, when I'm feeling lazy). Again, I put the emphasis there for a reason: I'm not saying that we don't need cars _at all_. What I'm saying is that we need _much fewer_ cars and there are many people like me. When I need to take a longer trip, I rent a cab. It costs me a fraction of what I'd need to pay if I drove. Owning a car is a bit like watching TV vs. YT/VoD: it's partially driven by habits (also generation, culture, social status). I'm not speaking in absolute terms here. With better infrastructure we could reduce the need even further.

iso1631 4y ago
You use the word most. But reality is most adults have cars in all those countries. Cars are expensive, if they didn't need one they wouldn't have one. These include countries with very good public transport. Japan, Switzerland etc. You are very much in the minority.
- rpastuszak 4y ago
  > Cars are expensive, if they didn't need one they wouldn't have one. I know so many people, even in places like London or Vienna, so with extremely good transport systems, who bought expensive cars because that's what most people in their families do. Sometimes it's a status symbol, sometimes a pattern people fall into due to upbringing. It's similar, although not identical to people in their 20s or 30s owning a TV set yet spending most of their screen time on their phones or laptops. And, again, this is not a binary issue. The point I'm trying to convey here is that: 1. cars are useful, but 2. it's perfectly plausible to have a _significantly smaller_ amount of cars than we do and it would be a net improvement 3. with improvements in both transport systems (3.1) and _also_ education (3.2, also sic!) we get more people closer to 2. 4. 3.1. and 3.2 can be done in parallel, which means that now, more people than we think _don't_ need cars We're not there yet but were getting there. > You are very much in the minority. Of course, what made you think I implied otherwise? I feel like our discussion started with a big misunderstanding of each other's opinion earlier in the thread.
- stefs 4y ago
  for many people cars are a luxurious convenience. they also enable bad behavior and come at a terrible cost for everyone, including non-drivers. the reasons for this are manifold, but the problem is, that often there are no practical alternatives because we build our society around car dependency. this creates a dependency spiral: it's hard to quit cars, so people don't (even try), and because everyone has cars, we build infrastructure for it. it is possible to get out of it in certain areas, usually cities - but even if one manages, they still have to pay the cost: not just the financial burden, the health problems, but also the reduction in safety (especially for kids) and quality of living. vienna has excellent public transport and the car ownership rate is less than 400 per 1000 inhabitants. of those 400, how many are necessary and how many are just out of convenience? as for my (austrian) country-dwelling extended family: every adult owns their own car, but i'd estimate at least every second car is not strictly necessary.
  - rpastuszak 4y ago
    > the reasons for this are manifold, but the problem is, that often there are no practical alternatives because we build our society around car dependency. This. I think what got lost in translation in the discussion between iso1631 and me is that we read the phrase "we don't need cars" differently. We need cars because we're making ourselves need them more than we should.
KingOfCoders 4y ago
"Owning a car is a bit like watching TV vs. YT/VoD: it's partially driven by habits" This. Thank you, 50+, living in Germany, never owned a car (have a drivers license), never going to own a car. When friends say "we need a car" they mean that they moved outside the city in a big house but want to go to the city every day and drive their children to a sports club every second day. Sure they "need a car". It's like I go diving and I "need an oxygen tank". Yes, sure, if you go diving.