3 ms·

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 i

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.

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.