7 ms·

You live in a city bubble. I have three kids and live in a suburban town about 40km away from the nearest big city. No way i can live without a car. I do have b

You live in a city bubble. I have three kids and live in a suburban town about 40km away from the nearest big city. No way i can live without a car. I do have bikes and use them often to bring kids to school. But many friends and family are scattered arround the country. Many places i go to with my kids can only visited by car. And i find a car often very useful during a period of reconstruction of my house or garden. Or when i pick up big stuff from somewhere. Nah i couldnt live with out it

velocity23 4y ago
They said "for many families", not for all families, so there is nothing to refute here...
ArcticLandfall 4y ago
> You live in a city bubble Or relatively, you live in a suburban bubble? Different lifestyles, different modes of transport.
- judge2020 4y ago
  There is no bubble, only a lack of desire to seek out knowledge about other lifestyles. The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet. I'm pretty sure it was discussed long before the Internet.
  - ovi256 4y ago
    When people are accused of living in a bubble, it's usually because they show a strong universalist desire to expand their lifestyles to others, without consideration for the others' preferences. The opposite of humanist liberalism that was foundational for Western liberal democracies, or 'live and let live'.
    - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
      Although you didn't imply a preference one way or the other, this made me think: if policy that is driven by suburbanite lifestyles leads to the destruction of the planet, is it truly "live and let live"? A more accurate description of the US ideology as someone who has lived in both ultra-rural and urban environments in the midwest and west coast is: "I want to do whatever I want/believe is best, regardless of the impact it has on people outside of my circle."
    - uoaei 4y ago
      If we taxed suburbs what they actually cost us as a society, no one would want to live in suburbs. The land use is abysmal compared to cities. Suburbs are effectively subsidized by the cities they are near, and those living in suburbs get off way too easy. That's a good thing if you have an extractivist, individualist mindset, but if we are to continue functioning as a whole society, something needs to give. We love our farmers. Keep the fields going. But this business with allocating half-acre lots per 4 people (lots which are empty for literally 1/3 of the day) has got to end, or else local utilities should stop servicing those far-flung places. You want to be without the burdens of living in a society -- fine! Figure out water and power for yourself. It's easier than ever and there's still federal- and state-level rebate programs for renewables.
      - ars 4y ago
        If we actually tax them, it would be a negative tax. So many people don't seem to realize that without suburbs you don't have farms. Suburbs and farms produce all the things that cities rely on. You don't see heavy industry in the middle of a city. So we actually wanted to do your plan then cities should cough up way more money than they currently do.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        The poorer denser city centers (in America) subsidise the wealthier, less dense suburbs. "Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math [ST07]" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
substation13 4y ago
This is why cities are better for the environment. I don't think rural car usage has nearly as much negative impact as driving in a big city though, so this shouldn't be a strong policy focus. Awesome that the kids can ride to school!
- rickydroll 4y ago
  I think the rural/city better for the environment is a bit of cherry picking of statistics. It's important however to respect what's good for each of us. For me, living in the city meant shitty health outcomes, spending way too much money on rent and food, way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment etc. For me a good life means dark skies, green trees, a chance of dying every time I go for a hike, and a garden in my backyard. If you are a city person, that's great, fantastic and I hope that you can stay there but if you have to move out to suburban/rural spaces, don't bring the city with you. Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment What does that refer to?
  - substation13 4y ago
    Trouble is, wild areas are being destroyed to make room for suburbia.
  - enriquto 4y ago
    > Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city. "The noise"... are you advocating for a rural setting without cars here? Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      > Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure. While I love cities, I think that's not really the story. Cities would light up their streets with or without cars. Could you imagine if New York, somehow sans cars, with pitch black streets at night? The crime fear is way overdone - cities are very safe these says. But I think I still prefer streetlights.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Kiro 4y ago
40km from the nearest city should still provide lots of public transport options.
CalRobert 4y ago
Similarly, someone on the moon would find a spacecraft useful as well.
r00fus 4y ago
I mean, no one is arguing to replace all cars with bikes. Just where appropriate and if you want to. Enjoy your suburban paradise.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
no-one is arguing you should cycle 40 km - but that doesn't mean we live in a bubble. That distance is more than the radius of the largest city in Europe -> it's 25km from Heathrow airport to the Buckingham palace. I don't think having a car is a big problem, I think we could hand out free e-bikes to every family and reduce amount of cars of the roads, because for ~50% of journeys, they make sence.
- velocity23 4y ago
  We're not all not arguing that though. On an ebike powered to 30km/hr, that's an 80 minute ride. If their small town supplies most of their needs and they go into the big city once a month, that's quite feasible... lots of people do a 90+ minute drive once a month for something or other. 1-2 hour rides aren't exhausting or requiring special fitness on an e-bike, and can be very pleasant (if they had nice routes). Now if they mean they go 40km to take the kids to school every day, that's a different matter.
matsemann 4y ago
Yes I am, but you're similarly in a suburbian bubble, where you get the benefits of living remotely (silence, big house, lawn etc), but also expect to get easy access to everything by driving everywhere. The latter of great cost to society both in dollars and other external factors. All your usecases could be served with a rental. Where I live I can rent cars on hour basis with an app. Need to haul something big? Rent a van for a few hours. Want to visit family in a remote city? Rent a sedan for a day or two. Need to get a cat to the vet? Rent a small city car for two hours.
juancb 4y ago
Does your large suburban home improvement shop not offer delivery or rent out work trucks/vans for hauling your DIY catch of the week? Consider the cost of ownership with maintenance, depreciation, loan interest (if applicable), and insurance compared to renting. Depending on the frequency and distance of your long trips you may actually save money by renting.

velocity23 4y ago

They said "for many families", not for all families, so there is nothing to refute here...

ArcticLandfall 4y ago

> You live in a city bubble Or relatively, you live in a suburban bubble? Different lifestyles, different modes of transport.

judge2020 4y ago
There is no bubble, only a lack of desire to seek out knowledge about other lifestyles. The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet. I'm pretty sure it was discussed long before the Internet.
- ovi256 4y ago
  When people are accused of living in a bubble, it's usually because they show a strong universalist desire to expand their lifestyles to others, without consideration for the others' preferences. The opposite of humanist liberalism that was foundational for Western liberal democracies, or 'live and let live'.
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    Although you didn't imply a preference one way or the other, this made me think: if policy that is driven by suburbanite lifestyles leads to the destruction of the planet, is it truly "live and let live"? A more accurate description of the US ideology as someone who has lived in both ultra-rural and urban environments in the midwest and west coast is: "I want to do whatever I want/believe is best, regardless of the impact it has on people outside of my circle."
  - uoaei 4y ago
    If we taxed suburbs what they actually cost us as a society, no one would want to live in suburbs. The land use is abysmal compared to cities. Suburbs are effectively subsidized by the cities they are near, and those living in suburbs get off way too easy. That's a good thing if you have an extractivist, individualist mindset, but if we are to continue functioning as a whole society, something needs to give. We love our farmers. Keep the fields going. But this business with allocating half-acre lots per 4 people (lots which are empty for literally 1/3 of the day) has got to end, or else local utilities should stop servicing those far-flung places. You want to be without the burdens of living in a society -- fine! Figure out water and power for yourself. It's easier than ever and there's still federal- and state-level rebate programs for renewables.
    - ars 4y ago
      If we actually tax them, it would be a negative tax. So many people don't seem to realize that without suburbs you don't have farms. Suburbs and farms produce all the things that cities rely on. You don't see heavy industry in the middle of a city. So we actually wanted to do your plan then cities should cough up way more money than they currently do.
      - jodrellblank 4y ago
        The poorer denser city centers (in America) subsidise the wealthier, less dense suburbs. "Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math [ST07]" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

substation13 4y ago

This is why cities are better for the environment. I don't think rural car usage has nearly as much negative impact as driving in a big city though, so this shouldn't be a strong policy focus. Awesome that the kids can ride to school!

rickydroll 4y ago
I think the rural/city better for the environment is a bit of cherry picking of statistics. It's important however to respect what's good for each of us. For me, living in the city meant shitty health outcomes, spending way too much money on rent and food, way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment etc. For me a good life means dark skies, green trees, a chance of dying every time I go for a hike, and a garden in my backyard. If you are a city person, that's great, fantastic and I hope that you can stay there but if you have to move out to suburban/rural spaces, don't bring the city with you. Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment What does that refer to?
- substation13 4y ago
  Trouble is, wild areas are being destroyed to make room for suburbia.
- enriquto 4y ago
  > Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city. "The noise"... are you advocating for a rural setting without cars here? Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure. While I love cities, I think that's not really the story. Cities would light up their streets with or without cars. Could you imagine if New York, somehow sans cars, with pitch black streets at night? The crime fear is way overdone - cities are very safe these says. But I think I still prefer streetlights.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Kiro 4y ago

40km from the nearest city should still provide lots of public transport options.

CalRobert 4y ago

Similarly, someone on the moon would find a spacecraft useful as well.

r00fus 4y ago

I mean, no one is arguing to replace all cars with bikes. Just where appropriate and if you want to. Enjoy your suburban paradise.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

no-one is arguing you should cycle 40 km - but that doesn't mean we live in a bubble. That distance is more than the radius of the largest city in Europe -> it's 25km from Heathrow airport to the Buckingham palace. I don't think having a car is a big problem, I think we could hand out free e-bikes to every family and reduce amount of cars of the roads, because for ~50% of journeys, they make sence.

velocity23 4y ago
We're not all not arguing that though. On an ebike powered to 30km/hr, that's an 80 minute ride. If their small town supplies most of their needs and they go into the big city once a month, that's quite feasible... lots of people do a 90+ minute drive once a month for something or other. 1-2 hour rides aren't exhausting or requiring special fitness on an e-bike, and can be very pleasant (if they had nice routes). Now if they mean they go 40km to take the kids to school every day, that's a different matter.

matsemann 4y ago

Yes I am, but you're similarly in a suburbian bubble, where you get the benefits of living remotely (silence, big house, lawn etc), but also expect to get easy access to everything by driving everywhere. The latter of great cost to society both in dollars and other external factors. All your usecases could be served with a rental. Where I live I can rent cars on hour basis with an app. Need to haul something big? Rent a van for a few hours. Want to visit family in a remote city? Rent a sedan for a day or two. Need to get a cat to the vet? Rent a small city car for two hours.

juancb 4y ago

Does your large suburban home improvement shop not offer delivery or rent out work trucks/vans for hauling your DIY catch of the week? Consider the cost of ownership with maintenance, depreciation, loan interest (if applicable), and insurance compared to renting. Depending on the frequency and distance of your long trips you may actually save money by renting.