11 ms·

Perhaps americans prefer larger vehicle because of infrastructure design, public policy, and advertising campaigns, not because the desire is just innate? It m

Perhaps americans prefer larger vehicle because of infrastructure design, public policy, and advertising campaigns, not because the desire is just innate? It makes sense that you'd want a larger car when you live in a place that is designed for driving and everyone else is doing it too. Give people other viable options, like walking,cycling, and transit, and I guarantee that they will pick them instead because they are more pleasant and convenient. I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either. The two most desirable and expensive cities in the United States (SF and NYC) are largely built this way.

goostavos 3y ago
>I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either The problem is that the walkable / bikable places are so few and far between that they're gobsmackingly expensive. Even on a FANG salary, getting a reasonable place in one of the few walkable neighborhoods is beyond what I'm willing to pay these days. If you want more than 900sqft for your family, trading a 15min walk for a 25min drive just makes so much more sense with how American cities are laid out and how much competition there is over the desirable places.
- swexbe 3y ago
  That’s on the failures of public planning. Nothing inherently makes walkable places more expensive.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/ https://culdesac.com/about https://culdesac.com/about There are efforts being made, it will just take time. Can’t move almost a century of car centric public policy on a dime. Vote with your dollars and feet.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Walkable neighborhoods are expensive precisely because so many people want to live in them and because we have mostly outlawed building them. The fix is simple: just get rid out the laws that prevent them from being built.
rcme 3y ago
Or… there is a minimum amount of space required to park an SUV. Those who have enough space opt for SUVs, those who don’t buy compact cars. Like try driving a huge SUV on narrow German village roads or parking in the tiny parking spaces there. Or try weaving though heavy NYC traffic or finding a new parking spot when you need to move for alternate side parking. It’s nearly impossible in an SUV, but an SUV is an objectively better car choice if you don’t care about efficiency or sporty handling.
- RobinL 3y ago
  or the danger it imposes on more vulnerable road users, or the negative externality of huge vehicles littering neighborhoods What I struggle with is how it's socially acceptable for people to ignore all of these negative externalities. Just another example of Moloch winning: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. For some reason we scorn people who drop litter, but air pollution is totally fine
  - rhaway84773 3y ago
    Or just murdering people by driving cars that are inherently incapable of not murdering people.
  - rcme 3y ago
    The difference between littering and air pollution is pretty easy to understand. What’s the alternative to littering? Holding on to your trash for a few minute until you find a garbage can. What’s the alternative to air pollution? Giving up all of our modern conveniences and rearchitecting our entire society. Without air pollution, we likely could not sustain our current population levels, so a number of people would have to die too. Imagine society’s collective lifestyle was predicated on littering 100 candy bar wrappers per person. In such a scenario, I don’t think many people are going to get worked up over someone littering 105 wrappers. Taking this analogy a little further, I always find it strange when people that litter 90 wrappers get mad at those that litter 110.
  - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
sgregnt 3y ago
A walkable option is convinent, but it is only one aspect of what ppl look for. Can you show, anywhere in the world, an affordable walkable option that would also include: (1) Big private house with a backyard (2) access for trucks (3) close to nature (4) quiet.
- thethethethe 3y ago
  > quiet > cars > Pick one. You can get all of those things in walkable cities. SF and NYC have single family homes with back yards in walkable neighborhoods, they are just really expensive. Also all neighborhoods have truck access, including fully pedestrianized streets.
pandaman 3y ago
Living in a walkable place is not mutually exclusive with driving. I live in one, I have a car, all my neighbors have cars and/or trucks. You can use Google's Street View and check out SF and NYC, there are plenty of cars there too. That's because your options are not more pleasant and convenient for everyone, I'd guess.
- thethethethe 3y ago
  Sure people can still have cars in walkable places because not all trips are going to be better without a car. That doesn't mean that people owning cars in walkable areas are going to use them for all or most trips. They probably don't drive to the corner store 2 blocks away to pick up a six pack or drive across the city to the office to pay $30 when transit takes less time, costs 1/6th the price, and doesn't require them to sit in traffic with their hands on the wheel.
  - pandaman 3y ago
    I am not seeing anybody arguing that people owning cars use them for all trips even in non-walkable places. But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. I have a train and a bus stations nearby, it's still a 5-10 min walk, not counting waiting for the train/bus. I'd estimate if I just wanted to go somewhere right now via transit, I'd be on board in 20-30 minutes, if I took my car, I'd be 10-20 miles away by then. But all this is besides the point of cars being big, even if there had been the magic transit of your imagination, which really was so fast and cheap, it would not reduce the size of the cars people bought. Bigger cars are more desirable, this is why they are more expensive. Americans are richer than most peoples, they can afford bigger cars.
    - thethethethe 3y ago
      > But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. Maybe its like this for because our infrastructure has been built around the assumption that you can park your car right in front of your destination AND doesn't have good transit oriented development/frequent enough service. If you had to walk 10 minutes to park your car and or circle the block for 10 minutes waiting for a spot to open up and the trains and busses ran every 3 minutes and didn't get stuck in traffic, the time would balance out differently

goostavos 3y ago

>I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either The problem is that the walkable / bikable places are so few and far between that they're gobsmackingly expensive. Even on a FANG salary, getting a reasonable place in one of the few walkable neighborhoods is beyond what I'm willing to pay these days. If you want more than 900sqft for your family, trading a 15min walk for a 25min drive just makes so much more sense with how American cities are laid out and how much competition there is over the desirable places.

swexbe 3y ago
That’s on the failures of public planning. Nothing inherently makes walkable places more expensive.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/ https://culdesac.com/about https://culdesac.com/about There are efforts being made, it will just take time. Can’t move almost a century of car centric public policy on a dime. Vote with your dollars and feet.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
Walkable neighborhoods are expensive precisely because so many people want to live in them and because we have mostly outlawed building them. The fix is simple: just get rid out the laws that prevent them from being built.

rcme 3y ago

Or… there is a minimum amount of space required to park an SUV. Those who have enough space opt for SUVs, those who don’t buy compact cars. Like try driving a huge SUV on narrow German village roads or parking in the tiny parking spaces there. Or try weaving though heavy NYC traffic or finding a new parking spot when you need to move for alternate side parking. It’s nearly impossible in an SUV, but an SUV is an objectively better car choice if you don’t care about efficiency or sporty handling.

RobinL 3y ago
or the danger it imposes on more vulnerable road users, or the negative externality of huge vehicles littering neighborhoods What I struggle with is how it's socially acceptable for people to ignore all of these negative externalities. Just another example of Moloch winning: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. For some reason we scorn people who drop litter, but air pollution is totally fine
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  Or just murdering people by driving cars that are inherently incapable of not murdering people.
- rcme 3y ago
  The difference between littering and air pollution is pretty easy to understand. What’s the alternative to littering? Holding on to your trash for a few minute until you find a garbage can. What’s the alternative to air pollution? Giving up all of our modern conveniences and rearchitecting our entire society. Without air pollution, we likely could not sustain our current population levels, so a number of people would have to die too. Imagine society’s collective lifestyle was predicated on littering 100 candy bar wrappers per person. In such a scenario, I don’t think many people are going to get worked up over someone littering 105 wrappers. Taking this analogy a little further, I always find it strange when people that litter 90 wrappers get mad at those that litter 110.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

sgregnt 3y ago

A walkable option is convinent, but it is only one aspect of what ppl look for. Can you show, anywhere in the world, an affordable walkable option that would also include: (1) Big private house with a backyard (2) access for trucks (3) close to nature (4) quiet.

thethethethe 3y ago
> quiet > cars > Pick one. You can get all of those things in walkable cities. SF and NYC have single family homes with back yards in walkable neighborhoods, they are just really expensive. Also all neighborhoods have truck access, including fully pedestrianized streets.

pandaman 3y ago

Living in a walkable place is not mutually exclusive with driving. I live in one, I have a car, all my neighbors have cars and/or trucks. You can use Google's Street View and check out SF and NYC, there are plenty of cars there too. That's because your options are not more pleasant and convenient for everyone, I'd guess.

thethethethe 3y ago
Sure people can still have cars in walkable places because not all trips are going to be better without a car. That doesn't mean that people owning cars in walkable areas are going to use them for all or most trips. They probably don't drive to the corner store 2 blocks away to pick up a six pack or drive across the city to the office to pay $30 when transit takes less time, costs 1/6th the price, and doesn't require them to sit in traffic with their hands on the wheel.
- pandaman 3y ago
  I am not seeing anybody arguing that people owning cars use them for all trips even in non-walkable places. But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. I have a train and a bus stations nearby, it's still a 5-10 min walk, not counting waiting for the train/bus. I'd estimate if I just wanted to go somewhere right now via transit, I'd be on board in 20-30 minutes, if I took my car, I'd be 10-20 miles away by then. But all this is besides the point of cars being big, even if there had been the magic transit of your imagination, which really was so fast and cheap, it would not reduce the size of the cars people bought. Bigger cars are more desirable, this is why they are more expensive. Americans are richer than most peoples, they can afford bigger cars.
  - thethethethe 3y ago
    > But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. Maybe its like this for because our infrastructure has been built around the assumption that you can park your car right in front of your destination AND doesn't have good transit oriented development/frequent enough service. If you had to walk 10 minutes to park your car and or circle the block for 10 minutes waiting for a spot to open up and the trains and busses ran every 3 minutes and didn't get stuck in traffic, the time would balance out differently