5 ms·

No kids? Author clearly mentions he had a young daughter that had just out grown their child seat when they gave up their car. Certainly living in city with go

No kids? Author clearly mentions he had a young daughter that had just out grown their child seat when they gave up their car. Certainly living in city with good public transport is a large factor. By why can’t we build more places like that, and making living car free easy and practical for everyone? It’s ultimately cheaper and healthier for both the individuals and society as a whole, why hate on those that want see more people being able to benefit from such a lifestyle? As for taxis, in London, the money you save on fuel, tax, congestion charges, maintenance, insurance etc etc which all come with car ownership, will pay for a lot of taxi rides each year.

agentgumshoe 3y ago
Sorry, yes meant to say young kids. Though I suppose that doesn't matter, there are ways to carry, cart them around.
- throwaway894345 3y ago
  The fatality rate for cycling in an urban area is much higher than that of driving. I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with a young child on a bike.
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    Not for the authors of the article, they have moral righteousness on their side!
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    Perhaps in the US but London has increasingly fantastic dedicated cycle infrastructure. Removing the need for bike to ever directly interact with cars on many journeys. Also urban fatalities of people on bikes is driven almost entirely by people driving cars. In what world do we look at the problem of cars killing people on bikes and go “well obviously the bikes are the problem”. All the stats in this area clearly indicate that drivers are far more often at fault in these collisions than those on bikes. Same again goes for pedestrians, cars kill pedestrians regardless of how careful pedestrians are.
    - throwaway894345 3y ago
      In the UK, there were 1300% more cycling fatalities than car fatalities in 2021 per the UK government[0], and this isn't controlling for differences in the kinds of miles traveled--most car fatalities happen on highways outside of the city, but these aren't the kind of miles that cyclists are doing; cycling primarily happens on slower city streets; if we account for these differences, the safety gap (with respect to occupants) grows even more considerably in favor of car transit. > Also urban fatalities of people on bikes is driven almost entirely by people driving cars. In what world do we look at the problem of cars killing people on bikes and go “well obviously the bikes are the problem”. All the stats in this area clearly indicate that drivers are far more often at fault in these collisions than those on bikes. Same again goes for pedestrians, cars kill pedestrians regardless of how careful pedestrians are. No one is making this argument. We’re debating what mode of transit is safest for one’s children, not in what way we should remake society. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2021-data https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
      - avianlyric 3y ago
        And yet despite that, if you live in any major city and cycle to work, your life expectancy is higher that if you drive, even if including the higher risk of a fatal collision on the road. Transit shouldn’t be an arms race, we should be working towards making transit safe regardless of the mode of transport, not putting everyone in armoured boxes. > No one is making this argument. We’re debating what mode of transit is safest for one’s children, not in what way we should remake society. No, we’re discussing the validity of car free living and its value. Bring the argument that riding a bike is dangerous for children means we should put every child in car is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument. Just like the argument that the solution to “bad guys with guns” is more “good guys with guns”, when the answer is clearly fewer guns. The same applies to cars, the answer to children being killed by drivers isn’t “more cars for kids” it’s fewer cars and safer roads.
        throwaway894345 3y ago
  - zo1 3y ago
    I feel like we're over-optimizing in some way. Like we're set down this odd path that only leads to more "products" and more "safety" and more of our value as humans being captured by companies and people "other" than ourselves or families. To this example, we're talking about saving money by not having a car and then the consequences of having a young child, and the dangers thereof, etc. Before we started down this path, we had none of those things, and children were perfectly "safe" staying at home and being home-schooled by individuals in the house. What's next, weighing the cost of a private tutor coming to your house because school is too expensive, transportation to school is too expensive, and the whole thing is too dangerous for them? /rant
rootusrootus 3y ago
> why hate on those that want see more people being able to benefit from such a lifestyle? You are experiencing pushback because not everyone agrees with your assertion that > It's ultimately cheaper and healthier for both the individuals and society as a whole
- avianlyric 3y ago
  There’s quite a lot of data to backup that assertion. It’s not like nobody has bothered to study it. It’s also kind of self evident. How can forcing everyone to buy, maintain and drag around 2 tons of machinery everywhere ever be cheaper and more efficient than using the legs you already have? Obviously there are those that physically need mechanical assistance to move around, but they’re the minority, we can accommodate them without forcing mechanical dependency on everyone.
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    Walk 100km to work and back each day to actually get paid and see how that efficiency works out for you. It's like everyone lives in inner cities but are just busy being lazy.
    - avianlyric 3y ago
      Why does everyone have to live 100km from work? Why would we want to force everyone to live a 100km from their work, why not let people live close to their work and make that pleasant and comfortable? There are more ways to live that in single family homes in suburbs miles from everything you need to live (like work, food and entertainment). Why not live near all stuff you need for life? Wouldn’t that be much cheaper, more efficient, easier and generally just nicer?
      - agentgumshoe 3y ago
        Because corporations and worksites centralise to where transit and distribution is most efficient. Plus, real estate costs aren't exactly flat everywhere.
BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
>”By why can’t we build more places like that, and making living car free easy and practical for everyone? It’s ultimately cheaper…” This is true for new development but converting existing infrastructure is massively expensive and politically fraught. I believe people have become convinced cars are bad but haven’t truly realized the sheer amount of money and time it would take to redesign and reconstruct cities and suburbs in the US. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done. Just that the effort required will take generations, perhaps centuries, to actually come to fruition. In the meantime people shouldn’t be exasperated when wondering why we don’t just redevelop our cities.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  The Netherlands looks at lot like the U.S. 30 years ago, and now it’s the cycling Mecca of the world. That isn’t to argue that the U.S. can pull off the same trick in the same manner, but it clearly demonstrates that is possible to achieve in a single generation. A big part to achieving that change was simply changing laws to make it possible, and replacing car infrastructure with shared car and cycle infrastructure as part of the normal infrastructure replacement process. In the U.S. today, it’s almost impossible to build anything except suburbs of single family home due to zoning laws. So a good first step for the U.S. would simply be changing zoning laws to make it possible to even build dense urban areas with transit, rather than only urban sprawl.

agentgumshoe 3y ago

Sorry, yes meant to say young kids. Though I suppose that doesn't matter, there are ways to carry, cart them around.

throwaway894345 3y ago
The fatality rate for cycling in an urban area is much higher than that of driving. I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with a young child on a bike.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  Not for the authors of the article, they have moral righteousness on their side!
- avianlyric 3y ago
  Perhaps in the US but London has increasingly fantastic dedicated cycle infrastructure. Removing the need for bike to ever directly interact with cars on many journeys. Also urban fatalities of people on bikes is driven almost entirely by people driving cars. In what world do we look at the problem of cars killing people on bikes and go “well obviously the bikes are the problem”. All the stats in this area clearly indicate that drivers are far more often at fault in these collisions than those on bikes. Same again goes for pedestrians, cars kill pedestrians regardless of how careful pedestrians are.
  - throwaway894345 3y ago
    In the UK, there were 1300% more cycling fatalities than car fatalities in 2021 per the UK government[0], and this isn't controlling for differences in the kinds of miles traveled--most car fatalities happen on highways outside of the city, but these aren't the kind of miles that cyclists are doing; cycling primarily happens on slower city streets; if we account for these differences, the safety gap (with respect to occupants) grows even more considerably in favor of car transit. > Also urban fatalities of people on bikes is driven almost entirely by people driving cars. In what world do we look at the problem of cars killing people on bikes and go “well obviously the bikes are the problem”. All the stats in this area clearly indicate that drivers are far more often at fault in these collisions than those on bikes. Same again goes for pedestrians, cars kill pedestrians regardless of how careful pedestrians are. No one is making this argument. We’re debating what mode of transit is safest for one’s children, not in what way we should remake society. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2021-data https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
    - avianlyric 3y ago
      And yet despite that, if you live in any major city and cycle to work, your life expectancy is higher that if you drive, even if including the higher risk of a fatal collision on the road. Transit shouldn’t be an arms race, we should be working towards making transit safe regardless of the mode of transport, not putting everyone in armoured boxes. > No one is making this argument. We’re debating what mode of transit is safest for one’s children, not in what way we should remake society. No, we’re discussing the validity of car free living and its value. Bring the argument that riding a bike is dangerous for children means we should put every child in car is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument. Just like the argument that the solution to “bad guys with guns” is more “good guys with guns”, when the answer is clearly fewer guns. The same applies to cars, the answer to children being killed by drivers isn’t “more cars for kids” it’s fewer cars and safer roads.
      - throwaway894345 3y ago
- zo1 3y ago
  I feel like we're over-optimizing in some way. Like we're set down this odd path that only leads to more "products" and more "safety" and more of our value as humans being captured by companies and people "other" than ourselves or families. To this example, we're talking about saving money by not having a car and then the consequences of having a young child, and the dangers thereof, etc. Before we started down this path, we had none of those things, and children were perfectly "safe" staying at home and being home-schooled by individuals in the house. What's next, weighing the cost of a private tutor coming to your house because school is too expensive, transportation to school is too expensive, and the whole thing is too dangerous for them? /rant

rootusrootus 3y ago

> why hate on those that want see more people being able to benefit from such a lifestyle? You are experiencing pushback because not everyone agrees with your assertion that > It's ultimately cheaper and healthier for both the individuals and society as a whole

avianlyric 3y ago
There’s quite a lot of data to backup that assertion. It’s not like nobody has bothered to study it. It’s also kind of self evident. How can forcing everyone to buy, maintain and drag around 2 tons of machinery everywhere ever be cheaper and more efficient than using the legs you already have? Obviously there are those that physically need mechanical assistance to move around, but they’re the minority, we can accommodate them without forcing mechanical dependency on everyone.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  Walk 100km to work and back each day to actually get paid and see how that efficiency works out for you. It's like everyone lives in inner cities but are just busy being lazy.
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    Why does everyone have to live 100km from work? Why would we want to force everyone to live a 100km from their work, why not let people live close to their work and make that pleasant and comfortable? There are more ways to live that in single family homes in suburbs miles from everything you need to live (like work, food and entertainment). Why not live near all stuff you need for life? Wouldn’t that be much cheaper, more efficient, easier and generally just nicer?
    - agentgumshoe 3y ago
      Because corporations and worksites centralise to where transit and distribution is most efficient. Plus, real estate costs aren't exactly flat everywhere.

BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago

>”By why can’t we build more places like that, and making living car free easy and practical for everyone? It’s ultimately cheaper…” This is true for new development but converting existing infrastructure is massively expensive and politically fraught. I believe people have become convinced cars are bad but haven’t truly realized the sheer amount of money and time it would take to redesign and reconstruct cities and suburbs in the US. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done. Just that the effort required will take generations, perhaps centuries, to actually come to fruition. In the meantime people shouldn’t be exasperated when wondering why we don’t just redevelop our cities.

avianlyric 3y ago
The Netherlands looks at lot like the U.S. 30 years ago, and now it’s the cycling Mecca of the world. That isn’t to argue that the U.S. can pull off the same trick in the same manner, but it clearly demonstrates that is possible to achieve in a single generation. A big part to achieving that change was simply changing laws to make it possible, and replacing car infrastructure with shared car and cycle infrastructure as part of the normal infrastructure replacement process. In the U.S. today, it’s almost impossible to build anything except suburbs of single family home due to zoning laws. So a good first step for the U.S. would simply be changing zoning laws to make it possible to even build dense urban areas with transit, rather than only urban sprawl.