8 ms·

Subjectively worse, not objectively worse. I think driving is much more convenient and nice for most things I like to do. The only exceptions I can think of are

by sershe 3y ago

Subjectively worse, not objectively worse. I think driving is much more convenient and nice for most things I like to do. The only exceptions I can think of are if I were a kid in a car-centric area (strangely, the thinking in the US is usually reversed, kids supposedly need to be in the burbs), or if I was drunk. I don't often get drunk, so I'd prefer to drive for everything from minor groceries to outdoor activities ~100% of the time.

mbs159 3y ago
It is more convenient because city infrastructure in the US was designed specifically for the car, not for humans.
badtension 3y ago
Objectively we are still animals that need at least some movement. The environment described by the parent is hostile to our most basic needs.
- sershe 3y ago
  I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there. Walking to a store in Amsterdam or Munich or Vancouver or Moscow was neither much fun nor a lot of exercise.
  - kaibee 3y ago
    > I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there. This is not a sustainable solution to population level health needs, even if maybe in your particular situation you do actually get enough vacation days and free time on weekends to be able to do this (I also doubt this).
    - sershe 3y ago
      Well, a more sustainable solution is everyone exercising at home whenever they want in the way they want, or going for a run around the block. Going to the store by car + going for a run, is still faster and more convenient than walking to the store (per unit of exercise - e.g. driving to the store 10 times and running 2 miles vs walking 0.2 miles to the store).
      - sagarm 3y ago
        In the real world, people in cities are healthier because physical activity is integrated into their daily routine.
      - ehnto 3y ago
        A gym is a great example of how we tend to support parts of life communally when we can live more densely. For me the competing requirements are space for gym equipment and space for a workshop. I could have space for both if I lived further out, but then all other aspects of life would get worse. I'd have to drive constantly, to work, to social outings, to fun weekend stuff, it'd be a drag. As you are pointing out though, we all have our tradeoffs we make. My only counterpoint would be that most cities are doing a terrible job of offering options to people who do want the more dense, "less car" communities.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    I'm not sure you noticed you actually said you'd rather have enjoyable but infrequent events in one place than basic mundane and recurring chores. A honest, objective comparison would be between going to a store in, say, LA or Amsterdam, and going to a lake or nice big park in LA or Amsterdam. In Amsterdam, you can go to stores on foot without any issue. Not in LA. In LA you need to drive for hours to go to any of the nice spots you listed. In Amsterdam you can walk to a nice park or a nice lake, and for the same amount of time you need to drive in LA to reach any decent spot, in Amsterdam you can actually reach at least two different countries, and by train you can reach spots like Paris.
    - sershe 3y ago
      Going to the store - I'd prefer to drive in LA on an average day of the year. For the mid-range activities we have to compare like with like. For some low-mid range activity (like a local park) indeed, walking in Amsterdam would be more convenient. Something more remote/infrequent (e.g. a specialized gym like a climbing gym or a large pool), I'd prefer to drive rather than take transit. As for the surrounding area it doesn't really depend on the city itself, LA is surrounded by desert and mountains, Amsterdam is in one of the most historically agriculturally productive (and so, densely populated for centuries) and flat areas in Europe. If LA was built like Amsterdam, it'd still take forever to get anywhere interesting outside of the city.
  - badtension 3y ago
    I am not talking about spending the leisure time but the amount of movement we need every day just to keep our bodies healthy. Sitting all the time is detrimental to us.
  - godzillabrennus 3y ago
    You mirror my sentiments. I greatly enjoy my time in my car. I rather have a bigger home and drive to recreation areas.
    - sershe 3y ago
      Personally I don't even like driving :) To me it's a minor annoyance, like washing the dishes. But it's just SO much more convenient, so it's worth it.
  - nimbleplum40 3y ago
    Build roads through natural environments is pretty bad for wildlife though and really harms the environment. It’s definitely not sustainable.
  - tempaccount1234 3y ago
    As a European who owns both a car and a bike, regularly driving somewhere just to do a bit of walking there feels like a complete waste of resources to me. I use my car for work related travel, at distances over 5 miles or to move heavy stuff. For anything else the default choice (which includes grocery shopping) is walking or biking. Amsterdam has great bike paths, I’d probably cycle even more there.
burnished 3y ago
Normally I'd agree with your pedantry, but seriously have you been to LA? "Objective" feels like the right qualifier in this case
- sershe 3y ago
  I've visited, although didn't spend much time in the city itself. I think it's not amazing for me cause other amenities LA has are not the type of stuff I need or enjoy, and there's a huge number of people who do need and enjoy them making the place really crowded. On the other hand, Amsterdam wouldn't be my first choice for similar reason (I've visited a couple times). If choosing between areas that either are less crowded, or have all the stuff I enjoy, I'd prefer an LA-like one to an Amsterdam-like one.
makeitdouble 3y ago
A thought exercice: would you enjoy living in a 3x bigger house and drive a small cart from room to room ? with a well adapted house it could be more convenient. Would it be nicer ?
- sershe 3y ago
  I don't think this is very relevant. I would prefer to live in a 3x bigger house, but it would still be walkable. A reverse (also not very relevant) thought experiment - would you prefer to live in one room that is office/bedroom/bathroom/kitchen, just because you don't have to walk at all, everything is so close, why sprawl? :)
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    European and asian cities pretty much feel like a 10x - 20x bigger house for many. You walk down 2 blocks to get some milk and bread for the breakfast, post office is 3 blocks in the other direction, 1 block another way and you have fruits and vegetable. Basically you can treat the immediate surroundings as an extension of your house where you just "go" without a modal distinction of getting into a car, parking, back into the car, parking again. Even taking a bus or train feels less of a discontinuation as you just walk in walk out and at no point have to switch to a "driver" mode.
    - sershe 3y ago
      I dunno, I used to feel this friction (I didn't use to drive until I was ~30), how driving is a thing and not driving is frictionless, but I think it was just psychological. It feels reverse now - the only frictionless places for ~everyone are grocery stores and such, cause they are everywhere. And maybe things you consciously live next to, like if you decide to live next to an olympic pool facility or a nightclub. Transit has pretty high fixed cost of getting anywhere, even in transit friendly placed like Munich or Moscow.. everything takes at least 30-40 minutes given to/from and wait times, any time of day. And that's if you don't have any transfers. I used to take it for granted but now when I look up transit directions it just weird to think it used to take so long and I thought it was normal. Whereas if you drive you can choose when to go and so make it convenient - like I go to a climbing gym at 6am in winter, no traffic and less people. Also, many things you don't even need to leave the house for - even with a relatively small house (1100sqft) I have room for a weight rack and home office, no need to go to a real office or to a gym.
aesclepius 3y ago
Jesus it's objectively worse. NY/Chicago/London/Paris/Tokyo you can conceivably and easily nip out to a grocer's, bodega, cafe or pub within 10 minutes of where you are. LA? Outside of certain certain pockets like DTLA, KTown, WeHo or similar walking is tough and if your friend is across town you're SoL without a car.
- sershe 3y ago
  But I don't want to! I literally just walked to the store and it was in absoute perfect conditions - we wanted to go for a walk anyway, the weather is perfect (sunny but not hot), the store is 10min walk from my house, the neighborhood is nice and not drive-thru so there is ~0 non-local traffic. The plan was we go for a walk, and pop by a store and get one item. But as usual it never ends up being that way, so we had one paper bag of items - 6 pack of beer, some cheese, box of blueberries, nothing very heavy. I am pretty fit, like I deadlift 280lbs :) and still walking with this stupid bag ruined the whole walk back. And it wasn't even much - if I replaced beer with food it would be like, 2-3 days worth. I would have rather just finished the walk, then drove 3mins to the same store. In the most perfect conditions imaginable, with minimal amount of groceries. And what if it was 100F, or 32F, or raining, or I didn't want to go for a walk, or I needed to get some large items like sugar or rice or a gallon of milk or a lot of beer for a party? Walking to a store is simply not an advantage at all. And if you go to even a poor country you can see most people agree - as soon as they can they start driving to big box stores, and small local stores die. And regardless, even if (which I wouldn't grant) the majority would prefer to walk rather than drive, it's still SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. A ton of people prefer to drive.
  - kiliantics 3y ago
    It's tragically hilarious to me that the car brain imagination can only consider moving a multi tonne large dangerous vehicle around in order to simply ease the discomfort of the small bag of groceries. Most people use little wheeled carts that are light and foldable and easy to push or pull around.
    - 3y ago
leokennis 3y ago
> I think driving is much more convenient and nice for most things I like to do Sure…is that because driving is inherently more convenient than walking, or because your city was designed so driving was more convenient than walking?
throwaway22032 3y ago
FWIW I agree with this wholeheartedly. I own a car in London and there are many cases in which it's objectively superior for me to use it purely based on time savings. Generally any journey that's more than about 3-4 miles from the absolute centre of town. It's also more comfortable, private, has AC, I don't need to wear headphones to listen to music, can carry more, etc. It's just fundamentally better. If the UK had an equivalent of LA I'd move there in a heartbeat. The only people I hear who are rabidly anti-car are those who ideologically prefer not to use one. They're generally not people who tried it and found it lacking.

by sershe 3y ago

mbs159 3y ago

It is more convenient because city infrastructure in the US was designed specifically for the car, not for humans.

badtension 3y ago

Objectively we are still animals that need at least some movement. The environment described by the parent is hostile to our most basic needs.

sershe 3y ago
I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there. Walking to a store in Amsterdam or Munich or Vancouver or Moscow was neither much fun nor a lot of exercise.
- kaibee 3y ago
  > I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there. This is not a sustainable solution to population level health needs, even if maybe in your particular situation you do actually get enough vacation days and free time on weekends to be able to do this (I also doubt this).
  - sershe 3y ago
    Well, a more sustainable solution is everyone exercising at home whenever they want in the way they want, or going for a run around the block. Going to the store by car + going for a run, is still faster and more convenient than walking to the store (per unit of exercise - e.g. driving to the store 10 times and running 2 miles vs walking 0.2 miles to the store).
    - sagarm 3y ago
      In the real world, people in cities are healthier because physical activity is integrated into their daily routine.
    - ehnto 3y ago
      A gym is a great example of how we tend to support parts of life communally when we can live more densely. For me the competing requirements are space for gym equipment and space for a workshop. I could have space for both if I lived further out, but then all other aspects of life would get worse. I'd have to drive constantly, to work, to social outings, to fun weekend stuff, it'd be a drag. As you are pointing out though, we all have our tradeoffs we make. My only counterpoint would be that most cities are doing a terrible job of offering options to people who do want the more dense, "less car" communities.
- rewmie 3y ago
  I'm not sure you noticed you actually said you'd rather have enjoyable but infrequent events in one place than basic mundane and recurring chores. A honest, objective comparison would be between going to a store in, say, LA or Amsterdam, and going to a lake or nice big park in LA or Amsterdam. In Amsterdam, you can go to stores on foot without any issue. Not in LA. In LA you need to drive for hours to go to any of the nice spots you listed. In Amsterdam you can walk to a nice park or a nice lake, and for the same amount of time you need to drive in LA to reach any decent spot, in Amsterdam you can actually reach at least two different countries, and by train you can reach spots like Paris.
  - sershe 3y ago
    Going to the store - I'd prefer to drive in LA on an average day of the year. For the mid-range activities we have to compare like with like. For some low-mid range activity (like a local park) indeed, walking in Amsterdam would be more convenient. Something more remote/infrequent (e.g. a specialized gym like a climbing gym or a large pool), I'd prefer to drive rather than take transit. As for the surrounding area it doesn't really depend on the city itself, LA is surrounded by desert and mountains, Amsterdam is in one of the most historically agriculturally productive (and so, densely populated for centuries) and flat areas in Europe. If LA was built like Amsterdam, it'd still take forever to get anywhere interesting outside of the city.
- badtension 3y ago
  I am not talking about spending the leisure time but the amount of movement we need every day just to keep our bodies healthy. Sitting all the time is detrimental to us.
- godzillabrennus 3y ago
  You mirror my sentiments. I greatly enjoy my time in my car. I rather have a bigger home and drive to recreation areas.
  - sershe 3y ago
    Personally I don't even like driving :) To me it's a minor annoyance, like washing the dishes. But it's just SO much more convenient, so it's worth it.
- nimbleplum40 3y ago
  Build roads through natural environments is pretty bad for wildlife though and really harms the environment. It’s definitely not sustainable.
- tempaccount1234 3y ago
  As a European who owns both a car and a bike, regularly driving somewhere just to do a bit of walking there feels like a complete waste of resources to me. I use my car for work related travel, at distances over 5 miles or to move heavy stuff. For anything else the default choice (which includes grocery shopping) is walking or biking. Amsterdam has great bike paths, I’d probably cycle even more there.

burnished 3y ago

Normally I'd agree with your pedantry, but seriously have you been to LA? "Objective" feels like the right qualifier in this case

sershe 3y ago
I've visited, although didn't spend much time in the city itself. I think it's not amazing for me cause other amenities LA has are not the type of stuff I need or enjoy, and there's a huge number of people who do need and enjoy them making the place really crowded. On the other hand, Amsterdam wouldn't be my first choice for similar reason (I've visited a couple times). If choosing between areas that either are less crowded, or have all the stuff I enjoy, I'd prefer an LA-like one to an Amsterdam-like one.

makeitdouble 3y ago

A thought exercice: would you enjoy living in a 3x bigger house and drive a small cart from room to room ? with a well adapted house it could be more convenient. Would it be nicer ?

sershe 3y ago
I don't think this is very relevant. I would prefer to live in a 3x bigger house, but it would still be walkable. A reverse (also not very relevant) thought experiment - would you prefer to live in one room that is office/bedroom/bathroom/kitchen, just because you don't have to walk at all, everything is so close, why sprawl? :)
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  European and asian cities pretty much feel like a 10x - 20x bigger house for many. You walk down 2 blocks to get some milk and bread for the breakfast, post office is 3 blocks in the other direction, 1 block another way and you have fruits and vegetable. Basically you can treat the immediate surroundings as an extension of your house where you just "go" without a modal distinction of getting into a car, parking, back into the car, parking again. Even taking a bus or train feels less of a discontinuation as you just walk in walk out and at no point have to switch to a "driver" mode.
  - sershe 3y ago
    I dunno, I used to feel this friction (I didn't use to drive until I was ~30), how driving is a thing and not driving is frictionless, but I think it was just psychological. It feels reverse now - the only frictionless places for ~everyone are grocery stores and such, cause they are everywhere. And maybe things you consciously live next to, like if you decide to live next to an olympic pool facility or a nightclub. Transit has pretty high fixed cost of getting anywhere, even in transit friendly placed like Munich or Moscow.. everything takes at least 30-40 minutes given to/from and wait times, any time of day. And that's if you don't have any transfers. I used to take it for granted but now when I look up transit directions it just weird to think it used to take so long and I thought it was normal. Whereas if you drive you can choose when to go and so make it convenient - like I go to a climbing gym at 6am in winter, no traffic and less people. Also, many things you don't even need to leave the house for - even with a relatively small house (1100sqft) I have room for a weight rack and home office, no need to go to a real office or to a gym.

aesclepius 3y ago

Jesus it's objectively worse. NY/Chicago/London/Paris/Tokyo you can conceivably and easily nip out to a grocer's, bodega, cafe or pub within 10 minutes of where you are. LA? Outside of certain certain pockets like DTLA, KTown, WeHo or similar walking is tough and if your friend is across town you're SoL without a car.

sershe 3y ago
But I don't want to! I literally just walked to the store and it was in absoute perfect conditions - we wanted to go for a walk anyway, the weather is perfect (sunny but not hot), the store is 10min walk from my house, the neighborhood is nice and not drive-thru so there is ~0 non-local traffic. The plan was we go for a walk, and pop by a store and get one item. But as usual it never ends up being that way, so we had one paper bag of items - 6 pack of beer, some cheese, box of blueberries, nothing very heavy. I am pretty fit, like I deadlift 280lbs :) and still walking with this stupid bag ruined the whole walk back. And it wasn't even much - if I replaced beer with food it would be like, 2-3 days worth. I would have rather just finished the walk, then drove 3mins to the same store. In the most perfect conditions imaginable, with minimal amount of groceries. And what if it was 100F, or 32F, or raining, or I didn't want to go for a walk, or I needed to get some large items like sugar or rice or a gallon of milk or a lot of beer for a party? Walking to a store is simply not an advantage at all. And if you go to even a poor country you can see most people agree - as soon as they can they start driving to big box stores, and small local stores die. And regardless, even if (which I wouldn't grant) the majority would prefer to walk rather than drive, it's still SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. A ton of people prefer to drive.
- kiliantics 3y ago
  It's tragically hilarious to me that the car brain imagination can only consider moving a multi tonne large dangerous vehicle around in order to simply ease the discomfort of the small bag of groceries. Most people use little wheeled carts that are light and foldable and easy to push or pull around.
  - 3y ago

leokennis 3y ago

> I think driving is much more convenient and nice for most things I like to do Sure…is that because driving is inherently more convenient than walking, or because your city was designed so driving was more convenient than walking?

throwaway22032 3y ago

FWIW I agree with this wholeheartedly. I own a car in London and there are many cases in which it's objectively superior for me to use it purely based on time savings. Generally any journey that's more than about 3-4 miles from the absolute centre of town. It's also more comfortable, private, has AC, I don't need to wear headphones to listen to music, can carry more, etc. It's just fundamentally better. If the UK had an equivalent of LA I'd move there in a heartbeat. The only people I hear who are rabidly anti-car are those who ideologically prefer not to use one. They're generally not people who tried it and found it lacking.