3 ms·
> What's wrong with sprawl? It allows people to live in spacious houses. The overwhelming majority of people want that That's true. I would rather live in a ho
by Lvl999Noob 3y ago
> What's wrong with sprawl? It allows people to live in spacious houses. The overwhelming majority of people want that
That's true. I would rather live in a house that's more spacious than not. But more than that, I would rather live in a house that allows me to buy an ice cream if I have 5 minutes of free time than in one that makes that ice cream buying an hour long trip filled with smoke and noise.
You can have spacious houses without having to live all alone.
> There are some problems with cars: gasoline use and general unsafety due to human drivers.
You missed another problem with cars: they are space inefficient. I don't have the exact numbers but you can fit way more people in a bus than you can a car. And of course, you can fit even more people on the street if they are walking on their own feet.
> EVs are solving the first one
They may solve the gasoline problem but they aren't solving the space one.
> self-driving will solve the second one
I am not gonna hold my breath.
There is another way that could solve both of those problems, you know. Make cities more compact. With compact cities, you don't need to drive that much. And if all your destinations are close by, there is no need to allow cars to go to 100 KMpH. In fact, limiting intra-city driving to be under 60 (or lower) KMpH would be safer, fuel efficient, and less noisy (I think). You could even make the roads thinner then since everyone is moving at a slow speed, which opens up more space inside the city.
- jacobolus 3y ago60 km/h is an insanely unsafe driving speed when there are pedestrians or cyclists anywhere nearby: that's how we end up with heaps of dead children in the streets. Driving on ordinary streets in populated areas should be more like 30 km/h (20 miles/h), and roads should be designed so that cars naturally go that speed even without significant enforcement by traffic cops.
- Lvl999Noob 3y agoThat's why I also added a (or lower). I do not know what a safe driving speed would be. I just know its way less than the 100 KMpH that roads are usually designed for. Driving speed should be about equal to a leisurely human-powered bicycle speed. Or maybe lower since they have more mass, but no one's gonna agree to that. (Maybe that's a good thing?)
- cyberax 3y ago> But more than that, I would rather live in a house that allows me to buy an ice cream if I have 5 minutes of free time But that's not true even for most of the very dense Manhattan! But if you relax your 5 minutes requirement to 15 minutes, then you can do that _anywhere_ in Salt Lake City. > You missed another problem with cars: they are space inefficient. Again, so what? > With compact cities, you don't need to drive that much. Sorry, but that's a total :facepalm: You simply can not drive efficiently in dense cities, because of everybody else!
- Lvl999Noob 3y ago> But that's not true even for most of the very dense Manhattan! I do not know Manhattan. I do not live in Manhattan. I live in India. I have lived in my hometown, and in Delhi and Hyderabad (two very big cities). I can only talk about the specific areas within those cities. I can definitely buy ice cream within 5 minutes of walking. And not even fast walking.
- Lvl999Noob 3y ago> You simply can not drive efficiently in dense cities, because of everybody else! If you are in a dense city, you don't need to drive at all. If my workplace and my house were separated by an hour of driving and no transit means other than a road, then I would have to drive. Along with the thousands of others who also have to live so far away from their offices. I live a 10 minute walk from my office. I don't even own a car (or any vehicle, for that matter)! Neither do at least half of the other people who live nearby. While the rest of the people are stuck in 10 minutes of traffic jam, I can walk through them and relax in my air conditioned cubicle.