5 ms·

> Would you be willing to keep your car if it meant having to pay for all its externalities and extra infrastructure costs? This is such a weird line of inquir

by throwaway22032 2y ago

> Would you be willing to keep your car if it meant having to pay for all its externalities and extra infrastructure costs? This is such a weird line of inquiry. Yes! It is the largest single QoL improvement I have after my house. Almost everyone who can afford it buys a car as soon as they can. Yes, even in the UK, even in Europe. It is such a huge boon. If cars were made more expensive I would sooner work harder to keep the car than give it up. I don't know what sort of answer you're expecting? Why would I possibly not want a car? The only reason I can think of is if it became so expensive that just paying a personal driver was cheaper.

rglullis 2y ago
First, kind of weird of you to associate the idea of having no car to losing your penis. I'd joke about it, but I learned to avoid making jokes about potential psychological issues. Second, I don't think you are aware of how much of cities' financial troubles in North America are related to the budget imbalance between suburbs and downtowns. Third, I'm talking about all the externalities. It's not just gas or street parking. It's also the cost of all those parking lots doing nothing productive. It's the health cost of having an overweight and sedentary population who can't even walk to get groceries. It's the cost of increased air pollution that brings hundreds of thousands of people to the hospital with respiratory issues. It's the cost to a city's economy that wastes a sizeable portion of its GDP to car traffic. Car owners pay only a tiny fraction of that.
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  It's not weird at all. Both vastly improve my quality of life. I could get by without either, but I'd rather not. I'll edit it out of my reply since you seem averse to analogy. Cars are everywhere. American choices to have huge multi lane streets everywhere and parking lots the size of cities are optional. It's a false dichotomy. Across Europe we have cars, even in London, a public transport mecca with tiny roads, >50% of households have cars. They are great. Properly super useful. I think that people who deny that utility are ideological zealots to be honest.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    No one is denying the utility of cars. The argument is against (a) car dependency and (b) the fact that its total cost is not fully born by their owners. Also, you can re-read my original comment. Notice the "the point is less about cars vs no cars, but car-centric suburbia development vs higher density urban planning" part, and please realize that talking about London has nothing to do with the original point.
    - throwaway22032 2y ago
      Sure. I simply gave my 2c on your question. > Would you be willing to keep your car if it meant having to pay for all its externalities and extra infrastructure costs? Yes. I would. And honestly there really isn't much in it. In the US, basically everyone drives. In the UK, pretty much everyone who pays taxes drives. At least in my situation, I think that if the costs were moved from general taxation to directly falling on car owners, I'd end up net positive!
      - rglullis 2y ago
        Holy shit, talk about reading things out of context. You, dear sir, have absolutely nothing in common with the average North American who lives in the suburbs. The question was not directed at you. If you want to at least try to understand the context before jumping to give your opinion and share with us your psycho issues, try watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0
  - breuleux 2y ago
    Your car improves your quality of life. Every other car reduces your quality of life by a small delta: they reduce walkability and bikability, they are deadly, they cause traffic and slow down public transit, they reduce visibility, they are noisy, smelly and hot, they occupy space that is ugly, radiates heat and could be used for other purposes, and so on. Let me put it this way: if I decide to walk to a restaurant, I would get there faster if there were no cars, and I would enjoy the terrace more if it wasn't for their noise or the ugliness of the parking lot. You can have your convenience, or I can have mine, but it isn't really possible to have both, at least not to the fullest extent. And that's the problem we have to come to grips with: all the cars you don't drive make your life less pleasant. What is the balance? If the balance is that global quality of life is optimal when 10% of the population of a city has cars, who gets to be in that 10%?

rglullis 2y ago

First, kind of weird of you to associate the idea of having no car to losing your penis. I'd joke about it, but I learned to avoid making jokes about potential psychological issues. Second, I don't think you are aware of how much of cities' financial troubles in North America are related to the budget imbalance between suburbs and downtowns. Third, I'm talking about all the externalities. It's not just gas or street parking. It's also the cost of all those parking lots doing nothing productive. It's the health cost of having an overweight and sedentary population who can't even walk to get groceries. It's the cost of increased air pollution that brings hundreds of thousands of people to the hospital with respiratory issues. It's the cost to a city's economy that wastes a sizeable portion of its GDP to car traffic. Car owners pay only a tiny fraction of that.

throwaway22032 2y ago
It's not weird at all. Both vastly improve my quality of life. I could get by without either, but I'd rather not. I'll edit it out of my reply since you seem averse to analogy. Cars are everywhere. American choices to have huge multi lane streets everywhere and parking lots the size of cities are optional. It's a false dichotomy. Across Europe we have cars, even in London, a public transport mecca with tiny roads, >50% of households have cars. They are great. Properly super useful. I think that people who deny that utility are ideological zealots to be honest.
- rglullis 2y ago
  No one is denying the utility of cars. The argument is against (a) car dependency and (b) the fact that its total cost is not fully born by their owners. Also, you can re-read my original comment. Notice the "the point is less about cars vs no cars, but car-centric suburbia development vs higher density urban planning" part, and please realize that talking about London has nothing to do with the original point.
  - throwaway22032 2y ago
    Sure. I simply gave my 2c on your question. > Would you be willing to keep your car if it meant having to pay for all its externalities and extra infrastructure costs? Yes. I would. And honestly there really isn't much in it. In the US, basically everyone drives. In the UK, pretty much everyone who pays taxes drives. At least in my situation, I think that if the costs were moved from general taxation to directly falling on car owners, I'd end up net positive!
    - rglullis 2y ago
      Holy shit, talk about reading things out of context. You, dear sir, have absolutely nothing in common with the average North American who lives in the suburbs. The question was not directed at you. If you want to at least try to understand the context before jumping to give your opinion and share with us your psycho issues, try watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0
- breuleux 2y ago
  Your car improves your quality of life. Every other car reduces your quality of life by a small delta: they reduce walkability and bikability, they are deadly, they cause traffic and slow down public transit, they reduce visibility, they are noisy, smelly and hot, they occupy space that is ugly, radiates heat and could be used for other purposes, and so on. Let me put it this way: if I decide to walk to a restaurant, I would get there faster if there were no cars, and I would enjoy the terrace more if it wasn't for their noise or the ugliness of the parking lot. You can have your convenience, or I can have mine, but it isn't really possible to have both, at least not to the fullest extent. And that's the problem we have to come to grips with: all the cars you don't drive make your life less pleasant. What is the balance? If the balance is that global quality of life is optimal when 10% of the population of a city has cars, who gets to be in that 10%?