4 ms·

Taking car transport to the extreme is bad, but the narrative that life in a small flat and commute by public transport is the future is dystopian, too. The "a

Taking car transport to the extreme is bad, but the narrative that life in a small flat and commute by public transport is the future is dystopian, too. The "air pollution" argument is disappearing fast as well with the ongoing transition to EVs. What we need is a good balance. Pedestrians, bicycles, public transport, and cars.

CalRobert 1y ago
How is it dystopian? I loved having a small flat in a city where I biked everywhere. When I needed a car I used on demand rentals.
daveliepmann 1y ago
[flagged]
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Zigurd 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      They do get the benefits of cars either directly or indirectly. People live better lives and the economy works better when you can travel at the speed of a car straight to your destination, instead of dealing with the slowness of cycling or public transit.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - pirates 1y ago
    > I feel like I stepped into a meeting of an anti-car cult... Every single thread or post about anything adjacent to cars or public transportation devolves into this. There is hardly any nuance, little effort is made to respond in good faith, and there are insults and insinuations thrown around all the time. Anyone perceived as being on the “wrong side” is instantly given a label and mocked. You don’t even have to be overzealous about it. Even the most benign comment will have someone piling on usually. “Just one more bus bro”
  - daveliepmann 1y ago
    It has to do with the fact that air pollution has massively decreased, but cars still kill a lot of people. That's a considered and substantive point, I reckon. I wrote it because in my experience a "balance" between modes can mean something like Amsterdam, or it can mean the status quo in the USA-outside-NYC, which is to say extreme and punishing car dependence. Sorry if I had you wrongly pegged. My belief is that a good balance is radically fewer cars in city centers. What's your idea of a good balance?
  - Zigurd 1y ago
    As for this seeming like an anti-car cult, consider this: I've just invented a thing I call a horseless carriage. It will only kill 1 million people a year. Give me money. Not only wouldn't it get funded, you'd be confined to a special prison for super villains for coming up with this bad idea. The fact that we live with such massive negative externalities that we don't make manufacturers or consumers of cars pay for is the Jedi mind trick.
- q3k 1y ago
  Also tire noise and pollution, and an even higher road maintenance cost (as EVs tend to be heavier than ICE cars).
oftenwrong 1y ago
EVs still produce air pollution from tyre, brake, and road surface abrasion. There is also new research that indicates resuspension of particles is a major source of roadway-related pollution. This review is a good jumping-off point for research on the subject if you are interested: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692324000267#s0045 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096669232...

CalRobert 1y ago

How is it dystopian? I loved having a small flat in a city where I biked everywhere. When I needed a car I used on demand rentals.

daveliepmann 1y ago

[flagged]

mytailorisrich 1y ago
[flagged]
- Zigurd 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    They do get the benefits of cars either directly or indirectly. People live better lives and the economy works better when you can travel at the speed of a car straight to your destination, instead of dealing with the slowness of cycling or public transit.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- pirates 1y ago
  > I feel like I stepped into a meeting of an anti-car cult... Every single thread or post about anything adjacent to cars or public transportation devolves into this. There is hardly any nuance, little effort is made to respond in good faith, and there are insults and insinuations thrown around all the time. Anyone perceived as being on the “wrong side” is instantly given a label and mocked. You don’t even have to be overzealous about it. Even the most benign comment will have someone piling on usually. “Just one more bus bro”
- daveliepmann 1y ago
  It has to do with the fact that air pollution has massively decreased, but cars still kill a lot of people. That's a considered and substantive point, I reckon. I wrote it because in my experience a "balance" between modes can mean something like Amsterdam, or it can mean the status quo in the USA-outside-NYC, which is to say extreme and punishing car dependence. Sorry if I had you wrongly pegged. My belief is that a good balance is radically fewer cars in city centers. What's your idea of a good balance?
- Zigurd 1y ago
  As for this seeming like an anti-car cult, consider this: I've just invented a thing I call a horseless carriage. It will only kill 1 million people a year. Give me money. Not only wouldn't it get funded, you'd be confined to a special prison for super villains for coming up with this bad idea. The fact that we live with such massive negative externalities that we don't make manufacturers or consumers of cars pay for is the Jedi mind trick.
q3k 1y ago
Also tire noise and pollution, and an even higher road maintenance cost (as EVs tend to be heavier than ICE cars).

oftenwrong 1y ago

EVs still produce air pollution from tyre, brake, and road surface abrasion. There is also new research that indicates resuspension of particles is a major source of roadway-related pollution. This review is a good jumping-off point for research on the subject if you are interested: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692324000267#s0045 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096669232...