6 ms·

The issue here has nothing to do with the device and everything to do with the fact that car-brained America is so cowardly and broken that they will do some Ru

by jeffbee 7mo ago

The issue here has nothing to do with the device and everything to do with the fact that car-brained America is so cowardly and broken that they will do some Rube Goldberg stunt before they even consider taking cars away from alcoholics.

c22 7mo ago
Wouldn't it be better to take the alcohol away?
- nathanaldensr 7mo ago
  LOL, exactly! The underlying problem is people's addiction to drugs, not all the symptoms that come from those addictions.
- volkl48 7mo ago
  We tried that once. It caused a lot of other problems.
  - rootusrootus 7mo ago
    Nobody suggested banning alcohol altogether.
- ativzzz 7mo ago
  The US tried this in 1920 and rolled it back a decade later - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...
  - rootusrootus 7mo ago
    Steelman the argument. They didn't say take it away from everyone, they were responding to the idea of taking away cars from alcoholics. We absolutely can take away alcohol from people who are convicted of DUI, as a condition of their release from prison. We do it already in a few places across the US, and it reduces recidivism quite a lot.
  - c22 7mo ago
    But we still restrict sale of alcohol to minors, suggesting that it, like driving, is a privilege granted only to those we trust to control it, rather than a natural right deserved by everyone.
bluGill 7mo ago
Nobody in human rights would allow that. Take away the car and people cannot live. The above is sadly serious. It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people. Taking away someone's car is cruel and usual punishment that cannot be accepted.
- philipwhiuk 7mo ago
  > It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people This is exactly what the parent meant by designing the country in a 'car-brained' fashion. It's not true in many/most other countries.
  - rootusrootus 7mo ago
    > It's not true in many/most other countries. Europe may not drive as much as America, but it's still about half. Cars are popular worldwide for a reason, and it is not American corporations magically convincing everyone how useful they are. It's also entirely moot, as we're not redesigning the country in the short term to cut down on DUIs.
    - sobjornstad 7mo ago
      Yeah, but there's a big difference between having a car because you can afford it and it's often more convenient, and it being completely impractical to not have one. Or even to go have a beer without having to drive home.
- cesarb 7mo ago
  > Take away the car and people cannot live. [...] It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, As a Brazilian, that statement feels bizarre. Yeah, my job and my home are not in walking distance of each other. I simply take the bus. Sure, some jobs are not within reach of the bus (or the ferry, or the metro, or the light tram, etc), and some jobs need a car (for instance, it would be hard for a HVAC technician to take all their equipment on a bus), but saying it's "almost impossible" to find a job? > demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people. That also sounds bizarre to my ears. Most places I've known have small grocery shopping places on nearly every corner. You just have to walk.
SilverElfin 7mo ago
If “car brained” means recognizing how great cars are for improving our lives, by letting us get to places quickly, then I don’t see anything cowardly or broken about it. Just seems rational.
- jeffbee 7mo ago
  If by "quickly" you mean reaching a far-away destination in much more time and with higher variance in arrival time than it would have taken if the origin and destination had been sensibly placed closer together, then sure.
- genthree 7mo ago
  I once read a claim that once you remove the distance that exists between places because of cars (large set-backs, unusable "green space", wide freeways including the medians and buffer around them, giant parking lots, et c.) cars are only an improvement for most car owners for day to day travel before a city adjusts to widespread car ownership, and adds all that stuff. Add in the time you spend working just to pay for the car (depreciation, fuel, insurance) and it's not a great deal at all. After that, it's only consistently a benefit if you can afford a driver. For most, it's a wash with bicycling, if not worse (in the hypothetical world that hadn't bloated way apart to account for tons of cars) except now you also need to schedule separate time to work out to stay healthy. This seemed implausible, so I ran the numbers for my situation at the time that involved car costs and a commute distance that were both below median for my city, plus well above-median household income. Sure enough! It worked out just the way they claimed, if only barely. For the median worker in my city though, it was very true.
  - rootusrootus 7mo ago
    > For most, it's a wash with bicycling When I hear people suggest that, I wonder if they live somewhere fairly flat, with mild mostly dry weather and high population density. Maybe this is why there is so much disagreement on the topic.
    - genthree 7mo ago
rootusrootus 7mo ago
It's actually an easy problem to solve, some places have done it with great success. You can't effectively stop DUI by taking the car away. The problem is the drinking. You make someone test every morning and if they've been drinking they get the slammer for the day. You don't need to take away their transportation.
- jeffbee 7mo ago
  That seems fair, yet even less likely to happen in America.
  - rootusrootus 7mo ago
    It's called 24/7 sobriety, and I think there are places in America that have already implemented it. E.g. https://www.waspc.org/24-7-sobriety-program https://www.waspc.org/24-7-sobriety-program
longislandguido 7mo ago
People need cars to get to work.

by jeffbee 7mo ago

c22 7mo ago

Wouldn't it be better to take the alcohol away?

nathanaldensr 7mo ago
LOL, exactly! The underlying problem is people's addiction to drugs, not all the symptoms that come from those addictions.
volkl48 7mo ago
We tried that once. It caused a lot of other problems.
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  Nobody suggested banning alcohol altogether.
ativzzz 7mo ago
The US tried this in 1920 and rolled it back a decade later - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  Steelman the argument. They didn't say take it away from everyone, they were responding to the idea of taking away cars from alcoholics. We absolutely can take away alcohol from people who are convicted of DUI, as a condition of their release from prison. We do it already in a few places across the US, and it reduces recidivism quite a lot.
- c22 7mo ago
  But we still restrict sale of alcohol to minors, suggesting that it, like driving, is a privilege granted only to those we trust to control it, rather than a natural right deserved by everyone.

bluGill 7mo ago

Nobody in human rights would allow that. Take away the car and people cannot live. The above is sadly serious. It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people. Taking away someone's car is cruel and usual punishment that cannot be accepted.

philipwhiuk 7mo ago
> It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people This is exactly what the parent meant by designing the country in a 'car-brained' fashion. It's not true in many/most other countries.
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  > It's not true in many/most other countries. Europe may not drive as much as America, but it's still about half. Cars are popular worldwide for a reason, and it is not American corporations magically convincing everyone how useful they are. It's also entirely moot, as we're not redesigning the country in the short term to cut down on DUIs.
  - sobjornstad 7mo ago
    Yeah, but there's a big difference between having a car because you can afford it and it's often more convenient, and it being completely impractical to not have one. Or even to go have a beer without having to drive home.
cesarb 7mo ago
> Take away the car and people cannot live. [...] It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, As a Brazilian, that statement feels bizarre. Yeah, my job and my home are not in walking distance of each other. I simply take the bus. Sure, some jobs are not within reach of the bus (or the ferry, or the metro, or the light tram, etc), and some jobs need a car (for instance, it would be hard for a HVAC technician to take all their equipment on a bus), but saying it's "almost impossible" to find a job? > demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people. That also sounds bizarre to my ears. Most places I've known have small grocery shopping places on nearly every corner. You just have to walk.

SilverElfin 7mo ago

If “car brained” means recognizing how great cars are for improving our lives, by letting us get to places quickly, then I don’t see anything cowardly or broken about it. Just seems rational.

jeffbee 7mo ago
If by "quickly" you mean reaching a far-away destination in much more time and with higher variance in arrival time than it would have taken if the origin and destination had been sensibly placed closer together, then sure.
genthree 7mo ago
I once read a claim that once you remove the distance that exists between places because of cars (large set-backs, unusable "green space", wide freeways including the medians and buffer around them, giant parking lots, et c.) cars are only an improvement for most car owners for day to day travel before a city adjusts to widespread car ownership, and adds all that stuff. Add in the time you spend working just to pay for the car (depreciation, fuel, insurance) and it's not a great deal at all. After that, it's only consistently a benefit if you can afford a driver. For most, it's a wash with bicycling, if not worse (in the hypothetical world that hadn't bloated way apart to account for tons of cars) except now you also need to schedule separate time to work out to stay healthy. This seemed implausible, so I ran the numbers for my situation at the time that involved car costs and a commute distance that were both below median for my city, plus well above-median household income. Sure enough! It worked out just the way they claimed, if only barely. For the median worker in my city though, it was very true.
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  > For most, it's a wash with bicycling When I hear people suggest that, I wonder if they live somewhere fairly flat, with mild mostly dry weather and high population density. Maybe this is why there is so much disagreement on the topic.
  - genthree 7mo ago

rootusrootus 7mo ago

It's actually an easy problem to solve, some places have done it with great success. You can't effectively stop DUI by taking the car away. The problem is the drinking. You make someone test every morning and if they've been drinking they get the slammer for the day. You don't need to take away their transportation.

jeffbee 7mo ago
That seems fair, yet even less likely to happen in America.
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  It's called 24/7 sobriety, and I think there are places in America that have already implemented it. E.g. https://www.waspc.org/24-7-sobriety-program https://www.waspc.org/24-7-sobriety-program

longislandguido 7mo ago

People need cars to get to work.