8 ms·
Their negative effects are much more vast, subtle, and cultural. You could say many of the broad and widespread mental issues we have in the US is the result of
by armonster 6mo ago
Their negative effects are much more vast, subtle, and cultural. You could say many of the broad and widespread mental issues we have in the US is the result of automobiles leading to suburbanization and thus isolation of people. It has created an expensive barrier of entry for existing in society and added a ton of friction to doing anything and everything, especially with people. That's not even getting into the climate effects.
The upsides of automobiles generally all exist outside of the 'personal automobile', i.e. logistics. These upsides and downsides don't need to coexist. We could reap the benefits without needing to suffer for it, but here we are.
- nradov 6mo agoThe upsides of automobiles, or personal mobility in general, are enormous. I can go wherever I want, whenever I want along with other people and cargo. I don't have to wait for a schedule set by someone else, or worry about union strikes. I love my cars!
- cgannett 6mo agoYou can go wherever you want whenever you want... until everyone does this and now you are stalled in traffic with no end in sight.
- jasonmp85 6mo ago[dead]
- kraquepype 6mo agoThose are all enormous benefits to you and you alone. The greatest thing about cars are the things they do for you. In order for someone else to have those benefits, they also need a car. If as a society, if we could feel the same way about public transit, bike lanes, sidewalks, that you do about your own personal vehicle - we'd be better off.
- nradov 6mo ago[flagged]
- kraquepype 6mo ago[flagged]
- archagon 6mo agoIt's the toxic American hyper-individualist mindset. As an American, I hate it so much.
- BirAdam 6mo agoHyper-individualism goes a long way in eroding racism and sexism though, urging people to view others as individuals rather than members of some larger group. I’d rather hyper-individualism than hyper-collectivism. Once you consider someone first as a member of some other group, the marginalization and then erasure of that other becomes easier.
- s5300 6mo ago[dead]
- code_for_monkey 6mo ago[flagged]
- nradov 6mo ago[flagged]
- code_for_monkey 6mo ago[flagged]
- shimman 6mo agoYes! Only certain people are allowed to practice their first amendment rights. Separate but equal is a great way to run society!
- VirusNewbie 6mo ago[flagged]
- archagon 6mo agoNo, they're a "fuck the C-suite, we're the ones who actually run this joint."
- lovich 6mo agoYou could always join the union at a unionized shop. It’s not like they’re the doctors guild that purposefully restricts the number of new doctors per year.
- VirusNewbie 6mo agoUnions protect existing members at the expense of people breaking in. You can look at teacher's unions to see how this plays out. Older tenured teachers cannot be fired, new teachers have to fight for the few open positions for a fraction of the pay, and are allowed to be laid off. This is not unique to the teacher's union.
- MrJohz 6mo agoThis is true, although I have to say as someone who doesn't own a car, good public transport can avoid most of those issues. I live in a small-ish city (500K - 1M pop, depending on how you count it), and I can get pretty much anywhere I need to without worrying about schedules and certainly without worrying about strikes. The biggest issue is getting out of the city - that's when it's usually more important to worry about schedules, but it's still mostly doable - and occasionally transporting furniture or something like that. On the other hand, the benefits I get from that public transport are incredible - it's cheap, it's always there, it requires minimal logistics in groups (no trying to figure out who goes in what car and needs to be dropped off where at what time), it works regardless of my level of inebriation (admittedly I've not pushed that one to any sort of extreme yet), it's safe enough for children to travel independently (no dropping them off and picking them up), and it's largely accessible for people with difficulties walking or moving about. I think a big part of the issue is that people have tried out poor public transport infrastructure and recognised - often correctly - that their car is way better for them. But good public infrastructure can often be far more convenient than cars, it just requires people to be motivated enough to build and finance it. A neighbour of mine didn't notice his car had been towed for a week because he used public transport so much and so rarely touched his car. When he'd parked his car it was fine, but then they needed to block of the street to do some work somewhere, and he didn't notice they'd confiscated all the cars there. That's the sort of effect that good public transport can have - so comfortable that you can forget you even have a car.
- prescriptivist 6mo ago> You could say many of the broad and widespread mental issues we have in the US is the result of automobiles leading to suburbanization and thus isolation of people. Yes, you could say that, though I'm not sure who would actually say that seriously.
- code_for_monkey 6mo agoI would say that seriously, so there you go, theres two.
- cucumber3732842 6mo agoIt's a turn of phrase. The belief isn't being called unserious. The holders of the belief are. It's the "white collar speak" approved way of saying those people are dumb or otherwise not worthy of consideration. "I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that stone applied to fibrous asphalt is not a fine roofing material" "I do not know anyone who seriously thinks that 4000kcal/day is healthy in normal circumstances" "I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that women are incapable of working outside the home" "I do not know anyone who seriously thinks a bright red suit is appropriate for a funeral" And on and on and on. But we both already knew that. So if you're gonna be obtuse and not understand it I'm gonna be obtuse and explain it.
- recursive 6mo agoI don't know anyone who seriously thinks that one could just say "I don't know anyone who seriously thinks" something, and that would constitute a persuasive argument. :)
- nehal3m 6mo agoRespectfully, without judgement, your perspective may be wildly skewed because you’re American (going by your post history). I suspect the negative externalities in a society built around cars don’t register with you because to you it is the normal state of the world. As a Dutchman, I grew up in a built world that is based around the human scale and to me your parent’s claim comes across as astonishingly obvious.
- 1234letshaveatw 6mo agoThis is a willfully ignorant and wildly incorrect take. Your isolation argument completely neglects socialization with family and friends that is supported via automotive mobility. Do you also somehow have the impression that automobiles somehow forced suburbanization? I think not- you don't want others to have the freedom to choose anything other than some industrialized urban existence. The effects of the automobile are vast, subtle, and cultural- and overwhelmingly positive
- jimbokun 6mo agoI would be very surprised if you could show a study demonstrating increased use of automobiles improves socialization with family and friends.
- 1234letshaveatw 6mo agoMe going to the movies, sample size of one (big brain journal, 2026)
- Waterluvian 6mo agoI think a lot of it depends on personal opinions on what society should be like being treated like objective truths.
- anon84873628 6mo agoYes exactly. Let's simplify it to the individualist vs collectivist spectrum. Cars became a self-reinforcing driver of individualism, especially in net new geographies. The negative effects are resisted better in societies/regions that were built long before them. (For both the cultural reasons and plain physical reasons, like not having wide enough roads). In the car centric places, a few generations later they become an indelible aspect of nature. It is impossible for most people to imagine society working otherwise. And even when they do, the collective action problems are near insurmountable. The introduction of technology has irreversibly trapped us in a way of thinking we can't escape. This is exactly the premise of the Amish religion. You must strictly control technology to create the society you want, not the other way around.
- CamperBob2 6mo agoThe thing is, the Amish don't try to tell the rest of the world that their way is the "obviously correct" way and that everybody else is doing it wrong, the way anti-personal mobility advocates do.
- the13 6mo agoTHIS. But the car/oil companies did do bad things like work to undermine public transport & EVs back in day. Now we have sprawling burbs & social isolation. Phones, death of 3rd spaces & church going, etc. made it worse as people stopped having bigger families, leading to even more isolation.
- tikhonj 6mo agoIt's the folks pushing cars that are both the most strident and the most successful at pushing their "obviously correct" way onto everyone, at least in the US.
- _DeadFred_ 6mo agoWasn't one of the surprising upsides of cars that incidents of incest went down dramatically? There are odd/unexpected non-logistics upsides.
- 23j423j423hj 6mo agoThe best way I've ever heard it described is that in a car-dominant society, every new neighbor in your neighborhood is somebody in your way, taking up your spot, making you late in your commute. The psychological effects of this are enormous and under discussed.
- xienze 6mo agoAnd in a public transport-dominant society every neighbor is also someone in your way, taking up a spot at the restaurant you walk to, filling up the subway train and therefore making you late in your commute… There’s no free lunch. Doesn’t matter where you are, more people = more crowds.
- BirAdam 6mo agoHumans are pack animals, not flock or herd. I think going beyond the Dunbar number is possibly the thing making people grumpy in highly dense areas. If people cannot know those around them in a meaningful way, do they even view them as human?
- xienze 6mo agoWhat kind of meaningful connections can you make when you live in a city with a a large transient population and are surrounded by hundreds or thousands of people on a daily basis, come on now. People can only have so many friends and acquaintances. Just because my neighbors live across the street doesn’t mean it’s impossible for me to talk to them. I have about a half a dozen people in the neighborhood I know well and have work acquaintances and long term friends. Which is plenty. This whole suburbia is isolating thing is being a bit dramatized here, sheesh.
- 23j423j423hj 5mo agoIn a much less visceral way. You can always let one more person on the subway. Being stuck in traffic is a daily physical reminder of the zero-sum nature of car-dominated societies.
- sambishop 6mo agoautomobiles -> suburbanization -> isolation -> mental health crisis seems like a fairly easy hypothesis to test since there are still millions of people in america living densely and carless in places like nyc and you could demonstrate that they have a statistically significant gap in mental illnesses. so easy to test that i bet several people already have and you could just check.
- couchand 6mo agoI can tell you as a resident of New York City that the negative effect of the automobile on the built environment is very much present here as well.
- sambishop 6mo agofor sure! but that's irrelevant to a causal chain that includes "suburbanization", since you're not in the suburbs (in manhattan at least, the walkability does drop off pretty quickly) another interesting tack: how long did we have cars before we started talking about a widespread mental health crisis? is there a more parimonious explanation, like a different event that is located closer to it in time? perhaps smartphones or the internet?
- poncho_romero 6mo agoI think you are too focused on one problem caused by cars. Even if they didn't cause mental health problems due to isolation (seen most prominently in suburbia), they cause enough other problems to warrant pushback.
- sambishop 6mo agoarguments are not soldiers. i am specifically responding to the claim that cars leads to suburbs leads to mental health issues. i am not a partisan in the greater car wars.
- asdff 6mo agoYou miss how this mental health crisis seemed to emerge in lock step with screentime. Not really suburbs. It is funny when people wax poetic now about the carefree latchkey adventurous childhoods of the boomers or gen x. I mean all of that stuff was little adventures happening in the suburbs. Nothing else to do inside so this is what would happen. You give that kid along with the rest of the kids in the neighborhood, well, tiktok there's your isolation and mental health crisis source right there. At least in the early dialup days kids were kicked off periodically so parents could use the landline, and there just wasn't such a bottomless well of content either to spend all waking time consuming. EDIT: missed your other reply a few mins earlier alluding to smartphones already
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agoMy parents made a home in a nice suburban neighborhood, where today some good restaurants and a coffeehouse are in walking distance, and grocery shopping is a short car ride. Yet we grew up still rather attached to neighborhoods further away, where our schools and grandparents lived. There was no possibility of bicycles or “kid power” to reach there; Mom and Dad always, always drove us everywhere! Today I find myself in an urban hellscape without owning a vehicle. Nothing is walkable. I am crammed in, thanks to Equal Housing, with immigrants and people of utterly alien races and cultures (I consider myself the minority.) If I expect to find people like me or shop within my demographic, nothing is adjacent and it’s all several miles worth of transportation. Car culture and forced integration has fragmented every possible family unit that could have been cohesive or collectivist. If I am celebrating a religious or cultural festival, I can count on none of my neighbors sharing that celebration, or in fact raising conflicts on the days most sacred to me. Anywhere I may choose to walk, or even if I drive, I am trudging through vast empty parking lots of asphalt because of cars. The roads are laid out for cars. A cop told me yesterday I shouldn’t drive my e-scooter at 17mph in the street but on the sidewalk. Every motorist also hates those scooters, whether in motion or properly parked. Every motorist also hates the light rail train and hate for Waymo is fomented by motorist and pedestrian alike. There is no place I could move to or live that would change this equation in any useful way. I do not hate cars, but I hate what they have done to our lives and our landscape.
- littlexsparkee 6mo agoI get to feeling this way when I look at pictures of neighborhoods that have been leveled for the car and what it's done to the civic fabric - e.g. historic black neighborhoods in Oakland, eminent domain in SF, etc. It hurts thinking about what could have been every time you hear of a road death or have a harrowing experience on foot/bike.
- d3ckard 6mo agoDisputable. One could argue that artificial nature of US cities (i.e. lack of centuries of accumulated decisions) were bigger driver of this than cars themselves.
- jimbokun 6mo agoThere are countless use cases for point to point personal transportation not covered by public transit options.
- poncho_romero 6mo agoMost of these use cases exist because of the prevelance of personal vehicles. We reach for cars because they are there. We see the world through windshields, so when problems arise we conceive of car-based solutions. Cars force us into city designs and styles of living that require cars. That is to say, cars necessitate cars.
- munificent 6mo agoEveryone hates cars until they need an ambulance. Yes, obviously there are many negative externalities to a car-driven culture, but just like we can easily become blind to the diffuse societal costs of a piece of technology, I think a culture of nay-saying makes it very easy to be blind to the diffuse value of a piece of technology too. Loud stinky cities full of pollution and climate change are obviously horrible. But we easily take for granted how amazing it is to be able to drive to a mountain and go for a hike, or call an ambulance, or go to a restaurant when it's raining out, or safely travel in a city without risking being assaulted, etc. Internal combustion engines are amazing and horrible.
- Lord_Baltimore 6mo agoMost people that are against car-centric cities like myself are not against cars 100% but against their level of priority in the design of our cities and societies. Many of the scenarios you mentoned aren't even that big of a deal for many. I have walked in the rain many times and somehow I was still ok. You could argue that car culture has made us soft in some ways. Nevertheless, if we reduced our emphasis on cars in society and the design of our cities to the point where cars were mainly used for those specific cases where cars truly are by far the best options (like ambulances) we would have more livable and walkable cities and ironically cities where it is nicer for those who really really want/need to drive since everyone and their mom wouldn't be driving because they aren't forced to drive to everything. Fewer people clogging the roads like my co-worker who would watch Netflix while she drove to work. Obviously she didn't have a passion for driving but was forced to because she lived in a sprawling metro with terrible transit options.
- sambellll 6mo agoI don't think it's fair to say suburbanization lead to isolation. I think factors like social media have had a much bigger impact. It's not like you're living away from any people - you have 100 other neighbours living on your street!
- jakeydus 6mo agoProximity doesn’t automatically result in interaction, though. If every one of those 100 people get in their private mobile room every time they leave their private mobile room there is no chance for any of them to interact.
- b112 6mo ago100+ years ago, certainly more people lived in rural areas. In Canada and the US, pre 1900s, it was something like 70% of the population was rural. Cars came in parallel with a lot of change.
- BobbyJo 6mo agoUrbanization has separated far more families than suburbanization, so the isolation argument, as if suburbanization is the core cause, doesn't make sense to me.
- coderenegade 6mo agoExcept rural communities are both more car dependent than cities, and have more tightly knit communities, so isolation probably isn't just a function of owning cars. Cars are probably the wrong mode of transportation for large cities, but then the question becomes: is that how we should all live, and to what extent does a better solution for the group override a better solution for the individual? Because, like it or not, cars are a better personal solution if you aren't bumper-to-bumper in a commute. I'm not going to take my dog or my surfboard on the bus or a train, and I have a life that doesn't end at the city's boundaries.
- xnx 6mo agoLove the car. Hate the drivers. Soon we'll be able to get 100% of the benefit of cars (anytime anywhere private transportation), with almost none of the drawbacks (time waste, safety, cost, pollution, traffic, parking).