4 ms·

why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture? cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans. they are rolling manslaught

why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture? cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans. they are rolling manslaughter engines. they are destroying the environment, leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion. they have been undermining good public transportation infrastructure investment for decades. they are destructive of communities, encouraging sprawl and long distance commuting.

chc 12y ago
I don't particularly like cars. If I never had to drive again, I'd be ecstatic. But there isn't much of a choice there. I either have to drive or become a hermit, and that is an even less attractive option. What I guess you'd say I'm defensive of is my ability to lead a normal life.
- Kluny 12y ago
  There's lots of choices. Bikes, walkind, public transit and rideshare for nearby travel. Planes, trains and buses and boats for far travel. The only restriction in the relatively small percentage of the earth that's so crowded that there isn't an extra plot of land for you to leave your property on. And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.
  - chc 12y ago
    > There's lots of choices. Bikes It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there. > walking This is even slower than biking. > public transit About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits. > rideshare Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alternative to them. > And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you. As discussed above, this isn't about insisting on bringing two tons of metal — it's about the lack of viable alternatives. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" won't eliminate the very real and valid reasons why most people in America drive cars.
    - NeutronBoy 12y ago
      Than that's a trade-off you've made between what you don't like (cars) and the place you want to live (which I assume you like).
      - lkbm 12y ago
        I will say sometimes it's very much the snesible option--living close to where you work is sometimes really expensive, or otherwise unpleasant. But it is important to realize this is a choice and acknowledge that you're choosing a trade-off, not simply a "I have to drive; I have no choice." Simply recognizing that you have agency in the decision is of value. It allows you to _consciously_ weigh the pros and cons, to become aware of potentially-unnoticed alternatives, and to recognize the costs (and benefits), both to yourself and the broader community.
    - metaphorm 12y ago
      we understand that you drive because you have to. the problem is that most people aren't trying very hard to imagine ways to drive less, or ways to build communities that don't utterly rely upon everyone owning a car. its not a problem that an individual can fix overnight. its got to become a social movement with lots of new technology and new social institutions and new beliefs and values behind it. as things stand now its easy to feel powerless and give up and say "doesn't matter, I'll be dead before our society changes enough to make not driving a viable alternative". and that's why nothing ever gets done about this problem. its still a problem though and at the rate things are going now we won't ever solve it before it becomes a crisis. so that's what will happen. inevitably there will be a crisis and then we'll have to confront the problem under much more desperate circumstances.
brc 12y ago
How about the freedom to set your own travel plans, efficiencies in travel with all the attendant economic benefits and vital tool in improving real estate quality? The road-and-traffic free utopia you seek cannot exist. >leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion You forgot creating runny noses and ingrown toenails. Rhetoric is a tad overblown.
- metaphorm 12y ago
  clearly we need the ability to travel. allowing every person on the planet (with sufficient money anyway) to ride around in their very own 3 ton machine, moving at 80 mph is not the right way to do it. a better world would have different vehicles than cars. global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here. seriously, you shouldn't be dismissive of these problems. there is a basic need to provide transportation to people. we have done a terrible job of finding a good solution to that needs. what we do now with cars is one of the most destructive and unsustainable ways possible to solve the problem.
  - chc 12y ago
    > global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here. These are not problems with cars, though. These are problems with internal combustion engines. Over the next half a decade, electric cars are going to take off in a big way, as EVs with low prices, long ranges and good performance characteristics become common (so far we know about the Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt, both coming in two years, and a significant range bump on the Leaf is likely by then too).

chc 12y ago

I don't particularly like cars. If I never had to drive again, I'd be ecstatic. But there isn't much of a choice there. I either have to drive or become a hermit, and that is an even less attractive option. What I guess you'd say I'm defensive of is my ability to lead a normal life.

Kluny 12y ago
There's lots of choices. Bikes, walkind, public transit and rideshare for nearby travel. Planes, trains and buses and boats for far travel. The only restriction in the relatively small percentage of the earth that's so crowded that there isn't an extra plot of land for you to leave your property on. And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.
- chc 12y ago
  > There's lots of choices. Bikes It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there. > walking This is even slower than biking. > public transit About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits. > rideshare Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alternative to them. > And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you. As discussed above, this isn't about insisting on bringing two tons of metal — it's about the lack of viable alternatives. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" won't eliminate the very real and valid reasons why most people in America drive cars.
  - NeutronBoy 12y ago
    Than that's a trade-off you've made between what you don't like (cars) and the place you want to live (which I assume you like).
    - lkbm 12y ago
      I will say sometimes it's very much the snesible option--living close to where you work is sometimes really expensive, or otherwise unpleasant. But it is important to realize this is a choice and acknowledge that you're choosing a trade-off, not simply a "I have to drive; I have no choice." Simply recognizing that you have agency in the decision is of value. It allows you to _consciously_ weigh the pros and cons, to become aware of potentially-unnoticed alternatives, and to recognize the costs (and benefits), both to yourself and the broader community.
  - metaphorm 12y ago
    we understand that you drive because you have to. the problem is that most people aren't trying very hard to imagine ways to drive less, or ways to build communities that don't utterly rely upon everyone owning a car. its not a problem that an individual can fix overnight. its got to become a social movement with lots of new technology and new social institutions and new beliefs and values behind it. as things stand now its easy to feel powerless and give up and say "doesn't matter, I'll be dead before our society changes enough to make not driving a viable alternative". and that's why nothing ever gets done about this problem. its still a problem though and at the rate things are going now we won't ever solve it before it becomes a crisis. so that's what will happen. inevitably there will be a crisis and then we'll have to confront the problem under much more desperate circumstances.

brc 12y ago

How about the freedom to set your own travel plans, efficiencies in travel with all the attendant economic benefits and vital tool in improving real estate quality? The road-and-traffic free utopia you seek cannot exist. >leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion You forgot creating runny noses and ingrown toenails. Rhetoric is a tad overblown.

metaphorm 12y ago
clearly we need the ability to travel. allowing every person on the planet (with sufficient money anyway) to ride around in their very own 3 ton machine, moving at 80 mph is not the right way to do it. a better world would have different vehicles than cars. global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here. seriously, you shouldn't be dismissive of these problems. there is a basic need to provide transportation to people. we have done a terrible job of finding a good solution to that needs. what we do now with cars is one of the most destructive and unsustainable ways possible to solve the problem.
- chc 12y ago
  > global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here. These are not problems with cars, though. These are problems with internal combustion engines. Over the next half a decade, electric cars are going to take off in a big way, as EVs with low prices, long ranges and good performance characteristics become common (so far we know about the Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt, both coming in two years, and a significant range bump on the Leaf is likely by then too).