I think people are just confused on how that would actually work, it’s like boomers staring at a roundabout thinking it’s making traffic worse. People are so used to congested streets with cars that looking at the example probably gives them anxiety thinking about navigating it.
Automatically deployed road spikes are the solution to all traffic infractions. Speeding? Road spikes. Ran a red light? Road spikes. Didn’t signal? Road spikes.
xkcd.com is best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.0 or below on a Pentium 3±1 emulated in Javascript on an Apple IIGS at a screen resolution of 1024x1. Please enable your ad blockers, disable high-heat drying, and remove your device from Airplane Mode and set it to Boat Mode. For security reasons, please leave caps lock on while browsing.
No, spikes aren’t permanent enough, drivers can just move them tot he side or cover them to pass over them. We should plant Czech Hedgehogs and Dragon’s teeth on out roads!
Sure, just throw tires spikes on the road. Let’s have people buy more tires, and trash the (what used to be good) tires into a landfill. Yeah that’ll show them drivers
Now I’m imagining the city hiring armored trucks with spike-plows and police escort, clearing spikes from the most important lanes after car-haters have scattered huge quantities everywhere.
I drive a station wagon because I need to fit two dogs in the booth plus and entire family in the same car. But this is a transitory need. At some point I’ll either get a small van, for carrying the dogs, or a small hatchback and have the backseats always folded down.
You should buy according to your true needs not market pressure.
Or buy whatever the fuck you want, because why not make one part of your miserable life slightly more pleasurable by driving something that makes you smile. In the US, 99% of us need a vehicle to commute because we don’t have access to decent public transportation, so why not drive something you enjoy? Do I need a 500hp Mustang to get me to work and back? Hell no, but it sure does turn that commute into a few precious moments of happiness before I start the 9-5 grind.
Those who want, find ways. Those who don’t want, find reasons. Why is it, that most poor people live in cities and not in suburbia, when it’s so impossible expensive to live in the city?
There’s a big external cost, but if you spend your weekend taking it to car shows or working on it, then I get it - some people play MMO games just for the fishing minigame. If having a mustang is a big part of your reason for being, fine. Mine is to build things for the sake of learning how to build them… Does the world need an AI agent specifically made to be have a strong personality? Not really, most people aren’t even ready for that so I’m not planning on releasing it publicly. But I’m burning the time and resources to make her, because the act of creation brings me joy
If it’s for your quality of life… Say, your job is to drive around all day, and mustangs strangely have seats that keep you from having back pain… Fine, that job shouldn’t exist but we have the system we have, and I can’t blame someone for minimizing their suffering
But really ask yourself - is this actually something that makes your life better? Or does it just fit the idea you have of success created from a lifetime of exposure to marketing?
If that’s the case, I’m sure you felt joy in buying it, and you feel like it’s a sign of social status… But that attitude is poison. It’s like burning a forest because causing destruction helps soothe the anger you have at a world that sucks because of the lack of green spaces… Sure it might soothe your suffering a bit, but it’s ultimately hurting humanity in aggregate far more than it helps you. And what’s worse, is it feeds the system that caused the suffering you seek to soothe
As someone with one forward facing and two rear facing kids right now - this is so frustrating. I feel like there are so few vehicles that can hold them without busting at the seams and even our minivan makes it hard with getting kids hooked in if they are in the very back.
I can’t wait until they are all forward facing and I can open up what cars we can have.
I don’t even consider a station wagon a big car anymore. And I bet the vast majority of station wagon owners actually need the space. No shot the average SUV owner needs the weight for anything other than to feel “safe” in their tank.
I think shifting baselines is a real issue with car bloat. It should be going the other way where a Focus is seen as a mid-size and the like of the Fiesta a compact rather then sub-compact.
I bought the car I have today because driving my small 4 door hatchback was no longer a feaseable endeavour when wanting to move the entire family all at once. It was an objective need, not something it mattered.
You can reply I didn’t need to get a family or the dogs. You’re right. But that actually mattered to me, regardless if it was an objective need.
My point is that 99.9% of large car owners have what to them seems like an objective need. Humans are super good at justifying our actions, especially to ourselves
There are like 2 station wagons on the US market. I'd love one, but I'm not into VWs and the Volvo PHEV wagon is only available as a $75,000 performance wagon and no one makes an EV wagon.
The newest Passats I’ve seen in Canada are mk5s I think (2005-2010 or something like that). Most common is the previous gens, which is not common at all.
It’s much, much easier to find and afford a small SUV/crossover than a station wagon body style in North America.
I hate to break it to you, but small to medium SUVs replaced station wagons, just taller. According to my insurance company, my “SUV” is a station wagon
Within the “truck” class of vehicles, EPA fuel efficiency standards are based on weight. It’s easier to build heavy trucks and SUVs that meet those standards, than light trucks.
Effectively, the US government legislated heavier trucks and SUVs.
Probably? You know you could actually look it up, it’s well documented. Obama’s EPA rules are responsible for this. They’re well intentioned but poorly designed
Lolol bruh i could care less about unenforced EPA “regulations”. I said “probably… more likely” as a counterpoint and a joke really. Why don’t you research the personal conflicts of interest for my point first that I was talking about before you go all “dO yOuR rEsEaRcH”?
Ya’know what ill help you out since you didnt provide any burden of proof like an arguer SHOULD do.
Bush administration unveiled a controversial National Energy Plan, which consisted chiefly of $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts for the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries, as well as provisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industrial oil drilling.
Ofc they’re both guilty, they are the establishment and two sides of the same coin. Doesn’t mean one can’t have more vested interest potentially. Also lol what EPA rules did Bush even try to pass tho? Besides opening the Arctic for drilling primarily.
A huge chunk of it is because the USA has a huge tax incentive for car manufacturers to make bigger cars. When fuel efficiency standards started coming in, trucks were exempted because farmers needed their trucks for farm work, it’s a loophole that encourages the manufacturers to build bigger vehicles to avoid these taxes. These massive vehicles are unusually cheap in the USA. If these loopholes regarding fuel efficiency were closed out people would be financially incentivised to buy smaller cars. Unfortunately, money talks. People aren’t all selfish, they’re just doing what makes sense for them.
fuckcars
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.