I mean… I live in a 3 mile town. It’s cold as fuck, I live North of a town called North fucking Pole.
I ain’t walking for shit, sorry but my car is on half an hour before I even use the damn thing.
You want to fix infrastructure of America, cool. Maybe you’d get my vote. But these memes feel like bs marketing that simply does not apply to our current situation.
That’s a very different experience then I had living in the cold as fuck.
When I was in Yellowknife, it was easier to walk or bike than to drive. Between plug time and idle time, you could just walk or bike faster. Plus you’re not spending a fortune on hydro and gas for a short drive.
I mean, obviously Yellowknife is a pretty big city for the north; but if it’s a 3 mi town then nowhere is more than a 40 minute walk or 15 minute bike away. If 3 mi town is an expression and not a size, maybe just take your sled?
Also a big part of me being in the north was embracing nature and the elements, I get that might not be why you’re up there.
Finally, you’re the 20 of the Pareto principle; if it’s not about you, it’s not about you.
Counterpoint: having a working car makes a human being have vastly more freedom to travel than not having a car.
Having a car means you can drive to anywhere that roads on your continent lead to, and even to places that don’t have roads if your car is off-road capable. Without a car, you have to hire transport to get to anywhere you can’t get to by your human body power.
I would never live without a car unless it was physically impossible. Law banning cars would not stop me, I would build my own fucking car if I had to.
Exactly. There’s a pattern I’ve noticed of people interpreting “car dependency reduces freedom” as “car ownership reduces freedom”. But the point you, I, and many others are trying to make is that building our cities in such a way that no one has a choice but to drive everywhere is counter to the idea of freedom.
Freedom is the freedom to choose how you want to get about your city and not be coerced into owning and maintaining a (rather expensive) vehicle just to get groceries. People want choices.
Not hard to explain at all. I am lazy and I enjoy the cool stuff I have at home more than I enjoy traveling frequently. But in my case it would be driving to the same 5 to 10 spots most of the time. I go to different cities to visit people or a dispensary with a better selection, etc.
It’s pretty cool to have the option to do any of the above anytime I want.
And in 80 years we might get the report from the committee about the proposal to create a committee to study the feasibility of possibly allowing four story homes.
…and that means you need to use trucks 3x the size of a normal car, with double the noise output, half the efficiency and four blindspots the size of a child?
That’s exactly their point though? The people who argue for cars argue that they’re necessary because US cities aren’t walkable, while conveniently ignoring that that’s entirely due to the auto industry and that making cities more walkable is still an option. They’re pointing out how fucked that logic is.
If that’s not what they’re saying, then they’re a terrible communicator as well as an idiot.
You’ve taken the “yay logic!” after their period as to mean “all of what I’ve just wrote is a criticism of the lack of logic inherent to this point”.
I’ve simply taken it as a reply to OP: “this explanation I’ve just given is how things work, yay logic! (as opposed to your post, OP)”
Which interpretation is correct? Only they know. Either way, not worth diving deeper into this chain.
EDIT: Just look at the guy’s comment history. My interpretation is correct, he truly believes what he just wrote, he was arguing for it - not against it.
True but this really has little to do with the excessive noise issues. Really easy to build quieter cars, we just let assholes choose how loud they want to be and the results are predictable.
It is true that speed is more dangerous but how much more? Hopefully once we’ve dismantled most car infrastructure we can have separate travel lanes for bikes and pedestrians but right now I’m comfortable sharing. Bicycle collisions just aren’t very dangerous compared to car collisions.
Tell that to the relatives of that grandma who was run over and killed by a speeding biker in a pedestrian zone two weeks ago. He drove off when he saw her down and is still at large.
I agree with you that for deaths, this is nowhere close. But the relationship is there. You complain about the cars, but most bikers I see behave as badly to pedestrians as bikers claim about cars. They just don’t recognize that their behavior is as bad.
They’re enforceable if your government body isn’t afraid of irritating private companies. Or in simpler terms: set a reasonable but strong noise limit, and forbid cars that exceed it in a controlled test to be imported or manufactured in your country.
Amen brother. If your engine doesn’t make every dog in the neighborhood bark can you even call yourself a man? I wanna make every glass of water on the block shake like that scene in Jurassic park.
In what world? Are you naive? AMG alone is thriving their business model on loud cars. There is luxury brands like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Königsegg which are loud by design. There is muscle cars from Ford, Corvette, Cadillac etc.etc. There is loud Audis, Porsche, BMWs, Mercedes. There es even a ridiculously loud Volkswagen Golf GTI or R.
Like what?!?!
Edit: they even having a sound check feature on their websites lmao (at least Mercedes)
Edit: for reference the Golf R has even a membrane build into to cockpit to amplify its sound to the passengers.
Who needs cops? I believe CA passed a bill to trial automatic enforcement of this issue last year. Detects excessive noise and photographs the license plates just like speed cameras.
I’m waiting to see where they will trial it. I haven’t heard anything recently.
Therefore, federal courts have affirmed the right of municipalities to use speeding and red light cameras. Additionally, lawsuits challenging the use of private companies to operate red light cameras have been dismissed or defeated.
I am not a lawyer and I have wondered about the constitutional questions of these. But according to this the courts have largely allowed them.
I know what I’m saying is not objective data, but where I live I hear a ton of motorcycles that are tweaked to remove the silencers and noise protections
We have way better taste and ideas than anything the USSR put out. But social housing in some former-bloc countries is pretty innovative. Still not fitting American values.
I’d say just show them rowhouses of Philly, the duplexes of… Vancouver? Or actual building plans for high density housing.
Americans are highly allergic to copy-pasted buildings (ahem… Except in the suburbs) and thats a good value to uphold.
I have the freedom to choose my transportation options. I wanna take the bus to work, better yet a quiet train? I can.
I dont have to worry about drinking and driving because I won’t be driving.
If my taxes raise, that’s ok because I can choose to ditch my car, which costs a lot more than I thought it did!
It would cost nothing to add a bike rack here, or include a sidewalk. And it would let more people spend money at this business, more often!
There are many leftist approaches to talking about class and social issues without using theory dork words like Bourgeoisie. Talking to the everyman about how our solutions will solve their problems or not disrupt their desires is the most important skill for us.
Also, one thing that I think is a good indicator that your solutions are the right ones is when you can argue for the same solution from wildly different value systems. Ending car dependency? I can just as easily argue that from a free-market libertarian perspective as from a socialist perspective. Whereas to be in favor of car dependency, there really is no way to argue for that under either value system without being wildly ideologically inconsistent.
Plus, as you say, actually arguing for these solutions using the language and value systems of our traditional opponents can do a lot to reach people who are on the fence. And it’s not even dishonest to do so because I genuinely believe ending car dependency is the more pro-freedom stance. It’s just about knowing your audience and putting things in the terms they’ll understand best.
Pretty easy to make a socialist argument for cars IMHO.
It’d go something like, “the only way to ensure the right to mobility is equally distributed is to ensure every individual has what equates to a bus station in their own home.”
Using an ideology to support a desired outcome isn’t as hard as it should be.
You guys lump motorcycles in on this, right? There’s some biker rally/meetup relatively close by this week/weekend, so I’m busy giving the finger to every asshole that passes with their stupid straight-pipe harleys and dumb shitty radios screaming skynard or AC/DC.
I drive an EV, fwiw. There’s literally zero public transportation here, so I’m not on the fuckcars train, sorry.
I’d argue fossil motorcycles should be banned before fossil cars. If it’s about riding with nothing between you and the ground, an electric MC will do plenty. Otherwise, cars serve the same need.
My town has a “bike week” every few months it feels like, where all the people with their way too damn loud bikes get the privilege of blocking off half the city for a week to… I don’t even know?? Drink, I guess? Whatever the case, a major road becomes impassable and the entire city gets too loud to have a conversation on the sidewalk. It’s awful, god knows why the city thinks it’s a good idea. Ugh, now l’m annoyed again just thinking about it…
I was going to link a comic but it’s only available on Instagram and The Platform Formerly Known As Twitter so I’m not gonna since both require logging in now to view their crap
I’ll say that so much of this is unnecessary or even BS. Ban loud cars because they’re annoying, that’s all that is necessary. Set a decibel limit and if you exceed it then you can be fined. Set time limits like when most people are sleeping so you can have loud cars at some more reasonable times and ban them when people aren’t expecting stupidly loud noises.
Fine the manufacturer for each incident with each vehicle and make them recall and fix every one to stop it. Unless it’s the result of someone modifying their own vehicle, then you seize the vehicle and suspend their license.
You can’t just bust out a sound meter and take a reading. There are so many factors that it makes it unenforceable, because at the end of the day the burden of proof would still be placed on the enforcement arm that it was that vehicle. How do you control for ambient noise? Distance? Temperature? It is just unenforceable to make a dB level a mark.
If your car goes pop pop pop, though, I think you need to have your car taken away, and maybe your freedom, because you’re just an asshole.
Points 1-9 being empirically proven is still a BS argument unless you’re also supporting banning all loud noises. Using it as a justification for banning loud cars when we are around loud sounds elsewhere.
I have lived in 4 different cities, two have no noise limit (just a generic don’t be loud when it will bother others noise ordinance), the other has an 85 db night time ordinance, and the last is 55/45 db residential day/night (60/55 mixed use, 70/60 industrial).
Immission, not emission. Generally the regulations deal with noise made by humans and especially their appliances. Also, of course there are exceptions, e.g. for children.
And yes, 35 dB(A) is achieveable. A hospital at night is no place to have a party around. Also nobody will wait for you to run around in high heels to give you a fine. But if you regularly do that in your flat and your neighbor below is sick of it, that might get you in trouble.
Edit: does anyone think downvoting will change those facts? 🤡
Yeah, immission isn’t a word I’ve ever heard before so excuse my ignorance. Seems to correlate with how things are measured around here, where basically you take a historic ambient sound level and then the adjusted sound level after a source is introduced. For development, obviously doable. For people traversing the local roadway? Literally impossible. In fact, where I am from, the vehicle traffic associated with a use is typically exempt from their land use application because it’s just not feasible to get an accurate representation. It’s also not feasible to have a business put a “No popcorn tunes” sign up, and then actually enforce it.
Do you have any info on how this 35dB rule is enforced? Genuinely curious. My familiarity with the technology is through the testimony of experts in a quasi-judicial setting, and so I am far from an expert, but what I’ve heard with enough frequency is that it’s difficult if not impossible to pull out vehicle noise from ambient noise.
In that vein, there are restrictions based on the duration of noises and their level. Basically, a car door slamming is instantaneous. The backup alarm on a truck is constant. But yeah, unrelated. I just don’t know that you can use decibels to limit the motoring public.
And I say all of this being so staunchly against aftermarket tunes making your exhaust sound like you’re running rich. Shit is stupid. I say this having, at a point in my life, drove a car (factory stock) that had a loud exhaust. And so I think if you’re concerned, the best place to make a change is in regulations associated with vehicle exhausts. Neuter pickups and cars if they can’t cc comply. You need noise to get horsepower and torque? Too bad, muffle and restrict your pipes, and if you can’t make your vehicle strong enough, maybe make it smaller.
Most of all it’s just that there’s written rules, and that you can point at them if you feel things are too loud. With immission a lot is already considered when building new houses, train rails, streets, for example.
With cars and motorcycles there’s also emission guidelines, and you have to register aftermarket changes with the inspection authority. And if the police catch you with unregistered alterations they can fine you, ask to show proof of registration within a week, or even impound your vehicle on the spot.
And if there’s a e.g. noisy party in your area, you can call the police (a rite of passage for every German – your first noise complaint (“Ruhestörung”)) and they will ask nicely one time, if they have to come a second or third time they might confiscate your stereo, disband the party, etc. But it’s just their decision what’s too loud, they won’t take measurements.
If it’s something that’s not immediately obvious (e.g. dogs constantly barking), or the government is… less eager to act (e.g. airports) then it can evolve into a tedious and nerve wrecking legal battle. Which frequently happens.
Ok well regardless of surrounding habitats; it’s a driving hazard. Loud cars are a hazard on the road if the owner cannot hear those around them. It’s not on the list but it should be front and center when it comes to road safety around others cuz the road is shared.
That doesn’t really make a lot of sense either though. Most cars have built in sound proofing and while you can hear other cars, it’s rarely a useful sense when driving. If not being able to hear is a significant hazard then why are deaf people allowed to drive?
There is for sure, but I would argue that a quieter sports car with too much power for an inexperienced driver to handle is more of a hazard than a loud old beater car. I guess I’m just trying to add that there are other things that people drive that are more dangerous than a loud vehicle that we should probably focus on first, as much as loud vehicles can be a nuisance.
A loud motorcycle is annoying, but way less dangerous than a quiet truck that the driver can’t see over, at least to other drivers and pedestrians. That’s all I was trying to add. No competition or toxicity, so I don’t know why you are getting that vibe. I even gave you that 1 up vote you have on that last comment there.
fuckcars
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.