99% of people would be better served by getting their stuff delivered or renting a truck the two days a year they need to haul stuff.
The majority of the pickups we see today in the streets are status symbols driven by insecure people, as evidenced by the truck bed not having a single scratch.
Scratches are not indicative of use. I’ll definitely be getting a truck in the future, it’s nice to be able to haul things, take canoes / kayaks out, have more room for our family trips we take many times a year where a small SUV barely cuts it. We’ve had to take two cars places before so yes a truck would be really nice.
Some people do, but it’s a dead giveaway when a truck bed is so small it can’t hold a sheet of plywood, AND the truck is super clean AND it doesn’t have any dents and scratches.
At that point it’s obviously not being used for what it was originally designed for.
Because they take up too much room on the roads, make a shit ton of noise, are less safe for other users of the road, are less versatile than other vehicles. Those were the objective reasons.
Now for the subjective reasons: they’re ugly as sin, expensive as fuck, the fuel cost is too high and they suck at driving in the snow.
They don’t really say on their website how much less range it has once you attach a trailer to it, beware.
Also the vehicle being so high and wide means it’ll be hard to park. That alone should be a deal breaker for anyone living close to a city.
The extended cab means less room in the bed. If the goal is to carry stuff, you are losing both room and range. Your stuff also is gonna get wet unless you buy something additional to cover them.
EV large pickups seem to me like the worst of both world when I stop and think about it.
Surprised in a /c like this that no one is talking about how you can prevent this on a systemic level with public transportation and mixed zoning.
I live 600 feet from a pub. If I went out of my area I can take one of several different busses to get back within walking distance to my apartment. Don’t have to worry about getting home if you can walk there.
The biggest issue with American solutions is they always look at problem solving backwards. You want to fix society level issues on the society level. Expecting people to fix it themselves never works or we wouldn’t already be in this mess
Man, I have lived in Europe for the past 11 years and have yet to meet anyone who has used them or commented on them. I know someone who went on vacation to the US and took an overnight Amtrak for fun.
I’m sure they exist but really, people fly on longer voyages. Bullet trains may be changing that. A Madrid->Paris line will open soon that’ll do it in 5 hours. Which gets close to the speed of a plane when airport security and the like is taken into account and should give much more comfort.
I’ve used them multiple times, when I was traveling with my class or alone. I wouldn’t say I love them, but they are OK. In the last 10-15 years flights have become appallingly cheap, so that’s usually easier.
Sleeper trains have lost their popularity when airlines got deregulated and companies like Ryanair took off with super cheap flights. This might be changing soon as EU has deregulated railways a few years ago and there’s a fierce competition to make trains cheaper than flights again.
I live in germany. Every single time I take a longer trip, I look for overnight train options. I have never in my life used a sleeper train because they either don’t exist on that route or are so much more expensive I’d rather do the less comfortable option. I would love to love sleeper trains.
Same here, every time I was driving train at night in germany. I rarely was in a sleeper train and if I was. Only in the normal seating compartments. They are just way to expensive. I sometimes look for fun what a flight would cost. And mostly its more than the half…
And don’t get me started with train driving to other European countries
The suburbs are inherently compatible with trains and really any public transportation. They were quite literally designed around the car and the expectation that everyone would have a car.
Unless you plan to bulldoze the suburbs and then force everyone to move into higher density areas your anti-car dreams are never going to happen.
Although there are many American cities that could get much more anti-car and public transport would work. LA could theoretically not be such a car city with the appropriate infrastructure built in.
Why are the anti-car people anti-self-driving car? With self-driving cars we could mostly eliminate private car ownership.
While zoning does interfere in many cases, even without zoning, the businesses aren’t interested. Our city has started mandating mixed use for every new residential, and the retail and office space end up mostly empty.
Now that companies are used to consolidating people from miles around, it’s not appealing to go back to the old days of having a store per neighborhood.
There are indeed suburbs that make use of transportation, but they… look a bit different than the sprawling, disconnected single family detached with a lawn and a backyard style suburbs. I peraonally believe with a few changes the suburbs could make use of public transport in busses. The suburbs are actually inconvenient for cars, they are poorly connected and have many stop signs and generally no lines or other features. The scale is best with a vehicle rather than on foot, but it’s not the end of the world either.
Personally, my anti-car dream only applies to me. I wanna live in a city where I’m at zero inconvenience without one and the risk of being hit by one is significantly lower, too.
With Uber and other ride hailing services it became clear that cheap point to point transport replaces trips that are otherwise being made with public transportation like buses, and thereby increasing traffic. There were also more trips in total done because of the convenience than were done before, thus also increasing traffic. It’s the classic Jevons paradox.
Self driving taxis could certainly have the same effect or more if they are cheaper than ride hailing. The increase in usage can easily be greater than the number of private cars it replaces.
Self-driving cars also have an added benefit, if they are exclusively on the road, in that they could eliminate traffic. But they won’t have exclusive access to the road, because people like driving cars. Interconnected compiters planning everyone’s trips could eliminate the need for stop signs, stop lights, or the slinky effect on highways, because it turns out comouters can be better drivers than the typical human driver. They just need to stop hitting pedestrians…
That’s the question. Let’s say the roads are now exclusively self driving cars and they are so efficient they double the throughput of roads. Meanwhile commuters bought houses that are twice as far away from the city because those houses are cheaper, and now they can sleep and work in the car anyway, so twice as much traffic. Or all schoolkids not taking the schoolbus anymore and all going by individual autonomous car and all pensioners getting their robo-taxi to squeeze through rush hour every morning so they’re first at the supermarket for the freshest produce. It remains to be seen how that works out.
That’s complete bullshit. The reason why there is congestion is because there are too many vehicles on the roadway. Changing the timing of the vehicles doesn’t eliminate the vehicles or the congestion. It’s a geometry problem.
Because rather than fixing the problem, you think we can avoid it entirely with a completely unreasonable elimination of cars.
Traffic exists because people are inefficient drivers. Congestion happens everywhere people live in sufficient densities, and it’s not the density you’re imagining.
Fully automated driving is also unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, because people like driving. But it could happen eventually, because the variety of benefits over other forms of transportation. One of those benefits is reducing traffic.
The argument that we will get rid of all cars on the planet is just silly. Prior to the automobile, people had wagons and carriages for thousands of years. They had the same problem as cars due today - they cause pollution from horse poop, and they caused massive congestion.
I don’t think there is a single major city on the planet today that doesn’t use cars in some level of the transportation system.
What’s really funny I said a bus is just a really large car. And a taxi is just a car that somebody else drives for you. So saying that mass transit and taxis or a solution to cars is ignoring the fact that they’re basically the same thing.
Well Los Angeles used to have an extensive streetcar system like Toronto. It was bulldozed in the 1950s and that was that. So LA isn’t inherently anti-transit, but that was a result of deliberate planning. I could be converted back, however it’s density is quite low and it could stand to have some urban centers linked by high-capacity mass transit.
The suburbs are inherently compatible with trains and really any public transportation. They were quite literally designed around the car and the expectation that everyone would have a car.
New suburbs get built and they can be built differently. Not to mention that the current suburbs in the US aren’t made to last the next hundred years, like stone houses in Europe are. They can, have to and will change.
The Work from home trend for example is a huge change. If you work from home and do not have to drive to work and back, you do not want to drive the same amount anyway just for grocery shopping. You want to use the free time won, by stepping outside of your home and go on a walk, sit in a café and meet people in your suburb.
Why are the anti-car people anti-self-driving car?
If a human makes a mistake while driving, we call for self-driving cars.
If a self-driving car causes an accident, we call for the road to be more catered to self-driving cars. Self-driving car is still too many cars rotting on the road, unused most of the day, heating up cities and taking up space and resources, when a bus can replace hundreds of them.
A self-driving car is still a car, and it can’t do what humans can do: People make billions of good decisions every day that help avoid accidents. We just don’t recognise them because we focus on the bad decisions that cause accidents. Self-driving cars will never be able to make those good decisions, so having lots of them will only work if the roads are designed more for them. Then we will have roads that are like train tracks with all the negative characteristics of today’s cars on top, when we could just have trains and busses all the benefits that come with them.
10 or 20 years from now when you’re taking a nap or jerking off or eating fried chicken or playing Call of Duty while a self-driving car (you can call it an “automated transportation pod” if the word “car” triggers you) takes your extremely drunk self right to your front door you’ll think it’s fine.
I live in a 15-minute city. I take the bus home, now and in 20 years time when I am 77 years old, only with the help of a walking aid, but luckily our buses already have low entrances to allow disabled people to get on. I also stay with friends when I drink and come home the next day, and I do not need or want to eat or play games on the way home, and I especially do not want to masturbate in a car, automated or not, I want a nice and comfortable place for that. I prefer to look out of the window and experience the journey and stop and eat something. That you seem to basically live in your car, maybe except when you need to shit, is car brain thinking for me. A car is not a place to live, it’s a means of transport with a lot of flaws, I’d love to see your face when you’re jerking off in your automated car while it decides to drive you right into fresh concrete, onto train tracks or into the nearest river.
I do not own a car and never have, and I have survived well. If the world doesn’t recover from car brain, we won’t survive as a species. Automated transport is the future for buses and trains, not individual transport, which will always be worse in every way, only topped by flying taxis, which are even dumber.
Funny side note: Saudi Arabia has started building the most idiotic “city of the future” you can build: The Line, but they also killed the car, because even they realised that cars, automated or not, are not the future and you can only get around in this futuristic place by walking or by train.
The problem is most people don’t live in 15 minute cities and it’s impossible to turn the suburbs into 15 minute cities as most things are just physically too far apart.
If you live in a gigantic McMansion neighborhood that takes 5 minutes to get out of by car and then your job is an additional 20 miles away there is no bus or train solution - you’ll have to have a car.
Funny you should mention living in your car. I used to have a 40 mi commute from my suburban town, each way, to work. I lived slightly north of Baltimore and commuted to just outside of DC. I would spend an hour minimum each way driving. When traffic was bad easy 2 hours. I did this for 4 years and it was soul destroying, but it was an extremely lucrative job.
Then I found a job in my little suburb that pays about the same amount of money and it’s close enough I can ride my bike to, which I do sometimes when it’s not hot, by car it’s only about 5 minutes. The extra time I’ve gotten back has been amazing and looking back I would have taken 20% pay cut to not have to do that horrible commute.
That is not a solution for everyone as there aren’t enough jobs in the suburbs to support the population. They’re called bedroom communities for a reason.
I’m really not pro or anti car. I just think you have to be realistic. The realistic part is the suburbs are just too spaced out and too far from jobs to have a functioning mass transit system.
Further, we only have suburban sprawl because of government mandates. For example, thanks to restrictive zoning, it is literally illegal to build anything but detached single-family houses on the vast majority of urban land in this country.
And also the matter that most cities in America had incredibly extensive streetcar networks, before they were literally torn up. It’s no accident that the city in the world with the largest tram network – Melbourne, Australia – is also the only city that left its historic streetcar intact.
The beautiful thing about fixing all this malarkey is we don’t have to demolish and displace millions of people from their homes like we already did once only ~60 years ago. We just have to abolish those restrictive, Euclidean zoning laws and parking minimums and setback requirements and so forth. Let the invisible hand of the free market provide us with the density and walkability and transit-oriented development it’s trying to provide us with!
The primary thing that needs demolishing is parking lots, and absolutely no one will miss those, I guarantee it.
This sub is pointless until it can provide a solution to having to get somewhere 30 miles from here when it’s 10 below outside for most of the winter.
Dont give me that it’s not always 10 below excuse. It is often 10 below or lower for long stretches in the north. Biking is simply not viable or practical.
Look at this example. Looks like it’s 80 and sunny with the top down on a convertible and everyone in summer clothes.
Public transport? Or cars. Some people on here may be militant about getting rid of all cars, but most of us aren’t that extreme. We simply want to have the option to not use cars, which is currently not the case in many regions of the world.
@Dkarma@theplanlessman public transportation can absolutely work for rural populations. As long as it's designed and built well. But our governments keep robbing us off that possibility. And we keep letting them.
Talking about the problem is literally the only way to further the cause. Change starts with a dialog. We’re not going to “get the laws passed and THEN talk about it”, that’s backwards.
80% of the US lives in metropolitan and micropolitan areas. In small towns, suburbs and cities.
People on this sub aren’t saying that we should force Old Macdonald to take the bus from the farm to the feed store. You’re never going to get rid of all cars. They have an important niche.
You always have the option to not use a car if weather permits no one is stopping you.
I mean, in a technical sense that’s true. Practically, though, people respond to their built environment. There’s a reason way more people drive to work in Rome than Barcelona, and it ain’t the weather. And there’s a reason way more people bike in the winter in Oulu, Finland than Syracuse, NY despite having similar populations and climate.
Most people aren’t ideological “drivers” or “pedestrians”, they’re just people who want to get somewhere and will follow the path of least resistance. Put them in Amsterdam and they’ll happily bike to their destination, put them in Houston and they wouldn’t.
Dont give me that it’s not always 10 below excuse. It is often 10 below or lower for long stretches in the north. Biking is simply not viable or practical.
“It’s sometimes cold, therefore you can never bike”
This sub is pointless until it can provide a solution to having to get somewhere 30 miles from here when it’s 10 below outside for most of the winter.
-10F or -10C?
-10C really isn’t very cold. The average low in Oulu, Finland in February is -12C, and ~10% of all trips there in the winter are via bike because they have an extensive network of well-plowed bike paths.
Biking in -10C is really just a matter of having appropriate gear to block the wind - similar to what you’d wear skiing like a jacket, mittens and a neck gator/ski mask. -10C isn’t warm, but people do outdoor winter sports literally all the time in -10C. It’s fine.
-10F needs better cold gear, and is probably going to be pretty uncomfortable for most people. You definitely have to worry about preventing frostbite, and I definitely know skiers who would stay inside.
But most places don’t really stay -10F. That’s like Fargo or Fairbanks cold, not Buffalo or Boston cold. Chicago has only gotten down to -10F in three years in the past decade. Relatively few people live in places that regularly stay -10F.
Although there’s a standard solution for 30 mile trips that works in basically all temperatures: a bus or train. Which isn’t really practical in American style suburban sprawl, but is very practical in denser walkable European towns and cities.
If we assume there isn’t another solution to that, why does it matter? Why does your need for a car for your specific use negate any use of alternatives anywhere? We can still advocate for better transportation and land use in cities, even if the proposed solution doesn’t work for your journey between Plunkett and Blucher.
Republicans love big government so I won’t be surprised if they do. Just like they prevented Austin from enacting a city-wide requirement for construction workers to get a mandatory 10 minute water break when working outside in +35c heat.
The reason why someone wants loudness is for their own safety factor such as motorbikes. If cars can’t see them or hear them it is very dangerous. And it helps even less that someone with a car also wants to be loud so they can’t be aware of others on the road.
Loud pipes do not actually save lives. It’s been studied. And they absolutely would not have prevented or mitigated my own wreck (sideswiped in traffic), which has led me to an extended hiatus from riding.What did save my life and minimize my injury? Proper safety equipment.
A full-face helmet that was properly tested for regulatory approval is why I didn’t receive a TBI or need reconstructive surgery, as I high-sided and slid for a ways on my face, and got hit by my bike as it has more inertia.
An armored jacket with CE level 2 armor is why I suffered a nickel-sized abrasion as my only visible external injury (if it had impact armor covering my abdomen, my internal injuries may have been prevented).
A pair of armored, kevlar-mesh overalls are why I did not have a broken hip or need extra hardware (my hip does inform me when it’s cold, however).
A pair of tall, CE certified boots, that were close to needing replacement, are why I sprained, rather than fractured my ankle and why my shin was not fractured. My ankle appears to inform me when precipitation is likely though, so between in and hip, I’m almost a human weather station now :P
And finally, the piece of equipment that I think did the most to save my life are the CE-Cat 2 EN13594/2015 certified gloves, with hard sliders (steel and composite) that I was wearing. Not only did they prevent significant injury that my hands would have suffered, but they allowed me to gain control of my motion, turning my tumble into a slide and steer myself away from traffic that I would have otherwise collided with, very likely causing fatality.
Loud pipes really just annoy the piss out of people around the bike and force pedestrians and those in their homes and businesses to pay attention to said biker. There’s better ways to get attention in the community, like volunteer work or developing an impressive skill. Then, take the money that would be going towards loud pipes and spend it on actual, effective safety gear, not that leather vest nonsense.
Silent cars are dangerous too, I had an electric bus zoom past me and i didn’t hear shit because of the busy road. I thought I was dead. They should have some kind of sound at least.
So you didnt hear it because other cars are louder. Tire noise already accounts for a substantial amount of the noise that cars make when the exhaust hasnt been modded to be louder.
Can’t really expect everyone to go full environment friendly mode. And adding silent hunk of fast going metals is just dangerous. Besides living in India you get so used to all the traffic noises, you can’t keep track of tire sounds cuz they’re everywhere.
I don’t think it’s the silence that makes car and other vehicle dangerous… It’s the fact that the road is there turf and you as a pedestrian or a cyclist have to be extra vigilant to cross. It’s regrettable most cities are designed that way. Plus, I am almost certain electric buses, just like trams, have a ring bell to make extra noise warning distracted pedestrians. Finally, it’s always the responsibility of the driver (even you as a car driver) to be vigilant of his surrounding, the driver is in charge of the safety of people all around him as he his in control of a massive, deadly machine.
EVs can also act as a battery for the home and a back up generator. A lot more useful than just a car. Now I know this sublulemmy is urbanist, but the sorts of people to buy a car don’t live in a city.
If you live in an area where bikes are viabl3/safe they are - provided you dont need to haul tools / groceries / other people and you’re not mobility impared. It sucks that so much of the worlds infrastructure was built to be as hostile as possible to any other form of transit.
Large tools, not tools in general. You can haul a tool belt, a battery skil saw, and a drill just fine on a bike, which is all you need for a lot of construction work. You could even haul a compressor and it’s accessories like that. I wouldn’t expect a 12ft ladder, or a diesel generator, but those are very large and very heavy, respectively, and also not generally needed.
groceries
Even if you do weekly shopping for a family of 6, you can do that by bike just fine. Cargo bikes and trailers are a thing. But we shouldn’t need to do weekly shopping trips, because the store should be a 5 minute walk away that you can just stop at anytime.
other people
Trailer is a thing. As are various passenger bikes
fuckcars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.