The amount of time the square area of a car occupies a given square area of road for the distance travelled and people carried is a fraction of that used by cyclists.
I’m all for this com making good arguments, I do truly believe change is needed with regards to many issues, social and environmental.
By the arguments that come up here do nothing but show this place to be a circle jerk for some truly gifted morons.
Serious question… Are you lot taking the piss or do you really believe the rubbish that gets pushed here?
Your metric is completely worthless. Why compare that? Cars and bikes spend upwards of 22h a day parked somewhere, taking up space while not moving. A city has limited steet space, cars simply do not make sense. Even in american car-centric cities you get large-scale traffic jams every morning. Does your calculation still hold in the real world?
Calling others morons and saying they believe in rubbish is rich coming from someone who evidently didn’t bother spending 3 minutes to think about what they actually wrote.
I’ll start with last point first. Square area is what the OP image referenced (length X width of space taken).
So if it’s wrong for me to use it then it’s wrong for the op too.
Cars gotta be parked… People have garages and carparks exist. We seen to manage that fine.
And for for done people with disabilities cars are the only way.
I’m short on time so I’ll make this quick… As much as you can drag up edge cases where cars are bad, I could do the same about bikes… But the difference between the morons here and I, is that I’m not trying hard to shit on one mode of transport over another.
It might surprise you but for the most part cars and bikes co exist fine.
Length * width is area, not “square area”. This is what I meant at the end of my comment. It’s just a nitpick.
The start of my comment refers to your strange metric of unit area per unit time for which you have no doubt still not run the numbers.
You complain about what you call “edge cases” (somehow 22h a day is an edge case) then immediately bring up people with disabilities. No one here wants to make disabled people’s lives harder. They may need cars and everyone still needs buses and trucks.
What we don’t need is your shitty SUV which drives you to work and back for a grand total of an hour a day. It’s a huge, wasteful, and inefficient wellness centre spanning several square metres and weighing multiple tons only to carry a single person. Due to their terrible inefficiency and choice of fuel they not only waste space but actively worsen the air for everyone around them.
As for parking, no, we do not manage fine. Have you ever been to a major city? Then you will know that parked cars line both sides of most streets, taking up valuable space for 22h a day in the middle of a dense city. It’s insane. Fortunately some cities are trending towards closing streets in the city centre to cars and making them available only to pedestrians and bikes. It’s beautiful and benefits everyone.
Cars are objectively the worse and more selfish option compared to many others in a densely populated city, yet you somehow insist they are equals because it would be wrong to shit on one over the other. But sure, we’re the morons :')
Also, a question remains of whether the law should dictate the ethical standards that all autonomous vehicles must use, or whether individual autonomous car owners or drivers should determine their car's ethical values, such as favoring safety of the owner or the owner's family over the safety of others.[13] Although most people would not be willing to use an automated car that might sacrifice themselves in a life-or-death dilemma, some[who?] believe the somewhat counterintuitive claim that using mandatory ethics values would nevertheless be in their best interest. According to Gogoll and Müller, "the reason is, simply put, that [personalized ethics settings] would most likely result in a prisoner’s dilemma."[50]
This is stupid. We understand people need to use a car for certain jobs. If you have to transport people or materials throughout the day, then yeah - I think most people agree that you should use a car or truck to do so. We make this point over and over again on Reddit or here.
It’s a different set of compromises. It’s actually pretty funny reading this because the Ridgeline is the odd-duck in pickup land with plenty of “not a real truck!! lol minivan!” derision.
Yea it’s not a body-on-frame, tow anything, crawl anywhere vehicle. But it’s a vehicle with an open bed for those with use for it and better fuel efficiency, interior space, comfort than its midsize competitors. It’s the truck most folks can likely do just fine with. Maybe someone wants AWD rather than part-time 4WD, a less trucky ride, etc.
Ignoring HyunKia engine quality and EZ theft, my Sorento can be considered a shit car since it’s not as good off-road as a 4Runner, not as nimble as an Accord, has less space than a Pacifica, uses more fuel than a Prius, cost more than a Mirage and tows less than a Frontier.
But on the flip side, it’s also better off-road than the Accord, seats more than the Frontier, uses less fuel and is smaller than both the 4Runner and Pacifica (gas) and tows more than the Prius. All about the point of comparison and compromises picked, maybe the Ridgeline will make more sense compared to a Tacoma - plenty of potential uses cases out there too that an open bed would be handy for, if you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s objectively dumb. (but not me at this time, except maybe a bed would be neat for my bike or trash.)
I think the styling is fine too, it’s just a basic pickup shape, no need to be so dramatic. Have you seen the first gen, or an Avalanche, Santa Cruz, Baja? I prefer this to the Silverado’s base front end too.
I guess I am just lamenting the death of neat small trucks and cars. This thing is not good on gas, the same size (width and length) as a full size truck, has the same visibility issues that plague new trucks, and seemingly is trying to be all things at the same time.
I get it, you don’t have a lot of options in today’s market, but this seems like we are going backwards.
Fuelly has the Ridgeline averaging 20 MPG with its competitors around 17-19 (likely bigger gap if you compare to full-sizers but will vary depending on powertrain) and the gap will likely be larger cruising so its fuel economy for a pickup is solid save for the newer and smaller Maverick (especially in hybrid guise) and Santa Cruz - their beds are shorter though at 4.5 and 4 feet I believe.
Gas V6 minivans are pretty similar too at around 20 MPG as well real-life.
Comparing crew cab short beds directly, the F-150 (not counting mirrors) is ~2 inches wider and ~20” longer.
But I agree on width though, I was considering a Passport and the 78.5” width of the Honda midsize family (also Pilot, Odyssey) is a turn-off although in minivan land the others are also chunky. Rather not shove an extra four inches into a parking spot if I can avoid it.
Honestly I’d commend a Ridgeline buyer for getting one as the “responsible choice” if it meets their requirements since that or the Santa Cruz are probably the least “I’m tough!” looking pickups.
Maybe that is what gets in my gears so much, that this is the more “responsible choice”. I was not comparing it to any crew cab (I think that four door trucks are a core issue) or any newer truck but the 1980s c20 it was parked near. I guess we have to look to the past for better fuel economy and size (and that is insane).
This is why I disagree with people who want all or nothing, people who think in binary and expect to perfectly achieve their version of ideal. It doesn’t happen
It helps that I experienced this directly: lived in a great place where everything was convenient by walking, with an unlimited train and bus pass so I had freedom to go anywhere any time (that the trains were running). I still “needed” my car. The best way to encourage more people like me to go carless is to accept the reality, and include a place to stash cars long term. Feel free to make it inconvenient, even. Just let me keep a car until I’m ready to give it up. Give me the freedom to choose on my own terms.
I’ve even experienced this in several small towns, where you have a walkable downtown but need to drive everywhere else. My ex in-laws lived in a farming town of a thousand or so (because 400 college kids)and they had these great old fashioned streets with alleys behind. The streets were quiet and walkable, people hung out on their front porches , there were small town shops and restaurants, they seemed to know everyone they passed …. If you needed your car, you walk out back to the garage and drive down the alley. If you were coming from a farm, you’d park in the lot behind a pub or restaurant and walk to other places in town. Great combination of a 15 minute small town, still allowing for cars but out of the way
People often point to the Netherlands as being a car free utopia and while they definitely have some of the best car independent infrastructure, they haven’t fully given up on car infrastructure either, but rather recognised it’s most prominent use cases and accommodated it appropriately. I believe that this is the best way to pull off this dream. It satisfies everyone.
My town is that perfect medium (for me). It’s a small city as a bedroom community for a major city. I live in a single family home. I just got back from walking with my kid and dog down into the town center. We have a Common, some government buildings and businesses, mixed with higher density housing up to six stories, and a great walkable “main street” lined with shops and restaurants. This is clustered around a train station that is also a bus hub, taxi stand, bikes and scooters, and they’re just finishing a rail trail, that will eventually connect to a state-wide network
I have to admit I never took advantage of all of this until COViD. Suddenly we couldn’t drive anywhere nor go out anywhere crowded. So we made a habit of spending a weekend afternoon walking around enjoying the town - typically grab takeout from one of the many restaurants, and eat dinner on a bench on the Common!
fuckcars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.