- cross-posted to:
- greentext@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- greentext@sh.itjust.works
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/26368144
Anons argue in comments
You must log in or register to comment.
Most jurisdictions don’t require a licence plate and therefore is harder to track.
Also, is Green Mario’s most faithful companion
The automobile isn’t a symbol of freedom, never has been.
It’s a status symbol.
Because our previous generation of 1% wealth leaders had a vision to make an entire economy built for, and dependant on, gasoline and oil. This new generation of wealth leaders don’t have as strong of a vision. They just see some weird techno-feudalism fantasies where they rule us all because of social media and AI or some shit.
I wonder how many cargo bicycles would be needed to move the contents of a truck, and how refrigeration would work. Or would we just not transport things that needed it?
Maybe more local farms…
…and what about building houses, large panels of wood. Perhaps specially bicycles would be developed? I’ve seen multi-person bicycles in weird arrangements - like that Beer bicycle… Or that seven person conference bicycle at google.
EDIT people down voting this and making exceptions for other road vehicles, oh well, then you’d have roads. Roads to deliver cargo and stock to every major supermarket and green grocery.
Obviously no one is suggesting moving freight by bicycle.
So, because stuff happens which doesn’t require cars we should design our lifes around cars? I’m sorry, but I don’t manage to follow your reasoning here?
To create a pedestrian first world I think we need to legitimately understand what advantages a car has. A car is a true source of empowerment.
Sure, I can ride a bike, but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination. I can take a bus but not at any moment, and not the middle of the night. I can take public transit, but not to the place I need to go.
A car is a portable personal space. I can eat lunch in my car, I can take a nap.
A car is a space protected from the elements - I’m not getting rained on. Protection from wind, snow, sun.
Its locked doors are a barrier between me and potential (and sometimes imagined) threats.
I don’t need to list out for this community all the negative things associated with cars. I just list these pros to highlight it’s a challenging task to displace cars. It’s a list of benefits to replicate.
This comment made me sad, because it’s a reminder of just how bad a shithole most of the United States is: You need a car to go 300 miles at a whim because transit is bad or non-existent, and driving sucks. I know people who refuse to do that distance in one day. You need a car to go longer distances to bars, stores, restaurants, because
racismzoning makes everything far away and a pain and a half to access.You need a secluded, personal space to eat lunch or take a quick nap because the U.S. hates homeless people so much that there’s nowhere to do either of those things in public, and you’ll get abused by the police if you try. A car is a less-than-ideal spot to do either of those things comfortably; a picnic table or a park shelter would be better.
The best protection from threats is crowds, the “eyes on the street” principle. In fact, a lot of assaults happen in parking lots because there’s nobody around to intervene. But Americans are scared shitless of each other for no reason, and our society is collapsing because of it.
Oh, also, a car isn’t even a good place to eat or nap if you’re poor. The cops will hassle you to no end if you look like you don’t belong. (Hence, the prevalence of setting up a van for stealth camping.) It’s not a source of empowerment, if you’re poor. I would never have dreamed of jumping in my car and driving 300 miles on a whim when I worked retail. If the car broke down, or got damaged, I would’ve been supremely fucked, unable to pay to repair it, and without access to any alternative transportation.
But, frankly, I think that’s the point: Car dependency is supposed to hurt poor people, by physically excluding them, and providing a social marker of affluence so the not-quite-so-poor can feel good about themselves. (Why else bro dozers?)
You need a secluded, personal space to eat lunch or take a quick nap because the U.S. hates homeless people so much that there’s nowhere to do either of those things in public,
Ok that’s a leap. We do, in fact, have parks with benches.
Instead of going on an in-depth exploration of where those parks are located, I’ll say that if need a car to have a spot on the landscape where you’re allowed to do basic, human things like eat and nap, then that’s not an advantage of cars.
I’ll say that if need a car to have a spot on the landscape where you’re allowed to do basic, human things like eat and nap
You don’t.
Sure, I can ride a bike, but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination
This is a strawman argument. 300 mile trips are better suited for trains.
There isn’t a train running from where I live to anywhere. And even if I lived in the nearest metropolitan area, trains only run to a couple destinations that are 300 miles away.
Don’t get me wrong, we should build trains going everywhere. That’s a huge expensive goal that has no foreseeable date for completion. I’m talking about why do people view cars as a source of freedom? It’s because they offer something not easily accessible by other means. The original post was talking about how great bikes are and why do we think cars are a symbol of freedom?
I think bikes are great, and I’m glad to ponder the nice benefits they offer. To displace cars requires understanding why people want them.
Yeah, the main advantage of cars is that they do a lot of things (kinda badly.) We need to do a lot of work to replace cars, and that work definitely doesn’t start with ignoring why cars are so prevalent. We need to empower people through other avenues a lot before most people will switch over.
but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination.
Work out. You can do it if you simply get thighs of steel.
You need to be introduced to cargo bikes and rain tents on bikes
Por que no los dos?
You don’t need to fully replace cars to have a positive impact. I’m sure many people in the US could commute via bike if the infrastructure was there. Even if not every day, just sometimes. Also the public transit comment is definitely true in the US, and is not true many other places.
I see the benefits, and don’t disagree at all! Just saying that not all boxes need to be checked to offset some car use
A car is a way of seizing power from those who cannot afford a car, have a disability that prevents driving, etc.
How is it seizing power?
There’s definitely an opportunity cost. If you build a road or a parking garage that’s taking space and funds that could go to something else. The same could be said of a park or firehouse or factory. And I’d agree that in many cases something better could have been done than car centric infrastructure.
But an individual owning a car isn’t taking something from someone who doesn’t own a car.
Besides, my point is that cars should not be prioritized over pedestrians, cyclists and public transit. Just that to displace cars we should try to understand what people see in them, contra the last line of the OP image
But an individual owning a car isn’t taking something from someone who doesn’t own a car.
One individual, no. But collectively, you take so much, you just don’t understand. Everything is so much harder for me because everyone with means has to be able to drive EVERYWHERE door to door. You are empowered? I am disempowered.
I mean, bikes are great for a lot of things and cities should definitely have the infrastructure to support their usage, but let’s not pretend that they can easily replace cars in every use case.
Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities. Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system, but that’s exactly why cars are considered to be the symbol of freedom - not depending on the bus/train schedules, weather, distance etc.Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities.
In many cases the long distances were created by cars. Cities worked fine before cars. But cars demand so much space that cities became spread out.
A solution to this problem is to repopulate city centers around the country by replacing parking lots with mixed use buildings.
That freedom is an illusion. You’re constantly subject to other people in cars doing things, and what they do is often stupid as shit. You only have that freedom when out on the open road with few other cars around, and you’re probably specifically going out of your way to do that.
the freedom to be stuck in traffic because everyone else got a car too
Despite some people on here’s hard-on for completely banning cars which would be impractical and impossible country wide, it makes sense to see them as what they should be: a luxury for most and a necessity for a few people with mobility issues.
Mass public transport should be the cheapest and preferred option and a vital part of any city’s infrastructure. Then spreading out in terms of density, towns should have parking outside of the town centre with regular free shuttles into the centre with regular and cheap/free bus travel to and from town centres with buses that have segregated lanes for high traffic areas so buses are able to run on a good timetable. Towns should also be built on the 15 minute city model. Then finally, in villages and rural locations, an on-demand bus service balances the provision of public transport without ridiculously long waiting times between buses or spending way too much on frequency when there isn’t the population density for demand.
All of these population densities should have extensive cycle paths and long cycle highways between these population centres.
And viola: civic infrastructure where a car is the infrequent option and therefore significantly less traffic, lower carbon footprint, lower infrastructure maintenance costs, and a more active population engaging with eachother in thriving communities.
Food -> exerting force is not even remotely fuel efficient
IIRC, even considering those losses, biking is still one of the most efficient forms of land transport. What I found interesting was a study that found that e-bikes were even more efficient than regular ones.
It’s about 22-24% efficient which is the same as a carbon engine.
Chemistry and physics, yo, stochiometric ratios. No free lunch.
The difference is the mass component of F = M•A
Sad thing is, if bikes were invented today, they’d be heavily regulated.
That’s not a sad thing as that never happened, it’s a huge positive as we got the opposite.
its intended as a sad comment on today
I don’t know about inexpensive. The bike I want is approaching a grand and my last car was $5500. I would be crushed losing that amount.
Merely owning a car has cost me an average of $2000 a year. Insurance, tires, oil and other maintenance costs brings that up to $3000. Just to own the car, that doesn’t include gas to actually use it
Greatly used in Montreal too for instance, but problem is winter, riding in a foot of snow while it’s -20, not easy…
Cars perform even worse in snow.
So the thing for me isn’t the temperature nor the depth of the snow. It’s sharing space with cars and contending with the very real possibility of falling and getting my head crushed like a grape.
I quite liked using my fat bike in the park through the snow. But on a road with cars on ice? There’s a reason I sold it.
Also, I would literally sweat going downhill on that thing.
In my area, bikes are considered motor vehicles and have to adhere to the same rules and regulations as bikes.
Which is stupid because there’s no infrastructure for bikes, and it’s illegal to ride them on the nearly completely unused sidewalks.
My FIL got me an e-bike that I can’t use for anything other than riding around the neighborhood because I have to get on the highway to get to town.
Uhhh…wow, bikes have to adhere to the same regulations as bikes?
Very unusual.
I’m generally in support of this. The car allows for more freedom in certain conditions, though:
- Better for people with physical handicaps
- Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather
- Doesn’t leave you as hot and sweaty, especially when going to work
Better for people with physical handicaps
At least the people with handicaps that can still drive.
It actively makes the transportation landscape worse for those without hearing or sight or a mobilty reducing handicap that disallows driving.
Yeah, reducing car usage would be much better for all handicapped people (those who can drive get better traffic.)
Better for people with physical handicaps
The majority of physical disabilities prevent people from driving, resulting in a loss of mobility and freedom when they do not have viable alternatives. Many people who do not bike for transport and do not talk to people who bike for transport see a handicap parking spot and assume that everybody with a handicap drives.
People cycling and using public transit free up road space for the minority of people with handicaps who drive. I know two utilitarian cyclists with disabilities who cannot drive but use a bicycle as their primary means of transportation.
Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather
Wear a jacket. Many of us go for walks in extreme weather. There are very cold and hot countries all over the world that have high rates of bicycle usage for transport. The problem usually lies in cities designing and maintaining their roads in a hostile way to all forms of transportation other than bicycles in the winter. Look at Montreal and Oulu for counter-examples. Even the Netherlands gets constant rain.
This is a great video on the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBUDoesn’t leave you as hot and sweaty, especially when going to work
See above
Are there many physical handicaps that prevent people from driving, but not from riding a bike?
As for the extreme weather, I said “Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather”
The OP was asking why the car is a symbol for freedom and not the bicycle, so I provided some possible explanations.
Someone addressed your first point. But the second two are only true when your city is so spread out to make room for huge roads and parking lots between everything. Not to mention zoning laws that make it illegal to build denser housing, or to build a grocery store near where people live.
Id rather be in a tram on rails in snowy conditions than in a private vehicle thats subject to slippery conditions and other vehicles hitting it. The tram if hit often has more mass and survives the hit better than a sedan would.
The rail transport is always the safest option, barring staying at home in the first place.
And if there’s no trams or subs, but buses?
Here in Turku we have good public transport, but they’re buses. Unlike personal vehicle, buses don’t require winter tires. Theyre literally driving on slicks. (it’s because there’s so many and so much weight).
This will sound racist, but my city has a problem of hiring bus drivers and quite a lot of them may not be as experienced in driving in winter conditions.
There’s also no seat buses on the city buses. (Long distance ones do)
A personal vehicle will have studded tires, won’t have to use the completely shiny bus lanes (the buses stopping and going with those slicks really grind them into mirrors), and has seatbelts and airbags. So definitely personal transport is safer in my city.
Here what the bus stops and lanes look like at times. And this isn’t even the worst, just one say napped a photo as it was slightly frozen.
Here’s like worse weather. That. But everywhere. Then the most dangerously one is that plus a hint of powdery snow, because then you won’t see the super slippery ice underneath and step on it unprepared.
Do you have any data or proof to back up your claim that private vehicles are safer than buses in your city? Buses running tires that slip could also be a symptom of underfunding, not an inherent flaw in buses. My car would slip too if i kept summers on it instead of quality winter tires. Buses tend to be much higher off the ground and much larger than everything else on the road, unless the bus rolls over most passengers would walk away with minor injuries in a collision.
Pff.
Mister hasn’t ever been in a proper winter or understand how one drives in winter.
It’s rare they crash, yeah. But it’s happened and and then there’s lots of tiny personal injuries, at the worst. Because of the speed in cities.
My car would slip too if i kept summers on it instead of quality winter tires
You don’t understand how friction works with larger vehicles. They don’t change them for a reason, not because we’re a cheap country who doesn’t regulate safety.
You can dig up data if you want to be but thinking a bus is less prone to losing control than a personal vehicles shows your inexperience.
Also, the car will be way faster
