this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
1220 points (97.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9471 readers
1189 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Look, I'm not about to take transportation advice from a river mammal that enjoys showering its neighbours with faeces using its helicopter tail.

That being said, he's not wrong.

Two things can be true.

We should reduce our dependence on cars. Also, our vehicles should be Electric. Ine dos not preclude the other and so saying we shouldn't do one because of the other is a fallacy.

[–] VantaBrandon@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

The entire society is designed and structured specifically so that you need a car, its a bug, not a feature.

The more cars you have, the more you require cars.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 78 points 3 days ago (37 children)

Absolutely both are needed. I struggle to understand how people think a rural area with 5 minute drives between homes could be connected to a public transit network that is timely and not astronomically expensive.

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Similarly, I struggle to understand why people think paying for roads to connect houses 5 miles away from each other isn’t astronomically expensive

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not sure who's downvoting you, you're absolutely correct. Infrastructure for rural, and even suburban areas isn't even close to being paid for by the people living there. I thought this was common knowledge. It should be obvious that 5 families living in a single large building require significantly fewer resources than 5 individual homes 5 miles apart.

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Rural people, and I get it: I grew up in rural Montana. But America doesn’t run on people like my grandpa driving 6A worth of corn to the grange any more. People like my grandma driving literally 7mi each way to the nearest grocery store isn’t sustain long term

Yeah, I’d love to live in my own mansion on an island and fly my private jet to work. But that’s not realistic if everyone waaaaaaaants to do it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

If left to private companies, they can’t even seem to bring internet service 5 miles down a rural road. How the heck do you even imaging the whole road being a reasonable idea

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (5 children)

You don't understand how minimal maintenance on roads is less expensive than the equipment and personnel to drive through it on a frequent basis?

That's worrying indictment of the education system.

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what your comparing here, but there are constant budget shortfalls for rural paving in my state. It's not cheap. There's also the cost to build the roads (and run electric, phone, internet, etc). There's a reason we needed a bunch of subsidies to add services to rural (and even suburban) places. I think we owe it to everyone in our society to provide basic services, but we don't have to pretend it isn't expensive to do so.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Actually I understand it just fine. My city alone has a $4.4B road maintenance backlog, and it’s not that big of a city

It’s cheap”er” to maintain roads. It is not cheap. Use Google next time

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The taxes might be cheaper, but everyone on these cheap roads purchases their own car, their own insurance, wastes their own time in traffic, lives near nothing but a church an hour walk away, etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Roads in rural new England are most often publicly funded, and are connected into a network of roads and are for transit, so rural roads are in fact a public transit network. I get that you mean trains and buses, though.

Rural roads are just expensive, period. Putting electric cars on them would additionally shorten their lifespan, so I fail to see how either public transit or electric cars are supposed to help. Plus, rural folks are not major emitters, so it doesn't really make much sense to even try to find meaningful emission savings there.

[–] MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Plus, rural folks are not major emitters, so it doesn’t really make much sense to even try to find meaningful emission savings there.

"On average, cities and large towns produce about four tonnes of CO2 per capita, compared with more than six tonnes elsewhere in the UK"

https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/net-zero-decarbonising-the-city/why-cities-will-need-to-play-a-central-role-in-the-net-zero-agenda/

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

That is per capita my guy. They emit more per person, but when you've only got 5 families in 10 square miles, getting them to emit less is fuckall in comparison to everyone in a city emitting less.

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] Chriszz@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I swear this sub is the same thing repeated in different variations over and over

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 49 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Chriszz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I checked the sub again and it’s only the front page posts I see that aren’t any good, they’re just text post rants like this one, kind of like the Lisa Simpson template, not even a meme

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Mental plan?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 10 points 2 days ago

You've just described all of human culture.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 45 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Tiny cars is the only solution

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would unironically drive something like this. I've often wondered if I could make a street legal go cart.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hupf 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Corporate wants you to find the difference between these pictures

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Miles per gallon. Or, in the case of the latter, gallons per mile.

[–] MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 5 points 2 days ago

"between 1.5 to 3 gallons per mile", for those wondering

[–] TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml 44 points 3 days ago (3 children)

But what if one day five years from now you need to move 20 refrigerators at midnight and all the trains suddenly break down?

/s

[–] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 9 points 3 days ago

Well, I would simply make 20 journeys with my Cybertruck. 10 would be pushing it. The weight of two fridges might snap the chassis.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago (17 children)

But then how can we turn trillions of dollars by shackling people to an expensive automobile along with its repairs and insurance costs? How can we further exploit by forcing the use of these vehicles, thus requiring the purchase of their fuels and the use of asphalt companies to pave endless highways and streets? The public yearns to be exploited- no, it needs to be.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Srootus@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 days ago

Ah, I see that Moo Deng has infiltrated the fediverse, welcome queen

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 31 points 3 days ago

pragmatically we should do both. we know no matter how much we scream or wish it that cars are not going to go away but we can expand transit and we should move as many autos and such to electric.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

During WWII they invented the concept of gross domestic product to quantify a country's ability to wage war. The higher the GDP, the bigger the military it could support.

GDP is a measure of how much economic activity there is. If I pay you and then you pay someone else and then that person pays me the same amount we've increased the GDP without actually doing anything. So the US, knowing this was their key performance indicator, set about increasing GDP.

So they make everyone buy a car, then gas, then service, then insurance instead of building rail infrastructure. The same goes for child care: If you make it so both parents have to work and pay someone else to watch their kids that's a much bigger boost to GDP than one or even both parents being able to stay home and raise their kids. Having everyone in a suburb have to buy their own lawnmower and trimmer and grill and stove and washer/dryer and dishwasher also boosts GDP way more than sharing things.

Plus there's the fact that cars require a lot of the same technologies and factories as a lot of war materiel. If we were ever to be in another global conflict we'd need to build all the guns and trucks and uniforms at home, and without a strong car industry we'd have to start a lot of that from scratch.

But we've got the biggest GDP in the world so I guess that's something.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] RagingHungryPanda@lemm.ee 9 points 3 days ago

Hehe cute hippo

load more comments
view more: next ›