hex_m_hell

Liberals would rather blame leftists than actually fight fascism.

In optimal cases, measuring only movement and not taking in to account wasted movement, some EVs can match the efficiency of some trains while moving point to point (assuming none of that movement is wasted). But we know there are some inefficiencies and externalities that decrease that efficiency. Let's see if we can fix them.

Parking is the biggest problem with everyone having a car. Looking for parking is necessarily wasted.

How much traffic stems from cruising for parking? Table 1 summarizes the results of 22 studies of cruising in 15 cities on four continents, dating back to 1927. According to these findings, cruising for parking accounted for between 8 and 74 percent of traffic in the areas studied, and the average time to find a curb space ranged between 3.5 and 15.4 minutes. On average, 34 percent of cars were cruising, and the average time it took to find a space was eight minutes.

https://transfersmagazine.org/magazine-article/issue-4/how-much-traffic-is-cruising-for-parking/

Holy fuck! That's a HUGE amount of waste in a good scenario. Crazy, like 95% of the time cars are parked anyway. This is just insanely poor design. Let's fix that. OK, so the first thing we need to do is find some way to share those vehicles. This would also fix the problem where people keep buying larger and more inefficient EV trucks. How can we do that? Maybe we could have some kind of car share program or something, like lyft and Uber. Oh yeah, those are super inefficient actually and really abusive to their employees. We really need some kind of automated system, like some kind of robotaxi to avoid that car parking problem. OK, so let's make a fleet of autonomous taxis that drive around the city based on some kind of optimized pattern. Great, now we've eliminated (or at least limited) the parking problem.

But you know, it would be easier to share these taxis if we didn't go door to door. Like, maybe we could have well defined routes for these autonomous taxis. Autonomous driving technology is actually really awful and gets confused really easily. It's much easier to travel specific routes anyway. Great, now we have a bunch of cars that travel specific routes so people can share the cars. We drop some inefficacy by not having every car go door to door as well. Excellent.

OK, but now every taxi has a computer on board. They all have to keep track of each other's movements. We're definitely losing some efficiency here. Let's combine some of them. We could cut a few of them up and weld the passenger compartments together to make long taxis. Then we could physically connect a few of the long taxis together so they can have centralized control. Great.

There's still a lot of starting and stopping though to pick everyone up. What if we shared the getting on and getting off time. What if we made some kind of shared taxi stop and then everyone who wanted to get on or off could just wait at the stop and get on and off at the same time. Can't really argue that that wouldn't be better.

You know, if we have these shared routes and shared stops I bet we could get rid of even more of the complexity by just putting the whole thing on a track and getting rid of the whole steering controls. That would take less computers, so it would be more efficient. Oh wow, if we have a track we could also get rid of those heavy metal microplastic spewing tires. OK, so now we've got big metal taxis that are linked together and travel on a track with metal wheels.

I wonder if we could take better advantage of that shared entry and exit stations by running on some kind of schedule. Then a bunch of people could gather together and all get on our off at the same time instead of having to individually call for taxis when it's convenient for them.

Oh, wait, every single one is still carrying it's own battery. It's way more efficient to move electricity itself than moving batteries. Since we're already running on a track, we can take the batteries out and have some kind of central power delivery via maybe overhead cables or something.

OK, so we've made EVs more efficient by making them shared, getting rid of wasted space, eliminating some of the excess from trips, running them on a schedule and a track, making specific stops, and taking out all the extra battery weight. Let's take a look...

Huh. Interesting.

I wonder if we could like... put it in some kind of underground tube and maybe electrify the rails for power delivery instead. You know, to get rid of the problem of it getting stuck in traffic...

Huh. Cool. I guess I accidentally did an Adam Something.

You go back and tell me which of these proposed efficiency improvements actually reduces efficiency and we'll talk.

If bikes would drive the same annual passenger-kilometers, they would.

This is insanely deceptive.

This could only possibly be true if cars continued to be used at the same rate. The vast majority of deaths involving cycling are from cyclists being killed by cars. If people traveled as many miles by bike as by car today, cycling deaths would be practically eliminated because there would be no cars to murder them.

Are you able to cite something that's not locked behind a pay wall?

He's a malignant narcissist. It takes a long time to escape that kind of programing. Being in a relationship like that is basically like being in a cult.

Those trains are not comparable to cars, they're comparable to airplanes. The metros and light rails that are intended to replace cars are overwhelmingly more efficient per potential passenger. Comparing a vehicle that is usually run near capacity with a vehicle that almost never has more than one passenger is obtuseness almost to the point of deception.

Bikes don't replace cars. Bikes+trains replace cars. For comparable miles traveled, cars are insanely dangerous. It is utterly unhinged to argue that bikes and cars are equally safe but for the miles traveled, especially as higher bumper heights and decreased visibility are driving pedestrian deaths from cars through the roof.

And none of these touch the fact that cars simply don't fit in cities. You also completely ignored the literal tons of carcinogenic and heavy metal laden microplastics from tires that end up in our oceans. Every human being carrying around multiple tons of metal with them can't possibly be efficient. Large heavy machinery constantly interacting with soft swishy humans can't possibly ever be safe.

Arguing otherwise requires either an epic level of car brain worm or a pay check from the auto industry. I don't know which is worse: people desperately trying to ignore obviously reality, or people willing to sell out their fellow humans and even their future for a few more years of something that was never a good idea to begin with.

78% of microplastics in the ocean come from car tires. EVs are heavier, and produce more microplastics. 10-20 bikes can fit in one car parking space. Bicycles and trains are hundreds of times more efficient than cars in terms of energy and space... And bike crashes don't kill over a million people per year globally.

It's kind of obvious. We can have a future worth living in, or we can have cars, but we can't have both.

It's gas lighting, like a lot of the posts in response. Being socialized as a man sucks. You're both measured by your partners and expected to not need anyone or express any emotions. So basically you get shit like you described where men end up having no self esteem so they are desperate for women to validate them but they also feel smothered and confused by the completely normal and human need for emotional connection that woman have been allowed to keep.

Patriarchy is a machine that turns normal humans in to abusers, and it takes a lot of work to deprogram from this... Especially when it's constantly being reinforced all around you (like a lot of the guys who responded).

Any officer enforcing this would be killed and most cops would just outright refuse to enforce it anyway. There's a logistical problem of how this would even be done.

I lived in a town with maybe five cops for it and the three surrounding towns. Cops would to on several hour patrols, so if you called 911 at the wrong time it could take an hour for the police to actually show up. They knew about meth cooks in the area and they left them alone because the cops knew they would wind up dead and no one would ever find them.

Now, the whole population of the area was a few thousand people and most of them were armed. Now, if they couldn't deal with the meth cooks that no one liked, how exactly would they deal with the big chunk of the population that includes small business owners, members of the city council, and maybe the mayor?

The problem with mob justice is that it can be leveraged directly in to fascism. This is exactly what happened with the French Revolution and the Soviet one. In both cases valid anger against oppression was directed in to paranoia that allowed for the reestablishment of an authoritarian order instead of liberation. Anger is foolish and easily manipulated. That's why it's the only emotion the right wants anyone to experience. That's why it's the only emotion patriarchy allows men to express.

Anger is good for destroying things. Some things need to be destroyed. But those things that need to be destroyed are systems, not people.

Anger is activating and should absolutely drive you to action, but the action you take shouldn't also be decided by the anger. Let anger wake you up, and compassion guide the action you take.

The subject is called "economics."

They don't care about profits any more than feudalism did. It's about domination and sadism. Read "Bullshit Jobs" if you want to understand the dynamics here. Profit had absolutely nothing to do with it.