371
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
371 points (95.8% liked)
Asklemmy
42432 readers
2103 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
"Owning a car gives you freedom" is a big one considering how expensive they are and that most people just use them to sit in traffic jams on their commute 90%+ of the time they are using them.
It is context dependent.
Owning a car does give you freedom in rural settings where mass transit never existed before it was bought out and run into the ground by automotive companies. They were even fairly cheap for decades if you bought them used!
But yes, if you live and work somewhere with traffic jams then owning one instead of using and pushing for more mass transit is the opposite of freedom.
I'm not even in a rural setting and the only way to get my dogs to the vet is via car. Getting a taxi to drive there is difficult when one of your dogs starts vomiting after the second turn.
That and getting to by family in a rural setting. 2 hours by car vs up to 8 by train. With two dogs. That won't happen 😐
Besides that I don't really need a car.
And depending on your car make, model, and year, there is constant surveillance/data collecting negating the owners "freedom".
As part of a couple that just got knocked down to one vehicle instead of two, due to a wreck, I wholly disagree with your statement. Take a kid to friends house? Lol. Nope. Pick up a loaf of bread or grocery store? Negative. Park for a walk? Sorry. Get to work? Better start walking down the highway.
In this case the lie has been repeated so much and so loud that entire cities have been designed according to it.
Your whole environment is designed that way because cars need so much space. If you lived in a walkable European city all of that wouldn't be a problem.
Mind giving an example of such a city? Not like I'd be able to move now, but one never knows.
Just watch the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes. He not only shows you examples of such cities, but goes into great detail explaining why their design works—and what flaws they have.
Not European, but most Japanese and Korean cities are very walkable. With trains or busses, it can occasionally be easier to get around than by car
The Not Just Bikes channel has a lot of videos. Specifically in relation to your question, start with The Gym of Life .
Well living in the US is my reality, and there's two cities in my state that have walkable areas, and if you want to live in the somewhat safer portions that are walkable in either of those cities it's going to cost you literally twice as much to live there as anywhere else in the state.
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon.
Can't you...just walk?
I live in an area that is not safe for the kids (or adults) to walk. It's a hilly windy area outside city limits of a smaller touristy place. Lotta state park area if you go at least 4 miles away, though.
Not if the American automotive industry has anything to say about it. The whole country has been built around making walking impossible or too dangerous to attempt, just to maximise car sales at the expense of citizens' freedoms.
I don't doubt it, I just don't understand it.
You don't have to walk on the roads. Is there no grass or dirt nearby to walk on?
Why have grass or dirt when you can have roads..? Grass and dirt sell no cars.
But what is next to the road
Judging by the pictures I've seen of the US, and google maps street view, more road, or parking lots. Sometimes, but not often, short stretches of sidewalk, often not wide enough to walk on safely, regularly interrupted by lampposts and whatnot.
Do you have any examples? I'm picturing suburbia with houses next to houses and fences blocking everything except driveways that lead to roads that go nowhere except driveways for miles until hitting the highway.
But that just seems like a lazy video game set piece. I can't imagine it in reality
That's all anecdotal. Everything in your list I can do without a car. Especially take a walk. I literally just walk out the front door.
Wow. I didn't realize the entire US population actually lived at your house that is in a safe to walk area near schools and shopping centers and grocery stores and where you work, all within a few miles.
Idiot
Exactly. Just because you live in a tiny town with less than 200 people doesn't mean the rest of the country does. In fact, the majority of Americans live in an area that could seriously benefit from better public transit and cycling and in turn less cars.
Ah, so you already know you're wrong.