this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
114 points (86.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9692 readers
1370 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
 

I'm getting a lot of 'but my car is more convenient' arguments lately, and I'm struggling to convey why that doesn't make sense.

Specifically how to explain to people that: Sure, if you are able to drive, and can afford it, and your city is designed to, and subsidizes making it easy to drive and park, then it's convenient. But if everyone does it then it quickly becomes a tragedy of the commons situation.

I thought of one analogy that is: It would be 'more convenient' if I just threw my trash out the window, but if we all started doing that then we'd quickly end up in a mess.

But I feel like that doesn't quite get at the essence of it. Any other ideas?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FrostKing@lemmy.world 51 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The fact of the matter is, in many places (I'm thinking of America mainly) using a car is far more convenient, if not the only option, and that's the problem

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

And speaking from a place where cars are not the most convenient option, they are in fact, not convenient. I don't imagine it's more convenient to use a car in the US than here, except that the US lacks the more convenient options.

Just a few simple examples.

I can also commute to my office job that's an hour away by car. But if I take the train, I can unpack my laptop, and start my workday on the train, having it count towards my hours, essentially meaning my commute doesn't count against my free time. Also, I don't have car payments. One of the biggest monthly expenses most households would go through simply doesn't exist for me, since I can afford not having a car.

If I had a car, I could do all the things yanks use their cars for. But I don't need to. It's also peace of mind. Check engine light on? Car making funny sounds? Never a problem for me! And I'm always better on time since I never get into traffic.

But what if I need a car for some reason? I rent one by the minute, and it's still much, much cheaper than owning one. And I can do that. I have more options.

My point is that the US doesn't make cars the "most convenient" option, they make it the "least inconvenient" one by eliminating or degrading all other more convenient options.

[–] Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A really city-centric view mind you. Sounds like something Londoners would say

I live in a country with amazing public transport too, but out in the sticks. Public transport is two buses a day for me, fuck that, it's car or nothing

Happy to drive about in a 1.2 litre shitbox though cos I don't have a tiny penis

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The NL is decidedly a small country, but has decent public transport even in the middle of nowhere.

Eastern Europe used to be decent at availability, not so much at service, (if for nothing else, not many people had cars) but it is getting worse. There is a ton of rural cyclists though still.

That said, I'm fine with my view mostly being applicable to cities only, since cars are less of a problem in rural places. If you live in or near a city, you should be able to do without a car though. As in the country has the option to make you comfortable not owning a car.

[–] Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ha ha flat country opinions Vs Alps opinions 😂 They're never going to match!

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago

I've got nothing against people buying cars to travel the Alps. I've got everything against people buying Dodge Rams just to not be able to park it in this whole country and block the road.

[–] dnick@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

I think you are stretching the semantics pretty far....the US is primarily rural geographically and urban only in very sparsely spaced cities....where Europe is urban in more condensed areas. The US doesn't make everything 'more inconvenient' for the most part, most things are simple more inconvenient by nature.

On the other hand, within cities themselves, the US does shoot itself in the foot with it's policies and what it subsidizes. Overall, though, most people don't realize how really big the US is, space vs population-wise, compared to Europe or Japan.

[–] FrostKing@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My point is that the US doesn't make cars the "most convenient" option, they make it the "least inconvenient"

That's just semantic. The least convenient is the most convenient by definition. The question is what you want to be the most convenient. We agree that it shouldn't be cars—you're arguing for the sake of argument, not because we have an actual disagreement.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My point is that the US does not really make cars more convenient than other countries make cars. So cars in the US are as convenient as cars anywhere, while alternatives are missing in the US.

So it's

cars in the US = cars in eg. NL < public transport in eg. NL

not

cars in the US > cars in eg. NL < public transport in eg. NL

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Depends on where you are.

At least in the touristy parts of Las Vegas, super walkable. Between places you want to go, bus stops, trams, monorail you won't be walking more than half a mile, and any time spent waiting for public transit is like maybe 4 minutes. There are roads, but pedestrians can go all over the place without touching them. Several of the big cities are at least in the ball park, though some screw it up royally.

However, keep in mind in the US, there are 41 states each geographically larger than NL.. But only 4 of those states have more people. Average US population density is 37 people per square kilometer, versus 522 per square kilometer average in NL. It's really hard to make viable mass transit with that sort of density. A lot of internet participants are going to be in areas where there just isn't even a possible plan that would work for them.

Now if you do live in a population hotspot in the US, you are likely to have every reason to say "fuck cars", depending on the city. However, just be aware that with an average population density so much lower, for the average US person mass transit isn't as feasible.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

The point isn't that it's not convenient. It's that convenience is not a meaningful argument.