l'll speak up for airplanes, or at least airliners in particular. I concede the point they mostly burn non-renewable fuels, but they make excellent use of the resources. Rhetorically speaking, one can cross half the planet in half a day, for not much money, in a mode of transport that is the safest on the planet (typically an order of magnitude safer than cars as I recall).
Although don't forget that "for not much money" is partly because air travel is so subsidised. Fuel tends to be largely untaxed, even though fuel taxes on other modes don't really cover the externalities
In terms of fuel per passenger unit of distance, air travel is very efficient, the reason why there are so many emissions is the amount of distance you can travel.
Fuel makes up a significant amount of the aircraft's weight at takeoff on long haul flights.
aerial transport is justified for intercontinental transport, but shouldnt be adopted when land travel is possible
Especially on middle-distance routes where land transport would be faster (considering that airports can't be downtown like train stations can be, the delays associated with airport security, etc.) if the rail infrastructure were decent.
Yeah, that's why I put them in lawful. If we can get them to be more sustainable (maybe green hydrogen fuel), then they'd basically just be super fast and super safe sky buses, whereas they're currently extremely polluting sky buses.
If I recall correctly, aren't high speed trains the safest? At the very least, I recall that the Shinkansen has never had a single safety incident in its entire history, and as for the TGV, there have been a few derailments and a terrorist attack.
Yeah, but there's a lot more airports around.
We should switch to more coscentious standards. Air travel is a commodity. We must avoid it as much as possible.
After figuring in all the time it takes to earn enough to pay for a car, time spent maintaining it and gasing up, as well as the actual time spent driving, you still only get about 4 miles per man hour.
True neutral is the truth.
I wonder if there's data out there on life expectancy for people who walk a lot vs those who drive everywhere. I bet the miles per man hour would go down even further if you factor in years of life lost from being sedentary behind the wheel instead of walking.
Wow, that's interesting! Do you have a source (or if you calculated it yourself, can you share the calculations)?
It was around here somewhere.
He does not have a source.
The running cost of a vehicle is less than a dollar per KM, if you buy second hand you're not losing much money to depreciation, and it takes me an hour to do an oil change, which I do every ten thousand KM.
Where the hell did these figures come from?
I saw them around here somewhere. I haven't bothered to run them personally, but after ditching my car and WFH, suddenly I can afford to support my wife and child while they both go to school - by way of explaining why I haven't put the assertion under a microscope.
Couldn't conjure up the source I got it from though. After some random figures looked up and shitty napkin math, I would only be able to argue for about 22 miles per Mhour for the average American.
the problem isn't the car, but the salary, which is basically straight theft, and that is eating on the Mh (man-hour). if one were paid twice as much, that would translate to 8 mile per Mh, also imagine there were one seat cars, instead of paying for a 5 seat car, u would save at least on half as much of the car cost ( also a 1L for 100km engine locked at 90km/h for speed is also logical), which translates to 16 miles per Mh, so on and so forth..also taxing the rich and subsidizing public facilities will extend Mhours way more..
You're right. For cars to make sense in financial terms, all we need is a mulligan on the last several decades of economic policy.
Do you not have friends? Or luggage? Or a dog?
if u want to transport friends and whatnot, then dont come complaining about car cost..i was just trying to optimize car use cases. sure u wanna go camping ? might as well buy a AWD car for a trip per year and pay for the fuel of daily work commute. might as well buy two cars in this regard..if only public transport was that reliable, and also wages were fair..
The difference in fuel use between a two wheel drive and AWD vehicle is negligible, you might as well have an AWD. Especially if you don't commute in your own car.
u would think a 1L gasoline engine with 86Nm of torque would serve awd in rugged terrain ? unless u live in the us, where even front wheel's are run by 2 liter diesel, at 360Nm
Yes, AWD would give you more traction, regardless of how much power is in front of the drive train.
okay
Fun facts:
I want a GO train. (I'm in the California Central Valley)
Go is amazing. I can get on a train in Toronto West, like 5 minutes from my house and that train takes me straight to Niagara falls in comfort. I can't wait till we get faster trains
Yeah, I heard the GO trains are undergoing some massive upgrades to provide better frequency and through-running lines. I wish they would do something to modernize the sorely lacking Exo trains here in Montreal. At least we got the REM now, though.
yea man, i was wondnering too. trains are the least harmful, even the most polluting ones, the amount of torque they deliver for the amound of fuel consumed ratio is just beyond consideration
Torque doesn't move things, power does.
TIL Kapwing is evil
What's a Kapwing?
It's a website that you can use to edit images (e.g. memes). It adds a watermark to the bottom right of images when saving them
Okay but I want chaotic good as an option because cars wouldn't hit me there and my bike lane wouldn't just turn into a turn lane randomly.
Can't pass anybody though.
No buses in this post? I'd place them under chaotic neutral
Arguing against the lawful good because while all that vegetation is great for pictures the only thought in my mind seeing that is 'fire'.
They're trams in the city, so relatively slow. Live and maintained vegetation has too much water to burn: boiling away the water takes more energy than the fuel provides.
It's probably also got those pop-up sprinklers, so if a fire does happen, you just turn on the water.
That vegetation is pretty green and not primed for a fire.
Plus we already have cars with tanks full of gasoline driving near green areas in cities.
Near but not over and that picture is of an ideal scenario, not a realistic one even if we ignore climate change.
Well if this helps instead, people park on their yards every day with hot exhausts and catalytic converters. And some of us with old gravel driveways have a little grass right where we’re actually supposed to park, lol.
But yeah you’re right that when they decided to make that route so nice and green, they signed up for regular maintenance!
My driveway is asphalt and it still has a little bit of grass in the area you're supposed to park.
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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.
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: