this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
521 points (97.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

10428 readers
8 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/26368144

Anons argue in comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 days ago (5 children)

To create a pedestrian first world I think we need to legitimately understand what advantages a car has. A car is a true source of empowerment.

Sure, I can ride a bike, but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination. I can take a bus but not at any moment, and not the middle of the night. I can take public transit, but not to the place I need to go.

A car is a portable personal space. I can eat lunch in my car, I can take a nap.

A car is a space protected from the elements - I'm not getting rained on. Protection from wind, snow, sun.

Its locked doors are a barrier between me and potential (and sometimes imagined) threats.

I don't need to list out for this community all the negative things associated with cars. I just list these pros to highlight it's a challenging task to displace cars. It's a list of benefits to replicate.

[–] jerkface 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

A car is a way of seizing power from those who cannot afford a car, have a disability that prevents driving, etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How is it seizing power?

There's definitely an opportunity cost. If you build a road or a parking garage that's taking space and funds that could go to something else. The same could be said of a park or firehouse or factory. And I'd agree that in many cases something better could have been done than car centric infrastructure.

But an individual owning a car isn't taking something from someone who doesn't own a car.

Besides, my point is that cars should not be prioritized over pedestrians, cyclists and public transit. Just that to displace cars we should try to understand what people see in them, contra the last line of the OP image

[–] jerkface 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

But an individual owning a car isn’t taking something from someone who doesn’t own a car.

One individual, no. But collectively, you take so much, you just don't understand. Everything is so much harder for me because everyone with means has to be able to drive EVERYWHERE door to door. You are empowered? I am disempowered.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 days ago (2 children)

This comment made me sad, because it's a reminder of just how bad a shithole most of the United States is: You need a car to go 300 miles at a whim because transit is bad or non-existent, and driving sucks. I know people who refuse to do that distance in one day. You need a car to go longer distances to bars, stores, restaurants, because ~~racism~~ zoning makes everything far away and a pain and a half to access.

You need a secluded, personal space to eat lunch or take a quick nap because the U.S. hates homeless people so much that there's nowhere to do either of those things in public, and you'll get abused by the police if you try. A car is a less-than-ideal spot to do either of those things comfortably; a picnic table or a park shelter would be better.

The best protection from threats is crowds, the "eyes on the street" principle. In fact, a lot of assaults happen in parking lots because there's nobody around to intervene. But Americans are scared shitless of each other for no reason, and our society is collapsing because of it.

Oh, also, a car isn't even a good place to eat or nap if you're poor. The cops will hassle you to no end if you look like you don't belong. (Hence, the prevalence of setting up a van for stealth camping.) It's not a source of empowerment, if you're poor. I would never have dreamed of jumping in my car and driving 300 miles on a whim when I worked retail. If the car broke down, or got damaged, I would've been supremely fucked, unable to pay to repair it, and without access to any alternative transportation.

But, frankly, I think that's the point: Car dependency is supposed to hurt poor people, by physically excluding them, and providing a social marker of affluence so the not-quite-so-poor can feel good about themselves. (Why else bro dozers?)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're right there are a lot of negative things about the U.S. And even if it became a biking/public transit utopia, it would still suck to be homeless. We'd still need to address wealth inequality.

I'm addressing the last line of the OP image, why do we hold up cars as a symbol of freedom? It's because they do provide personal empowerment. They provide specific benefits.

It's possible for a situation to have terrible outcomes without it being a conspiracy. Some people, like Robert Moses, did design certain places to be accessible by car but not by bus. But I'd argue the main reason the car is dominant in the U.S. is because individuals who saw benefit from their own car use pushed and bought into that system.

Imagine we're playing chess, we have to understand the pieces on the board, what their abilities are. I get it's a fun thought experiment to list all the ways a bike is great. I'm just saying it's useful to understand what people see in a car if we want to create an alternative.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Well, let me tell you...

Just kidding. I agree with all of that. What I'm pointing out is how some of those advantages of cars are actually just masking larger issues.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You need a secluded, personal space to eat lunch or take a quick nap because the U.S. hates homeless people so much that there's nowhere to do either of those things in public,

Ok that's a leap. We do, in fact, have parks with benches.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Instead of going on an in-depth exploration of where those parks are located, I'll say that if need a car to have a spot on the landscape where you're allowed to do basic, human things like eat and nap, then that's not an advantage of cars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 30 minutes ago

I'll say that if need a car to have a spot on the landscape where you're allowed to do basic, human things like eat and nap

You don't.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, the main advantage of cars is that they do a lot of things (kinda badly.) We need to do a lot of work to replace cars, and that work definitely doesn't start with ignoring why cars are so prevalent. We need to empower people through other avenues a lot before most people will switch over.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We need to empower people through other avenues

I see what you did there...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I am ashamed to say that I didn't even see that. That's lithium (or possibly cobalt.)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Por que no los dos?

You don't need to fully replace cars to have a positive impact. I'm sure many people in the US could commute via bike if the infrastructure was there. Even if not every day, just sometimes. Also the public transit comment is definitely true in the US, and is not true many other places.

I see the benefits, and don't disagree at all! Just saying that not all boxes need to be checked to offset some car use

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

You're right, not every box has to be checked before it starts making sense for some people to switch to bike. I just commented because the original post was saying "why do we say cars are the ultimate symbol of freedom?" If someone can't see why people like cars, they may have a hard time creating an environment where people move away from them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination.

Work out. You can do it if you simply get thighs of steel.

You need to be introduced to cargo bikes and rain tents on bikes

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

You don't know about my thighs!

Jokes aside, it's one thing to say it's possible to recreate some aspect of car ownership with a bike. But it's making the individual responsible for something that requires a societal solution.

Suggesting impractical alternatives to what are easy benefits with cars isn't a serious alternative. And we won't fully replicate everything a car does. But understanding where the trade-offs are is essential to approaching the problem.