Fuck Cars
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 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.
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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
What if it's snowing, raining, or very hot; there are infirmed and/or disabled people; and those who have stuff to carry?
Weather is a cop-out, not an issue, plenty of hot, cold, snowy, rainy places with plenty of bikes. For the infirm and disabled there's e-bikes and other light vehicles, and for people with stuff to carry there's cargo bikes, delivery, or, hear me out, rental cars.
And for everyone there should be public transit. Kind of a shame so much urbanist focus is on bikes, though understandable as bike lanes are quite a bit cheaper than building public transit from scratch.
You’re absolutely right about the need for public transit. Recommending e-bikes for disabled people as some kind of resolution is problematic, however. There are plenty of disabilities that make e-bikes (and e-scooters and other such vehicles) a poor or impossible choice for people. I know two people with spine damage, which not only limits their mobility and how they can position their bodies, but involves nerve damage that makes holding onto a handlebar for more than a few minutes impossible (or prohibitively painful.)
I sympathize with your goal of decreasing reliance on cars, but suggesting an uninformed one-size-fits-all solution to a community that rarely “fits one size” is not the right approach. We must consult with disabled people to figure out what accommodations they tell us they need first, before we can figure out a solution that works for them.
Good that it's not something that I did, then. I said:
Note "infirm and disabled", not just "disabled". Plenty of seniors around here who use e-bikes because they can't pedal as hard as they once could, or not as long, but are otherwise fit. Then, "and other light vehicles". Things like the Canta, which the Netherlands class as a disability vehicle and can be used, legally, on bike paths. Motorised wheelchairs etc. are also no issue on bike paths and are, *drumroll*, light vehicles.
For wheelchair-bound people it's certainly more convenient to take a bike path on their wheelchair to the supermarket a couple minutes away than it is to maneuver themselves in and out of a car to drive miles on the highway to get to a walmart.
Shall I get started on how car dependency affects blind people or can you make the necessary inferences yourself.
But randomly lashing out at an ally in defence of people who did not need defending, certainly not from sane urban design, surely made you feel good, so I guess you have that going for you.
Who’s lashing out? The user above mentioned “infirmed and/or disabled people” in general, you said they could use e-bikes or “light vehicles.” I saw your answer, and immediately thought of my friends who can’t use bikes because of their disabilities. (And I was hoping it wouldn’t need to be mentioned, but the costs involved in obtaining a specialized “light vehicle” like the Canta are prohibitive. Both friends are dependent on disability insurance for income, in the United States.)
I’m not sure what part of that is considered “lashing out.” Not everyone who participates in a conversation is doing so from a hostile standpoint. One of these friends obtained her injuries through a car accident and is 100% on board with ditching cars, but the system as-is makes it impossible for her to have a choice in the matter. Assuming her needs is something that lots of well-intentioned people do, and both friends frequently hear the same suggestions you’ve offered. Does it suck to mean well and still be told your solution won’t work? Yes. Does that mean whoever is telling you it won’t work is “lashing out” or trying to hurt you? Absolutely not.
You misrepresented what I said while simultaneously calling it "problematic". I'm not new to leftist circles, I know exactly what "problematic" means.
And, yes, granted, health insurance in the US sucks. That doesn't make a Canta more expensive than modifying a car to be used with a wheelchair or such. If you can't afford a bike lane solution you sure as fuck can't afford a highway solution.
Your issue is not with e-bikes, it's not with bike lanes, it's not with light vehicles or powered wheelchairs, it's not with what I actually said, it's with the US. Then go ahead and call the US problematic.
I live in Toronto, and yes, I see a few people cycling in winter, but many more do so in the summer.
Goodness knows what it's like in, say, parts of the American during mid-summer.
You posted:
but now you are allowing for cars, provided they're rentals—perhaps from Mega Car Rental Inc. Yes, I'm sure Bezos, Musk, Cook, and other corporate riffraff have thought of this.
This is true in Toronto.
Your choosing to cycle was your decision, not some committee's.
I didn't. You need streets for at least the fire brigade, ambulances, tradespeople, (parcel) delivery, and the occasional taxi. Moving vans. Even lorries supplying shops, can't have a cargo tram everywhere.
What we definitely don't need is parents driving 12yolds to school.
How about we make it a municipal utility.
It's actually habit, formed at an early age. Bike is how I got to primary school, which was possible because some committee designed the city in a way that it was possible (distance) as well as safe. I do have a driving license, lessons etc. cost a good 2k Euro back them, never owned a car. Haven't driven in ages.
You're back-tracking: now you are allowing, however intelligently, for cars in some instances
You also sound British, which no offense, but it's a country that doesn't have cities that get as hot (or hot and humid) as say, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Antonio, New Orleans, Atlanta, or Orlando.
or as cold as, say, St. Paul, maybe Anchorage, Chicago, or Buffalo;
and that's just the US. No cars within Toronto city limits wouldn't work well. Ditto Moscow, probably Kyiv, Warsaw, Mumbai, Brisbane, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, Dubai, et al, either.
I mostly agree. As a person older than 70% of North Americans, I think the nerfing of society can cause problems.
Okay. Now let's say it's a city with over 1 million people, and the experts say minimally one car per 400, or 2500 cars needed for rent. Which company will get the contract to sell the city those ≥2500 cars—Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, BMW, Tesla, or a Chinese variant? The one that lobbies best?
How about allow licensing of rent-a-cars? Existing ones are grandfathered in for 20 years without plates, but others pay, say, £10 000 + £2000 every year for a license to rent. Obviously they'd also have to have good insurance.
Perhaps, and good for you. My point was more of individual effort. Chances are, where you're from, there were people who'd cycle in pretty well any condition, and insisted on the right to cycle. They were the reason some authorities made accommodations, which in turn made cycling seem more viable to more people, thus increasing the number of cyclists. Such were incremental—a bike lane here, a bike lane there—nothing that required >£1 billion (or >€1 billion)—and eventually cyclists got a bit of an infrastructure and proposals for more expensive projects got more considered—but one way or another, people will be cycling—the only question is how to increase it.
No I'm not: I'm not the one you think I am. "No rubber on asphalt, like, ever" is a stupid stance from the get-go. "Reduce individual car ownership as far as reasonably possible" is a statement I'd support.
Why, confusing me for a chap from our colony, how quaint. More on topic: Europe gets hot. Europe gets cold. Still there's bikes in Finland and bikes in Spain. Oh, Not Just Bikes has a video on Finns vs. Canadians.
Probably the one that hands in the 2nd cheapest option ticking all the boxes. How do cities decide on which busses to buy? Who will build a bridge? This is not a topic specific to car rentals.
People never stopped cycling. People never started to believe that it's reasonable to close the primary schools of 20 villages and put kids into a single giant one.
I understand that it's harder to fix what's fucked up than to improve what was still functional but "oh it's hard" is not an argument with which you can counter "it's better". I never said it would be easy.
wt:lorry#Noun
also this:
https://youtu.be/3CPu9c1Qp6c?t=560 (cued, for several seconds)
😁🙂
Thanks for the link. 🙂
The selection probably isn't as good as cars.
idk. Maybe some mafia front that under-bids, but raises the price when they're halfway done?
I was agreeing with your statement "though understandable as bike lanes are quite a bit cheaper than building public transit from scratch."