this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
373 points (98.7% liked)

World News

33458 readers
567 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

While still punishing larger families that absolutely need the space. I'm not against the concept generally speaking but we need to consider those kinds of ramifications. Low income families can be large too, afterall. Not even talking about with kids - many families have the grandparents/cousins/etc. around as well.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

people had larger families in the era where cars were smaller. no one needs an SUV in a city, they're meant for hauling firewood to the remote cabin where there's no paved roads

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

That's not what a Sport Utility Vehicle is for. An SUV's purpose is just to show off

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Cars are not the only way to move people around. They are, however, the worst way to move people around. Take a bus and/or train, and you’ll never have to worry about parking again.

In response, more and more of our streets can be reclaimed for pedestrians spaces, adding walking/biking paths, adding greenery, adding outdoor patios, etc, instead of it all just going to ever increasingly large and crowded parking spaces and One More Lane™

[–] hddsx 8 points 1 year ago

As an avid fan of Cities Skylines, buses are not the answer. Give me a decent metro system.

The other issues is that I don’t mind people taking away lanes as long as they present other alternatives. Currently, my area is taking away a lane WITHOUT giving me an alternative.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I never said cars are the only way to move around. I’m just saying we need to think through this a little bit. I agree with the idea for the most part.

[–] Rentlar 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, I understand, but a flat fee regardless of size of car as it now, is effectively a subsidy directly toward the development of car dependent cities. Also families don't tend to travel downtown by car on weekdays where space is a premium, those are usually single drivers going to work and often in NA, those lone drivers are often in large pickups and SUVs.

Large families taking the train have to pay roughly proportionally to the size, which is one of many reasons why many families opt for car culture. It's not those fault the options are this way but my point is that it can be changed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that in this particular case it makes sense. But the person that responded to said that everywhere should adopt this rule.

[–] Rentlar 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

(I was that person 😉). I suppose everywhere was a bit broad of wording. Where space isn't a premium, parking is often free anyway so I wasn't really including that. Like a Costco or Walmart wouldn't have any good reason to have someone just to go around measuring people's cars.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well that’s what I get for not checking usernames lol anyway glad to see it’s not as strict as it sounded.

[–] t0fr 5 points 1 year ago

Honestly, get a car and then add a roof rack instead of an SUV You have the space you need, it's cheaper than an SUV, it's more fuel efficient, and you can take it off and not have to transport all the extra weight when it is not necessary

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

The only place on the world where low income families have big trucks is the US because of debt and extremely car dependent infrastructure. French poor families use public transit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Large families don’t use big trucks. They use SUVs/minivans.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The latest trucks out are being marketed towards family movers now. Basically up to four kids (which is now a large US family) they try to push pickups as a family car.

Edit: current advertising listing off the best trucks to have for a family of 6, especially as the sole vehicle in the household: https://carbuzz.com/cars/trucks-for-family

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Dude, come on. Are we really going to debate this?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People raised families through the 90s without the space of an SUV. You will survive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Station wagons and minivans were hardly compact lol

But yes many modern vehicles are ridiculous.

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

We need to bring back the station wagon

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

Here in Italy the FIAT 500 was the first "family car" and was less than 3 meters long, the FIAT 500 Giardiniera was the station wagon version and it was 3.1 meters long. If you look at an old 500 now, you'd wonder how would a human fit inside.

Today's average SUV is over 4 meters long, with some going over 5 meters. In Japan there are Kei cars used as trucks, people movers, vans etc. The fact that you need a Jeep compass to be able to pick up your kid from school is absurd

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

I definitely agree that some of these vehicles are ridiculous.

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

Kids are expensive. More kids are more expensive. This is something you have to deal with everywhere. It’s not like they charge the same amount for 12 diapers as they do for 60

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Many people have many kids regardless of their income level, and like I said, it’s not just about kids. A lot of people live with their extended family.

Anyway like I said I’m actually not against the idea. But it needs to have a little nuance/potential carve outs. It’s not like people are going to have a bunch of kids just so they can have cheaper parking or something.

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

Kind of a weird comparison because you typically do pay less per thing the more of the thing you buy.

[–] Jack -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Human overpopulation is the biggest cause of anthropogenic climate change, and the root cause of almost all existential and major ethical problems facing us.

Becoming a biological parent while our fertility rate is catastrophically and unsustainably high, causes by far more CO2e pollution than anything else.

We shouldn't just tax these omnicidal people, we should vote in parties that'll make laws to jail or hang people making the world unlivable.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok just so I’m not misunderstanding you, are you saying we should jail people who have kids? I feel like I’m not following the thread of your point here and I think it is very unlikely that is what you’re saying. But it’s kind of coming across that way in your comment.

[–] Jack -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. We need a fertility rate of about 0.01 for several decades, because human overpopulation is the root cause and biggest cause of catastrophic climate change:

If we choose not to vote in parties to make such laws, we'll be culpable in letting the anthropocene extinction event become a mass-extinction event - wiping out more than 50% of genera and more than 70% of species. If you think too few honey bees are bad, imagine how catastrophic it would be for most living species to go extinct, including almost all the small life forms in the oceans which provide the majority of the biosphere's oxygen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m still hung up on the whole “criminalizing having children” thing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the birthrates are falling arguably too fast now, one estimate says we're no longer on track for 10 billion people by 2100, down to 9.1b now

[–] Jack -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Fuck off denialist