Sad thing is, if bikes were invented today, they'd be heavily regulated.
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:
That's not a sad thing as that never happened, it's a huge positive as we got the opposite.
its intended as a sad comment on today
Food -> exerting force is not even remotely fuel efficient
IIRC, even considering those losses, biking is still one of the most efficient forms of land transport. What I found interesting was a study that found that e-bikes were even more efficient than regular ones.
It's about 22-24% efficient which is the same as a carbon engine.
Chemistry and physics, yo, stochiometric ratios. No free lunch.
The difference is the mass component of F = M•A
I mean, bikes are great for a lot of things and cities should definitely have the infrastructure to support their usage, but let's not pretend that they can easily replace cars in every use case.
Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities. Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system, but that's exactly why cars are considered to be the symbol of freedom - not depending on the bus/train schedules, weather, distance etc.
Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities.
In many cases the long distances were created by cars. Cities worked fine before cars. But cars demand so much space that cities became spread out.
A solution to this problem is to repopulate city centers around the country by replacing parking lots with mixed use buildings.
the freedom to be stuck in traffic because everyone else got a car too
Despite some people on here's hard-on for completely banning cars which would be impractical and impossible country wide, it makes sense to see them as what they should be: a luxury for most and a necessity for a few people with mobility issues.
Mass public transport should be the cheapest and preferred option and a vital part of any city's infrastructure. Then spreading out in terms of density, towns should have parking outside of the town centre with regular free shuttles into the centre with regular and cheap/free bus travel to and from town centres with buses that have segregated lanes for high traffic areas so buses are able to run on a good timetable. Towns should also be built on the 15 minute city model. Then finally, in villages and rural locations, an on-demand bus service balances the provision of public transport without ridiculously long waiting times between buses or spending way too much on frequency when there isn't the population density for demand.
All of these population densities should have extensive cycle paths and long cycle highways between these population centres.
And viola: civic infrastructure where a car is the infrequent option and therefore significantly less traffic, lower carbon footprint, lower infrastructure maintenance costs, and a more active population engaging with eachother in thriving communities.
That freedom is an illusion. You're constantly subject to other people in cars doing things, and what they do is often stupid as shit. You only have that freedom when out on the open road with few other cars around, and you're probably specifically going out of your way to do that.
It is not a no one should ever use a car, it is one does everyone believe there is no alternative to a car.
And I am very confused why people constantly bring up people with disabilities cannot drive bikes but can drive cars. The most people with disabilities cannot drive cars. You only see people with who have the means to drive a car. The rest is just stuck at home. It is not only having a wheelchair, but sight, hearing, age, epilepsy, mental capacity all those things restrict your ability to drive. Building a car to enable one person is so much less efficient as building infrastructure for all regardless of age, income and diasability.
One more thing to freedom of travel. Imagine having a car. You park it and visit a sight. You are done and have to return to your car. You can in general never just leave. This may apply to a bike too but in comparison public transport or on foot it is a hassle.
You say it yourself: Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system.
There should be no but afterwards.
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.
A car is a way of seizing power from those who cannot afford a car, have a disability that prevents driving, etc.
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
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
We need to empower people through other avenues
I see what you did there...
I am ashamed to say that I didn't even see that. That's lithium (or possibly cobalt.)
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
Most jurisdictions don't require a licence plate and therefore is harder to track.
Also, is Green Mario's most faithful companion
I don’t know about inexpensive. The bike I want is approaching a grand and my last car was $5500. I would be crushed losing that amount.
The bike I use daily was $300. The car that we drive costs $30000. You know that bringing up anecdotes goes 2 ways?
My daily rider set me back 75€. A second hand omafiets, very well built by a local company, aluminum frame, a super comfy seat, hub dynamo, a rear wheel lock built into the frame + a fairly good chain, fresh-ish tires, a spacious basket at the front and an attachment point for another basket at the back. Perfect city bike. And it was such in great shape that all I had to do was make some adjustments to its shifter and that was basically all the maintenance it required for a good while.
Obviously I count myself EXTREMELY lucky for having stumbled upon this listing at my local second hand marketplace, but my point stands. There are a ton of very reasonably priced second hand bikes that are perfect for daily use as primary transports.
Merely owning a car has cost me an average of $2000 a year. Insurance, tires, oil and other maintenance costs brings that up to $3000. Just to own the car, that doesn't include gas to actually use it
Because our previous generation of 1% wealth leaders had a vision to make an entire economy built for, and dependant on, gasoline and oil. This new generation of wealth leaders don't have as strong of a vision. They just see some weird techno-feudalism fantasies where they rule us all because of social media and AI or some shit.
I thought thier vision was to abandon earth and move to mars or something... But I guess they abandoned that and now just want to hoard and protect as much wealth as possible until they die.
Absolutely would be nice. I used to ride everywhere before I got priced out of where I was living and had to move. Now, my job is an hour away even by car... It wouldn't need to be if things weren't entirely designed around car travel here
In my area, bikes are considered motor vehicles and have to adhere to the same rules and regulations as bikes.
Which is stupid because there's no infrastructure for bikes, and it's illegal to ride them on the nearly completely unused sidewalks.
My FIL got me an e-bike that I can't use for anything other than riding around the neighborhood because I have to get on the highway to get to town.