4mo ago

Murica

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

Anons argue in comments

Greentext @sh.itjust.works

Murica

1484 527

89 comments

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.
- 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.
  
  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.
- 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
  
  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.
- 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...
- 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
  
  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.
- Sure, I can ride a bike, but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination
  This is a strawman argument. 300 mile trips are better suited for trains.
  
  There isn't a train running from where I live to anywhere. And even if I lived in the nearest metropolitan area, trains only run to a couple destinations that are 300 miles away.
  Don't get me wrong, we should build trains going everywhere. That's a huge expensive goal that has no foreseeable date for completion. I'm talking about why do people view cars as a source of freedom? It's because they offer something not easily accessible by other means. The original post was talking about how great bikes are and why do we think cars are a symbol of freedom?
  I think bikes are great, and I'm glad to ponder the nice benefits they offer. To displace cars requires understanding why people want them.
- 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

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.
- I wonder how many cargo bicycles would be needed to move the contents of a truck, and how refrigeration would work. Or would we just not transport things that needed it?
  Maybe more local farms...
  ....and what about building houses, large panels of wood. Perhaps specially bicycles would be developed? I've seen multi-person bicycles in weird arrangements - like that Beer bicycle... Or that seven person conference bicycle at google.
  EDIT people down voting this and making exceptions for other road vehicles, oh well, then you'd have roads. Roads to deliver cargo and stock to every major supermarket and green grocery.
  
  Obviously no one is suggesting moving freight by bicycle.
  
  Trucks have their purpose, but the point is that too many people have cars and trucks that go on trips that could otherwise be done by bicycle, walking or transit.
  Here in Vancouver, I see a bunch of parents bringing their kids to school on the back of their bike, then head right to work. I even shop at Costco with big bags strapped to my bike.
  For the odd time I want to road trip, bring a bunch of buddies somewhere transit doesn't go, or need a cargo van to move furniture or things, I'm part of modo coop where I can rent one for a few hours, a day or many days.
  Trucks have their place. I have a lot of respect for landscapers and contractors, you can tell who is using their pickup truck for its purpose by the amount of dirt, no lift kit, and the stuff in the back. Not everyone in the city and suburbs needs one every day.
  
  Trains: exist.
  If you have set destinations for years to come, you don't need a driving wheel.
  
  So, because stuff happens which doesn't require cars we should design our lifes around cars? I'm sorry, but I don't manage to follow your reasoning here?
  
  I knew a guy whose dad was a carpenter. He used to bike everywhere with a small trailer hitched to his bike. He moved construction lumber and everything using that bike.

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

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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.

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.
- Uhhh…wow, bikes have to adhere to the same regulations as bikes?
  Very unusual.
  
  I thought that at first but sarcasm aside they meant that cycles have to adhere to motor bikes rules and regulations

The automobile isn't a symbol of freedom, never has been.
It's a status symbol.
- As someone who grew up in the rural US, it absolutely was, and I assume still is, as there are no alternatives in those areas. I could get to my school activities and work part time which, otherwise, was difficult to impossible relying on others. I don't think it should be that way but it very much was (and probably still is) in those rural areas. For me, it also helped keep me away from abuse, but that's (at least hopefully) an exception rather than the rule.
  
  I live in a rural area. Like 15 minute drive to anywhere. Any less driving puts you in the middle of farmland. Not super remote, but enough.
  Where I am, if it's not in-town, you generally need to get there by motor vehicle. I only recently moved here, but I don't think that's super relevant.
  I will always acknowledge exceptions to every rule. When you're as rural, or more rural than I am, driving is an extremely useful tool to simply get anywhere. The utility of it, in my mind, is not really in question.
  For the majority of people, who either live in, or near metropolitan areas, driving has an entirely different dynamic. It's entirely unnecessary for anything that's "in city", which is going to be about 90% of what you'll want to do. Apart from driving long distances to go on vacation or see family, a vehicle is entirely unnecessary. It can save time (at a cost) and it can be helpful when transporting items from one place to another, eg, when moving house; but again, they're exceptions, not the rule.
  Please forgive my terse initial comment. I usually find terse comments have more legs. There's always more to any story, and exceptions are expected.
  To bring this all back together, the number of people who will be in a rural situation, requiring a vehicle to travel anywhere in a reasonable timeframe, is, by the definition of rural, going to be fewer people than those who are included in my original statement, who live in a city or metro area where the population density is higher and there are more services in walking/biking distance. You and I, my friend, are the exception. Not the rule.

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.
- 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
  
  What car costs you $2000 a year to sit in the driveway doing nothing? That's $167/mo before any expenses? Sounds like a really cheap car payment.
- 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.

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 lasted 4 years of full time bike life and around 150k miles on the bike for 7 cars hitting me in 6 crashes where two were bad and the anomalous numbers are the last one that left me physically disabled after a broken neck and back. You will find a class of parallel parked cars making u-turns that is impossible to predict and avoid regardless of your skill, caution, and self awareness. Automobile safety is the anti Darwinian logic of disproportionately allowing stupidity to terrorize everyone.
- Yeah. Street design, separation where possible and equalizing speeds where not, is super important. I have had numerous instances of almost being doored, patiently waiting for selfish assholes who I can tell from a distance are trying to speed through a stop sign, cars mistakenly entering the separated bike lane, so on and so forth. No crashes yet (I have fallen over on dirt paths) in 2 years and 2000km of bicycle commuting, but I try to take every precaution I can.
  It's probably why the reputation in cities with very little bike infrastructure, is that only people crazy enough to take a bicycle on the road do so, because the roads are designed so hazardously for them.

Greatly used in Montreal too for instance, but problem is winter, riding in a foot of snow while it's -20, not easy...
- Cars perform even worse in snow.
- So the thing for me isn’t the temperature nor the depth of the snow. It’s sharing space with cars and contending with the very real possibility of falling and getting my head crushed like a grape.
  I quite liked using my fat bike in the park through the snow. But on a road with cars on ice? There’s a reason I sold it.
  Also, I would literally sweat going downhill on that thing.
- Same when its over 110 F out...
  
  Electric bikes work quite nicely in this scenario. Beautiful cooling breeze with minimal, if any, effort.

Sad thing is, if bikes were invented today, they'd be heavily regulated.
- 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

I'm generally in support of this. The car allows for more freedom in certain conditions, though:
Better for people with physical handicaps
Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather
Doesn't leave you as hot and sweaty, especially when going to work
- Better for people with physical handicaps
  At least the people with handicaps that can still drive.
  It actively makes the transportation landscape worse for those without hearing or sight or a mobilty reducing handicap that disallows driving.
  
  Yeah, reducing car usage would be much better for all handicapped people (those who can drive get better traffic.)
  
  And there small low power cars for people with disabilities that can drive that are still safe for people around them. In some countries like Netherlands they can even use the bike lanes.
  
  Yes, I should've specified *certain physical handicaps
- Someone addressed your first point. But the second two are only true when your city is so spread out to make room for huge roads and parking lots between everything. Not to mention zoning laws that make it illegal to build denser housing, or to build a grocery store near where people live.
  
  Id rather be in a tram on rails in snowy conditions than in a private vehicle thats subject to slippery conditions and other vehicles hitting it. The tram if hit often has more mass and survives the hit better than a sedan would.
  
  the second two are only true when your city is so spread out to make room for huge roads and parking lots between everything. Not to mention zoning laws that make it illegal to build denser housing, or to build a grocery store near where people live.
  That's all definitely true! Sometimes people just live in areas that weren't designed well, or they live in a different place than where they work by preference or availability.
  If someone normally cycles to work in 20 minutes, it might be worthwhile to have a car available as a backup for days that are extra hot or extra blizzardy.
- Better for people with physical handicaps
  The majority of physical disabilities prevent people from driving, resulting in a loss of mobility and freedom when they do not have viable alternatives. Many people who do not bike for transport and do not talk to people who bike for transport see a handicap parking spot and assume that everybody with a handicap drives.
  People cycling and using public transit free up road space for the minority of people with handicaps who drive. I know two utilitarian cyclists with disabilities who cannot drive but use a bicycle as their primary means of transportation.
  Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather
  Wear a jacket. Many of us go for walks in extreme weather. There are very cold and hot countries all over the world that have high rates of bicycle usage for transport. The problem usually lies in cities designing and maintaining their roads in a hostile way to all forms of transportation other than bicycles in the winter. Look at Montreal and Oulu for counter-examples. Even the Netherlands gets constant rain.
  This is a great video on the topic.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
  Doesn’t leave you as hot and sweaty, especially when going to work
  See above
  
  Are there many physical handicaps that prevent people from driving, but not from riding a bike?
  As for the extreme weather, I said "Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather"
  The OP was asking why the car is a symbol for freedom and not the bicycle, so I provided some possible explanations.
- Also, the car will be way faster

89 comments