this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
27 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9390 readers
831 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ConfidentLonely@lemmy.world
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
toaster@slrpnk.net
27
[image] Cars are an incredibly inefficient way to move people (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Yondu_the_Ravager@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It really fucking sucks that the auto industry lobbied the US government so goddamn hard in the 30’s - 70’s and got so much of this country built on car centric infrastructure while also systemically dismantling countless forms of public transit nationwide too. Most major cities and metropolitan areas used to have a pretty comprehensive streetcar system, yet where are they now? That’s right, manufacturers like GM bought majority stakes in those companies and then had their infrastructure dismantled all in the name of “progress.”

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As far as I'm aware, the only city in the western world that truly kept its pre-automobile streetcar network was Melbourne, Australia. A result is it today has the largest tram network of any city in the world.

It hurts my soul to imagine how basically every city in North America had similar networks, but they were almost completely annihilated, save for small fragments in a small handful of cities.

[–] Danatronic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Technically Australia is east of the international date line so it's not even really the western world.

[–] pfannkuchen@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Most of the people there are white so it counts as Western

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, but context matters. Nobody is taking a train up the street to get groceries. And using a car (or a huge ass truck) for that is often overkill.

Bikes FTW!

[–] Machefi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't understand this visualisation. Perhaps I'm lacking context. Anybody willing to do ELI5... maybe ELI15? What quantity is being compared and what are potential passengers?

[–] Default_Defect@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, I'm immunocompromised, so most of these options are too high risk.

[–] Lobohobo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There is always exceptions and in some areas, you have to have some cars. But removing most of the cars and replacing most of the 8 lanes of traffic with alternatives would be more than enough.

[–] Durotar@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

People don't drive cars because they think they're efficient in absolute numbers. They drive cars, because cars are way more comfortable and faster than anything else in everyday life.

[–] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They're only faster because transit infrastructure is built exclusively for cars at the expense of everyone else, including car drivers. Driving during rush hour sucks, but many people don't have a choice.

[–] ashok36@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only thing I wish is that we had more accessible and safe single-seat vehicles. I bring 3 empty seats with me to work every day. I would be more than happy to have a cheap, efficient single seat vehicle for commuting if it was safe. I'm not going to ride a motorcycle 25 miles each way every day in the Florida heat and rain. I'm certainly not going to share the road with the maniacs we have here on a motorcycle.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm certainly not going to share the road with the maniacs we have here on a motorcycle.

In other words, it isn't that biking or motorcycling or walking or whatever isn't safe, it's that the presence of cars makes everything unsafe (including the cars themselves).

Similarly, bike lanes etc. are car infrastructure, not bike infrastructure, because in the absence of cars cyclists would have no problems using the normal lanes. (Remember that the next time some dipshit complains about spending on bike lanes or cyclists not paying their "fair share.")

Pretty much every argument drivers have against other transportation modes is rooted in projection.

[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Ain't nothing comfortable about being in an environment where one wrong move will end your life

[–] nomadjoanne@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Efficiency is not the objective. In fact, were all energy and materials used in making and powering cars from relatively renewable sources, it wouldn't be a problem. I am aware they're not. All else being equal, efficiency is a worthwhile goal. But the tradeoff for inefficiency here is the freedom to go where you want when you want.

There are places here in Europe, contrary to what some people in this community might claim, that simply cannot be accessed by train. Smaller villages and the like.

Access to a car is useful. Ownership might not be unless you live there. But cars have their place.

[–] Thadrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

But cars have their place.

True. However with all the downsides of cars, they should be only the fallback if most other options don't work. As it is, in many places, they are the highest priority that everything is planned around.

[–] credo@laguna.chat 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Inefficient energy wise. Not timewise.

[–] biddy@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

This visualization is space efficiency.

Obviously cars have terrible energy efficiency. The most efficient vehicle is a bicycle, since exercise is good for you it's arguably negative energy usage.

As for time efficiency, you have to consider car dependent development as a package. Everything spreads out, so overall there may not be an improvement in time efficiency, especially when you factor in the longer travel time of people not in cars. You could even consider the time spent working to pay for the car, or the time lost from people killed by the car, and I doubt cars would come out particularly time efficient then.

[–] Thadrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And usage of space. And money, at least if you include all the externalities.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gonna use some of that suburban rail to travel dooway-to-doorway. Oh wait. No, you can't. It is almost as if having options for different needs is important. Instead let's use overly simplistic explanations for a rather complicated problem.