515
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by HardlightCereal@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but people travelled in the country before cars were invented

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

Really? You mean when people in rural areas had to stay overnight if they went to town for supplies because the trip there took so long? And that’s before a century of planning around the convenience of cars.

[-] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I mean then. Some people got used to driving their SUV 200km into town to get a haircut and buy out of season fruit every saturday. And that lifestyle relies on unsustainable and dangerous technologies that we can't afford to keep running. It was never going to be permanent. If you want metropolitan conveniences, you're going to have to live in a metropolitan area. This isn't difficult logic.

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

Let’s say you need a plumber to come fix a leak. How does he get his tools and supplies there? On his mule and cart?

For this example I’ll use the US average commute of 27.6 miles (44.4 km) one way. Based on what I looked up, a donkey pulling a cart is ~4.5 mp/h (7.2 km/h). That’s 12 hours of travel time there and back. Help me understand how this is reasonable.

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

Easy. Get rid of indoor plumbing

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Most traffic is neither freight nor service teams with their turnout kit.

[-] wsweg@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

No, most traffic isn’t. A large portion of the population would be just as well off if they used public transport. However, there’s also a portion that the complete banning of road vehicles would be extremely detrimental to their livelihoods.

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

He loads up his hand cart with his tools, he walks 500m to the train station, he travels 43.4 km on the train, and then he walks 500m to my house.

[-] wsweg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Where’s all this rail infrastructure coming from? If cars are banned it will take exponentially longer to complete. What does the population do in the meantime?

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

I think 5 years is a reasonable span of time to transition out of cars if it's our top priority and we put all our resources into a green new deal.

[-] wsweg@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Just curious, are you a white-collar worker?

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

That is a very vague term and I don't think my job fits neatly into blue collar or white collar. If you're asking whether I do hands on work at jobsites, the answer is yes.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Again, sufficiency and resilience. If you live in a rural space, you learn to fix shit yourself. Famously: tractors.

If you believe that rural just means "own a house in a village or next to a town", that's not it, that's tourism. That's like owning a cabin in the woods or like the car-dependent suburbia. What makes you a rural dweller is participation in the rural economy or subsistence living. If you live like a guest, you are a guest.

[-] wsweg@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Based on your replies to my comments, I agree with you a lot. I haven’t been saying that we shouldn’t transition away from car-focused infrastructure and living. Rather, OP’s pipe-dream of banning cars and solving the infrastructure/living issue in 5 years is ridiculous.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, you "went into town/city" rarely. Rural life meant a lot of local sufficiency.

Commuting was not a thing. Only trains started to make that an option.

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

Yea, and it took 80 years and three generations to get to your destination.

[-] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago
[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It depends how far back you want to go, but it absolutely was true.

Ignoring that fact, everything is designed around car transportation. You can't just kill that off in any reasonable amount of time with a different solution. You're talking no less than 50+ years if that is the main focus, ignoring all of the other much more significant issues. Rails don't just pop-up. Rural living residents and small townships aren't just gonna up and leave. Cars are here to stay, the best you can hope for is better public transport, some functional rails, and realistically, more efficient vehicles. Welcome to reality.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

If that's true, and it's going to take 50+ years, shouldn't we start, like, now?

[-] wsweg@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Which is why it’s not the right solution to emitting less pollution. It would take far longer than we have until we’ve fucked the planet completely at the rate. That’s why switching to green vehicles is a far more achievable goal. Humans are selfish and they’ll burn the world if their short-term livelihood is at stake.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

"Green" vehicles aren't doing to do it, though. They solve the problem of tailpipe emissions, yes, but not the resources needed to manufacture, operate, and dispose of them. I saw an infographic recently that pointed out than an electric car uses (generously speaking) only about 2/3 of the energy of an ICE car over its whole lifecycle. That's... good, but not enough. It also doesn't account for the direct CO2 emissions from the chemical process of curing concrete. EVs still need concrete to run on.

Also, CO2 emissions are not the whole story on how cars fuck the planet. There are the lifecycle resources, all of the plastic, glass, and metal, which still take fossil fuels to produce, either as a raw material, or as energy. There's ecological destruction to get those resources, to get the resources to build the roads, to clear the space for the roads, for the sprawl that they facilitate, in the fragmentation of habitat, and the heavy toll taken on wildlife directly by roadkill. There's also the pollution, like PM2.5 from tires, which causes asthma and heart disease in humans, and runs off into waterways and destroys zooplankton. There's groundwater, lakes and streams becoming saline from widespread use of road salt.

I mean, we're in the midst of a sixth mass extinction event on Earth, and it's only fractionally driven by climate change. Automobiles, even the "green" variety, contribute greatly to the problem.

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

Cars will be around for our entire lifetimes. I do think that having a modern rail system in place would be great, to complement cars. In cities it's easier and makes more sense, but there will never be a train that comes to my house, and if there is, I'm moving, because I sure as shit don't want to live next to a train. I'd love to be able to jump on a cross Continental, high speed rail to go on affordable trips, but that isn't possible and won't be. As long as I can pay roughly the same for a flight to my destination, and get there significantly faster, I will probably never opt for a slower option, and I'm definitely not in the minority by saying that.

With that said, assuming we spend the next 50 years eliminating cars and moving to rails, it still won't touch emissions, because cars are not the leader and are continuing to get better and more efficient. So starting now would be convenient and not a bad idea, but it won't change anything substantial from an emissions standpoint.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

In 2021, transportation accounted for 28% of U.S. CO2 emissions, the largest source by economic sector. Absolutely, we need to address cars to reduce emissions; they're not getting that much better. Getting rid of them won't fix the problem, but conversely, fixing the problem requires getting rid of most of them. But why does it have to be rails? What if it was a café near your house? A doctor's practice? A bookstore? It's not foreordained that everything has to be so far apart that you need motorized transport (car or train) to get to it. The large majority of car trips Americans take are short distances, not cross-country journeys for which we need high-speed rail or airliners. Do away with single-use zoning, put the places people go every day close to where they live, and we eliminate the need for a huge number of daily car trips. No rails through your front yard needed.

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

Because unless the Rockies are gonna move to the Midwest, they won't be within walking distance of me. Having some places closer would be great, but I very deliberately chose to not live in a bustling neighborhood. If a bunch of businesses opened up on my block, I'd sell and move out. If I had to choose between a 10 minute round trip car ride to the store vs walking for 5 minutes, I will drive everytime. There's a golf course literally a block and a half from my house, and the three times I've been, I've driven. I don't have to be in the elements whether that's hot, cold, snowy, or rainy and I start and finish in my garage.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

That's your choice, and as long as we stop subsidizing it, and make drivers pay the full cost (direct and indirect), I'm fine with that.

[-] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We don't have 50 years. As Bill Nye said, the planet's on fucking fire. Emit less carbon, motherfuckers.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Cars aren't the main problem. They are a factor, yes, but not the big fish. Good thing EVs are become more mainstream and as technology progresses, they will be the dominant choice. Trying to get rid of all cars is quite frankly fucking stupid.

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

We need net zero by 2030. We need to turn that 100% of CO2 into 0%. Cars are 12.1%. Cars are our second priory behind manufacturing and construction, and we need to eliminate ALL of the priorities. No half measures.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, ain't happening. RIP.

this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
515 points (85.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9373 readers
448 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