177
What petty hill will you die on?
(beehaw.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
177 points (100.0% liked)
Chat
7499 readers
18 users here now
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Those big SUV like Ford f150 should be illegal, for real. They are super long and tall, the driver can barely see what's right in front, it's dangerous for everyone not in the car. Cars should have stricter limits on size, if it's bigger, you need a special license.
In the US anyone with a basic driver's license can drive a huge Recreational Vehicle (RV) the size of a bus with 7 passengers. They're super dangerous and it's insane!
A 2,500-pound car and a 10,000-pound RV are the same from the perspective of the vehicle "class" on the driver's license. This is not OK.
I'm 6ft/183cm and those things are taller than my shoulders. If I can't see the drivers, there's no way they can see children. Ban these trucks!
Let's go one further and just... basically ban all cars. Almost nobody should be driving all of the time in a city, and when you start to think about how many problems and how much of a nuisance cars are it seems painfully obvious.
Yes, there's problems that we'd need to solve in order to do this, and some things would just be a little less convenient... But cities would be so much safer, quieter, and have much better air quality if fewer people were driving. Bikes are very effective for getting around for most people (especially if you don't have to worry about cars murdering you), e-bikes make it a little more accessible, and you can't tell me we couldn't have an absolutely bitching public transit system if 1) we didn't have to account for so many cars, and 2) even a small fraction of what everybody spends on their own personal motor vehicles went towards public transit infrastructure.
Sometimes we need cars to haul stuff, it totally makes sense to have motor vehicles for emergency situations and stuff, but pretty much nobody needs a giant SUV to commute to an office job by themselves. The amount of huge cars you see driving around with only one person is super depressing when you start looking for it.
For the United States, I agree mass Transit should be a much more prominent thing than it is, but suburbs and mass transit is difficult to deal with. 50% of the U.S. lives in suburbs, 20% of the U.S. lives in rural areas.
I couldn't live where I live without a car, and we literally have no mass transit. My nearest tiny grocery store is 3 miles away. I'm not putting a family of 4 on bicycles to make a run to the store to buy groceries, loading it on a bicycle, then hauling it home.
Part of the issue of mass transit, cities, and cars, is if I'm in a suburb 5 miles from a proper urban area with access to amenities, and I have no mass transit to get there, I have to take my car. And if I have my car when I get to the city, why would I park it to then take mass transit?
Mass transit actually has to become a realistic option for the 30% that live in a city before we even start to talk about mass transit for the other 70% of the U.S.
And realistically, those cities need major redesigns to support a mass transit-style system. The fight for public transportation starts with zoning and districting. Get mixed-use neighborhoods up and rolling, some medium-density housing developments with townhouses, duplexes, and triplexes. The fight for a bike system (Why do we need bike lines along car road? Screw bike lanes, I want bike networks.) and buses come shortly thereafter.
Yes, obviously with how things are currently it's not always practical to live without a car, but I don't think it means we should be defeatist about it and assume that that's the way things have to be. Yes, change will have to be gradual, but I think it's reasonable to look into changing zoning laws so suburbs don't have to be barren wastelands without any nearby shops. Yes, biking to get groceries is a little less convenient, but realistically many people and families can manage this just fine (especially with a bike trailer), and a 3 mile bike ride is like... 10 or 15 minutes?
Obviously things need to improve for these to be more reliable options for more people, and there will be inconveniences along the way, but I kind of think it's worth thinking about shifting things in this direction, instead of cementing things the way they are? Like, walkable neighbourhoods are great, and having good public transit and biking infrastructure makes a city more accessible and gives people more freedoms and makes it so not having a driver's license or car (e.g., due to disability or finances) isn't a death sentence... And it's probably better for the environment and people's happiness and safety too. I'm really just kind of tired by how much money and effort is spent on catering to cars, which in my opinion makes our public spaces so much worse.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have to do this? From an individual perspective it's obviously better to just be able to drive everywhere and park near your destination, I can totally empathize with you there... But there's plenty of situations where you end up with sub-optimal solutions when everybody tries to follow their own self-interests. When everybody drives into the city all of the time that's more carbon, more vehicles, more pollution, more noise, you need more infrastructure, more maintenance, and more parking... Things have to get further and further apart to support all of this infrastructure, and there's more traffic and congestion which makes everything less efficient.
I mean, to be clear, I'm not saying this always makes sense... And I don't want to see you suddenly have a 3 hour commute either. I want you to have good options for getting into the city... But I also don't want you to be trapped in the suburb unable to come to work if you lose the ability to drive all of a sudden either, and I don't want you to have to deal with finding parking or sitting in traffic either.
I get that these are unpopular opinions
people like their cars and they're convenient for many things, and the thought of transitioning away from needing them as much seems scary because cars are basically people's life blood at the moment... But I kind of feel like cars are killing us (often literally) with how expensive they are, how they limit access for people, how they shape our cities and make communities more isolated, and how they damage the environment.
Don't mistake me, I would much prefer to just hop on public transit and get to where I want without having to drive. Whenever I travel I take great pleasure in being able to use public transit that actually just "works" and not having to rent a car or drive my own car around
That being said, I think bicycles and "walkable" cities are the stupidest pursuit people who want to change the system pursue. It's easy to make a bike lane to point to and go "see! progress!" when no one will end up using the bike lane with any real consistency because the city is still laid out like garbage and getting from one end of even a small city to the other by bicycle lane is frustrating at best and dangerous/suicidal at worst.
I don't think bicycles and walkable cities are a stupid pursuit at all, but I do agree that often times bicycie infrastructure isn't given the care or respect it deserves! That said, I think sometimes these changes are incremental progress that can get better over time... Sometimes you end up with bike lanes that aren't great to get to for instance, but they'll eventually make more sense when the network expands (and each additional bike lane makes this exponentially better). Plus, I get the sense that drivers often don't have a good sense of how much other transit infrastructure is used and relied upon by other people. I've often heard complaints about having to wait for trains at lights, for instance, and it's a bit silly because the trains have hundreds of people on them, so they really should take priority, even if the traffic waiting at the light looks bigger because it's so much less space efficient. I suspect in a similar way the usage of bike lanes is often underestimated because they're quite efficient at getting people through in a small amount of space with little congestion. Bike lanes support some pretty serious throughput, so even if they get some pretty heavy use they might seem empty and unused... You just never really have a traffic jam or anything on them because they're so effective at moving people through.
I'm interested to hear your plan as to how we transform the entire country such that no one needs cars and everyone has equal access to public transport. Banning them now would be disastrous for the poor. Not letting corrupt auto industry barons kill alternative transport would have been the play, but that horse has sailed.
I kinda agree and disagree with this POV. I think it's more of a cultural issue and not a legal one. At least in the US, people think it's trendy to buy a big truck, but as someone who worked in a blue collar field for years, a lot of these people that drive trucks do it because they need it for their jobs. Trust me, most of these people don't like spending thousands on repairs and $100+/weekly. for gas
Not sure what the solution would be, but I don't think banning them would be it. I think it would mostly affect the blue collar worker and not the people who are actually the problem.
Also, I used to drive one of those big ass trucks for work, and I can assure you that visibility is not an issue. They are tall, open, have huge mirrors, and have seats that are high up. I could see a lot more and a lot better than in my current sedan.
What kind of jobs mandate the use of a pickup instead of a regular old van? Maybe tree surgeons and gardeners? Not sure who else specifically requires an open bed. Even then the open bed vans are far more spacious and practical so still not sure where a pickup is ever the correct choice.
Anyone who lives in the suburbs where doing lawn maintenance, tree trimming, and other such stuff is required due to HOAs and other such nonsense typically requires either owning a truck, or having a friend with a truck, because every now and then you have to pack it full of lawn crap and haul it off. I have to do yearly fire protection on my property, that includes cutting out bushes, trimming trees, and creating defensible space. Loading that into a van would be a pain in the ass, loading it into an SUV means I'm never getting the sap out of the carpet. Throwing it in the back of a pickup bed means I don't even have to think about it.
I don't own a pickup, but I have multiple friends with pickups, and you get into a beneficial "I'll buy you a tank of diesel if I can borrow your truck for an afternoon" relationship. They get 100 bucks in fuel, I get my lawn crap taken care of.
In many places outside the US, people just rent a trailer or a truck if they need one once a year. Obviously people who need these vehicles for their daily work should be able to use them, but driving a massive pickup truck because you have one task for it annually doesn't seem like a good solution.
People go camping twice/year and buy a trailer and F350 to haul it, leaving the trailer vacant 50 weeks of the year and using the F350 as a commuter vehicle. But they nEeD a tRuCK fOr HauLiNG.
It's insanity.