this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
2053 points (93.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9807 readers
26 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] torpak@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

cars are stuck to roads and much less efficient everywhere many people need to go. cars are basically useful where only few people live or work.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean technically cars are only stuck to roads if you're a law abiding citizen.

Roads allow for significantly more freedom of travel than trains because it would be cost prohibitive to build rail networks everywhere a car can reach.

Each mode of transport has its niche and one cannot replace the other.

[–] BraBraBra@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you can't conveniently travel by train, that is a failure of the design of your city, not trains. If the destination a train took you to was walkable you wouldn't need a car, because the train could cover the large distances, and you could simply walk from the train to your necessary locations.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"City"

This guy thinking everyone lives in urban centers.

Are they going to run a train to every remote village in Italy? Will everyone in Iceland travel to Reykjavik from their farms around the country by rail? Are we going to install rail on every island of Greece just so people don't have to drive?

[–] BraBraBra@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Sure, if we can build the infrastructure for cars there, why not trains too. You're quite closed minded. But also, why can't you just bike in a village? I mentioned cities because that's where trains tend to be, genius.

There's trams, there's bikes, there's buses, etc. etc. etc.

[–] shiftymccool@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, I'll just bike through 4 feet of snow to get to town. Roads don't need to fall within specific tolerances to operate either, like tracks. Have you ever been to the country? Anywhere that snows? You sound like "city folk" to me and you throwing around "closed minded" and "genius" when someone else brings up a contradictory point makes you sound more like "city asshole". Maybe keep the conversation civil, eh?

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

There are several alternatives to trains. It was the appropriate example for cities. This is dead simple. If you're gonna be a condescending, mocking asshole all while completely missing the point, you're gonna get some sass. Simple as, fuck off if you can't handle it.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why can't you just bike in a village?

It's not about biking in a village. It's about biking out of a village to a denser urban center. The place where the trains are.

You're quite closed minded.

I think it's closed minded to assume that trains and bikes can replace all utility of cars, or that cars will never be in a state where the impact on the environment is negligible.

there's buses

That's just a big fucking car.

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

Btw, I'm pretty sure places that are that remote rely on planes. Some parts of alaska are like that if I'm remembering correctly.

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

If the infrastructure exists for cars, it can exist for trains.

1 bus > 25 cars. Or how many ever it seats.

[–] torpak@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

I agree yet most countries are determined to use cars, where public transport needs to be.