95
How do we disincentize car ownership?
(lemmy.world)
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 07 Jul 2024
95 points (85.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
9663 readers
117 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 Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is why a culture war is forming between bikers and drivers.
It's not just reallocation of resources, you are actively plotting to disrupt a means of income, safety, or accessibility for the majority.
Biking and public transit are very valid modes of transportation and for some journeys, practical. News flash, I use them too. The same goes for vehicles.
What isn't necessary for you, may be for someone else. That's a fact lots of folks here don't want to acknowledge.
So to answer your question, make something better, faster, cheaper than cars and people will come. But if your recipe for success is making a working system suck bad enough public transport looks good, everybody loses.
I don't have a massive truck and my 20yo Honda is no status symbol, but I love the act of driving and the skills I've developed over my lifetime. It's freeing, relaxing, and I find a meditative quality and peace when I drive in the mountains. You want to take that away. Now imagine if bikes were taxed and licensed... Not so fun now.
We have to work together in a community. I'm tired of fractions picking fights.
You want to discourage people from buying cars? Then don't buy one. Be the example you seek. But for heavens sake, don't be a jerk to others.
We literally don't. No-one is out to stop you from driving as a hobby.
We're specifically out to make that the only reason anyone needs to drive.
Um, yes?
No.
discourage ≠ stop
In the same way that "discouraging" someone from over-eating for their own health, doesn't mean starving them to death.
As a society, we get places with, and design entire cities for, cars. A lot of people who wouldn't mind either way, own a car simply because "it's just what everyone does".
Suburbia and personal vehicles aren't sustainable, because suburban infrastructure literally cannot pay for itself. It's built on subsidies, and then maintained by subsidies, except countries like the US are finding that now that most people live in suburbs, there aren't enough profitable urban areas to take those subsidies from.
Car ownership has to be reduced. So how do we achieve that? How can we change things so that FEWER (not none) people want or need cars?
As a bonus, that means the remaining people who HAVE to drive get to do so on more open roads than ever.
"Discourage from ownership" sort of means stop. It's hard to drive what I don't own.
And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)
People like me who had to drive may have open roads again, but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too. And a lot of us are hurting really bad. I have friends in flooring, windows, and electrical. 2 have retired, one is accepting they will have to work until they die. It's harsh on this side, getting worse, and no one is talking about it.
This policy can't reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.
How does your neighbor no longer needing a vehicle, stop you from owning one you do need?
Car infrastructure is measured in billions. Infrastructure that is used by 100% of the population can still be less cost-effective, if its costs are great enough. Spending 100 billion so that everyone can drive makes no sense if everyone as a whole can only afford 80 billion.
Diverting at least some resources then, so that at least some people can get where they need to go for less, only makes sense.
At least part of the problem is cultural momentum. Even as more cost-effective ways to get around are built out, people will continue to drive because it is what they are used to. The benefits of shifting transport systems also have a severe lag time because a complete transit system is built over decades, not months.
150 million a year is nothing, no shit it's only useful to 3%. That number only reaches the nineties of cities like Amsterdam when you've been doing it for generations. The same was and is true for cars.
Not in my city. Getting around in a car is better than ever. In fact, getting around using every possible mode of transport available is better than ever.
Then it's bad policy, and your local planners don't know how to change things efficiently. But the cities where it works for everyone LITERALLY EXIST. I live in one.
It is extremely easy for planners to spend money on half-measures that only make things worse, as is happening all over, but that isn't a reason to stick with something the math proves is broken.
You're arguing here for continuing to prop up sprawl, is what it sounds like. You're open to moving people away from car dependency, but not from suburbs, is my impression. I would love to be wrong about this, so please feel free to assure me you're not proposing that people just live wherever the hell they want, no matter how unsustainable it might be.
There are times and places for high density cities, and there are times and places for rural living. There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.
Today, I made a makeshift bahn mi burger for dinner. I snagged a French roll and a carrot from the store. I bbq'd a steak burger with Vietnamese marinade and added cucumber, Thai basil, mint, and cilantro that I grew in my garden. Also slapped together a quick salad with tomatoes, peas, and more cucumber also from my garden.
My hobbies are hiking, camping, and backpacking. Right now, I am sitting under two absolutely massive 10' sunflowers watching my pet turtle bury a clutch of eggs.
You have this impression I'm somesort of eco-terrorist because I like to drive. I know sustainable, I love to grow my own food, I'm aware of my footprint.
But I am all for sprawl and not because I drive. I rent so this will all go away someday because I can't afford to buy a $1.2 million 2-bedroom starter home or a high density concrete box.
So yeah, my choices are the fringes. Public transport (and bicycling) are going to be sketchy.
My job up until last year was home repair (not going to get too specific because this is the internet) and I did need a truck full of tools. That was my employment; my income.
Changing city policies harmed blue collar workers like me making it difficult to travel between worksites. Every major road to my residence has engineered in congestion as a means of traffic control whether it was appropriate or not. Time is money and being unable to fill one or two appointments daily due to lost time was devastating.
I have a local public transit card I use. It's great for going to popular destinations like sports, restaurants, and zoos. It is not great to visit friends and family. For that, I use a car (plus I almost always have a passenger) and save money and time.
Exactly. Yet the entirety of humanity has congregated around the car as if that is that one-size-fits-all solution you're admitting doesn't exist.
You know, back before the car, humanity congregated around ports and railroad stations too, right? It's kinda human nature.
Right, and we built tracks out to every building anyone might conceivably want to visit.
Wait, no we didn't. The popularity of the car in some countries is VERY artificial. Driven by early auto-industry advertising that solidified into culture.
But it didn't take hold world-wide.
There's a train station in Tokyo through which the entire population of my country passes DAILY.
A design for a highway interchange that can get 5 million people where they need to go within less than 24 hours, does not exist.
Gotta apologize on my previous comment. I think I misread what you said. My reply doesn't really make sense anymore now that I re-read the context.
I respect the hell out of that!
The car, when used for all transport, is wildly inefficient. Multimodal transport where whatever mode is most efficient is used, isn't applied enough.
You like driving. If the goal is to enjoy the pleasure of driving, then no other option serves that purpose. Hence, driving is what YOU should be doing.
But cars are used to achieve so many other goals that do have more efficient options, simply because it is the existing standard.
There are people who VEHEMENTLY HATE commuting by car. They shouldn't be driving, but doing so might still be the least offensive option. Providing these people a way not to drive, also fits the description of "discouraging" car ownership.
Cultural knee-jerk reactions like yours, as well as the barrier of existing infrastructure, make improvement difficult. OP is specifically asking how to change things in a way that would make people want the change, rather than have it be forced on them.
They didn't ask how to stop people from owning cars. Discourage means discourage. If you'll never sell your car no matter what, that means you're one of the people who can't be discouraged, but that doesn't mean people who can, and even should be, don't exist.
You admit to using transit systems, when applicable, which means you're already accepting the solution. Would it really be so bad if you could use transit to get more places, and more people could use it for all their needs, even if you aren't one of them?
as somebody who does some of this work: roads are expensive and environmentally damaging. The fact road costs are so effectively hidden from drivers is one of the great frustrations about communication on the subject.
Without oodles and oodles of public grants and funds there would be almost no roads. The reality here is that consumers don't make the decision to have roads and cars, the government does. End of discussion.
the word here is sprawl. The vehicles actually don't matter as much as the parking. The more space dedicated to parking the harder it is for people realistically walk to any destination.
We need more than anything to end parking minimums' which create large, poorly utilized space with high stormwater runoff and think about putting in parking maximums
I like walking in nature but in my country you can't escape the sound of distant cars. I'm sure it's not you, you're definitely the exception and a model citizen, but your hobby is giving me tinnitus and is infringing upon mine. It's not a culture war, it's just shit that's bad for us all vs shit that's not bad for us all and you really like doing the shit that's bad for us all so you have this strange cognitive dissonance about it where you can totally admit it's bad but refuse to stop doing it.
I've never owned a car in my life and I don't have a license but this hasn't stopped any of these people from being average car owners...
Ha! Not a chance. My car is totally stock and doesn't produce anywhere near the levels of sound pressure to damage hearing. Not even close, dude.
And I have my dashcam videos of bicycles behaving badly too.
Tinnitus is affected by constant exposure, not just dB. Cars make noise and a constant low droning sound gives you tinnitus as well.
I, too, have videos of bicycles behaving poorly. Again, cognitive dissonance; we are not discussing bicycles.
As a former sound engineer, I am well aware of the dangers of volume and exposure limits.
If a liesurly drive way in the mountains gives you hearing damage, your bigger concern is why you're being dragged behind a car.
As a current employee of the municipal road maintenance and service depot, I'd like to think we have more relevant data than a sound engineer on the harm caused by road noise.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/road-traffic-remains-biggest-source
Dude, I already tore a similar article a new one weeks ago.
If it's anything like the last article, they cherry picked data and exaggerated results.......
See if this applies: linky
Ohh ... Turtle is done laying eggs and running away! Got to go!
You are correct and the thousands of scientists who have come to this same conclusion are wrong, totally bro
Ahhh ok, because you asked so nicely.
Nothing in the article mentions sound levels in the dangerous range.
In fact, it can be sumed up with "This just in, traffic can be heard! More at 11!
Drumroll Leeeeeeets check the charts!
It basically says traffic can be heard in the distance.
I don't know how to explain this to you this without resorting to crayons but let me try to put it succinctly:
Low dB are still dangerous to health if they are constant and over a long period of time.
You don't have to reply, I know you disagree.
Its easy to disagree with information that is wrong.
As I mentioned in my previous post about the subject, "Noise pollution" is (according to that article) defined as "unwanted" sounds, not dangerous. The "harmful" part, as it turned out, were simply distractions.
Your article doesn't define what they consider noise pollution nor any dangers ambient sound may cause. Before you claim any "danger to health", you need to define what qualifies because we are both using these words very differently.
I'm pretty sure, the "danger for health" argument is not just hearing loss.
For a simple example. Try sleeping in a room with noise level at around 70dBA. Your sleep quality will suffer to say the least. In a longer time you will develop insomnia like symptoms.
The differences between car use between countries is a clear indication that it’s not just about necessity or consumer preferences. Societies actively choose how to plan cities and traffic, and doing the same thing as last year is not neutral.