cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/mop/p/775737/sustainable-cities
Okay, but point of order. Are there any poor people on that train? Cause if there's poors on the train, I'll take the $2B bumper-to-bumper concrete blasphemy instead.
..........sarcasm? Or asshole? I can't tell.
Pretty sure it's sarcasm.
Asshole, sometimes confused as sarcasm
I call fake, no smog anywhere in the first panel
I think it’s possible to accept that, while a city without cars obviously preferable, the electrification of vehicles is still a net positive given the enormous inertia of car culture.
Is it? I think if you include opportunity cost and "well i switched to an electric car now i falsely believe the problem is solved", not so much.
It's just easier, in some ways, because it's a smaller change.
Net positives mean something, though. We want a 10/10 solution, but saying an achievable 6/10 is the same as no change at all is exactly what the people who oppose us want us to think. That if we can’t get rid of every car on the road, we might as well have done nothing. That’s terrible! Of course we can make things incrementally better!
We all want cars to generally go away from what should be walkable areas. Replace them with public transit and bikes and just walking. That kind of culture shift is going to take generations. Less smog and carbon dioxide being spewed into the air is a good thing. (Provided the trend towards solar and wind power continues.)
Assuming people get electric vehicles when their combustion cars reach end of life and not just trading in a four year old SUV for its electric variant, the I think it is.
Ignoring the ideal wherein privately owned vehicles decrease over time, of course. Continued development of EVs will be a benefit in terms of battery technology and motor efficiency, among other things.
The efficiency of an EV SUV will never be anywhere near the efficiency of an (electric) bicycle. Motor and battery efficiency also improves for bicycles. The bicycle will always need only a fraction of the resources, in materials, electricity and occupied space.
It embeds the existing dominant individual, resource-wasting mode of transport even deeper into the culture (and urban planning). That makes it a negative for urban environments. Bit different story in very sparsely populated areas.
The only problem they will solve is air/noise pollution and maybe power efficiency. But for urban planning the space usage is the same, and traffic jams are the same. Also they move the same ammount of people.
They are a small upgrade in general (maybe more for cities with high air pollution).
Not much noise reduction. After 50 kph, tires are louder than engines anyways.
Sure there are the occasional busted/"tuned" exhaust comes out very loud, but the majority of the din is just wheels on the road.
While this is true, cars of any kind shouldn't be going faster than 50k in a town/city anyway
I like the comparison between the two car dependent panels being the 'same picture' meme, though the electric one should have a few extra columns to support the weight.
Otherwise, 15/15 comic.
Electric car weight is trivial in comparison to heavy trucks, which roads are already constructed for. Electric trucks are another conversation, but currently are still restricted by the same gross weight limits that non electric trucks are, so there really isn’t any reason that there would be extra columns.
Depending on where you live in the world it's just not possible for some people to live in one of those idealist walkable cities do to systemic segregation. Can't afford to live there but that particular area still needs workers. This ideal community is reserved for a certain class of people.
Putting up some bollards to pedestrianize a street isn’t expensive.
I’m not sure where race comes into it.
It’s just car-brained car supremacy.
I never mentioned race.
So what is the “systematic segregation” you mention? Whether they are left-handed or right-handed?
I assumed they meant based on wealth
Correct
Looks more like an illustration of gentrification.
You realise the goal is that everyone in a city should have access to public transport and nice communities? Including poor neighbourhoods?
and this is why i can't take the term "gentrificiation" seriously, it's only ever used to stop things from improving, and only ever used by people living in shitty places rife with systemic oppression.
I never hear people say this shit in the nordics, here we give places lovely makeovers and everyone just goes "ooh, nice"
Nordics?
Electric bicycles are EVs. I dislike it when people say EV and they mean EC. It's mostly carbrains who do it.
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
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.
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: