this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
321 points (93.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9591 readers
57 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'll repeat the comment I made in that thread:

Unironically, I support completely ceasing all road construction (even “just” repaving, let alone widening) until every street has been brought up to “complete streets” standard with proper sidewalks and bike lanes. Car drivers do not deserve more spending until cyclists and pedestrians are made first-class citizens!

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

start taxing trucks proportional to the wear they cause on public roads. doing so will supplement funding for repairing said roads as well as to encourage rail hauling instead of dangerous hulking vehicles on the same roads we have to commute on.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

AFAIK road wear scales to the 5th power with the weight per tire.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The larger vehicles tend to get worse mileage and thus pay more taxes on gasoline/diesel that are used for roads without the government needing to track mileage.

Electric cars, which are heavier than comparable ICE cars, throw a wrench in the fuel paying for roads concept.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but the increase in fuel cost per unit mass is not proportional to the increase in road wear, which is exponential and absolutely massive in commercial use. Hugely important fact that plays into my opinion that vehicle size should be taxed.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago

I didn't say it was a perfect system, just that the system does collect more taxes on heavier vehicles already.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

While this is a nice thought in theory, it breaks down as soon as you start actually thinking of it in practical terms.

  • Some rural road that gets a few cars a day at best does not really need sidewalks and certainly does not need bike lanes.
  • A road with potholes is more dangerous to pedestrians and bikers due to the potential for cars to lose control, or for drivers to swerve to miss a pothole and potentially endanger other travelers.
  • Adding bike lanes and sidewalks is just impractical in a lot of areas. Where is that space coming from, when private property extends to the road edge currently? Are we just declaring eminent domain and taking 3-6 feet of everyone's property frontage for this initiative? I'm sure that will be a very unpopular initiative. What about areas where buildings are too close to the street to allow for this? There's just too many areas where it's not practical or possible to do.

I'm all for phasing out cars in areas where it's reasonable to do so, but your proposal just isn't compatible with reality.

[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Where is that space coming from?

You can literally add separated light rail in the center and bike lanes next to the sidewalk and there would still be two car lanes left, one for each direction.

What about areas where buildings are too close to the street to allow this?

This street is too narrow to add a dedicated sidewalk, right?

Which is why the blue square sign is there: The speed limit on this street is walking pace and pedestrians have priority on the entire road.

Therefore: Put bicycle lanes wherever possible, reduce the speed limit where it isn't.

[–] insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

However, we could apply the idea to just roads that are compatible with bike lanes and pathways. It would be a start. I agree that priority needs to be given to safety first but even with that, the next priority needs to be anything but cars where possible.