this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
342 points (96.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9604 readers
750 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
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

And what exactly are those people going to lose if they get on a bike sometimes? Their diabetes?

[–] stufkes@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm going to lose my lifetime, literally, by biking a total of 80+ km to work and back. And public transportation takes 2+ hrs one way.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

So how does more bike lanes in inner cities affect that?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Then when you get into the city, you'll benefit immensely from 80% of the people being on separated bike paths rather than cars on the road.

There's no realistic plan where cities become carless, but can they not be the default?

[–] stufkes@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with the plans to make the city careless. I answered the question what would be so bad about cycling. I think the time factor is often forgotten when talking about cycling and public transport

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

The time factor is always forgotten when discussing ways to make society more efficient. As if the primary thing that the working poor are poor in isn’t time itself.

Time, as a resource to be paid for these various solutions, is treated like a throwaway resource. IMO it’s positively dehumanizing to wantonly allocate other people’s time like that.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How is a driving person going to benefit from there being more people biking exactly?

Think that through. Why are there more people biking? Because the cost of driving went up.

If those who drive benefit from this system, it will mean more people choosing to drive as a result of driving being more valuable.

Don’t think you’re making the utility of cars better by this. If it made cars more useful it would result in more car trips. If it makes cars more useful and doesn’t result in more car trips, it must have forced some subset of people to stop using cars for the other drivers’ benefit.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago

The costs don't have to go up at all. Merely uncover the costs that are already there but hidden. Everything from noise, space usage, wars in far off countries, lack of exercise, or just the surprise $1200 repair expense.

[–] zecg@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

No, lose it making money to maintain and feed the car ( how many working hours a year that is?) and sitting in a car for an hour in one direction. Correct time of commuting is time spent in traffic + time spent to earn the money for fuel. If you bikemute, you can actually consider a part of that time as free gym.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They’re losing the ability to use their car with the same level of utility as before.

You’re squirming to not recognize this basic fact. It takes a lot of energy expenditure to not acknowledge this fact.

Just be okay with what you’re doing. Own it.

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

I think that the problem here is that your definition of "losing" equates to "slight reduction in the massive subsidy that society provides to drivers, and forcing them to drive slower in cities because the lanes are narrower so that other people don't have to die." Yeah, technically "losing," but it still sounds pretty childish to complain about.