this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
95 points (85.2% 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
 

My original question was "How do we disincentivize the purchase of pickup trucks/SUVs" but then I thought it would be better to approach the larger problem of car dependency and car ownership. One option is, of course, to create public transit infrastructure and improve it where it already exist. This, however, doesn't change the fact that some will still choose to drive. What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 65 points 4 months ago (3 children)

don't discourage people from owning personal cars. most of the time this mentality is just a tax on the poor.

Flip the idea. Encourage people to not use cars instead.

  • not just bike lanes, but bike storage & lockers
  • not just public transport, but better connections between transport modes (buses with bike carriers, train stations with better car parking and bike lockers and bus connections)
  • more small car parking bays with all large truck bays further away from the stores
  • more motorcycle parking bays
  • cheaper motorcycle registration, etc.

it's all about spending money and effort in the areas you want it. Not about being restrictive.

it's a slower method of conversion, but more effective.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You have to do both I'm afraid

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

no, you really, absolutely don't.

more importantly, you missed the part where being anti-car is just a tax on poor people. It's also ableist. We still need cars, and punishing people who need them isn't helpful.

"poor people, like people on disability payments, shouldn't be able to afford to drive, but rich people can do whatever they want" is a horrible dystopia.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree with you, it's not fair, but afaik the research and data shows that in order to get people to use their cars less there has to be more downsides to using it as well as easier alternative transportation.

Otherwise people will just keep driving

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can own your car and drive it from time to time, ideally not in the city. Those aren't what we want to discourage. Discourage driving daily, driving in the city. Make those things simply easier, faster, and cheaper to do than using a car, and, while it won't KILL cars completely, it'll reduce them enough to make a noticeable difference.

After that's successful, and the working class hasn't completely shit themselves, we can start with making cars less desirable than they are right now. Once only the enthusiasts and most stubborn own a car, we can add some kinds of taxes, so that at the end, we're left with only the enthusiasts, which I think is a perfectly reasonable goal.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, but you must also do things like add tolls, rush surcharges, etc to actually get the car usage down.

Simply making the alternative better alone won't make the majority drop the comfort of their own car because it will never be as good as driving yourself.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure my second paragraph, starting with the word "after" (that word does a LOT of lifting) addresses that aspect.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It usually happens at the same time, you increase cost. Then you use that cost directly to build and maintain the public infrastructure required.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware of that being how it usually happens. The problem is, relying on that leaves a lot of people out to dry. Spend a bit now, so that we can make the transition smoother and more likely to happen at all.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree, I'm also colored by living in Norway where we are way ahead of America in this process. It's been very gradual indeed.

But it is fair that people using the roads pay for them

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

Sure, I can agree with the people using them paying for the roads. I just don't want to see it go from what we have currently to something much MUCH worse for your average individual, which if we do these things without setting up safety nets first, they will be.

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

no, you don't. that's all a poor tax, again.

and remember: most of the people who need cars (for mobility reasons) are among the poorest.

So taxing people through tolls and such is just punishing the disabled. ie ableist.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You do if you actually want the traffic to go down and you want to afford the public transportation infrastructure that will be required.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

in short, you're not good at math and have no idea the cost of public works if you think they're on the same scale.

(also, it doesn't address the ableism)

[–] br3d@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

People are in engrained car habits. That's why alternatives to driving are important, but people are unlikely to switch unless we ALSO make driving less appealing

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The solution seems to be, build those public transit options first. Let people get used to them, know they exist, etc. even if they're not massively used, their presence makes implementing some kind of penalty for driving WAY more likely to work - there's already an alternative in place, we don't have to worry about what we're gonna do now, were just gonna take the bus.

[–] br3d@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I totally understand why you say this. But at the same time:

  1. Be a politician

  2. Do the right thing and invest billions in an amazing public transport system knowing it won't be used properly until much later

  3. Lose your job for wasting billions on a system nobody uses. Ensure that every other politician in the world cannot henceforth invest in public transport because "Look what happened when that other guy tried it".

  4. There is no Step 4

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

This is why I propose moving in sloooooow steps. One or two small changes at a time, and eventually we've "snuck" some stuff by and moved in the right direction.

The way I look at it, it's as likely to happen if we do it right as if we do it wrong. Either we're going to get rid of cars, or we're not. I'd rather make steps towards doing it right.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

address how this stance of yours isn't just a tax on poor people and how it isn't ableist.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Anti-tobacco campaigns proved to be very useful. Anti-car campaigns could be equally useful. Won't happen in the EU sadly because Germany relies too much on automotive industry.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

well, sure, because that's just because vaping didn't exist then. Once vaping became a thing, soooo many people switched over from smoking to vaping.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

I wasn't being sarcastic, anti-tobacco campaigns and regulations were very effective