this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
516 points (89.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9804 readers
248 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pathief@feddit.de 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I really hate driving but it takes me 30 min to drive somewhere where public transportation takes me 2 hours. Driving saves me 3 hours a day.

If public transportation was good, I wouldn't drive.

[–] Nobilmantis@feddit.it 78 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That is exactly the point of this meme. The resource allocation for building car infrastructure has been massive since the '60s while transit has been left behind as it is way less of a oppurtunity for car manufacturers and oil companies to profit from it and yeah, they do have a saying bigger than yours when it comes to deciding your country's politics. (See ~~corruption~~lobbying)

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it means rebuilding cities. We should absolutely do it, but entirely reworking how everyone gets around is gonna take a while even best case scenario. But that's why we should get started now!

[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

We already bulldozed and rebuilt our cities for the car, so there's certainly no reason we can't do it again. It should be easier this time, though, as the main things we have to demolish are parking lots and stroads, not entire city blocks of dense housing. See Cincinnati below:

Legalized bribery.

[–] pathief@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

From my interpretation, this meme suggests we should just stop building cars. The fact we are buying so many cars is just a testament on how bad public transportation is. Even with traffic I still manage to get 1 hour and half faster than public transportation by train + subway.

I wish the solution was as simples as a resource redirection, but unfortunately it would require some city planning and possibly rebuilding around public transportation. Not gonna happen, I guess.

[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It would require those things and time, yes. I don't think anyone is suggesting public transit in the US would be viable overnight.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In an alternate world you’d complain cars can never work because there isn’t enough space for them on roads, and there’s never any parking when you arrive. (Oh, and accidents)

[–] gowan@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

You say "accidents" as if America hasn't been working overtime to make opiates and guns a bigger cause of death.

[–] pathief@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

I hate driving because of everything you just said!

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Welcome to Fuck Cars!

[–] waraukaeru@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It's a dead-simple concept that can be applied to everything: public money should only be used for public services. If the private sector is viable, it shouldn't need public money to prop it up.

Public money should fund public transit. No public money for private transport infrastructure.

Public money should fund public schools. No public subsidies for charter and private schools.

Public money should fund public health care. No public funding should be wasted on propping up a wasteful private healthcare industry. ACA wastes so much money buying insurance for people when we could just build public hospitals and public clinics.

It's not that private industry shouldn't exist. It's just that private industry, conceptually, shouldn't need to be propped up by social funding. But currently it is. And it's a tremendous waste of money. Public money should only fund public programs. So simple.

[–] kozy138@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Aren't bike lanes technically "private transport infrastructure" though?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NixDev@programming.dev 16 points 1 year ago

I work for an auto company. I can tell you they don't want mass transit because it hurts profits. They would much rather jack up the cost of vehicles, offer deals on leases, and keep people locked into getting a new vehicle every few years. Just keep the machine running and fuck anything except their profits. You will see how shady the auto industry is once the strike happens next week

[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Because bikes are a way too efficient (on the short distances) and long lasting products to be lucrative. Public transportation as well didn't guarantee the same annual income of fresh money that the car market do.

[–] Peddlephile@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like the concept of 15 minute cities/suburbs. You can get anywhere you need within 15 minutes, whether by public transport, bike, walking or car.

[–] garden_boi@feddit.de 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Isn't the point of a 15 minute city that you can get anywhere within 15 minutes without a car?

(By the way, from a European standpoint it sounds really funny that 15 minute cities are not a reality for you. Like, why would you ever build a city differently in the first place?)

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's pretty disingenuous to claim that your city founded in 1300 has tight streets and isn't car-friendly because people in 1300 were really big on public transport.

And the answer is that cities grow descriptively rather than prescriptively. They generally add what is in demand/what they need piecemeal, and most US cities really grew in the 20th century.

That's why NYC, for example, has significantly better public transport than most of the nation - it's one of the oldest cities

This is also why moving to mass transit is a hard sell. It's expensive and there is less demonstrated need and more forethought behind the switchover.

Not to mention that the US has far, far more land than Europe. It's hard for many to imagine having to drive 3 hours just to get to a major city.

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

There’s an few distinctions about American culture as it relates to car culture.

  • America had/has a lot of land

  • Much of this is/was vastly underdeveloped right outside of urban hubs, unlike Europe/related which benefits from a tighter interconnected network of cities that more immediately benefit from mass transit systems

  • In the US post-WWII middle class and privileged were often sold an idea of peaceful suburban lifestyles away from urbanized areas

  • Car manufacturers marketed this successfully as a way to encourage families away from city life and thus build a more solid reliance on their vehicles

  • City planning was therefore often built around a suburban-city sprawl rather than a cohesive urban community designed around efficiency

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because O I L E C O N O M Y.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Yeah but how are we supposed to capture an entire nation of consumers and entrap them into paying for our products forever with that?

[–] zoe@infosec.pub 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

because politicians cash extra money when car manufacturers make more money than public transpsort manufacturers (trains, buses)

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

You would need much less material and that's bad for economy.

Or to reframe it: the economy is bad for the environment.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Holy shit can you imagine? If we'd take all the investments that are done on a yearly basis for cars and we stuff that in trains, busses and bikes and their infrastructure?

We'd get walkable cities, cities would get more tax income, we'd all get healthier, we'd have tonnes of money left for parks... and we'd actually for once really do something to stoo climate change to boot

Ahhh to dream...it's so nice. The world could be so pretty if people just weren't such dumb egocentric assholes.

[–] Rukmer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if we kept the car way of life (not saying we should) doesn't it seem like there are way too many cars being produced? Like how many new cars do we really need every year? I honestly do not know the numbers, I'm just saying it sure seems like this many brand new cars don't need to exist.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›