Fried_out_Kombi[meme] Why do people only seem to mean cars when they talk about electric and/or autonomous vehicles?
MentalEdgeIt’s what having a carbrain does to you.
RozaŭtunoBecause to them, ‘car’ and ‘vehicle’ mean the same thing.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆Because then they keep the “freedom” of driving, but without the guilt of pollution. That and, I mean, the community is called “fuck cars.” Obviously someone not taking a closer look at the true root of what this community wants (city planning that isn’t car-centric) would just think “but electric cars ain’t bad.”
Lizardking27Of all the subreddits we should’ve left on reddit.
This braindead circlejerk never should’ve come here. You are all completely disconnected from reality. Enjoy your larping.
BRINGit34sniffles WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
That’s what you sound like
Hilariously ironic.
ciko22i3We need both good public transit in cities and good car infrastructure in semi rural areas. Cars can be extremely useful.
I would argue that those who are disconnected from reality are those who believe in a system that essentially requires every single person to own and operate a 2+ ton piece of heavy machinery just to get groceries or go to school or work.
In cities, yeah sure. But in rural areas? How is that gonna work without cars?
If the only places using cars are truly rural areas, that’s still a major upgrade.
And by some countries’ metrics, there’s a high bar for truly “rural” where they won’t have a train stop. By then, you’re barely addressing anyone.
Who gives a shit? Nobody lives there anyway; that’s what makes it “rural!”
Rural people don’t matter (when it comes to this topic), and pretending they do is nothing but concern trolling.
FazooImagine thinking people outside urban areas can exist with a bike and public transportation. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Well that’s not what I think.
What I think is the majority of people on this planet live in urban areas. In wealthy countries like in Europe, North America, and Oceania, the share that lives in cities is an overwhelming majority. In those areas, who represent the vast majority of the population, we have often systematically gatekeeped access to schools, jobs, and groceries behind a massive paywall that is the ownership and operation of heavy machinery. Urban areas absolutely do not need car-dependency. Rural areas are obviously different, and fixing car-dependency for 80% of the population will actually improve things for rural folks: less suburban sprawl means less encroachment of suburbia into the countryside.
I respect your point but fundamentally disagree with it. Your utopia of having sprawling public transportation networks is not achievable in any realistic timeframe due to many factors, nature being top of the list. You’re also clearly biased in your urban belief. Population growth drives expansion, and you ignored the sections of the planet still booming, lacking proper infrastructure, and growing rapidly in and out of urban areas.
Would this work in Europe,? Sure, but that doesn’t make you correct in applying it world wide.
Most growth in the world is in urban areas. There’s a reason most projections expect the largest cities in the world by the end of the century to be places like Kinshasa, DRC. Much like London grew precipitously during its industrialization, like Shanghai and Beijing grew during their industrialization, now growing stupendously are the cities of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The fact of the matter is most growth globally is occurring in cities.
And yes, poor infrastructure is an issue. When NYC and London industrialized, they built massive subway systems. And if you want to grow with car-dependence, it still requires infrastructure. Instead of railroads, roads. Instead of trains, parking lots. Instead of depots, gas stations and charging stations.
And yes, I agree it will be a massive challenge to rebuild our cities in places like North America, but we already did it once, only about 60 years ago. Our urban freeways were built by demolishing entire neighborhoods. Our urban parking lots came from demolishing dense, historic buildings. Our urban roads came from tearing up massive tram networks. For example, Melbourne Australia has the largest tram network on the entire planet. Why? Because they were the one city that didn’t tear up their system with the advent of the automobile. Before cars, basically all cities in US/Canada/Australia/etc. were built on truly massive public transit networks.
But the beautiful thing about fixing car dependency is it will actually be easier. Instead of demolishing neighborhoods, the main thing we have to demolish is parking lots. The land values in city centers are absolutely insane, and housing will get built if just legally allow it (just look at Santa Monica, where new California housing law saw a historic flurry of housing project proposals). We currently make it literally illegal to do so across the vast majority of our urban land.
M0oP0oI was under the impression that most growth was in SUB-urban areas and urban and rural have been shrinking. The sub-urban category is largely made up of small towns and bedroom communities. Even in the best laid out small town the best public transit is a bus with limited stops, since the reason people are leaving bigger cities is mostly cost and ratepayers are unwilling to pony up for real transportation.
Yeah wow the 15% of people who don’t live in cities should really be our highest priority to keep in mind at all times when designing cities.
It is possible to block communities on lemmy, if it is bothering you that much.
First thing I did after seeing this post.
You can just unsubscribe
Cats offer nothing but eath an destruction under the guise of freedom. Those who can’t see that are the ones disconnected from reality.
Personally I enjoy cleaner, quieter cities and safer streets, but I guess that’s just nuts, right?
“Cars offer nothing but death and destruction”
Fucking lmao can you hear yourself?? Seriously?? That’s the only thing that cars offer?? I wasn’t going to reply further in this thread because this community is a fucking joke but your comment was so profoundly stupid I just couldn’t help myself. I’d call it a braindead take but it’s just so insubstantial and incorrect that I’m not even sure it qualifies as a “take”.
Are you an 18th century horse salesman? Carriage driver? Farrier? Or are you an edgy middle schooler who just found their first shitty internet opinion?
You are so far gone from the real world I doubt you could ever make it back to planet earth.
Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to reality. Grow up.
The car and oil industries are killing the environment and the cats themselves are a leading cause of death in cities all over the world. I’m not the one who needs to grow up here, bud. I live in reality, and that reality is a dying earth and death defying walks to work when cars won’t respect my inability to protect myself against them.
If it weren’t for the car and oil industries we’d have efficient trains taking us across the country instead of fossil fuel chugging planes and individual automobiles.
Why do you think it's braindead and disconnected from reality to want people to be able to live without a car?
gowanBut but everyone can live in a city and we can magically redesign them all to be walkable with no environmental fallout! We certainly never heed anyone to live on say a farm or in a place where trains can’t function.
Pal, I live/work on a farm. There is no reason that fixing the issues with a car-centric society in urban areas should be an issue for my lifestyle.
Cool sell your tractor then
I don’t think you get it, the majority of people on this forum don’t want to get rid of necessary vehicles like semis and tractors. They just want a reduction in personal vehicle use where possible and the implementation of cleaner/safer mass transit to replace that excess personal vehicle use.
People should be able to haul cargo, or travel to the boonies when they would like, but maybe we should make it relatively too expensive to roll coal with their suburban tank on their daily drive to wal mart and back.
Yeah this is ridiculous, I’m all for mass transit but good luck getting anything done outside of a city without a car. Idiots. Yeah let’s just go back to horses.
swan_prI can't wait for the REM (bottom left picture) to open, it's in less than a week!! After so many years, at last.
blazeramy area doesnt even have sidewalks
US rah rah
See and I get the opposite problem.
I wanted to buy an electric motorcycle since I use my old gas bike to make the same trip for work two times a month. The trip is 215 km and only goes though one town (about 45 km from one end). This is easy with most gas motorcycles and I thought that an EV version of a hwy cruiser should have no issue with say a 250 km range (since I stay the night I can charge from a slow plug).
Well let me tell you how frustrating “city” brain is about EVs. I mostly got e-bikes (like a bicycle) tossed at me, and the few that make the cut (Damon HyperSport, for example) are geared like a rocket and all the stats are based on city riding. 200 km max speed and no hwy gearing is stupid, but hey CITY CITY CITY! Where are the non insane vehicles? I don’t want to ride a 0-60 in <3 second monster, I don’t want to be curled up for 3 hours on a crotch rocket, and I don’t want to deal with an app just to charge. We don’t all live in your cities, some that do need to leave said cities, and until a normal non toy like EV vehicle hits the market the wider world will lump it all in the same bullshit pile.
I don’t have the option for a public transit, hell they killed the trains and buses off even if I wanted to do the milk run.
This made me curious; but I feel like there’s two issues.
One, the whole demographic for motorcycles is lugnuts revving their engine. Generally, they’re not all that practical, and more of a personality/lifestyle choice. The closest thing in other countries is scooters, which are a cheap and common option but not viable for highways.
The second is fuel density. Electric cars can slip battery into all the hidden corners, but bikes have less room.
It doesn’t seem like an impossible problem to solve, but it might come slowly just because of the first one.
I was avoiding cars as the OP was talking everything but. EVs in that market are just as bad for silly issues. I would like to see a basic as shit EV but the market seems to be the other way (Hummers and Model Xs etc). I was also more angry that all the EV motorcycles lie about range as they are set up for city (geared low for that EV power but can not maintain Hwy speeds).
I used a motorcycle for many years as my only transportation and in many places in the world it still is a mainstay. I think we agree that the EVs now are built for as you put it “lugnuts”. The density issue is a red herring as a EV Motorcycle is just a motor bolted to a massive battery (other then the rider there is no wasted weight). But the issue is they are made with no gearing and a over sized motor. The gas burning 37 year old Honda I ride now had when new 42hp and is more then fast enough for modern roads whereas the EVs now are all over 100hp without gearing, its annoying to see range charts like this:
City: 187 miles (301 km) Highway: 55 mph (89 km/h) 114 miles (183 km) — Combined: 142 miles (229 km) Highway, 70 mph (113 km/h): 93 miles (150 km) — Combined: 124 miles (200 km)
This is for a Zero SR/F and they advertise 301 km range. The real world range is 150km.
I would love to say take the train, but my destination does not have FM radio let alone any options not on a road.
I am thinking I will have to do a conversion of something if I ever move to EV and that sucks!
I just want the vehicles from Minority Report, is that so much to ask for?
But you can’t disrupt an industry without cars! The shareholders won’t like that! /s
To everyone reading this comment. Remember that all “disrupting” ever meant was using venture capitalists money to undercut the prices of existing services with a crappy mobile app tacked on. No “disrupting” startup has proven to be sustainable or profitable in the long term. That’s one of the factors in the most recent wave of tech massive layoffs. AirBnB, Uber, the millions of food delivery apps, even Netflix, their value proposition dies when they have to charge for the actual costs of operation.
Autonomous vehicles work better on rails also without having to deal with pedestrians.
Marxism-FennekinismAnd when space efficient enough to allow for a livable city.
Except that they have much lower rolling resistance and much longer lifespans of both the road and the tires.
ClaidheamhAre you trying to argue seriously that cars are more efficient than trains?
I just bought an electric motorbike, design is like a Vespa. I love it. Top speed kinda sucks but I love it
Care to share the one you’ve bought? 🧐
I’m also considering one
I bought a Segway/ninebot e300se. It has a range of wltc ~85km (or ~130 with a 3rd battery) and a top speed of 100km/h and it cost as much as an high end electric bicycle.
eu-en.segway.com/products/segway-escooter-e300se
Note, apparently, that former US brand doesn’t sell in the US. .
Wait, what about autonomous bicycles?
darcyare you actually seriously addicted to hard drugs ?
Sometimes people try to make jokes.
Accusing people who said something you didn’t like of drug addiction isn’t very poggers
its a joke
No, jokes are funny
ok well sorry, liberal, its called dark humour.
(again this is an attempt at a joke ok.)
Because not everyone does or can live in a city? That e-bike would be crazy impractical for my buddy who lives on a mountain in rural WV.
Not everyone lives in your circumstances.
that’s an argument to talk about electric cars at least some of the time, not to exclusively talk about them at the expense of any other transportation option. According to US government statistics, people in rural areas make up about 15% of the population, why is their situation dictating the national conversation around clean transportation?
A great majority of people do live in cities or suburbs, which are great places for electric vehicles and autonomous railway systems.
Not all urban areas can have workable public transit systems fir example New Orleans would not take to trains well at all given a significant chunk is under sea level and sinking.
Reading about New Orleans, it looks like a lack of willingness from administration to actually support the system after Katrina, including not enough funding to replace busses, wrong schedules, making the streetcar share the road with personal vehicles. Same old North American city making the same old excuses.
What I read: politico.com/…/new-orleans-public-transportation-…
And how are cars and roadways immune to this?
They aren’t nearly as permanent and are easier to replace and repair. Building a train system in New Orleans would be neigh impossible as anything underground will be destroyed by flooding salt water and anything above will be torn apart in hurricanes.
Not every city can have mass transit and it’s probably time to ask if we should attempt to preserve the cities that cannot be modernized with mass transit.
There is no place for logic on this sub!
Only endless complaining and pretending that everyone has the exact same situation. And god forbid we have choice too.
I’ll take mass transit if it is convenient, I’ll hop on my electric bike when I want, but I also will take a gasoline car or electric car if it makes more sense to do that or if I simply want to go cruise around for a bit.