• LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    To create a pedestrian first world I think we need to legitimately understand what advantages a car has. A car is a true source of empowerment.

    Sure, I can ride a bike, but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination. I can take a bus but not at any moment, and not the middle of the night. I can take public transit, but not to the place I need to go.

    A car is a portable personal space. I can eat lunch in my car, I can take a nap.

    A car is a space protected from the elements - I’m not getting rained on. Protection from wind, snow, sun.

    Its locked doors are a barrier between me and potential (and sometimes imagined) threats.

    I don’t need to list out for this community all the negative things associated with cars. I just list these pros to highlight it’s a challenging task to displace cars. It’s a list of benefits to replicate.

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This comment made me sad, because it’s a reminder of just how bad a shithole most of the United States is: You need a car to go 300 miles at a whim because transit is bad or non-existent, and driving sucks. I know people who refuse to do that distance in one day. You need a car to go longer distances to bars, stores, restaurants, because racism zoning makes everything far away and a pain and a half to access.

      You need a secluded, personal space to eat lunch or take a quick nap because the U.S. hates homeless people so much that there’s nowhere to do either of those things in public, and you’ll get abused by the police if you try. A car is a less-than-ideal spot to do either of those things comfortably; a picnic table or a park shelter would be better.

      The best protection from threats is crowds, the “eyes on the street” principle. In fact, a lot of assaults happen in parking lots because there’s nobody around to intervene. But Americans are scared shitless of each other for no reason, and our society is collapsing because of it.

      Oh, also, a car isn’t even a good place to eat or nap if you’re poor. The cops will hassle you to no end if you look like you don’t belong. (Hence, the prevalence of setting up a van for stealth camping.) It’s not a source of empowerment, if you’re poor. I would never have dreamed of jumping in my car and driving 300 miles on a whim when I worked retail. If the car broke down, or got damaged, I would’ve been supremely fucked, unable to pay to repair it, and without access to any alternative transportation.

      But, frankly, I think that’s the point: Car dependency is supposed to hurt poor people, by physically excluding them, and providing a social marker of affluence so the not-quite-so-poor can feel good about themselves. (Why else bro dozers?)

    • frank@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Por que no los dos?

      You don’t need to fully replace cars to have a positive impact. I’m sure many people in the US could commute via bike if the infrastructure was there. Even if not every day, just sometimes. Also the public transit comment is definitely true in the US, and is not true many other places.

      I see the benefits, and don’t disagree at all! Just saying that not all boxes need to be checked to offset some car use