(serious) What would we be losing in a world where most people didn't own a car? Please read the OP before posting.
from early_riser@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 19:50
https://lemmy.world/post/43817156

I know the demographics around here, so I know everyone’s just going to put “nothing lol”, but please understand what I’m asking first.

I’m physically incapable of driving a car. I stand to gain immeasurably from a world that didn’t assume everyone owned one. Having loved-ones with respiratory issues aggravated by car exhaust has made me very aware of the health issues surrounding the burning of fossil fuels, and having to navigate sidewalkless suburban stroads on a regular basis and juggle poorly funded public transit has made it very clear to me that pedestrians are second class citizens. I could go on and on about the mess cars have made of urban planning, and the number of jobs I couldn’t take because they required driving, but I digress.

In short, I hate cars just as much as the rest of you. But I’m also conscious that a lot of other people feel differently. What does widespread car ownership enable that would be difficult or impossible otherwise?

As an American I’m familiar with the cultural aura that surrounds the automobile. One of the early episodes of Mythbusters explained this pretty well while digging into the folklore surrounding a particular car-related urban legend. Cars represent freedom and self determination, two qualities highly prized in American society. You can go where you want when you want, without relying on schedules and routes mandated by public transit[^1].

Looking at more tangible things, I suppose hauling a bunch of stuff from point A to point B would be hard without a car.

But what else am I missing?

[^1]: Ignoring the fact you can only go where there are roads, and someone has to build and maintain those roads.

#nostupidquestions

threaded - newest

Lag@piefed.world on 03 Mar 19:58 next collapse

Schedules matter less when you have more frequent transportation. Renting a truck, or ordering a taxi/uber xl would be lower in cost than paying for and maintaining a truck. Obviously there’s a line somewhere in the middle when it makes sense to own and unfortunately it’s pushed further because our Costcos are 50 miles away instead of having smaller corner shops.

cattywampas@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:07 next collapse

Road trips. The ability to visit National Parks.

You included hauling cargo, which opens up a whole new can of worms. Moving would be impossible. As would stocking stores and businesses, as there would be no last mile options for freight. Unless we’re including horse-drawn wagons.

CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social on 03 Mar 20:14 next collapse

I mean, they did say “most people didnt own a car” rather than “road vehicles don’t exist”. That removes the more serious of those concerns I think, because the existence of delivery vehicles, freight trucks, moving vans, or even vehicle rental services for the occasional road trip doesn’t depend on a majority of people owning a car personally.

AA5B@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 01:09 collapse

On the other hand, Yosemite is an example where I believe they banned cars

MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:16 next collapse

Just those two things alone: freedom to hit the road & moving things are more massive than you even realize.

I have a small car, a Civic. I routinely buy beers from all over. Vast majority cannot be sold & shipped. And I don’t believe for a minute the laws would change for me to shop online as easily as other stuff. And, that also includes the freedom of the road trip.

Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:49 collapse

Just a heads up, The USPS will not ship liquids, but UPS and FedEx will if you pack them in plenty of bubble wrap.

MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 02:57 collapse

And?

That doesn’t help me at all. I buy beer direct from micro breweries that I visit in my “Freedom” road trips.

Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 12:19 next collapse

Just thought you might want to know the loop holes to shipping beer, but fuck me, right?

MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 12:47 collapse

Why? I’m not the person shipping beer. I’m pretty damn sure none of the breweries I would order from would use “loopholes” and risk shipping me beer.

AA5B@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 01:06 collapse

Effing Pennsylvania is a state to avoid then. I don’t know whether they’ve changed anything but I did that a few years back and they said they weren’t allowed to sell me more than two sixpacks. While I don’t actually drink much, beer stores well for weeks to months and I had found a brewery I liked but haven’t been to since

MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 01:41 collapse

My GF and I made it into 21 breweries in 2.5 days in the Pittsburgh area.

Dancing Gnome, and 11th Hour were the best of the bunch. Then we enjoyed VooDoo near where we stayed. Very cool vibe. They had old wooden doors that had been painted by local artists and they were hanging flat from the ceiling. They had these rolling, caged fire pits out in the beer garden… those are a great idea!

tomkatt@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:17 next collapse

I live in a rural area over 30 miles from the nearest city in a town with a population in the low thousands. The nearest place I can get any goods is over 4 miles away. I’d be completely fucked without a car.

I know that’s not everyone’s situation, but just pointing out there are people living in remote places with no other transportation options.

Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:21 next collapse

That’s how it is out here too.

Especially in the winter when we can easily have a foot of snow on the ground.

tomkatt@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:28 collapse

My property doesn’t even have paving, and trying to get the drive graveled was such a pain I just ended up slapping on all-terrain tires, both to deal with getting on and off the property slope in mud, and also because there’s country roads (dirt/sand) here and street tires suck on that in general and especially when it snows.

SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 03 Mar 20:24 next collapse

Especially since public transit is usually locally funded (at least in the US), in areas like this the tax base doesn’t exist to be able to functionally fund public transit. We would need to completely rethink and re-organize how public transit is funded and rolled out for this to functionally work in remote areas.

Or, you know, we could continue lettings cars be a thing for remote populations kind of like how in some far northern territories people use snowmobiles to get around part of the year because there’s simply too much snow to try to use another type of vehicle at all.

I think the latter, having specific types of transportation still be a thing in places where they’re needed, makes a lot more sense, honestly.

tomkatt@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:41 collapse

I kind of agree, but I’ll admit, I wouldn’t give up my car. I moved out here because I wanted out of city life and into more nature and quiet life. I only drive into town every 6 weeks for groceries and necessities in bulk and there’s no way I could haul all that on public transit. I want to be in the city as little as possible.

SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 03 Mar 20:45 collapse

Well, like I said, I honestly think public transit doesn’t make very much sense for remote areas. I think it makes far more sense to give people the types of transportation that work best for their use case, and in remote areas: that’s cars.

tonyn@lemmy.ml on 03 Mar 21:30 next collapse

Get a horse

tomkatt@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 21:33 next collapse

A horse would be even more expensive than a car, and would have way more emissions compared to my driving habits.

Plus, my car is already paid off, and a horse wouldn’t be able to carry a CUV’s worth of groceries and goods, let alone if I need to get tools or lumber.

Oh, and I probably can’t ride a horse down 35 miles of interstate highway without being arrested, let alone sheltered from the elements. Actually the more I think about this suggestion the worse it gets.

tonyn@lemmy.ml on 03 Mar 23:01 collapse

Of course it’s a terrible suggestion. It was meant sarcastically. People used horses before cars were invented and it’s no surprise that once they were, cars became the dominant mode of transportation because they are far superior.

tomkatt@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 23:18 collapse

I suspected it wasn’t a serious suggestion, but wasn’t certain and couldn’t help thinking through the logistics anyway.

[deleted] on 05 Mar 15:46 collapse
.
DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca on 03 Mar 23:39 next collapse

I live in a city. I live 15 miles from where I work and I can drive it in about 20 minutes. If I wanted to take the bus, it’d take 3 hours and just as many changeovers because there’s no direct run. Not even close. I already work long hours so there’s no way in hell I’d spend 6 hours commuting, even if I could. For the record, I couldn’t even if I wanted since my office is nice enough to leave me with only an hour to get home, eat and get to bed before starting all over again. Sadly, it’s one of the failings of public transport even when it does exist.

njordomir@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 06:03 collapse

It’s like that here. I drove 15 minutes to school . My alternator died and I had to ride the bus for a week. It took over an hour, not counting the lovely walk across a 6 lane expressway and through a WalMart parking lot to reach the bus stop! I think we need a gradient. In rural areas, we have individual vehicles, cars, bikes, motorcycles, etc. In suburban areas, we offer coupled trains where cars link together into trains and drive in sync on a guideway until they break apart for last mile connectivity. In urban areas, we ban all cars, build out public transit, bike lanes, etc. Small electric cars could be permitted for special needs and for tradesmen who carry tools. This future can’t happen in the US because they would just forget about us stuck poor’s and we’d lose all mobility.

kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 04 Mar 05:18 next collapse

Sure and that’s absolutely awful, those remote areas deserve acess to fast and reliable public transportation as well. Specifically small towns should have commuter rail linking them to the nearest city, infrastructure that prioritizes walking and micro mobility, along with just better infrastructure.

_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works on 04 Mar 15:11 next collapse

4 miles is nothing on a bike, 30 isn’t too crazy either. I think people misunderstand just how far you can travel on a bicycle. Having the infrastructure to do it is another matter though, there’s some super dangerous country roads where it’s 50+mph with no shoulders.

tomkatt@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 15:44 collapse

As I noted to the person who recommended the horse, I can’t carry 6 weeks of groceries 30-odd miles on a bike. The local store has basics but is far from everything I’d need, and generally at a hefty mark-up for a lot of things not produced locally (it’s how they can stay in business, I’m not judging).

If I just needed to travel somewhere that would be fine, but when I leaves home it’s generally not for a joyride.

——

Edit - also, as with the horse, it’s illegal to ride a bike on interstate highways, and I wouldn’t want to with posted speed limits being 75 mph with the average speed being over 80 mph through most of the trip. There’s literally no other road leading into town, so otherwise the entire trip would involve off-roading through rolling hills and rough terrain.

_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works on 04 Mar 18:29 collapse

I’m not saying it would be practical in your case, but you could definitely carry 6 weeks of groceries on a cargo bike (electric would be better given the load though).

Hell, you might even be able to do that on a regular bike. I can fit at least 60 liters of groceries into my Portola (a compact folding e-bike), and that isn’t even including the top rear cargo rack. In an actual mid-sized cargo bike, you could probably fit like 2+ months of groceries.

If you don’t have a safe path to get there though, it doesn’t really matter how much you can fit onto any bike. In your case, you’d need a motorcycle.

Tiresia@slrpnk.net on 04 Mar 17:36 collapse

The late 19th century USAmerican colonization of Native American land shows that you don’t need cars to make an industrial rural society. Trains will work just fine. This means you build towns to be walkable and centered around a train station, with agriculture surrounding each town. Modern heavily mechanized agriculture might make population densities so low that even this is not viable, but the products still need to be transported, so you can have trains that stop at each megafarm which can also carry passengers if necessary. When I was in Queensland a few years ago, I saw mechanized agriculture use a bespoke railway network to supply a factory, so clearly even now despite all the fossil fuel and car subsidies it’s economically viable.

Though as you may know, industrial agriculture is dumb and unsustainable. Desertification due to requiring too much water, climate change due to fertilizer consumption, industrial pollution that kills millions of people per year and destroys ecosystems, lack of genetic diversity causing crop blights that risk famines or global shortages, insecticides that cause cancer and destroy ecosystems, most of it being wasted on the meat industry and on maintaining massive surpluses and exports to ensure western global domination, etc.

If we want to do agriculture right, we want to do food forests. It’s more labor per calorie, but it’s resilient, local, and it doesn’t make the planet uninhabitable by the next century. Food forests are more compact too, which means that a rural population tending food forests can have a much higher population density, or can consist of large villages separated by rewilded natural landscape (and/or low density food forests for migratory communties). This makes trains even more convenient to get around because they can run more frequently.

Meanwhile if you want to live in the wilderness away from these towns, then an absence of car roads means you can live far away while only being a couple kilometers away. So you still don’t need a car because you can just hike along a trail to get to town in under an hour. Need to carry a lot of stuff? Use a Chinese wheelbarrow. Maybe a battery-powered one with stability and steering assistance if you don’t feel like getting exercise. They carry more than a modern American SUV and they don’t murder children either.

tomkatt@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 18:09 next collapse

Some of these responses are crazy. Just because it’s the rurals doesn’t mean I don’t have a full time job, responsibilities, and limited free time, particularly in daytime hours. I need a reasonable means to haul things and go places, and to do it within reasonable time frames.

I got people suggesting horse, bikes, and now Chinese wheelbarrows for getting groceries every few weeks going around 65 miles round trip, y’all are killing me. 🤣

Tiresia@slrpnk.net on 04 Mar 22:46 next collapse

Please actually read my comment, thank you.

Squirrelsdrivemenuts@lemmy.world on 06 Mar 16:10 collapse

The point is that if there weren’t a lot of cars around you would probably not be living the way you are living now.

I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 23:07 collapse

19th century rural life consisted of you and your family living on barely more than subsistence farming and not seeing or interacting with anyone outside your family or immediate neighbors for months at a time.

Tiresia@slrpnk.net on 05 Mar 08:42 collapse

Glad we live in the 21st century then, where the rest of my comment applies.

RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:17 next collapse

Without cars there would be A LOT more people on the sidewalk. In the past, before cars, there were so many more people on the street it’s not even funny. The roads were full of people.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDMsHtCgnkc

Kolanaki@pawb.social on 03 Mar 20:19 next collapse

Family Road Trips.

colourlessidea@sopuli.xyz on 03 Mar 21:38 next collapse

You could rent a car for those

early_riser@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 21:49 next collapse

That was the first thing that came to my mind, I saw all sorts of interesting stuff on our summer family trips.

dlhextall@sh.itjust.works on 04 Mar 13:08 collapse

What about all the family on the train, watching the scenery?

DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works on 03 Mar 20:19 next collapse

I’m less likely to get assaulted when my parents drive me somewhere vs having to take public transport.

I’m Asian American and I still have anxiety about the post-covid racism.

bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works on 03 Mar 20:27 collapse

Car safety is a big thing. I’m damn glad I’m in my metal and glass cage when i drive through big cities. I sure as hell wouldn’t be walking through one. I’ve had people jump out in the road to try to get me to stop so they can rob me. Swerve and floor it. Walking is not a solution in dangerous cities.

Big reason I’d never do public transport myself. Clean up the streets and maybe I’ll try it. But being among a bunch of tweakers who may stab me with a needle for my 5 dollar bill, no thanks.

early_riser@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 21:47 next collapse

Is that sort of thing relevant? I take the bus all the time and have never felt in danger (except for one time when the driver went off on another bus driver, but I just noped off the bus before it could escalate). Yes there are interesting characters, but if public transit were more common perhaps the crazies would become less predominant.

Around here there is a whole police department dedicated to monitoring public transit.

bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works on 03 Mar 22:21 collapse

I’m sure it’s very location specific. Chicago and Boston public transit seem safe to me. Minneapolis always seems real bad. Memphis or Portland, heeellll no

NotSteve_@piefed.ca on 03 Mar 23:32 next collapse

Where the hell do you live? I’ve visited a lot of cities but have never been in a situation even remotely like that

dubyakay@lemmy.ca on 04 Mar 04:10 next collapse

Lives in car-brain land.

bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works on 04 Mar 15:01 collapse

Memphis Minneapolis Portland Chicago

I named these in a comment below.

NotSteve_@piefed.ca on 04 Mar 15:22 collapse

The US is really that bad, eh?

bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works on 04 Mar 15:45 next collapse

Oh ye. Not to mention anyone could get a gun at Walmart and go on a bus or train with no one stopping them.

rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works on 04 Mar 17:19 collapse

Been to Portland recently. There’s plenty of neighborhoods where you can walk around safely. There’s one small area of downtown where there’s a lot of homeless, and you probably want to stay away from the ICE building for obvious reasons, but other than that it’s like any other city.

Some people are just… irrationally afraid of the homeless. Most of them will not try to rob you or even bother you, but it is a good idea if you find yourself in an area like that, to pay attention to your surroundings and not get too close to anyone, just in case they start swinging their arms around wildly or something.

dubyakay@lemmy.ca on 04 Mar 04:09 collapse

Stupid take. Cars are still a problem. And so is poverty and relegation of poor people to expensive and underserved transit. The problem is not cities.

bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works on 04 Mar 15:00 collapse

Maybe, but its a problem now, and one likely to not be solved.

PP_BOY_@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:20 next collapse

Saab 900 Turbo never exists and I’m sorry Mother Gaia but that’s not a world I want to live in

felbane@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:35 collapse
zxqwas@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:20 next collapse

You’ll probably manage just fine in a city.

Living in rural areas mass transit quickly becomes madness. Schedules are infrequent and routes are weird, and if you make them frequent and direct you suddenly drive around an empty bus while still building the exact same road you would for the few cars.

RobotToaster@mander.xyz on 03 Mar 20:29 next collapse

It would be ridiculously expensive for every rural and suburban area to have frequent reliable public transport.

AA5B@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 01:13 collapse

Maybe not as much as you think, but they’d have to reorganize for sure. Every tiny village could have a walkable center if they wanted to, so even in rural areas, you might have a decent part of the population living where cars are less necessary

litchralee@sh.itjust.works on 03 Mar 20:29 next collapse

Whole sections of the country that are zoned for suburban single family housing would not exist as they are today. Not because they’d be illegal or anything, but they’d be incredibly unpopular if most people didn’t own a car, which is needed to basically get to or from a suburban neighborhood.

I understand the question to be something like: what happens if a majority of people are absolutely dead-set unwilling/unable to own a private automobile. And I think the immediate answer is that suburban neighborhoods cease to exist, at least at the current density levels. Either a neighborhood must densify so that transit options make sense, or they must aim to become rural living. This also means that things like suburban schools either turn into walkable urban schools, or into small one-room rural schools.

I don’t actually think rural living will go away, because the fact is that the grand majority of people – USA and abroad – do not prefer rural living. The 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st Century trends are that people tend towards urban areas, where services and jobs exist. That said, there will always be people that want to live in the hills on 20 acres, and therefore need an automobile. And it’s certainly sounds appealing to some, myself included. But that has never been the majority, so if a majority of people refuse owning an automobile, they will also mostly refuse rural and suburban living.

There is no plausible situation where over 50% of people willingly decide to: 1) not own a car, and 2) live in a suburb or rural area. This is from the fact that all other modes of transport into a suburb or rural area are either: 1) nonexistent (eg metro rail), or 2) ludicrously expensive (eg Lyft, or transit with 15% fairbox recovery) if the cost was borne by the people living there (as opposed to being subsidized heavily by other taxpayers… Ahem, America).

Edit: some more thoughts: standalone strip malls would also change character, because the smaller ones that aren’t on a rail or bus corridor would be undesirable commercial real estate. If they still exist, they’ll likely be integrated into housing, so as to become the #1 most convenient option for people living there. Captive audience, indeed.

But larger strip malls and shopping centers actually might florish: they usually have enough stores and services that transit already makes sense. Indeed, shopping malls are actually really good transit center locations. But instead of giant parking lots, there would be housing, because why not? People who reject cars have every reason to live next to, or on top of, a mall: fully pedestrianized, air conditioned, lots of stores and dining options. Some places even put schools and post offices in their shopping malls. I would also expect that dwelling soundproofing to get better, because the paper-thin walls of American homes and apartments are awful.

In this way, malls are no different than casinos, cruise ships, and downtowns: a small island of paradise to visit, and is distinct from home. Malls will still exist after cars, the same way that Las Vegas exists in the middle of a desert: it is a big enough anchor that draws people.

AA5B@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 00:58 collapse

There is no plausible situation where over 50% of people willingly decide to: … 2) live in a suburb or rural area

I’ve seen urbanism streamers claim that even in the US, we’re above 70% living in urban and suburban areas dense enough that transit makes sense. It is possible we could make transit useful for most of the population. We won’t. But we could

bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works on 03 Mar 20:32 next collapse

This question is in the realm of not having electricity. Can we live without it ? Yes, but very few people would and it makes life very hard.

It sucks that places are too reliant on cars and I agree we need to do more to help those who can’t drive. But we still need cars to live modern life. Especially in semi rural areas.

First thing I’d do is tax the hell out of or outright ban massive trucks and Suvs. If you can’t prove its used for work, 150% or more tax on it that goes to public transport, and your insurance costs 10x the amount of a small car, because you’re a danger on the road. That right there would get us a shit ton of public transport revenue from all the douches in the US driving massive trucks they don’t need that endanger us all.

I’m also involved in Motorsport which is very fun, but I’m all for less cars on the road if we could. Most people are awful at driving and really need high performance driving education to improve. Most people stare at their damn phones while driving. I love honking my horn at them when i see it, they freak out. I’ve followed dangerous drivers (ie, them going 80 mph in a school zone in their bro truck) so I can pull up near them and tell them to cut it the fuck out and that I’ve reported their plates to authorities. I don’t really report them, but it hopefully scares em!

OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 20:40 next collapse

Well in Australia’s context where I live, you need a car to get anywhere (depending on where you live). The way QLD was built where i grew up, everything is spaced out. 30 mins to the cafe, 45 mins to the shops etc. Our country has public transport but really only in major areas.

Where i grew up, which wasnt anywhere remote and was 1 hour away from a major CBD, i was fucked if i didnt have a car. Going anywhere meant walking for ages under the Aussie sun or wait for a bus that comes every 30 minutes to take you a quarter of the distance.

It wasnt really a sense of freedom (which i 100% agree with) but having a car meant i could go directly to places.

Without a car, it would have taken me ages to get anywhere.

snooggums@piefed.world on 03 Mar 20:54 next collapse

Business schedules would be a lot more flexible when people have to rely on infrequent routes between rural clusters. It would be kinda nice really.

Buildings and zoning would different, suburbs would just be where the people who own cars live. Places where most people live would have shops close by in walking distance instead of spread out with massive parking lots.

user_name@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 21:43 next collapse

I genuinely love vanity plates. I think they’re a really fun way to express youself and the plate goes with you regardless of context: you’ve got the same plate in the office parking lot and at the hobby group.

I’ve seen hobby and interest references, from LAXBRO to NCC1701. I’ve seen meta plates, from the VW Beetle with SCARAB to the Nissan Cube with RUBIKS. I’ve seen professional references, BONEMAN (a podiatrist) to CSHFLO (somebody I knew who worked in finance).

And I’ve once seen SQRTRGY which I can only imagine means “squirt orgy” but I’ll never know.

I know it’s a little thing, but I think it’s fun. (Doesn’t make up the pollution and danger of cars, tho.)

early_riser@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 22:11 collapse

When I think of vanity plates I think of the guy who registered his as “NULL” in the hopes that he could avoid traffic tickets by looking like a database error. But he ended up showing up every time anyone’s plate number was missing, so it showed him as having thousands of traffic violations.

Trainguyrom@reddthat.com on 03 Mar 22:34 next collapse

This is one of those questions where you have to look to the past to really understand the possible future.

Rural America was built by railroads. You know why there’s a town every 10-20 miles on a rough grid? It’s because steam locomotives built during the 20th century would need to stop to refill on water every 10-20 miles. These old steam locomotives were slow usually only running up to 30-40mph. The train would need a spot to stop & refill with water so when the railroads didn’t platte out towns to sell the land they just built through and increased the value of, towns would organically pop up near these stops anyways.

If we fast forward a little to the 1880s or so, electrification was going bonkers, and many electric companies would say “while we’re building these power lines, what if we also ran electric trolley services too?” So the trolleys would advertise the versatility of this newfangled electricity thing while also providing a second revenue stream to electric companies. This is when electric interurban services really hit their peak. There were thousands of interurban lines across the US at this time, but many didn’t survive out of the 20th century, and of those that did very few survived past the second world war, and of those, even fewer survived into being bought up by city transit agencies.

This pre-car period had most people either living in dense walkable cities or living on homesteads and walking/riding horses/carts multiple miles to go to the nearest town for the day. People didn’t move around a lot during this time, and the world was much smaller and life much quieter. This is part of why circuses and fairs were so big is it was the most exciting thing happening all year.

The world has changed so much since the invention and proliferation of the automobile that it’s really hard to imagine a car-lite world, but also there’s aspects of modern society that simply can’t exist without cars. I’m imagining a societal change pushed by something like legislation which doubles vehicle registration fees every year for a decade. Sure that $250 the first year will hurt a little, and the $500 the second will hurt a bit more, but you’ve got a good 3-5 years or so before it’s really going to start hurting most families, and I’d imagine it would be the $4000 mark where most don’t renew which is conveniently after 5 years of the registration fee doubling, and enough time for new bus services to be spun up and plenty of time for people to invest in bikes and manufacturing to adjust to the new demand patterns

The concept of road tripping becomes very different, and travel honestly gets more expensive. I was just looking at Amtrak tickets today chasing an idea of taking a couple day trip out of town during my kids spring break, and I’m immediately looking at $250 to go 200 miles, 5x the cost of just loading the family in the car and driving that distance

Without cars anyone living in rural areas is immediately stranded. Most of rural America has been rebuilt around cars because rural America was the first place cars were able to sell successfully (in fact car companies had to engage in conspiracies to force sales in cities once everyone who wanted a car had already bought one) there’s many houses which are multiple miles from the nearest store of any kind, and many small towns lack any kind of grocery store. Many business and public schools in rural areas are located miles outside of any town and require people to drive or take the school bus just to get there. With about a century for rural America to rebuild into the car centric life that it is and most of the railroad tracks gone, it’s pretty impossibls for rural America to de-car

Suburbs are similarly challenged to rural areas, but at least have the benefit of being close enough to their cities and hubs of commerce that biking and biking to/from public stops remains very viable. Exurbs where they aren’t connected to the urban fabric but are entirely reliant on easy vehicle access to it are absolutely fucked though, and would probably spin up new Intercity bus services to compensate, but needing to transfer bus services to get to anything rapidly makes these already undesirable exurbs become far more undesirable

Small towns that never had the population growth to spawl are even better off. Many of these small towns are super walkable and bikable today with limited infrastructure changes that might be desired. Stroads built to serve big box stores or industries would be the only major challenge, but generally all that needs is a road diet and/or a dedicated parallel greenway

Shopping will definitely look different. For one thing single use plastic bags become completely nonviable since they carry so little per bag even compared to just paper bags, and it’s difficult to carry more than about 3 plastic bags of groceries at once. We’d al

someguy3@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 22:36 next collapse

Inb4 lemmy’s famous misreadings, I think we need a shitton more public transportation. But I know it’s not going to be a 100% replacement.

What we need is transportation, and cars are a very sucessful form of transportation. There are a lot of factors: 1) Location, where you can go, 2) Timing, when you can go. 3) Distance, how far you can go, 4) Speed, how qulckly you can get there. 5) Door to door, or not.

Let’s compare them all:

Cars: 1) Location, you can go anywhere. 2) Timing, you can go any time. 3) Distance. This is a big one why cars are very successful, they are good for any distance whether it’s a short trip, medium trip, long trip, or even multiple days long trip. 4) It’s fast for any length trip. Excluding certain times into say downtown they are incredibly fast. 5) It’s door to door transportation. Add it all up and you have a very succesful mode of transportation.

Public transportation 1) doesn’t go everywhere, you have last mile problem on both ends. So add in walking. 2) limited timing especially at night. Schedule has to fit. Involves waiting. 3) Distance means time goes up dramatically. Add in transfers and time goes up even more. I regularly had to wait 25 minutes at transfer because they missed each other by 5 minutes. 4) Slow. It just is. 5) Not door to door. Usually a good bit of walking. Inb4 lemmy’s famous misreading, yes I know there are exceptions. Yes more service means more passengers which means more service and more gaps are filled, etc.

Ebikes (pedal assist electric bikes). 1) Go everywhere. 2) Go anytime. 3) Good for short and medium trips. And occasional long trip 4) Can actually be fast, especially if the route avoids lights. But not as fast as a freeway for long distances. 5) Door to door transportation. This is why I’m a big fan of ebikes, they hit almost everything. They really are the game changer. But we need a lot more infrastructure. It might not be the best on long trips and in bad weather. Side note about normal bikses: The way I compare them, normal bikes are limited to physical exertion. Ebikes are limited to time, very similar to cars. Though at the long range cars are still more comfortable.

Walking. I’m just gonna wrap this one up as most people are not gonna walk that far every day. We should have walkable cities for short walks and health and neighborhoods, but walking to downtown ain’t an option for the vast vast amount of the city, either physically or time wise.

This is where I love autonomous taxis. If you can do your daily commute on public transportation and then use autonommous taxis to fill in the gaps (which there will be), that can dramatically lower car ownership levels. Normal taxis are expensive when you have to pay for the driver. Uber is basically slave labor.

You said own cars, as in personal use. But I will add there is a ton more. You have business, commercial, and industrial. Getting large amounts of commercial and industrial goods around to stores quickly and efficiently adds a ton to societal efficiency.

So what does that transportation add? Maybe this was the crux of your question and I spent too much time on the others. It’s basically a lubricant for society, business, and industry. Society depends in large part on transportation (yes I’m choosing that word intentionally). If you don’t have easy transportation everything is like molasses on every level.

Jobs: You wouldn’t be able to get workers because they wouldn’t be able to commute. I remember a documentary that London (way back when) basically maxed out on population because transporation via horses and walking had maxed out. Then trains were invented and the city was able to grow.

Industry: Getting goods around is critical to grow industry. Trains are great for moving a large amount of cargo from A to B, think coal, fertilizer, etc. Trucks are much better for getting a small amount of cargo from A to B, C, D, etc and vice versa.

Commercial goods: Stores keep getting bigger for good reason, it’s cheaper to ship and operate that way.

Each mode has its place. I agree we are too reliant on cars and haven’t accounted for the externalities.

Hope that helps.

Trainguyrom@reddthat.com on 03 Mar 23:06 collapse

Side note about normal bikses: The way I compare them, normal bikes are limited to physical exertion. Ebikes are limited to time, very similar to cars. Though at the long range cars are still more comfortable

I started biking again 2 years ago, honestly partly pushed by various city planning/car rejection media when I realized I could start being the change I want to see in the world. I’d done some strength training during the pandemic but holy crap was I not in shape enough to be biking. It took me a full year of biking nearly every day to be able to bike my kids to school in a trailer (about 2 miles round trip)

Even now where I finished last summer biking over 22 very hilly miles, I struggled to bike to a haircut just a mile away after just 3 months of winter hibernation, and now that it’s early spring I got up to 5 miles so far within a few bike rides.

Point is, for the average adult, biking is an option but it takes a ton of time and work to build up your strength. Ebikes completely change the game because anyone can ride 10-20 miles on those, and if you have balance issues or other health issues you can get an etrike! They’re such incredible life changing machines!

someguy3@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 23:14 collapse

Just because you are able to bike long distances on a normal bike doesn’t mean everyone (or dare I say the average adult) can. Many people simply do not have this dormant physical athleticism.

Trainguyrom@reddthat.com on 03 Mar 23:18 collapse

You should probably reread my comment because that was literally what I said

someguy3@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 23:31 collapse

Point is, for the average adult, biking is an option but it takes a ton of time and work to build up your strength.

I’m saying no it’s not an option. Not everyone (sigh, dare I say the average adult) has this dormant physical athleticism.

Fondots@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 00:17 collapse

And if you finish reading, he talks about ebikes and trikes helping to fill that gap

someguy3@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 00:21 collapse

That’s not what he was referring to with the part I quoted.

Fondots@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 00:41 collapse

He was replying to a comment about e bikes, and concluded his comment talking about them. The whole comment was building up to that fact. Just because every sentence didn’t explicitly mention e-bikes doesn’t mean that they weren’t the point of the entire comment.

He spent a couple paragraphs talking about his own struggles building up to riding a regular bike and then concluded by basically saying “or you can skip all of that hard work and get an e bike”

someguy3@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 01:10 collapse

Maybe for you I highlighted the wrong part.

Point is, for the average adult, biking is an option but it takes a ton of time and work to build up your strength.

For the average adult (because that’s what he said) I’m saying no, regular biking is not an option. For the average adult. The average adult does not have this dormant physical athleticism. He said the average adult can, and I disagree and say the average adult does not have this dormant physical athleticism.

Fondots@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 02:59 next collapse

Alright. If that’s what you want to nitpick here

The average adult (in the US) can ride a bike, whether or not they ever actually do is a different matter, but the majority of us learned how to at some point, and there’s a reason “it’s like riding a bike” is a saying.

From being able to ride a bike to being able to ride it a reasonably long distance just takes time and work to build up to it, which is what he said.

Now a lot of people won’t put in that kind of work, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t.

I’m fat, I won’t sugar-coat that. In a couple weeks when it warms up a bit I’ll hop on my bike, and I’ll probably manage around 5 miles, and by the end of the summer I’ll probably work my way up to around 15 miles, and I’ll still be fat. I do this pretty much every year (and worth noting, I didn’t even learn to ride a bike until I was in my 30s)

There are parts of the world where damn-near everyone gets around on bikes, they don’t have some sort of unattainable genetic advantage because they grew up in Amsterdam or whatever that gives them some “dormant athleticism” that Americans don’t have, they just ride bikes.

The average adult can ride a bike. They just don’t or won’t.

someguy3@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 03:20 collapse

Lmao not even with responding to. The extent that you go through to misread and then try to salvage something is unreal. Ciao.

Fondots@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 03:50 collapse

Feeling’s mutual.

If you need someone to teach you how to ride a bike, hit me up.

Trainguyrom@reddthat.com on 04 Mar 23:38 collapse

Bruh you seem really stuck on this idea of “dormant physical athleticism” whatever that means.

Let me break this down for you, the human body has muscles, these are like motors for moving bits of flesh and bone around. Like motors, the amount of physical energy they output changes based on the energy that gets input. Since humans don’t really have control of the chemical energy flow to these muscles, the way you can change that is by pushing these muscles to their limits, and as you keep doing that these limits start increasing.

Its really quite awesome, because unlike most things in life, your muscle gain directly correlates to the amount of work you put in. Its one of the few things you can directly control!

someguy3@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 00:10 collapse

“Whatever that means”, and then you discuss exactly what that means, so you know exactly what that means. You’re playing games. This is the point that I shoud peace out, but I’m a sucker for explaining things. One last time.

Ok let’s start with your 2 miles round trip. Meaning 1 mile one way. That’s nothing. My high schol was 3.5 miles, one way. My college was 11.6 miles, one way. My work was 9 miles, one way. And you have to do this twice a day. Five times a week, maybe more. After work stuff 2-3 times a week was another 3 miles. Means the distance back home was 12 miles. And that’s not even what I would call long, that’s normal suburb to downtown.

And you were freaking out about 1 mile? And you’re now bragging about 2.5 miles after years of training? (5 miles sounds total, so that’s 2.5 miles one way).

Do you see the issue?

I’m saying the average adult can not do that on a normal bike. On a regular basis. Come hell or high water. When you’re kinda sick but not ready to call in sick. All those day to day conditions.

And that’s just distance. Now consider time. You don’t have the ability to go through a leisurely slow pace. This is life, you gottta get to work and get back home in a timely matter. Such is life. You gotta maintain a fairly high speed.

So no the average adult is not capable of that. Limits are not infinite. People max out allllllllllll the time. Doesn’t matter how much I train I will never be able to do an Ironman (can’t wait for you to misinterpret that one), because there are limits to what the body the average adult can do.

Ok I’m out.

Trainguyrom@reddthat.com on 05 Mar 02:42 collapse

I’m really struggling to make heads or tails of your core point that you’re trying to make.

I shared my story about trying to do some car replacement trips by acoustic bike, how it took a full year of training to be able to consistently make the school runs by bike (with a trailer mind you), and then pointed out how ebikes completely remove that physical fitness requirements while providing all of the same benefits of an accoustic bike

Also I love how you keep changing and leaving out details of my story as you go along. I really can’t shake the feeling you’re not actually trying to make any specific point and just want to argue with people

Trainguyrom@reddthat.com on 03 Mar 22:36 next collapse

I just want to say, I absolutely love this kind of question because it forces you to imagine realistically what a car-lite world would look like, and it completely changes the line of thinking from problem identification to problem solving, and in a way that truly will change the world for the better

Griffus@lemmy.zip on 03 Mar 22:44 next collapse

As a Norwegian I’ve lived in several parts of the country but never owned a car. I rent a big car for moving, a small car for shopping trips to Sweden, and take the buss one stop short or extra to stop by a store on my way home from work, and walk the 100-ish meters with the groceries for the next couple of days. With frequent enough public transport, a schedule is never an issue. And where I live now, it isn’t even that frequent in evenings and weekends, but buses and trains are aligned to make transit rather seamless. And it is better to be able to read a book while commuting rather than sitting behind the wheel.

Note that I’ve never lived too rural or northern, as that would require a car to make life work. Rural frequent public transport is sadly not economically viable.

Maeve@kbin.earth on 03 Mar 22:54 next collapse

The freedom to come and go as you please, assuming you can afford insurance and proper maintenance.

RBWells@lemmy.world on 03 Mar 23:08 next collapse

Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I’m pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.

My penultimate child was at university about 10 miles from the house. There was a bus that got within a couple blocks of the sprawling campus, so I told her take the bus, but a year in said she could use my car and I’d walk to work since my commute was so short. That gained her about 3 hours per school day and lost me about one hour. Car is a time machine.

grue@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 01:42 collapse

Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I’m pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.

If your city were designed properly, that wouldn’t be true. Not that it was the most scientific thing in the world, but Top Gear famously demonstrated biking being faster than driving across London, for example.

RBWells@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 02:21 collapse

Oh we have the worst, most starved public transportation, half the buses run only every hour, and on the bike to work - only to work - I do occasionally get there faster if there is traffic but there is no bike lane, I either use the sidewalk if no pedestrians, or the road if people are using the sidewalk. Traffic has to be pretty damn bad before I can move faster than the cars, I still have to stop at the same lights.

We have the most generous annual E bike voucher raffle in the nation, I believe, and the city is working on bike lanes, but really, the road between my house & work has no bike infrastructure at all. The public transportation problems are because that’s funded by the county not the city, the suburbs don’t want to pay for it. But inside the city we need it.

kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 04 Mar 05:15 next collapse

Quite frankly the grand majority of things lost by a lack of car ownership could just as easily be made up by just building better infrastructure

mondoman712@lemmy.ml on 05 Mar 07:55 collapse

Lots of people in this thread seem to be missing this. With no cars it makes sense to build a lot more public transport, cycling is suddenly nice and safe, and car oriented places don’t make any sense to build anymore.

Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip on 05 Mar 15:50 collapse

People aren’t missing this, they’re noting the very real issue of most people being fucked for a couple of decades while we wait on that infrastructure to be built up.

_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works on 04 Mar 15:00 next collapse

Lots of weight and heart disease I bet.

On a related note, I rode my bike to work today and it was great.

While I’m here, I guess I should plug !micromobility@lemmy.world

zlatiah@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 15:17 next collapse

I think I’d be a good person to answer this. I’ve lived in Houston (needless to say, extremely car-friendly) without a car for almost 2 years; currently I’m living in a city that banned cars within its city center in 2015 which resulted in very visible changes, but the rest of the country is still very pro-car and quite car-friendly

A couple of things that cars benefit everyday life that would be difficult to do without a car. There’s probably more but these are the ones I can think of:

  • Accessibility to places that have difficulty justifying being served by public transit. These include poorer neighborhoods that are far away from city center, semi-rural natural preserves, extreme geographical difficulties, … Case in point, Houston has a lot of nature/green spaces that were 20-30 miles outside of the city center… good luck getting to these without a car (trust me, I tried once)
  • For certain physically disabled people, driving would be easier than walking/biking/public transit… Especially in particularly hilly cities, centuries-old cities where roads were paved no better than playgrounds, or sometimes both. This can be somewhat mitigated with good infrastructure projects, but cars are usually an easier solution
  • Car-free zones can get very crowded, very fast. This is usually a good thing in terms of urbanism… but some find it uncomfortable for various reasons. My current city is actually a rather extreme example: they are now considering banning bikes in the city center too, due to pedestrian injuries
  • I know cars are prone to needing repair, but with how the road network functions, personal vehicles can reduce a lot of dependencies on external factors such as public transit being functional. Case in point, two months ago NL’s national rail company became essentially non-operational due to extreme weather, which would be rather devastating if your only way of commuting to work relies on the train

Also I think some positive points associated with cars are doable without cars:

  • Hauling stuff from point A to point B: delivery companies and car-rentals exist for a reason! This is surprisingly doable even without owning a car (you are technically using someone else’s car in this case). Of course doing it without your own car will be more expensive… but we do have the logistics for it, especially if the entire society shifts to a car-free model
  • Not all rural areas need cars: some are actually quite doable by walking alone due to how small they are (I have a friend who lives in a rural American town like that: yes everyone drives, but everything is also 30-minutes on foot if you don’t mind walking). And there are quite a few parts of the world where rural towns are served by trains frequently
  • Road trips: scenic railways exist for a reason… and unlike point 1 I made, sightseeing trains actually do make money, so there is pretty good justification for building them
AA5B@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 00:23 collapse

NL’s national rail company became essentially non-operational

Don’t forget the Internet and ability for some of us to work from home, which is a relatively recent change. If I depended on rail service and there was an outage, it would be no big deal since I can work from home

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 16:14 next collapse

You are missing that a lot of people do not live in cities. In a city, access to public transport is basically anytime, anywhere. Outside of city centers, public transport is very, very limited, even in Europe. Without a car, you are basically lost.

mondoman712@lemmy.ml on 04 Mar 16:44 next collapse

If people use public transport instead of driving, there would need to be many many more services and it suddenly becomes a lot more convenient, even outside cities.

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 23:39 collapse

Even if all people outside the city centers would suddenly switch to public transport, if you wanted to bring the density anywhere near to be convenient, it would be economical suicide. Public transport is only economical in very dense population centers.

mondoman712@lemmy.ml on 05 Mar 07:46 collapse

That’s true now because 1. Most people in these areas drive and 2. Roads and driving are heavily subsidised. You’re not going to have the same service in small towns as in big cities, but you could certainly provide something useful.

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 14:43 collapse

Of course they drive. We are “well connected” here, which means there is a bus every hour most of the day.

You’ll need roads for the buses, too, unless you have flying ones, and a bus has several thousand times the wear and tear on roads as a car. And: public transport is heavily subsided, while fuel for cars is already heavily taxed. In fact, those taxes would easily cover road building and maintenance here is those taxes would not just vanish in the common budget.

mondoman712@lemmy.ml on 05 Mar 15:27 collapse

If you’re at the point of worrying about how much wear on the roads your buses are doing, it’s time to lay down some rails.

Where do you live that actually taxes fuel enough to cover the entire cost of the externalities of cars? A study shows it doesn’t in Massachusets, and this shows it doesn’t in Europe

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 23:38 collapse

I don’t know why they did not include all the taxes on fuel into the study. There are several different taxes, and together they are way higher than what this chart suggests.

Currently, we have prices between 2 and 3 euro per litre here, of which the vast majority is taxes of all sorts.

TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world on 04 Mar 18:26 collapse

public transit for outer suburban and rural areas is also a major economic loser. the ridership is too low to basically fund the service and it must be run at massive losses.

this same problem is affecting rural healthcare and other community resources. most rural people are far better off commuting 2hrs+ to a urban hospital that is better staffed.

Arcanoloth@lemmy.ml on 04 Mar 17:12 next collapse

As an autistic person that can barely cope with public transport (which is good in europe, obviously) and the associated density of humans without having a complete meltdown on a good day, a car greatly increases my mobility and quality of life. Not having one would also mean an increased frequency of grocery shopping (which, again, is quite a challenge most of the time, hence I try to go as rarely as possible) because neither an e-bike nor public transport offer the same carrying capacity. I could likely make do with a cargo bike, but I’d still have to relocate into a more densely populated area to have all the different shops I need (yes, I’m “picky” about what food is safe, what clothes I can bear, etc.) in bike-able distance, which would cost more money for housing and mental energy (“spoons”) to handle the increased population around me. Plus it’d cost a lot of extra time. As much as I’d prefer a car-less world in theory, it’s simply a fact that it’s an assistive technology for me, just like noise-canceling headphones are. I do hope we can move over to decent electrical cars though, no reason to run on fossil fuels (other than cost of the vehicles, and that is rapidly coming down).

Tinks@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 00:13 next collapse

For me personally, the loss of a car means potentially the loss of certain hobbies. I like to go camping and backpacking, and that means taking a certain amount of gear out into remote areas. While I might be able to minimize the amount of gear needed, there’s no getting around the remoteness of the hobby, and that necessitates a car for transportation.

The other hobby is dog related. I enjoy doing things, including sports, with my dog. Transporting the dog, at least as it currently stands in America, requires a car. Large dogs are not allowed on public transit pretty much anywhere here. When you also consider that I may be taking jumps or poles or other larger equipment with me to train in new places, losing access to a car makes that a near impossibility.

I’d go so far as to say many outdoor recreation hobbies either require or are made easier by having a car or larger personal transport. Kayaks, boats, skis and snowboards, fishing poles and the list goes on and on. Sure you could setup rental places, but if you do a hobby a lot you ultimately want to own your gear so you can get something that suits your preferences and needs.

I’m not opposed to a less car-centric society, but eliminating personal vehicles would make many hobbies problematic or impossible.

ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net on 05 Mar 08:15 collapse

This. I work from home so I barely use my car during weekdays but I spend most of the weekends climbing or hiking and it would be impossible without a car. Public transport is never going to take me to the middle of nowhere. Without cars we would be stuck in metropolitan areas and its surroundings. Visiting more remote places would be very time consuming.

mondoman712@lemmy.ml on 05 Mar 15:34 next collapse

I live in Switzerland, and I go hiking almost every weekend without using a car. There’s plenty of places to do so accessable by public transport, and still the vast majority of journeys here are done by car. If even a quarter of those car journeys were instead taken by public transport, that would mean a doubling of public transport usage and justify huge expansions. That’s with Switzerland’s already comparatively high public transport usage, elsewhere the shift from cars wouldn’t need to be as large to multiply public transport usage.

ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net on 05 Mar 15:53 next collapse

Thinking about it you’re right. Technically I would be able to go hiking or even climbing using public transport. I just would have to spend way more time to get there and carefully plan my trips not to miss some connection and get stranded. In the end it’s all about flexibility. Where I live it’s 30 minutes drive to a climbing spot. I can do it any day after work. If I would go by public transport I would need 2.5h hours to get there. That’s 4 hours more, mostly spend walking. It means I would only be able to do it during weekends and would have to dedicate whole day to this trip and would be able to dedicate less time to other hobbies. During summer it’s only possible to climb in the morning and it would be impossible to catch a bus at 5AM to get there on time. So summer would be also gone. So yes, technically is possible but not as often and with way more effort. I guess you can say this about anything. It’s not that without a car things are impossible, they are just way more difficult.

mondoman712@lemmy.ml on 05 Mar 17:43 collapse

Again, it doesn’t have to be more difficult, if most people don’t own a car there will be a lot more demand for public transport, and the services can be expanded to accommodate this much more easily. I can go hiking and usually not worry about getting home because the trains are hourly at the worst and connections are easy. It’s only more difficult because we’ve built a world around making things as convenient as possible for cars.

ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net on 05 Mar 18:37 collapse

Climbing spots are usually in very remote places. No matter how many people use public transport there will never be a bus that goes 5 km up a mountain on a dirt roads to a place visited by 10 people a day during weekends. With hiking it’s easier because hiking trails start in many different places, often fairly well connected but many outdoors activities like climbing, paragliding, cannoning, speleology or even mountain biking only happen in very specific, remote places. I you have to hike for 4 hours to get to those places those activities become way less accessible.

Tinks@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 17:06 collapse

To some extent I think you’re right, but for outdoor recreation that somewhat depends on where you live and what type of terrain your hobby requires. Switzerland as a country is full of beautiful hiking scenery and opportunities so I imagine the travel to get to it even by public transit isn’t an arduous one. In places where the terrain and landscape are more flat, barren or boring, the travel time to get to good hiking opportunities can be significant. For instance, the closest mountains to me are a 10hr drive by car; I could cross your entire country in about half that time. Unfortunately location plays a large role in the viability of using public transit for certain hobbies.

mondoman712@lemmy.ml on 05 Mar 17:40 collapse

Flat terrain makes it much easier to build fast rail. If there’s another city on the way you could have a high speed rail connection, or a sleeper train.

Tinks@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 23:17 collapse

See the fun thing is we have passenger rail from my city all over the country…but dogs aren’t allowed on it if they’re over 20lbs. I’ve even written the company pleading for them to review their policy and citing the crazy amount of dog sport participants that could use their service, and even suggesting they require an easily verifiable 3rd party obedience certificate and was effectively told to go pound sand.

Almost half of households in the US have dogs, so it’s frustrating that travel with them is limited to personal cars (there’s only one commercial airline that flies large dogs in the US and it has very limited destinations.) I would LOVE to take a train to a backpacking trip in the mountains, but then we’re back to leaving my pup at home. This country needs a major culture shift on a great many things, not the least of which is public transit.

Tinks@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 16:55 collapse

Yep same. Work from home, have my groceries delivered and most other things I can do online. As it currently stands my car is used to take my dogs to an enrichment program twice a week, and for recreation. Without my car my hobbies would essentially completely end. There may be some places where public transit would work for hiking and backpacking, but where I live options are limited and the closest place I can legally backpack is an hour away by car, and it’s a small 4 mile loop. Anything more significant requires a multi-hour trip. Even IF public transit existed for it, I don’t want to go and leave my dog at home, bored all weekend, because he’s not allowed on a bus or train. Part of my joy in hiking and backpacking is sharing the experience with him. Right now his world is huge and full of adventures. Without a car his world becomes the size of my neighborhood, and that’s just depressing.

AA5B@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 00:15 next collapse

Highly depend on where you live. In the US especially, we had a lot of post-wwii growth designed around cars so a lot of places make anything else a challenge.

Cars may represent freedom and self determination, but can seem awfully limiting in a city with good walkability and transit, even in the US. When I lived in Boston, it was so much more freeing to walk out my front door and have the entire city accessible. More than that, since Acela and the airport were also accessible.

I never gave up my car though, between things like shopping and visiting people outside the city. But now that we have options like delivery, ride share, e-bikes, and hourly car rentals, those would be much easier.

But now I live in a suburb, and even here I walk a lot more than typical Americans. The key is older towns built out before cars. I live in the first ring of single family houses less than a mile from the town center. We have a “Main Street” shopping and restaurant area, a common, and train station. There’s also a trail Along the River and a rail trail through town that are easily accessible. Over pandemic my family started a tradition where every weekend we walked down to our favorite Pakistani restaurant, grabbed takeout, and ate dinner on benches on the town common.

HubertManne@piefed.social on 05 Mar 00:46 next collapse

I hate cars. My wife loves them. Now I sometimes talk about my wifes medical issues and im generally talking about about her physical ones. Now I know you say most people but like it would not be impossible for her to ride public transit. Heck people in wheelchairs do it. But its a pain and additionally when she was healthier she could just not mentally handle it. If im with her she can but still does not like it. To use bike lanes they have to be completely protected and separated from the street (again she would also have to be back when she was in better health). She would walk but again with me. She needed that support. She did not need that support when driving. The car for her is safety and feedom. Its funny as its kinda opposite to me. A car means possibly being broken down at the side of the road with no way to get home whereas a transit pass makes me feel safe. When I drive I am engaging in an activity that is very disproportionally large in possibly injuring or killing someone compared to absolutely everything else I do. Now if society was filled with people like me the suburbs would disapear and we could hav a lot less cars, but for folks like my wife. So let me put it this way. I actually just got up and talked with her to really place her here. I honestly though she would choose having a car over indoor plumbing. But she draws the line at indoor plumbing. So she would exchange the internet, electricity, phones, tv, raido. She would rather live in a world with indoor plumbing and gas light/heat with a car. Than live with all our conveniences without a car. I will tell you to. She is waaaayyy moderated on this stuff having lived with me. So like I think if she was in great health and there was fantastic bike infrastructure and we could live in a safe dense urban area. I think she would go for it. But it would have to be so perfect relative to me as to be impossible for it to come to be.

communism@lemmy.ml on 05 Mar 15:03 next collapse

The car-centric culture of many places (especially the US, but it does apply in basically all of the industrialised world to varying degrees) is due to infrastructural factors. If a country is designed to be navigated by car, then you need a car to participate in that society. That’s why people want cars.

Things like the freedom of having a car are also from social factors. A lot of people learn to drive as teenagers, and want to escape the patriarchal environment of the family, hence a car provides freedom. In a world where children are socially raised and the family is abolished, teenagers don’t seek to escape from the family. And, of course, a car can be a way of providing freedom because other means of freedom of movement don’t exist—a lack of accommodation for disabled people to get around, a lack of public transport and safe cycle routes, etc.

Most people wouldn’t want to give up their car for those reasons. If we just got rid of all cars without addressing any of these issues, I’m sure most people would be unhappy about it. So if that’s what you’re suggesting, plenty of people do stand to lose. But if we address the issues that make cars the only option for a lot of people, I don’t think the average person would care. Car enthusiasts can still have their cars, but it becomes a hobby or lifestyle choice, like people who have a boat. And car haters would most certainly be a lot happier too.

peepeepoopoo@hilariouschaos.com on 05 Mar 16:19 next collapse

I’m going to assume that in such a world, every city including the bullshit ones have reliable transportation that’s good enough to not be much more time consuming than driving. Because it would be too easy and lame to say “well taking the bus to work takes 4 hours and driving takes 45 minutes so I literally could not survive that”.

You would be losing the ability to drive to the nearest legal state and smuggle back weed. 🤷 I mean, the Flock cameras basically were invented to catch people doing this anyway. So maybe we would lose nothing after all.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 18:13 collapse

So for example, last night I went to see a play with my wife in the big city we live outside. 8pm show. Our location has better options than most in the US for public transit, but still not enough to fully rely upon and it’s hard to envision that changing.

We have a regional transit rail system we could have taken. It would drop us off close enough to the theater, perhaps 2 city blocks.

But the station is 6km from our house so the problem is on this end. We live in an area that’s not quite rural, more suburban, but it is out on the open countryside a bit and this natural beauty is what we love about living here.

We do have excellent bike lanes and even a network of bike trails that are separated from the roads. Our local station is about a 20 minute ride. We can do it but we’re in our 50s and it’s not our first choice when getting dressed up for a date night to begin with 20 minutes of vigorous exercise. And we would have had to repeat that ride at 11pm on the way home, tired, with a glass of wine in our bellies.

So the problem I guess is our home location. We live in a medium-to-small sized town that’s nestled up against a state park. The only public transit I can really imagine would be a bus system and it would have to cover a very wide area with many vehicles to serve this region. And even then I can’t imagine it would be quick.

I would still prefer a world without cars. I guess I’m just telling you why cars still fit into our needs and why our options are.

In the future I’m pretty optimistic that we can change the math on busses. Autonomous vehicles would allow us to move away from large busses piloted by a human driver to many smaller ones with more comprehensive coverage and better approximation of point-to-point transit.

The appeal of this path is that it’s something car-centric areas can transition to smoothly. We can get mass autonomous bus service going without banning cars and building rail lines or other large projects.

A small country that was laid out centuries ago, before cars, has a different layout and distribution of people that makes things like rail work better. The problem is that the US is huge and was built on cars, which are excellent for spreading individuals out with no regard for central planning.

Today’s generation of Americans are stuck with cars and not always in love with them. The way our population is distributed, it’s hard for mass transit to replace them, so it really doesn’t matter how great civic rail works in Lisbon.

We might address the topic of whether it’s responsible for people to be so spread out. I would certainly have a hard time saying goodbye to my beautiful natural surroundings.