- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/23351353
You must log in or register to comment.
Look I am for an efficient mass transit system instead of building all of these perpetually-under-construction-roads. I would happily pay for bus / train tickets to get to work! It would be like a raise not being forced to pay for all that crap illustrated in the comic. I keep seeing comics like this on my front page and it’s kind of annoying. It’s somehow MY fault I choose to drive a vehicle instead peddling a bike on a path that would be a suicide mission to get to work. How about voting in the local elections instead of cheeky little comics that just seem annoy people? Lots of plans for transit systems get killed at the voting booths nobody goes to. Or not. I don’t care. I’m just screaming at the sky now.
I fail to see how this comic blames people driving cars for the problem. Just that we should strive to improve how we build our society so that we could have meaningful and good lives without requiring an automobile.
…i have slight beef with that.
- We made cars more complicated than they need to be due to electronic systems and all that. I don’t say that we should simply go back, that’s dumb. But I cannot help but wonder if a line of simple, less advanced ICE cars promoted on their ease of maintenance wouldn’t get popular with, for example, rural folks. After all, being able to fix the beast yourself would lover your costs a lot.
- Walkable cities are great, I know cause I live in one. My city (or town?) has around 7 km length (at least the parts that matter). Distance an average person can go in ~70, maybe 80 minutes by foot. But if I wanted to hit the relatively nearby lake or beach, getting there by foot is another story. And yeah, bikes exists and make it easier but if I need to hit another city that is 60km from here…yeah.
- Author also forgot that these companies won’t fail, because these are not “one and only” of each in the world. Each contry, hell, each county has multiple of them. It’s highly unrealistic for them to all fail at the same time.
deleted by creator
But I cannot help but wonder if a line of simple, less advanced ICE cars promoted on their ease of maintenance wouldn’t get popular with, for example, rural folks. After all, being able to fix the beast yourself would lover your costs a lot
No car company will make a car which is maintainable by a common man because it affects their bottom line. We can dream of alternate concepts (open-source car design/metal 3D printing) but government regulations and lobbying will kill such concepts. We have to focus on the current scenario.
But if I wanted to hit the relatively nearby lake or beach, getting there by foot is another story
The majority of the anti-car people are not saying “destroy all cars. Nobody should have cars”. We are just saying “please don’t make our entire lives car-dependent. Please design cities/governments/social life in such a way so that it’s accessible to non-car folks.”
I also have a car, but I only use it for going to places which are not reachable by public transport. For traveling to work, I use public transport 5 days a week. Cars should be (IMO) a recreational mode of transport.
Author also forgot that these companies won’t fail, because these are not “one and only” of each in the world
I agree with you; they won’t fail. However, they surely can make our lives hell if they want to. This is a power that I don’t want them to have over me.
We didn’t make cars more complicated because “of the electronics” or “because we had to”.
Car companies make cars more complicated because they make huge amounts of money from warranties, maintenance that you can’t do yourself for some reason, and of course the leases.
Cars being as complicated and impossible to work on as they are today is because line must go up. Everything else is propaganda.
maintenance that you can’t do yourself for some reason
Also helps hide shoddy low quality parts.
The condensers on 2017-2021 Honda Civics are basically guaranteed to fail. There’s a warranty, but the only people who can open up the AC are the dealerships, who have been trained to find some speck of dust to justify denying the warranty.
It really fucking sucks - I’d love the option of being able to make some money on doordash, but the “reliable” Honda Civic I bought gets up to 100+ F with the air on full blast.
That’s…effectively what they said. The added electronics make it infeasible for normal people to maintain their own vehicles. They never speculated on why the electronics were added.
The way you came at them makes it seem like they’re provided a scapegoat when they didn’t.
Edit: I regret stepping into an arena against a pedant with an axe to grind.
But “electronics” don’t mean “impossible to repair yourself”. And to be clear, I’m not expecting someone to become a shade tree mechanic. Remember, “right to repair” also includes the ability to go to a 3rd party repair service.
But requiring your mechanic to buy $15k+ in licensing per year, making specialized (and proprietary) fasteners, taking months to get replacement parts to the mechanic, or not honoring warranty because you went out of network are not things that are intrinsic with an electronic system.
- Are you saying the problem is cars are too expensive and too expensive to maintain because they are too complex?
Cheap cars are more dangerous. Simpler cars have higher emissions. I think the more complex ones are better. I would like to see legislation against the anti repair methods manufacturers use
- Cars let you take longer trips. One of the Australian capitals had a train to the beach towns. That right of way was taken by a highway and the railway now only runs a tourist route between the three or four beach towns but not to the city
With cars less needed other transit methods get built for popular trips
Failing all that, hire a car the few times of year you want an out of town holiday would be cheaper even than a very cheap car
- This one is completely correct. Last time I had a car problem I had a choice of tow companies and mechanics. Government services are monopolies but they’re pretty proof against failure. The worst that might happen is you might buy a car that turns out to be less valuable than you expected because it’s bad quality or the company owner turns out to be a nazi. But even that only costs you if you need to sell the vehicle.
I envy you for your walkable city. I don’t think I did better by getting a thousand square metre block and a detached house. I’d like to see our cities made walkable and the outer suburbs connected by rail so no one needs a car. I’d like to see cars banned from the city centre except working vehicles, taxis, disabled people, tourists with a hotel in town. For long trips off the transit network one would take a train to a car hire depot out of the city and drive from there. Hopefully cars will be sufficiently smart that the fact the drivers will have little practices will be mitigated
Me, 15 miles from town, independently waiting for the bus to arrive (it’s a hour long ride, and only comes twice a week):
This doesn’t make any sense. The only way to move around without depending on other companies is by walking, and there’s no way that can replace cars, trains, buses, bicycles, etc.
Not depending on anyone else is not a sensible goal. We live in a society.
The only way to move around without depending on other companies is by walking, and there’s no way that can replace cars, trains, buses, bicycles, etc.
If you have all of those options available, you can never be stranded when one of those options fails.
But with a car-centric society, all it takes is a single point of failure, and you are no longer free to move about the society.
They are not advocating for society to be less interdependent. They are explaining that a car-centric society has less freedom of movement, because the “independence” of a car is a lie.
Well that’s just nonsense. There are enough downsides to cars without having to make up fringe lunacy like this.
Nonsense and fringe lunacy… like asking for multiple options when it comes to transportation? Recognizing that building redundancies into our infrastructure is actually more efficient than relying on a one-size-fits-all solution?
A car breaking down can completely derail an individual’s day. A truck breaking down on a highway can derail a city’s day. The less the person or city needs cars to function, the less likely they are to be stuck when something goes wrong.
like asking for multiple options when it comes to transportation
No, like trying to say that cars don’t give you independence because they need insurance and servicing. That’s simply not the kind of independence people are talking about.
It’s like saying metro systems aren’t convenient because they are really difficult to build. It’s confusing two different things.
A car breaking down can completely derail an individual’s day.
So? You know what can also derail your day?
That’s simply not the kind of independence people are talking about.
Yes it is. People praise the car as the ultimate freedom because they imagine that they can take that car anywhere. But the moment they have a problem with their car, they literally can’t go anywhere.
Everyone has a story about how their car didn’t start, or about the mechanic that didn’t actually fix the problem, or how they’re still waiting on a part and can’t fix it until tomorrow. Plenty of people are stuck waiting on the roadside for hours waiting for a tow. Plenty of people are stuck waiting for days to hear back from their insurance company on if repairs are covered or who will pay for it or which mechanic is allowed to do the work.
So? You know what can also derail your day?
Do you… think that’s a gotcha? How many times has your train derailed? Is this a common problem in your life? Don’t you hate it when your employee doesn’t show up to work all the time because his train derailed?
It’s so ridiculously uncommon that it may as well be a rounding error compared to car accidents and incidents.
Yes it is. People praise the car as the ultimate freedom because they imagine that they can take that car anywhere.
They can!
But the moment they have a problem with their car, they literally can’t go anywhere.
Nobody is under the illusion that cars never break! Come on dude. Trains and buses are hardly infallible either!
Everyone has a story about how their car didn’t start, or about the mechanic that didn’t actually fix the problem, or how they’re still waiting on a part and can’t fix it until tomorrow.
Everyone has 10 stories about trains being cancelled or buses not showing up. That’s life. Completely irrelevant to the fact that cars give you independence.
How many times has your train derailed? Is this a common problem in your life?
Obviously I was not talking about actually derailment. That was obvious to anyone not being deliberately stupid. Trains are delayed or cancelled all the time. Much more frequently than cars break down.
It’s becoming clear that you live somewhere where there are no trains or buses so you have no actual experience of them and imagine them to be perfect.
Everyone has 10 stories about trains being cancelled or buses not showing up. That’s life. Completely irrelevant to the fact that cars give you independence.
So… again… if you have access to a train, a bus, and a car, then one single failure won’t stop you. If you only have access to a car, a single failure will stop you. I don’t know how to make that any more clear. It’s not about a train being better than a car, it’s about only having a car.
But, yes, trains and buses in a functioning mass transit system are insanely more reliable than cars. That’s not just personal experience, though it’s quite an assumption to make! That’s just statistics.
Owning or renting a home has the same requirements of dependency on multiple companies. Sure, in a city or large town or even some.small towns we could live without cars if we built the infrastructure.
But there will always be rural areas where cars make sense. Insurance would be a lot cheaper without all the city folk driving…
Owning or renting a home has the same requirements of dependency on multiple companies
Are you suggesting people go without homes? And that’s analogous to going without a car?
Maybe you’re really radical and want free public housing like people want free public transit, but that’s far outside the overton window.
I am saying home ownership, the freedom that goes along with it, and the need to rely on multiple companies is the same and both have a different context in rural areas. So does renting and most other things in life.
Plus relying on public transportation means trading companies for government, which in theory should be better but then again government decisions tend to be strongly influenced by those companies which is how we ended up in the car centric urban hellhole that we are in now.
The comic comes across as dismissive of a ton of nuance that apply to large areas of the US to make a point that applies to urban areas.
In rural areas everyone uses either bikes or railways.
In Japan they have rail lines that seamlessly integrate with the metro system of large cities.
And even if cars for rural users is necessary, their driving experience will be much smoother if all the other people have good access to transit.
Yes, that would be the best outcome and comparable to early US settlement where most towns had rail to connect each other and most people even in small towns didn’t maintain their own horses. Of course travel back then required a lot more planning, which is why automobiles were able to successfully promote themselves as providing independence because they do. They do provide independence, and I can attest that as a kid when cars were easy to maintain they did provide independence in rural areas and still do!
They don’t provide indeoendence in congested cities suffering from urban sprawl and loss of mass transit, which is where the comic is accurate.
deleted by creator
Japan is an extremely small and dense country with actually very little rural areas, so I’m not sure if that really answers the other person’s questions.
The main island has a land area of about the 13th largest state, Utah. But Utah has about 35 people/sq mile, compared to Japan with almost 1200 people/sq mile.
America is really rural and rural areas are really far apart from each other. Growing up my nearest neighbor was about a 10 min drive down the road. And I wasn’t even that rural, I went to a normal school with a normal school bus.
Once again, this is a silly argument, which this tautology makes obvious: Most Americans live where most Americans live. A full third of the U.S. land area is USFS or BLM land on which nobody lives, and the sparsely-populated areas of the rest are just that: sparsely-populated. Utah has only 3.3 million inhabitants, which is 0.9% of the national population. But even they’re not rural! Most Utahns live in a handful of metro areas; the Salt Lake City region has areas with population density over 5,000 people per square mile.
The United States is overwhelmingly urban, and the number of people who live in really rural areas is basically a rounding error.
Sure but this comment chain is specifically talking about rural people. And none of that changes that whats considered “rural” in Japan, would barely be considered “suburbs” in the US.
Yes, the US should absolutely be investing in mass transit and inter-city rail. But using Japan or other European countries as “an example of how it should be done!” is just dismissive of the actual size of the US and shows me that you haven’t thought about it any more than just “trains = good; cars = bad”, and is outright disrespectful of the population that you will need to serve.
Something like 10% of the population lives in towns under 10k. That’s not what I would consider “a rounding error”.
deleted by creator
That’s a fringe use case and nobody is challenging it anyway. Cars are still needed in the cities.
What we got car and oil lobby with fash of that genuine American racism to botch our urban planning and infrastructure development for mother fucking 80 years and we prolly got another decade before common sense goes main stream. Soviet Commies solved this issue on a shoe string budget… This is a political issue and the regime is in business of deny the taxpayers the solution so that the parasite can get fat. It will take the peasants getting woke on the issue.
We have solid 30% of the country who don’t make very much money buying 50k “working trucks” while living in suburbs and working in an office. And they hate the city bus and wasting money on public transits for the “dirty poors”
true but America hates public transportation
That’s only because America makes terrible public transit
It’s because they purposely make sure it can’t get anywhere because they don’t want “poor” people to go nice places. Anytime it does they move the nice shit away.
Isn’t anyone else disturbed by the concept of independence being a problem for this person?
I’d like more public transportation in America, but I’m not really interested in anything else they have to say.
The concept of independence can be a problem because it tends to manifest in a “I’m a lone ranger that doesn’t need anyone” mentality.
If you’re someone who generally just wants to live alone off-grid in a cabin in the woods and interact with people once a year that’s fine.
If you’re massively dependent on your neighbors and international trade and are in a self-destructive anger spiral about it because the realities of living in society damage your sense of self-worth, which has been tied to the fiction that everyone is an island, it’s an issue.
So if you value independence over community and you’re an asshole, then that’s a problem.
On the other hand, if you value community over independence and you’re an asshole: also a problem.
We can extrapolate further and say that if you drink water and are an asshole: also not good. I don’t think drinking water is the problem in that case.
I want you to realize for a moment that you are arguing with one sentence in a comic that said of itself “I will not explain what this means right now.”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
No, because your premise is incorrect. This person is completely in support of the concept of independence, but simply rejects the notion that car-dependency provides it. Real independence is achieved by removing the dependency on cars.
You didn’t read the second line?
“Now the whole idea of independence is a messy social construct with a bunch of issues that I won’t get into right now.”
I don’t see how anyone could interpret that as anything other than a blanket statement about independence.
I searched up the artist to find more evidence and saw that I wasn’t the only one who thought that, because they posted a follow-up attempting to clarify that specific line. The clarification just reiterates the point of the original comic and doesn’t try to explain why that phrasing was used or what it could have meant.
So maybe they just phrased it poorly, but I’m not the only one who took issue with it.
Acknowledging that a concept is complicated is different from being opposed to it. You deciding to interpret the statement the latter way instead of the former is your own problem, not theirs.
They literally say:
“Now the whole idea of independence is a messy social construct with a bunch of issues that I won’t get into right now.”
(Emphasis mine). They are not just saying, “it’s complicated.” They literally use the word “issues.”
Yeah. And “issues” means “issues,” which is not the same as “bad.”
“Issues” in this context means “problems”, and problems are bad.
deleted by creator
Yeah, and check this out!
That’s the type of independence I want to strive for.
They want to “strive” for “issues”? We know what they think independence is. Why do they want to destroy society??
How is claiming that independence is a complicated, nuanced concept problematic?
It sounds like you are interpreting it as if they are saying it doesn’t exist or something similar which is not at all what they said.
Also, people younger than the legal age for driving are unable to get around safely and independently if they live somewhere car-dependent. I know this from personal experience (although where I live car dependency is not the only problem of course)
@callyral @grue don’t forget disabled people. Cars are always touted as the solution for disability but there are *many* disabilities which completely remove driving as a possibility (blindness, epilepsy, many learning disabilities, many physical disabilities … And generally being elderly, if we’re honest) and car dependence leaves you entirely reliant on a chauffeur of some kind for any and every time you want to leave the house.
Do you have some more pixels?
Its usually your client that causes this. When you open the the image properly, you will se that its perfectly fine.
Make sure to press the HD button to get full resolution
How does a theoretical case of not having insurance companies make a car non-driveable?
It is illegal to drive without auto insurance. Technically you could do it anyway but a single accident could cost you $70,000 or $80,000 easily. Most reasonable people don’t want that kind of risk.
Try adding a zero or two to that estimate. If you end up killing people without insurance your life’s over, with insurance if you weren’t in the wrong you’re mostly fine.
deleted by creator
Because auto-insurance is a requirement in some country.
a legal one not a technical one
Kind of a technical one, because if you get pulled over without insurance in my area, they will tow your car and inpound it.
With road cameras nowadays they don’t even need to catch you on the road
Getting your car impounded is a legal one? There’s no technical issue with your car.
Yet you technically can’t drive it, if it’s impounded.
Yes, in my country auto-insurance is legally required in order to pay roadtax for the car, which is mandatory to operate the vehicle on public road. It’s renewed yearly, and cost a lot more than roadtax. It help pay for the damage you caused, while the more expensive plan cover your own vehicle.
UK is probably the same case because we follow a lot of the colonialist law book.
in what world is a roadside assistance company required? Friends with oversized vehicles can perform a similar function and actually get use out of their stupid truck.
Imagine having friend with oversized vehicles.
I just wanted to poke fun of how they chose to remove one of the two least needed parts of the pillar instead of parking, gas, or roads.
Idk, i read it as an example, doesn’t have to be just that.
It also has the fun problem of there being about a dozen different companies or people I can call if I need roadside assistance. I’m just really confused why one of them failing is an issue.
I grew up with great public transit, and having access to a bicycle, (NYC.) In my 20s I realized that attempting to own and maintain a car would be so expensive that I would not be able to save money for the future. I ride my bike everywhere. If I want to go somewhere more than 50 miles away, or where transit doesn’t go, I rent a car. I rent a car maybe 2x a year tops. Depending on how long I’m renting the car I probably spend $400 a year on rentals + insurance. My last bike I had for 20 years. Cost me $1400 brand new, spread that cost out over 20 years, owning the bike cost me $70 a year. It was easy to repair myself, and the tools to repair it were inexpensive to purchase. Fuck cars indeed.
Ain’t that true. As a car mechanic(in asia), i used to not think about it for a long time, but lately the cost of owning a car seems to bug me to no end. Often in busy day, someone will come in with a breakdown which might take a few hours to do because of the workload, and the reply i get from them is “can you do mine first? I’m in a hurry and i need the car, without it i can’t get anywhere”. Or someone came in with a badly maintained car, where they have to delay a lot of simple but crucial repair because they’re short on money. Or ignore an oil leak while topping up oil constantly because they have no time to get it fixed, which sometimes cost even more in total.
I just paid nearly 1/4 of my monthly salary to fix my 20 years old car, and that’s only for the part. Can’t get a used car because i need the cash, can’t get a new car because i don’t wanna have more mortgage. It’s crippling if you’re poor. It’s simply bullshit when people use the poor to justify car-centric development.
I feel you on the high cost of repairs costing a large portion of monthly income - I was quoted $500-700 for a (difficult model) spark plug replacement and plan to just DIY, even if it’s frustrating and hard.
Yeah, sometimes the cost of part isn’t that much but a lot of time it’s just long annoying tedious work. Seems like a lot of car is moving toward that direction and into a proprietary blackbox nightmare just so dealership can charge more.
Can confirm.
My car has been “on loan” to my parents for a year. I’m lucky to live in an area with decent public trans, but my sense of freedom is definitely vastly diminished.
You have public trans? Can you just like rent them for a while or how does it work?
In my city you can just use your library card. Pretty convenient
Buy a bike, and often that sense of freedom comes back.
Still getting around, still able to use public transit at its best, but also able to fill in the other parts of trips with a form of low-stress exercise.
My Australian town is almost as bad as American ones because it was built after cars became necessary
It has decent bike paths and painted bike lanes on many roads. Riding to local centres is easy, or to any of the five or so nearby schools (which gets a lot of kids onto bikes), but if you work a desk job it is probably in one of the three big centres and you’re likely to live up to an hour by bike away. So few adults get around by bike
I get the feeling you’re not from the US. In the vast majority of US cities, bike infrastructure is either non-existent, or so limited/unprotected that it’s still dangerous to use.
Let me try to give a good comparison. Telling people to switch to biking in US cities is like telling someone to switch to biking on the Autobahn. It’s impractical, it’s dangerous, and often it’s even illegal. You might think that’s hyperbole, but I promise it’s not. For many major cities, 40 MPH (65 KPH) is considered a low speed, found on side-streets and other non-major roads; in neighborhoods, where kids play, it drops down to 30 MPH. On highways, you’re looking at 50 MPH minimum, sometimes up to 75 MPH, and these are inner-city highways.
Americans don’t choose not to bike out of laziness, but because, in most places, biking as a form of transportation will get you killed.
I am American, but I’m lucky enough to live in a city where bikes are relatively practical.
One addition to this is also winter upkeep, which is very relevant in Finland.
People like to talk about “winter cycling”, because it’s somehow so much different from “every other season cycling”. Mainly it comes down to winter upkeep; snow plowing and such. Then some people complain how nobody rides in the winter and they shouldn’t use too much budget for it.
It would be fun to see people talk about “winter driving”. How much we actually spend making driving possible during the winter.
It’s not just spending money. In my city, we’re poisoning the groundwater with road salt to support winter driving. One well near me has sodium levels in the water high enough that the water utility has issued a no-drink advisory for people with hypertension.
Where I live in the US that’s in the millions, hundreds of millions even. Also, if that budget dries up then they don’t plow shit. They’ll usually get an emergency fund but it takes a few days, while it’s snowing…
