Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

blog.scaramuzza.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#81

Post by ivan_gammel »

poulpy123 wrote: post #66

Even in Europe as soon as you spend time outside the big cities and that you don't have heavy/bug stuff to move around, the car is pretty much mandatory (except maybe the Netherlands/Belgium?). I also noticed that the gen z is less interested in having a car, but as far as I can see it's more a shift of attitude about independence and a lot also because it's more expensive now to have a car.

> the car is pretty much mandatory

It depends. My favorite destinations on German Baltic coast have enough bus and local train coverage to get in nearly every interesting location. You only need to know the schedule and plan accordingly, and it’s not bad experience traveling like that.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#82

Post by bbradley406 »

const_cast wrote: post #65
zmnd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you fix the mentioned problem of "filled with unpleasant people" with money?

Usually when people get older and start complaining about new "unpleasant people" the issue isn't that new unpleasant people exist. Rather, its that the older person has not adapted and is stuck. They become "get off my lawn" types

As someone who is 32 and takes public transport, if a homeless person gets on my train car and smells bad enough to stink up half (or all!) of the car, they have earned the "unpleasant people" label fair and square. Yes I understand it may be their only option, and I sympathize with them but it still makes my trip unpleasant.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#83

Post by lstodd »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #51
TrackerFF wrote: post #14

(I live in Norway) When I lived in a major city, I went 10 years without owning a car. Should I for whatever reason need a car, I could rent one. But other than that, public transportation, walking, and biking for me. Hell, I often preferred public transportation over a car. But as soon as I moved back home, a rural area, a car has more or less become a life necessity. I simply can't imagine living out in rural nowhe…

If the only road that goes past your house is a bicycle path, a bicycle will be the most convenient. If the only road that goes past your house is a railroad, then a train will be the most convenient. If the only road that goes past your house is a motorway, then a car will be the most convenient. But the transport infrastructure isn't an immutable property of the land, it's collectively-planned-and-built infrastruct…

Where I lived all this summer the only transport infrastructure that was available for the last 80 years since the reservoir dam was completed was an old diesel tractor and an equally old motorboat with an evil 2T outboard, or a 3 km walk to a pier that was being visited by a 1957-built ferry twice a day, if it did not break down.

Then there are two to four months in a year when there is no transport except a single emergency services hoverboat while the ice settles or melts. Depending if it didn't break down, there isn't any emergency elsewhere, and a host of lesser things, like hovercraft travel isn't exactly cheap or fuel-efficient.

And then snowmobiles in winter. But also cars, if you're not afraid enough to test the ice thickness by driving on it.

That is an immutable property of the land.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#84

Post by ivan_gammel »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #71

I am 63. As I look at my future, "freedom" and "walking" look more and more distant from each other. My wife has a handicapped tag. Freedom for her doesn't look like walking. My mother in law is over 80, and she had polio. One leg is not fully functional. Freedom for her doesn't look like walking. My son-in-law has something that looks a lot like long covid (not diagnosed, so I can't say with certainty). Freedom for…

Electric wheelchairs are compatible with public transport and accessible taxi. If you have disabilities that prevent you from walking, it doesn’t automatically mean that you need a car (which still won’t get you anywhere by the way).

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#85

Post by [deleted] »

lstodd wrote: post #83
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the only road that goes past your house is a bicycle path, a bicycle will be the most convenient. If the only road that goes past your house is a railroad, then a train will be the most convenient. If the only road that goes past your house is a motorway, then a car will be the most convenient. But the transport infrastructure isn't an immutable property of the land, it's collectively-planned-and-built infrastruct…

Where I lived all this summer the only transport infrastructure that was available for the last 80 years since the reservoir dam was completed was an old diesel tractor and an equally old motorboat with an evil 2T outboard, or a 3 km walk to a pier that was being visited by a 1957-built ferry twice a day, if it did not break down. Then there are two to four months in a year when there is no transport except a single…

[deleted]

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#86

Post by onecommentman »

tim333 wrote: post #69
AstroBen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ebikes solve the hills and age issues. Although they're not actually an issue. Cycling is incredibly low impact, and proper gearing makes going up hills as easy as on flats, just slower Air pollution is the same in a car or outside, no? Most cars don't have HEPA filters. At least on a bike you're getting exercise

As an over 60 age is kind of an issue. Ebikes sort it though.

E-bikes help us to get up and down hills, but the safety issue doesn’t go away. Response times are slower across all sorts of dimensions (detection, response, mitigation, etc.), and an accident is more likely to end in hospitalization or actual death, e-bike or no. Well-traveled bike trails sound like fun, but I think it’s a no-go for general transport for the elderly. You can do it at that age, but I’m guessing the first age-related (higher speed, new technology) biking accident will result in disability/death way too often. You’ll feel like a fool when it happens, because you were. Not the oops you want when bones break too easily and heal too slowly.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#87

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

p_ing wrote: post #20

I’m curious to see how the author would react when it is two miles one-way to the crappy grocery store and eight miles to the good one. And there is a bus shows up about once every four hours. While cities can do a lot to improve the non-car experience, there’s a whole world outside those cities which would become inaccessible without a car. These are generally the “affordable” places to live in order to work in the…

There's a lot that can be done outside of cities too. The main thing that makes it scary and inconvenient to take an e-bike eight miles to buy groceries is... sharing a road with cars! A bike path is much cheaper to build and maintain than a motorway, and especially cheap in rural areas where the rights-of-way can be purchased more cheaply.

It's also possible to have rural areas accessible by transit. If you ever visit Japan or Switzerland, you'll find a robust and convenient bus and train network that will take you all the way into very small towns.

The world outside cities is inaccessible without a car only because we've built it that way. It doesn't have to be built that way! It's not a law of nature. There are other ways to build it!

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#88

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #71

I am 63. As I look at my future, "freedom" and "walking" look more and more distant from each other. My wife has a handicapped tag. Freedom for her doesn't look like walking. My mother in law is over 80, and she had polio. One leg is not fully functional. Freedom for her doesn't look like walking. My son-in-law has something that looks a lot like long covid (not diagnosed, so I can't say with certainty). Freedom for…

I think transit would serve these people much better too. Driving independently is for people who are fit enough with reflexes, judgement, and eyesight. Level boarding means you can get your wheelchair into a train much more easily than having your grandchildren lift you into a car passenger seat. Having a bus driver drive for you means you can get around even when you no longer pass your eye exam. Being able to access restrooms at stations is much better for the elderly than having to hold it through a traffic jam. At some point you may not be able to safely drive yourself, and it will be much better if your other options are safe, comfortable, quick, and convenient, and don't leave you dependent on your children or spouse to drive you around.

One could certainly argue "but it's not convenient in my area; the train doesn't have level boarding, the bus comes too infrequently and gets stuck in the same traffic jams, the stations don't have bathrooms". That's a symptom of low investment, which is a symptom of low ridership, which is a symptom of car dependency, and so on.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#89

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

mattlondon wrote: post #24
outime wrote: post #3

It's interesting how people's positions can be so different. As a European who has lived in two (european) countries with good and affordable transport, I've always been a happy public transport user... until a couple of years ago, that is. Much of the transport is now filled with unpleasant people, dirt, delays, etc which paired with the insane prices of housing in the "walkable" parts of cities, has made me 100% in…

Even in large cities like London there are huge areas where public transport is a joke. Yes it's fine in the very tourist center, but get out further from the center where normal people with families actually live and what is a 5-8 minute drive to a large grocery store becomes a mammoth 50-60 minute journey each way . I personally don't want to spend 15% of my waking day going to and from the shops and paying huge pr…

It sounds like your public transport isn't actually good.

Re: The car is not the future: On the myth of motorized freedom

#90

Post by wakawaka28 »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #87
p_ing wrote: post #20

I’m curious to see how the author would react when it is two miles one-way to the crappy grocery store and eight miles to the good one. And there is a bus shows up about once every four hours. While cities can do a lot to improve the non-car experience, there’s a whole world outside those cities which would become inaccessible without a car. These are generally the “affordable” places to live in order to work in the…

There's a lot that can be done outside of cities too. The main thing that makes it scary and inconvenient to take an e-bike eight miles to buy groceries is... sharing a road with cars! A bike path is much cheaper to build and maintain than a motorway, and especially cheap in rural areas where the rights-of-way can be purchased more cheaply. It's also possible to have rural areas accessible by transit. If you ever vis…

>The main thing that makes it scary and inconvenient to take an e-bike eight miles to buy groceries is... sharing a road with cars!

If the cars weren't there, gangs of bandits would be. Bandits were a common threat to people living outside cities. If you didn't carry a gun or a sword out in the country, you were practically on your own against a possibly large number of criminals.

Post reply on HN