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

61–70 of 122 posts

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

#61

Post by AstroBen »

whyenot wrote: post #52
m-schuetz wrote: post #29

I've lost a lot of enthusiasm about close-range public transport. In Vienna, bicycles get you nearly every twice as fast as public transport, and mostly about as fast as cars, depending on your destination. Bikes are about four times cheaper as public transport too. Public transport ist great to connect cities, and perhaps districts. Beyound that, it quickly hits diminishing returns. It's prohibitly expensive to conn…

I think bicycles work very well in a dense and flat city where people respect traffic laws. I am highly skeptical that they are the answer everywhere. Take for example San Francisco with all of its steep hills, or Rio where you have both hills and low adherence to traffic laws. How about Mexico City with its at time horrendous air pollution. In the United States, where many cities didn't really mature until after the…

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

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

#62

Post by griffzhowl »

nradov wrote: post #47
mojuba wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there are third-tier historical medieval towns that are 100% walkable and you again don't need a car. My ideal city of the future is a small walkable town with everything within a 15-20 minute walk, possibly a part of a conglomerate of towns that run trains or buses between them. I currently live in one such historical town in Southern Europe that's protected by Unesco. The streets are so narrow that not onl…

You only have everything you need for work in such a city if your "work" is limited to small offices, restaurants, and retail shops. So you're excluding everything related to manufacturing, agriculture, resource extraction, logistics, military, etc. You know, all of that stuff that keeps modern industrial civilization operating and allows quaint medieval towns to continue existing at all. If you like where you live t…

> all of that stuff that keeps modern industrial civilization operating and allows quaint medieval towns to continue existing at all

That doesn't make sense to me. Medieval towns existed for centuries before industrial civilization and without it we might see a drastic increase in medieval style living...

In any case the poster is talking about their own ideal future scenario, maybe leaving out the details like the robots working in underground manufacturing facilities or fusion-powered hydroponic vertical farms etc.

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

#63

Post by mojuba »

nradov wrote: post #47
mojuba wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there are third-tier historical medieval towns that are 100% walkable and you again don't need a car. My ideal city of the future is a small walkable town with everything within a 15-20 minute walk, possibly a part of a conglomerate of towns that run trains or buses between them. I currently live in one such historical town in Southern Europe that's protected by Unesco. The streets are so narrow that not onl…

You only have everything you need for work in such a city if your "work" is limited to small offices, restaurants, and retail shops. So you're excluding everything related to manufacturing, agriculture, resource extraction, logistics, military, etc. You know, all of that stuff that keeps modern industrial civilization operating and allows quaint medieval towns to continue existing at all. If you like where you live t…

> if your "work" is limited to small offices, restaurants, and retail shops.

...or just any kind of remote work. Still limited, not available to everyone obviously but can't be omitted.

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

#64

Post by UtopiaPunk »

zmnd wrote: post #56
nialv7 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. If you've been enjoying public transportation for so long, then why is your reaction to it getting worse not: OK, we need to fix it so it's as good as it was. Instead you are just saying: OK, I have the resources to fix the problem for myself, so I don't give a F.

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

Do you think the unpleasantness of people has gotten worse over time? If so, what caused that to happen?

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

#65

Post by const_cast »

zmnd wrote: post #56
nialv7 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. If you've been enjoying public transportation for so long, then why is your reaction to it getting worse not: OK, we need to fix it so it's as good as it was. Instead you are just saying: OK, I have the resources to fix the problem for myself, so I don't give a F.

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

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

#66

Post by poulpy123 »

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.

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

#67

Post by metalman »

personal transportation is never going away, and insisting on what the title says will cause violence in a lot of places does it have to be a smoke and CO² spewing 6500lb machine going 100mph,no, there are 1.4 billion cars, with billions more personal vehicles, throw in bikes and boats, airplanes, and it's one for every two people, unless you are on the moon, and then there are three cars, but no people, my point bieng, the title is realy just trolling/click bait/virtue signaling,politics, there is no realistic possibility of eliminating cars. personaly my life has been split, between living with cars/vans/trucks/etc, and walking/biking/bussing/trains and I cant imagine giving up ANY mode of transport

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

#68

Post by tim333 »

nradov wrote: post #40
dietr1ch wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My motorized freedom dreams got stuck in increasingly worse traffic. Nowadays I dream of a "bikeable" commute and grocery shopping and whatever works best between public transport and driving on the weekends.

My area is fairly "bikeable" but I seldom ride my bike for errands because I can't be sure that it will still be there when I get out of the store. The local authorities do almost nothing to prevent bike theft. Sure, cars can also be stolen. But modern cars are now fairly theft resistant and police at least take it seriously as a crime.

I ebike and the combination of an old rusty bike plus a large lock seems to stop thieves, even though I leave it on the street 247. I take the battery in though. And have a funky diy paint job. Also even if it was stolen it cost less than any of a years tax on the car, one service on the car, one replacement shock on the car etc.

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

#69

Post by tim333 »

AstroBen wrote: post #61
whyenot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think bicycles work very well in a dense and flat city where people respect traffic laws. I am highly skeptical that they are the answer everywhere. Take for example San Francisco with all of its steep hills, or Rio where you have both hills and low adherence to traffic laws. How about Mexico City with its at time horrendous air pollution. In the United States, where many cities didn't really mature until after the…

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.

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

#70

Post by tim333 »

In central London where I live car use has definitely been falling largely due to public policy blocking off streets and removing parking and will take another step when they pedestrianise Oxford Street and lower Regent Street (https://youtu.be/NvJ6R-YHD1w). I think it's largely nicer as a result - more walking and cycling.
Post reply on HN