Don't Be Anti Car. Be Pro Something Else.

https://www.eclogiselle.com/2021/07/the-hot-new-thing.html

by DoreenMichele • 5 years ago

133 319 5 years ago

Zambyte• 5 years ago

"Don't be anti X. Be pro something else" this mentality can and should be applied to all issues in my opinion. Being "pro solution" is far more productive than being "anti problem".

ripper1138• 5 years ago

Agreed. Anyone can point out a problem, some can be "pro solution", and very few actually solve problems. Unfortunate reality of the world.

patrickwalton4• 5 years ago

Sometimes the solution is to get rid of the problem. Take tobacco for instance.

May not be true of cars, but I'm pretty bitter about the unhealthy car-centric societies that 100 years of auto lobbying has left us with.

flemhans• 5 years ago

Arguably a safer alternative to smoking could be part of a solution too.

teucris3• 5 years ago

Okay, I am for making most cities pedestrian and bike-only zones with exceptions for delivery vehicles and carefully isolated motor vehicle routes.

Do you think framing my position with a solution will really change the discussion?

sudosysgen7• 5 years ago

The issue that there is no single solution to cars, and the problem is indeed cars. So unless you mean "Don't be anti cars, instead be pro-everything-else in a way that is detrimental to car operation", I have to disagree.

stefan_• 5 years ago

The conservative chant, as if space in a city is not an ultimate zero-sum game. Any "pro something else" eventually butts up against having 80% of space and 110% of government drone mindshare allocated to cars.

sokoloff2• 5 years ago

Sure, but I think people are generally more sympathetic to "here is something that people want and aren't getting; I'd like us to consider letting the people have some of that" (the pro-whatever angle, even if that is inevitably anti-car in implementation) than they are to "I think that cars are currently too convenient and should be made less convenient" (the anti-car angle).

It's the difference between "I want this thing I don't have" (understandable/evokes empathy) versus "I don't want others to have the thing they have" (much less understandable and evokes almost no empathy).

adrianN3• 5 years ago

That just leads to the "oh yes that's a good idea, let's form a working group!" response but never leads to actual change because that would require taking space away from cars.

drewcoo• 5 years ago

That's a wonderful way to divide all of the people who are anti-car into thousands of different voices shouting for different things at once.

As an aside, pointing all those don'ts at the reader is awfully hypocritical.

yellowapple• 5 years ago

A unified voice without solutions is unlikely to be more effective at fixing a problem than a divided voice with solutions. That's the crux of the pro-solution argument.

If anti-car folks don't want us driving cars, then we need solutions to address the various legitimate use cases of cars.

II2II5• 5 years ago

The thing is, most of the cycling advocacy I see is pro solution yet the opposition response is largely anti problem. Those who want to ride safely typically propose infrastructure based solutions and rarely treat the automobile itself as the problem. For example: while you may see advocacy for protected lanes or traffic calming, almost no one is arguing that cars should be removed from the roads. Contrast that to the opposition response, which often seeks to have bikes removed from the roads and never supports accommodation for different modes of transportation.

anigbrowl3• 5 years ago

Quite. this is nice, but the idea that 'I think you can actively try to become the hot new thing in part by working on being inoffensive' is naive. That approach works great for networking with peers but not against aggressive opposition.

There are a lot of people in the world who thrive on seeing other people worse off, to a greater degree than being equivalently better off themselves. In game theory terms, they're willing to experience a loss in order to inflict a loss on others. Online they present as trolls.

II2II5• 5 years ago

I have no doubt that some people want to see others worse off. Some people seem to get angry about just about anything. Yet I suspect that most people respond negatively for other reasons. A common case is they perceive it as a loss to themselves, even when there is no justification to that perception.

To choose a concrete example from pedestrian safety: curb extensions are often proposed to make crossing pedestrians more visible and to slow turning traffic. A common criticism is a loss of parking. That criticism ignores that curb extensions rarely impact parking since people are not supposed to park within a certain distance of a crosswalk.

DoreenMichele7• 5 years ago

It always befuddles me when people describe me as naive, especially if I know for a fact they know my backstory.

I was sexually abused as a child. I'm a former military wife who raised two special-needs kids pretty much alone while the husband was elsewhere. I spent years homeless. Etc.

Hacker News has proven to be a poor networking opportunity for me, which I've complained about quite a lot. It's not done kind of secret. Being charming here attracts romantic interest, not career success, and that's been a dead end for years for all inquiries because of my medical situation.

I'm no longer homeless but I remain dirt poor. As is often the case, I'm currently flat broke because it's late in the month and my ability to make the front page of HN still fails to result in some kind of adequate income.

I've not remotely had a sheltered life and I've been dealing with small town politics since not long after I moved here. I've already become acquainted with some of the local pain points.

I also appear to be the highest ranked openly female member of HN and I seem to be the only woman to have ever made the leaderboard. Twice now in fact as I did previously under a different handle.

For that and many other reasons, I think my approach works. Though it certainly at times resembles the wry observation about democracy being "the worst thing ever -- except for all the others."

DoreenMichele7• 5 years ago

You sound like you have experience with cycling advocacy. If you could point me in the direction of resources, I would appreciate it.

I've identified a need locally. It doesn't require government funding. But I still have a lot to learn about bike rack best practices and I haven't ridden in a lot of years. I pretty much walk everywhere.

II2II5• 5 years ago

It's more of a case of I notice it since I ride a bike daily.

What I see in my city is mostly geared towards safety, not so much bike racks. Some of it focuses upon infrastructure that makes life safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Some of it is directed towards people who bike, such as road safety courses and bicycle lighting.

With respect to bike racks, the emphasis seems to be on gaining business support. Places are more welcoming if they depend upon pedestrians and cyclists, are high traffic, and have limited parking. Local businesses also seem to be more bike friendly than regional, national, or multinational ones.

On that note, how businesses differentiate themselves seem to reflect how welcoming they are to clients who use bikes. Cafe's are more welcoming than coffee shops, recreation centres are more welcoming than gyms.

Also, traditional bike racks are out of favour in my neck of the woods. It's more common to see posts where two bikes can be locked up parallel to the street, or placed three feet apart when bikes are parallel to each other. Even the simplest ones are painted so they are more visually appealing, some have a more artistic flare. Traditional racks tend to be used in bike corrals. Those are typically a barricaded off on-street parking space for bike parking, with the barricades being decorated to fit into the community (e.g. paintings, flowerbeds). The basic idea seems to be that bike racks are more appealing to everyone if they aren't a tangled mess of bikes.

atoav2• 5 years ago

I am one of the people who is totally for the removal of cars (in cities). I don't even think this is a radical position, cars are not a neutral mode of transportation and people with cars get much more of the cake than any other person moving through a city.

Cars were somewhat utopian: everybody can move whereever they want, with a luxurious safe space around them, all while having the world shaped in auch a way it accomodates them and their car. Reality has shown, that this idea has not only serious downsides, but that it is also extremely inefficient and might even be part of the destruction of our planet. The idea that somehow we can build a sustainable world around cars, no matter how fuel efficient and what technology looks (to me) extremely naive, because it is inefficient and even if you made it better, you still won't beat bicycles in terms of efficiency and space usage.

Note: I don't argue there aren't legitimate use cases for cars. I grew up on the countryside in the alps, without a car you would be lost there (yet for some reason I managed to do everything with a bicycle/public transport till I got my driving license). Also: if your work requires you to move stuff around, cars (or trucks) can make a lot of sense. I am not arguing against that, I argue against one person sitting alone in their own 7m² and using that to commute into a city that is filled with cars.

In order to make cycling a real alternative we will have to take space, comfort and money away from cars. Take one lane away from a 4 lane road, paint it red, make it a bicycle lane. Add trains/subways/busses where people can transport their biciclyes, all that stuff.

I also have lived long enough in different european cities to know it works perfectly fine. I mean there are cities without any cars in their center (because of historical reasons) and they don't die.

bookofsand6• 5 years ago

for some reason I managed to do everything with a bicycle/public transport till I got my driving license

Reasons being: no job and no kids. I lived for years in the LA megalopolis without a car. Where going to the toilet is customary done at the wheel (1). We could possibly share stories about that one multi-hour bike ride to the box store and back. All that ended quite abruptly with the first job and especially the first kid.

(1) Not really, but I hope it helps getting the the point across.

AnthonyMouse3• 5 years ago

For example: while you may see advocacy for protected lanes or traffic calming, almost no one is arguing that cars should be removed from the roads.

But those things are anti-car. They come at the cost of travel speed or congestion as a result of fewer lanes. They're thereby something you have to fight the masses in order to get, instead of finding a Pareto-optimal solution that can thereby actually be implemented.

Or at least figure out who it is you want to fight. For example, a lot of towns have a main drag that goes through the area with all the shops. One of the best ways to make that street more accessible to pedestrians is to build a limited access highway parallel to it to carry all the vehicle traffic which is only passing through.

The shop owners are going to fight you on that. They want those cars driving past their shops. But it puts the pedestrians and the drivers on the same side, because the drivers don't want to be stuck on a road full of crosswalks and stoplights when they could be driving around it at 70 MPH.

Someone2• 5 years ago

“congestion as a result of fewer lanes”

Removing a car lane for a bicycle lane doesn’t decrease the number of lanes (may even increase it if a car lane is replaced by two bicycle lanes). If the bicycle lane gets used by former car drivers, car density may even go down, and congestion with it (but that likely will induce demand)

“The shop owners are going to fight you on that. They want those cars driving past their shops”

I don’t think they get paid for ad impressions. Shop owners want people to enter their shop and buy things, not drive past it.

II2II5• 5 years ago

But those things are anti-car. They come at the cost of travel speed or congestion as a result of fewer lanes. They're thereby something you have to fight the masses in order to get, instead of finding a Pareto-optimal solution that can thereby actually be implemented.

At the cost of parking, possibly. At the cost of travel speed, possibly. At the cost of congestion, unlikely.

All of the proposals for bike lanes that I have seen have typically involved the removal of parking or the narrowing of lanes. The former typically happens where there is not enough space to use parked vehicles as a barrier between lanes for motor vehicles and bicycles. The latter is typically intentional, since narrow lanes are a mechanism for traffic calming.

Neither should be classified as anti-car. Bike lanes typically run along roads that are mixed use. They aren't found on side streets since they don't address the safety issues found on side streets. (Side streets may be designated a bike route, but I have never seen a separation of traffic.) They are rarely found on roads since roads are intended to serve high speed traffic travelling long distances. There are usually better solutions for cyclists in that case. The end result is that bike lanes are usually placed along business corridors (e.g. those main drags), where traffic calming benefits all users. Parking is often less of an issue in those cases since those businesses couldn't be sustained by the limited parking available to start with.

Cyclists are not out there battling against cars. It simply doesn't make sense. Many of the places that cars go are undesirable to cyclists. Many of the places that cyclists want to go are better served when accommodations are made for multiple modes of transportation. If you choose to interpret that as anti-car, well, there isn't much I can do about that aside from pointing out that it is not the intent and rarely the outcome.

ZeroGravitas2• 5 years ago

Yeah, I read this more as a how-to guide to stall progress, just pretend your opponents are doing the opposite of these steps even if they aren't.

Pretty closely fits all the arguments you see about a variety of sensible ideas that would negatively affect powerful interests.

Like cut down on meat, you probably already eat more than doctors recomend, better health, cheaper, save the planet. But if you're connected to the meat industry it pays to pretend that "Joe Biden wants to ban cheeseburgers" or whatever and argue against some fake extreme.

ahoy• 5 years ago

"please dont present a united voice against the source of the problem. Balkanize yourselves into a dozen little groups so no change ever happens!"

shadofx2• 5 years ago

Occupy Wall Street was a unified voice. Nothing was achieved because there was no clear goal.

hootbootscoot4• 5 years ago

And Tiannamen was crushed, but one still has to try, as the watershed moment or breaking point can come in the blink of an eye.

It's my view that Occupy was dismantled by the vested interests it confronted, in the form of paid editorial hit jobs, much as anything that threatens large hegemonies of power. The goal was simple and achieved: awareness of how Wall Street gambling led to the global economic crisis of 2007 and 8 It was ahead of it's time, and will later be seen as such.

What is puzzling to me is how easily that anti-elite message was hijacked by Trumpkins and his elitest of silver-spooned back-scratching politics, which certainly goes against the spirit of Occupy. The takeaway is that there is a public for anti-elite messaging, but that it's now possible to weaponize that in order to innoculate that very same public against targeting you...Trumpkins public is rightfully socialist, just brainwashed by the very elites they think themselves against, lol

softwaredoug• 5 years ago

The article is really about messaging and strategy then caring about cars. Specifically the author says:

But the project won't grow beyond my town if I can't attract other participants.

So basically, I think the author is saying don’t “other” people because they happen to live in a town that relies on cars, rather invite them into something cooler and hip

jcims5• 5 years ago

I think it’s just a function of how much cars trigger some folks here on HN.

dredmorbius9• 5 years ago

You get the "read the article and grokked it before commenting" award.

(I most decidedly do not.)

JohnFen4• 5 years ago

Don't make it a moral argument that frames drivers as sinners and pedestrians, cyclists, etc as The Good Guys.

So much this.

I live in a US city that has an atypically large number of people who bicycle as their primary transportation. I do as well, but I also have a car and drive when that's more appropriate.

The years have taught me some things about the car vs bike divide: car drivers tend to be real jerks toward bicyclists, and bicyclists tend to be real jerks toward car drivers.

It's lose-lose, particularly because it's not rare that either the car or the bike (or both) navigate dangerously as a result, increasing the chances that someone's going to have an accident, and reaffirming the negative stereotypes each has toward the other.

DoreenMichele7• 5 years ago

We already have cyclists coming through town and heading up to the Olympic Peninsula and the like, as is documented in the Project Bike Rack post. I think if businesses are informed that people want bike racks, they might be willing to supply them as a low cost means to attract more tourist dollars with less environmental burden.

Cataloging existing bike racks and "bike rack wanted" sites will take time. And then I need to figure out how to connect with businesses and there are no doubt many other details still to be uncovered.

This is a brand new project but it grows out of a lot of research. I think it holds promise for actually making a difference while being a lightweight solution.

teucris3• 5 years ago

I am anti-car and it has nothing to do with drivers - it has to do with infrastructure. Our cities are designed for cars, multi-ton machines the favored entity in a sea of squishy humans. I think this sets us all up to be in conflict, to force us to protect ourselves and it brings out the worst in us.

BLKNSLVR• 5 years ago

The paranoia required to just stay alive as a cyclist doesn't promote anything near to harmonious co-existence. I don't ride on roads because I can't stand the stress.

As a cyclist on the road you're inhabiting a very unbalanced risk vs reward equation.

I know the percentages are low, but one mistake from you, or more likely someone else, and BAM, life over or changed forever more. I've been involved in enough car accidents to distrust the average human's ability to drive.

JohnFen4• 5 years ago

I am fully on board with the notion that our infrastructure has to become less car-centric, but I wouldn't describe myself as anti-car. I'd describe myself as being in favor of appropriate transportation.

Cars, like bikes, are tools. And tools can be used appropriately or inappropriately. Having one tool to address all needs guarantees that it will be used in cases where a different tool would be much better. The US needs to have more than one transportation tool.

crooked-v• 5 years ago

Car drivers regularly kill bicyclists with little to no response from the law. The opposite isn't a thing.

iammisc14• 5 years ago

Well because it's usually accidental. This idea that every death, including accidents or understandable mistake need to be met with criminal sanctions is just dumb. It's a good way to unnecessarily ruin more people's lives.

Bikers should realize they are driving a more dangerous vehicle. Bikes have no protective covering, no crash cage. Your body is exposed directly to the road...

If you want a safer bike, build a human powered car.

And yes I bike or walk most of my life so don't tell me I'm some evil driver. I'm just realistic and not vindictive.

devmunchies• 5 years ago

car drivers tend to be real jerks toward bicyclists, and bicyclists tend to be real jerks toward car drivers

I wish you would be jerks to me, but nobody even thinks about us motorcyclists.

_carbyau_• 5 years ago

All the "group dynamics" is the worst thing about humans. Drivers vs Riders vs Skaters vs Pedestrians vs etc.

I walk, skate, ride bicycles and motorcycles, drive a car. I choose my mode of transport by perceived benefit rather than tribal group.

I see people playing stupid games in each group too. I won't "choose a group" and be associated with them any closer than "being human" already does.

Edit:stick to one point.

JohnFen4• 5 years ago

I agree -- those are all examples of tribalism, and I am of the opinion that excessive tribalism is one of the largest social problems we have right now.

wutbrodo4• 5 years ago

Don't make it a moral argument that frames drivers as sinners and pedestrians, cyclists, etc as The Good Guys.

I agree with you, but as someone who's been vocally anti-car for a long time _without_ ever blaming drivers, I've also noticed that people make it enough a part of their identity that they will do this for you.

Most car owners are rationally responding to a powerful incentive system; many aren't on the margin where alternatives are feasible for them. But discussion of the negatives of car-oriented _systems_ is enough for most people

This isn't especially surprising. Most people aren't capable enough of processing high-dimensional concepts to separate participation in a harmful system from personal culpability for all of the harms of the system.

JohnFen4• 5 years ago

I've also noticed that people make it enough a part of their identity that they will do this for you.

Yes, this is a problem. That we here in the US tend to think of cars as an expression of our identities is a deep-rooted issue. Like most social issues, this isn't one that can be resolved easily or quickly.

johnaspden• 5 years ago

I've also noticed that murderers tend to be real jerks to non-murderers, and non-murderers tend to be real jerks to murderers. There's a true moral equivalence there.

trenning• 5 years ago

What about the old cycling elitists who are anti car and anti ebike?

I remember when I was still surprised by the amount of old cyclist dudes who hate the existence of ebikes. Now it feels commonplace when interacting with that community

tonyedgecombe6• 5 years ago

I don't think that lasted very long. E-Bikes are so common now that I don't think other cyclists give them a second thought.

patrickwalton4• 5 years ago

This immediately makes me think of the role attacking pedestrians played in the rise of the automobile.

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

The auto companies played dirty. Maybe it's time to make it clear that they're the source of so much illness in American people and cities.

patrickwalton4• 5 years ago

It's like saying: ~Don't attack the tobacco companies, talk about alternative forms of recreation.~

Sure, but also attack tobacco companies. Sometimes the solution to a plague is to attack the plague.

jazzyjackson• 5 years ago

See also 99% invisible’s “the modern moloch” about how much of a disruption cars proved to be, but managed to lobby the public to accept them (while being very victim-blamey by today’s standards)

On the streets of early 20th-century America, nothing moved faster than 10 miles per hour. Responsible parents would tell their children, “Go outside and play in the streets,” all day.
And then the automobile happened. And then automobiles began killing thousands of children, every year.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern...

patrickwalton4• 5 years ago

Thousands of children. That's tragic. I've been lamenting children's loss of free range. I thought it was due to saliency bias around kidnapping, but it sounds like the auto companies may be at larger fault.

TuringNYC• 5 years ago

I think this only works if it isnt opinionated and finger-wagging prescriptive to masses. I'll provide an example, I'm pro-cylcing. I rarely drive and mostly cycle to work, or use mass transit during rain/snow.

...but, some of the anti-car pro-cycling rhetoric I hear in my hometown of NYC is insane -- there are calls to ban cars on large sections of the city and have people bicycle. I say insane because it suggests people have never been around elderly folks. What are the disabled supposed to do? What about those with infants? What happens if you are carrying groceries? What about those with bad knees? What happens on the day when all the bikes have been borrowed and there are no options but a cab?

triceratops• 5 years ago

What are the disabled supposed to do?

Golf carts. Electric wheelchairs.

What about those with infants?

Definitely don't put them in cars. They're the leading killer of children, nationwide. If you care about your baby's safety, you'll put it in the car as little as possible, only when there are no other options.

What happens if you are carrying groceries?

If you have children, then under the stroller. Or in a bike trailer/stroller combo. Or foldable personal shopping carts - I always see little old ladies with those. Or a rucksack.

What about those with bad knees?

E-bikes with throttles. Or trikes. Or golf carts.

What happens on the day when all the bikes have been borrowed and there are no options but a cab?

How likely is that?

qngcdvy• 5 years ago

How likely is that?

Well, having been in Paris: There are many times and places when all the shared bikes are borrowed.

sudosysgen7• 5 years ago

Sorry, no. Cars are the problem. The reason why other transit modes are a solution isn't because they in particular are the best option, generally it's because they aren't cars.

Cars aren't individual choices. They are a societal choice that costs a trillion dollars a year to make work. The issue is cars. No matter which way you slice it, we need to remove cars, and that will necessarily mean making driving a car worse.

I don't think that hiding your goals or intentions is politically a good option. Don't argue something you don't believe in. If you (correctly) identify that cars and car-supporting infrastructure is one of the biggest problems in North America, you have to call it like it is.

We don't actually want other options. We want better other options. The only way to get that is to de-incentivize cars. That's the reason why cars suck to begin with, the proliferation of cars makes every other mode of transport worse, except for inter-city rail, if only by sheer mass effect.

Now I agree that we shouldn't other people by putting them in categories and identifying them with the car. That doesn't mean that we stop opposing the real policies that make cars a good personal option and counter them with policies that make alternatives better, generally at their expense in some way or another. I agree that inter-personally the matter can be approached better, but that does not carry to changing your policy positions or goals, and that should never justify lying about what those are.

sfvisser• 5 years ago

Not all car usage is a problem.

I’m from the Netherlands which is incredibly bicycle friendly. Small country, highly urban, great cycling infra, great public transport, nearly everyone walks or cycles whenever it makes sense.

Still, cars are everywhere. There are just tons of trips where the alternative doesn’t really make sense.

Municipalities try everything to make the life of car owners miserable to force them into using alternatives. The only outcome is miserable drivers. They are in the car for a reason and won’t just switch.

bartvk3• 5 years ago

Still, cars are everywhere. There are just tons of trips where the alternative doesn’t really make sense.

The obvious alternative is a car sharing platform. I've got a couple in my neighborhood and they work for the kind of trip you're describing.

lucideer5• 5 years ago

Still, cars are everywhere.

I don't think cars will ever disappear, they're useful in many ways. But saying "cars are everywhere" in NL seems a bit of an overstatement, no? Cars are so much less dominant in NL than in other European countries (even Denmark).

try everything to make the life of car owners miserable

Are they miserable because of inherent challenges of car ownership that other countries try to mitigate or is it really municipalities actively causing their misery?

dalbasal2• 5 years ago

At least in the Netherlands, you guys have other options.

I live in Ireland. We also make life miserable for drivers, and basically unaffordable for young, or poor people. But here, about 50% of the population doesn't have access to any alternatives.

yuri91• 5 years ago

But your public transport is not great, really. It is pretty expensive, to the point that renting a car is cheaper than taking the train if you are 2 people. And trains are painfully slow too. Public transport inside cities is better (but still expensive), but less needed because biking infrastructure is really really good.

sudosysgen7• 5 years ago

I agree that we will still have cars. At some point, yes, we will have to accept the level of car use we get to, and at that level making drivers miserable won't really help, I agree.

We're just very far from that level. Also, the Netherlands while amazing is not perfect, we can still do better, though it is great.

thereisnospork• 5 years ago

Cars aren't individual choices. They are a societal choice that costs a trillion dollars a year to make work. The issue is cars. No matter which way you slice it, we need to remove cars, and that will necessarily mean making driving a car worse.

Where is the better option? Most of what I ever hear proposed or implemented are fair weather or inflexible solutions that don't replace my need for a car[0], and thereby only serve to make my transit experience worse.

[0]And this is having lived in a variety of minor to major urban centers in the States.

thayne3• 5 years ago

I can see replacing cars in major urban cities with high population density. And I'd love to see more options for long distance travel in the US (like fast trains).

However, arguments for getting rid of cars seem to ignore the fact that public transit just isn't economical in areas with low population density. And even in urban areas, there are situations where having a car is very beneficial, such as grocery shopping. If you're a single individual it's probably manageable without a car, but for a family of four, you probably can't carry enough food for more than two or three days. If there were no cars in the city, I have no idea how you would purchase larger items like furniture.

Every anti-car argument I've seen has assumed a particular lifestyle. If you really want to get rid of cars, you'll need replacements that can solve the problems of almost everyone.

paulddraper2• 5 years ago

Cars aren't individual choices.

But they are.

There are number of individualized transport options.

And yet, year after year people really, really like cars.

masklinn8• 5 years ago

There are number of individualized transport options.

That is not actually true. In almost all of the US, as well as in most of europe (outside of large urban centers with good public transport) there is no viable alternative to cars.

The netherlands is one of the few places where avoiding cars is an actual option, elsewhere it requires heavy compromission, and imposes significant restrictions on various life choices. If giving up cars means giving up living or having to seriously compromise on your ability to achieve things, it’s as much a choice as “cake or death”.

I’ve lived without owning a car for 20-odd years (with the odd rental / borrowing), it’s only an option because I’m a very non-social person and don’t have children (so my need to move around day-to-day are extremely limited), and I’ve selected my living locations largely around the ability to not have a car, which would leave about 90% of the area unlivable if everybody made the same choices, because there simply is not enough car-free infrastructure for that to be anywhere near a universal option.

Karrot_Kream4• 5 years ago

But they are.

They are. Except for building highways. Gas subsidies. Gas stockpiling for security purposes. Road Maintenance. Signage. And then there's the opportunity cost of the space lost to parking.

Those above choices? Well they're collective and everyone has to pay for them, because without raising taxes they are much too expensive to fund privately. So even if you ride a bicycle to the train to work everyday, you still get to pay for the construction and maintenance of the highway that driving commuters drive their cars on that you can't ride your bicycle, or any smaller motorcycle, on.

adrianN3• 5 years ago

Cars are the choice dictated by infrastructure and land use patterns optimized for cars. Strictly separate residential areas and commercial areas, connect the two with wide roads and offer free parking at each end and, surprise, people really like cars. Build neighborhoods where daily necessities are in walking distance and connect them using trains and, surprise, people really like walking and taking the train.

okokwhatever• 5 years ago

I adore how your moral position is more important than the opinion of those who believe the contraire.

josephcsible2• 5 years ago

There's a lot of people who live in suburbs and commute by car into cities. Most anti-car proposals are all downside and no upside for these people. We should look for proposals that give them appealing alternatives to cars, rather than just making their lives worse.

sudosysgen7• 5 years ago

There are such proposals, commuter rail and local public transport.

But ultimately, suburbs are built around the car. No matter what you do, suburbs will not be as functional without cars as they are with cars, because they were specifically built with the assumption in mind that everyone using them has a car. So yes, people in suburbs will lose out, it's unfortunate but it's not really anyone's fault.

The reality is that life in the suburbs is already full of negative externalities and is generally only sustainable because of subsidies from the cities and to some extent the rural sectors.

So the solution is going to be making the city a liveable place for many of them, which is much easier with cars reduced, as well as build suburbs that can be lived in without cars, but those will look very different from the North American suburbs of today.

Beyond that, every solution such as commuter train, suburban public transport options, etc... is inevitably going to be worse than the car, and that's the sad consequence of how these places were badly designed.

bookofsand6• 5 years ago

I have very fond memories of a quaint ~100k Netherlands city where most of the commuting happened by bike because everything was within a 20 minutes bike ride. Using a car was simply a hassle. By the time you walk to its parking spot, drive, park, walk to your destination, you are already there on bike.

I live in a North American city. The city is zoned the almost all of the jobs are in downtown, u district and maybe the port. Everywhere else is a job desert. To commute by bike to downtown from within the city limits, forget about the suburbs, is an hour each way. This is unfeasible, other than for young people, usually men, with no kids or other obligations. It's a luxury lifestyle, not the obvious choice.

The problem is not the suburbs. The problem is the downtown. The problem is the expectation that millions of people have to commute in/out the downtown every day.

Break down the downtown. Build small office parks all over the 'suburbs'. Spend real $$$ to help families solve the two-body problem.

Edit. Apparently I feel quite strongly about this. Here's a bit more. Suburbs are build around people wanting a decent living space for their families. The car helps, quite a lot, but it's not like suburbanites wake up on Sunday mornings, hop on their Cars and go to the CarTemple to sing praise and offer their first borns as sacrifice to the CarGod. There is simply a dearth of real alternatives, which mostly boils down to a simple question: Are the jobs anywhere near where people want to live?

bpodgursky2• 5 years ago

Seriously. The bicycle gang needs to realize that posting pictures of urban bike lanes does nothing to convince the family w/ 3 children that they can possibly get a family of 5 around in a day without a minivan.

quadrifoliate• 5 years ago

The "family w/ 3 children" gang also needs to realize that they should stop voting down local transit measures, otherwise they will have to resign themselves to spending hours in traffic in narrow streets while cyclists zip by.

iammisc14• 5 years ago

We should reduce crime in our cities and end homelessness so our cities are appealing places to live.

As a conservative minded urbanist, it is disheartening to see people leave cities because many american cities are descending into chaos and many people are not as dedicated to urban living as I am.

Frankly if it weren't for my absolute hatred of car commiting, I would probably follow them. The suburbs offer a superior quality of life other than proximity of conveniences. That is all at this point. Covid destroyed culture. Homelessness and crime destroyed a true sense of community and shared ownership of public property.

trog• 5 years ago

We should reduce crime in our cities and end homelessness so our cities are appealing places to live.

The thing that would make my [Australian] city more appealing to live would be removing most of the cars from it. One of my big dislikes of inner city living is the noise, fumes and congestion from vehicles.

whakim4• 5 years ago

As a conservative minded urbanist, it is disheartening to see people leave cities because many american cities are descending into chaos and many people are not as dedicated to urban living as I am.

Total crime rates as well as violent crime rates have been declining almost continuously for about 30 years. In the early 90s, crime rates were more than double what they are today.

Rates of homelessness are harder to measure, but the most comprehensive statistics (as measured annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development) show that the total number of unhoused individuals hasn't changed drastically since 2007 when reporting began.

While I do not deny that homelessness and crime are problems, American cities are not "descending into chaos" on the basis of rates of crime and homelessness.

photonios• 5 years ago

I am not sure what appealing alternative you could offer. I didn't have a car up until recently. I got one because I had a kid. Even though I live in a small European city [0] (400k inhabitants) with bus lines everywhere, taxi's that are dirt cheap etc.

It's impossible with a kid. I tried for the first few months. I don't have time to wait for the bus for 10 minutes with a screaming baby, neither do I want to stress that the entire bus or train needs to listen to my crying baby for the ride. Taking the kid to the doctor halfway across town is just a nightmare with any of the alternative modes of transport.

Give me a good alternative for taking a screaming baby to the doctor without pissing off everyone and I'll happily get rid of the car.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluj-Napoca

perryizgr8• 5 years ago

Even without a kid, a car is almost always the best way to travel. If we lived in an ideal world with unlimited space and resources, everybody would be driving a car. Only restrictions due to population density or political incentives may create situations where one might prefer traveling by some other mode.

fy20• 5 years ago

Taking the kid to the doctor halfway across town

I live in a similar sized European city, and the one good thing the Soviets did here was to make sure services are available nearby to where people live.

I have a friend who has two toddlers, and when they need to go across the city they have no issues going by bus. If someone get pissed off because there is young human who is not mature at controlling (or more likely supressing) their emotions, that's their own problem.

Almost all of the services they need are nearby though. During the winter lockdowns they didn't need to leave their district for 4 months.

swader999• 5 years ago

I'm pro working from home.

dredmorbius9• 5 years ago

"Don't be anti-Axis-powers. Be pro something else."

"Don't be anti-HIV. Be pro something else."

"Don't be anti-crime. Be pro something else."

"Don't be anti-(house|city|wild)-fire. Be pro something else."

"Don't be anti-discrimination. Be pro something else."

"Don't be anti-software-defect. Be pro something else."

Cheap and meaningless rhetorical techniques are best exposed by substituting in other terms.

It's useful to note that problem solving has a number of stages. That generally involves identification of a problem, a goal, a path-to-goal, and a mechanism for achieving said path. That said, which you focus on (problem, goal, path, mechanism) is best determined by where focus is most effectively attended. And that varies by the problem. Blanket prescriptions rarely work.

The automobile has created the modern urban landscape and its characteristics. That's the primary focus in reversing or correcting many of those faults.

https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarc...

dflock• 5 years ago

"Don't be anti-Axis-powers. Be pro something else."

Pro: Allies, peace.

"Don't be anti-HIV. Be pro something else."

Pro: Science, research, vaccines, health equality, etc...

"Don't be anti-crime. Be pro something else."

Pro: Social security/welfare, Mental Healthcare for all, drug legalization, rehabilitation, etc...

"Don't be anti-(house|city|wild)-fire. Be pro something else."

Pro: Ecological Forest Management, Public Services, Firefighers & Funding, etc...

"Don't be anti-discrimination. Be pro something else."

Pro: Social Justice, Black Lives Matter, Equality, etc...

"Don't be anti-software-defect. Be pro something else."

Pro: Unit Tests, End-to-End Testing, User Testing, Fuzzing, Documentation, etc...

dredmorbius9• 5 years ago

Sometimes, if your goal is to hit a specific target, the best advice is "aim for the bullseye", and not "don't aim at everything that isn't the bullseye". Worse yet, an enumerated list of non-bullseyes not to aim at.

I get Doreen's point. I can see the political logic in alliance-building. I understand that there are times when full-frontal assaults go poorly. I actually don't have a whole lot of issue with the suggestions. In this one case the advice might even be valid, for messaging purposes.

As a general rule, and in terms of devising strategy, it's ... ill-conceived.

AnthonyMouse3• 5 years ago

Cheap and meaningless rhetorical techniques are best exposed by substituting in other terms.

You're just making a list of things without any redeeming characteristics. Nobody is pro-HIV. Lots of people are pro-car.

But more importantly, it's missing the point.

If you try to eliminate cars and replace them with nothing, or replace them with something worse, everybody is going to fight you because you're making their lives worse.

If it's 20 miles from your house to your office and there exists no mass transit within walking distance of either one, expecting people to stop driving is a joke. You have to build a viable alternative before you can get rid of cars.

And it has to be better than cars or everybody is going to hate it. But if it is better than cars then you don't need to be anti-car, all you need to do is build a better alternative which people will then choose voluntarily because it's actually better.

Example: Build more housing near where people work, so they live within walking distance and don't need to commute in a car. It's not anti-car. It's just better, for everybody, than needing a car.

dredmorbius9• 5 years ago

I've ... shifted my views a bit over the past hour or so (see follow-up comments). I still stand by some of my critiques, though Doreen's points on messaging over a strongly-held, identity-defining product relationship are well-taken.

dredmorbius9• 5 years ago

After more thought, and an offline exchange and apology to Doreen (my comment is a lot harsher than necessary), some additional thoughts.

The main objection I and others seem to have is with the title. As Doreen noted offline, titles are hard. They're also highly influential in steering discussion on HN and elsewhere.

Given that the post is about communicating effectively, this is all the more ironic --- not a ding at the author but at showing just how difficult the task can be. And part of the problem may be that the title itself does what it cautions against: "don't be anti-automobile" is itself emphasizing the negative rather than positive in messaging.

As I noted in an earlier follow-up, many of the points of the post are well-taken. Full-frontal attack is often ineffective in politics. On the other hand, there are cases where nothing else seems to work and the only way to beat down an absolutely ossified and unyielding obstinance is a grinding war of attrition and repetitive messaging. (That's what mass advertising is.)

Explaining (but not excusing) my own response: I'm increasingly on the lookout for what I see as cheap rhetorical devices especially where used to undermine effective initiatives. I don't think Doreen's doing this at all (though I'd also not noted the author/submitter initially), but having tackled a few instances earlier today on may have been overly primed-for-battle.

The question of how to address urban / land-use issues, cost and availability of housing, and the absolute dependence on the automobile really are core, and thinking of how to wage that battle is time well-spent. My approach tends to involve digging through (far too much) history and background, trying to figure out how we got here, and what tactics were used in that approach. As several people brought up, automobile (and oil and tyre interests) did attack their competition and alternative land-uses directly, though it should also be noted not in their marketing selling the automobile itself, whcih focused largely on its benefits, pleasures, and with time, status and social perks. (The history of automobiles and mass advertising are very strongly coupled.)

Automobiles won, in addition to various dirty tricks, because almost anything involving urban travel is easier with a car than without. It's a path of least resistance. With sufficiently low cost, with alternatives removed (dirty tricks), with a land-use policy necessitating their use ... it's an easy, and positive, sell.

If I'd suggest a change to the title, it's that in messaging and campaigning about automobile alternatives, emphasizing the benefits and advantages of alternatives should be the principle focus. Even if strategy focuses on eliminating the car, messaging probably shouldn't. Be positive when advocating for behavioural change might be the key.

(I'm open to better suggested phrasing. Advertising copyrighting is not my strong suit.)

On the other hand, the title used was successful in attracting that fickle beast, attention...

29athrowaway• 5 years ago

I am anti 5+ seat cars with 1 occupant in them.

quicklime• 5 years ago

As much as I agree with the strategy (it's just good marketing) I have to say that I've never met anyone who thinks that bikes (or any other mode of transport) can replace cars 100%. And I know a lot of cyclists. Every single one of them uses a mix of transportation modes, which include: cycling, walking, public transit, and sometimes even cars!

The only people I know that think we can build cities around a single mode of transport are (a subset of) car drivers.

And in my experience, the most successful way to talk to these people isn't to be "pro-bike", it's to be pro transit choice. But I always have to explain this very carefully, because most people assume that anyone who talks about bike lanes or trains is anti-car.

moooo99• 5 years ago

I have to say that I've never met anyone who thinks that bikes (or any other mode of transport) can replace cars 100%.

Probably not, but it is certainly feasible to eliminated the need of owning a car.

xmodem• 5 years ago

I'm not anti-car. I'm pro car users following the road rules and acknowledging the existence of other road users.

foxes• 5 years ago

Plenty of people are pro cycling, public transport, infrastructure etc.

Designing cities mostly around the need for cars is a disease and a blight on urban landscapes.

Don't simp for them.

Barrin92• 5 years ago

This is a terrible strategy, it never got anyone anywhere. It's the result of a sort of bleeding heart learned helplessness. It's the attitude of people who have lost the ability to be confrontational in pursuit of goals.

Take smoking as an example. How did we reduce smoking? (arguably one of the most successful public health campaigns in recent history). Did we stop being anti-smoking and instead promoted something else? No! We banned smokers from bars, we told people that smoking sucked, we plastered ugly pictures of black lungs on boxes and we taxed the crap out of smokers.

Ironically, the big change is often easier than the small one. Cars are the problem, point it out. Haggling about bike lanes is a colossal waste of time. We need to completely revamp how we commute and how we life, communicate that clearly, and point out whoever stands in the way.

amarant• 5 years ago

The difference is that people actually need to get around, and not in the "addicted to nicotine" kind of way either.

Being anti smoking worked because there was no need for a replacement, but we can't feasibly just remove cars workout replacing them with something, some other mode of transportation. Until that other mode exists, and is workable in the specific area, being anti-car doesn't make sense..

jcims5• 5 years ago

replacing them with something

(costing hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars and 2-20 years to build)

NYC has the highest transit use of any city in the US and they would still have to nearly double capacity to get rid of cars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_...

noduerme16• 5 years ago

Being anti smoking worked

Really? About 30% of adults still smoke where I live, and all the teens and 20-somethings use vape pens. What's the definition of "worked" in this context?

lucideer5• 5 years ago

we can't feasibly just remove cars workout replacing them with something

This isn't really true though.

Firstly just as "banning smoking" hasn't really meant banning smoking—people still smoke—being anti-car doesn't mean eliminating car ownership.

In a pro-car world, if I'm a developer building a shopping centre one of my primary considerations is parking. Immediately I need maybe over triple the area of land to build, or significant increase in investment if I'm going underground. Both of these options limit me severely in where I can build: I'll go for an area with cheaper land value, and larger land areas available. Access is further down my list of concerns.

In an anti-car world, I build my shopping centre where people live. Many can walk there. There's a greater array of existing public transport already servicing it (and density means such services are likely to be improved w/out the need for lobbying). Some cycle there. Proximity means visits are more likely to be shorter & more frequent: this increases turnover of parking spaces for the much-smaller number of people who do still need to drive.

There are countless other similar examples of problems that solve themselves when car infrastructure is removed from the equation. Yes we need other solutions in some cases, but just removing cars is enough of a "solution" in itself in many cases.

What people don't realise about cars is that car infrastructure already causes so many problems we've just internalised and accepted as norms. An anti-car approach benefits from those problems being solved implicitly.

pizza2342• 5 years ago

The difference is that people actually need to get around

This is really context-dependent. Some cities/countries do have efficient enough public transport, and/or they're flat enough to make bikes usable.

In such contexts, using a bike is a realistic choice (like mine). This goes even for families with children (in some countries, parents who don't want to depend on cars use cargo bikes).

I know that in some countries/cultures, people will use the car even to avoid a 5 minutes walk (I know it for a fact; I'm familiar with that), with the result of massive traffic and pollution.

johnisgood• 5 years ago

Being anti smoking worked because there was no need for a replacement

Assuming it is true, is vaping a part of "smoking", among other replacements such as nicotine gums and whatnot?

I read a couple of books on addiction. All of them say that you do need to find a replacement, a healthier one.

rainonmoon• 5 years ago

there was no need for a replacement

Spoken like someone who's never smoked!

noduerme16• 5 years ago

All you got out of that anti-smoking campaign was empty bars and a dearth of social life. You can take your babies to a bar now, where no one wants to go be around your babies. I'll never understand some peoples' quest to infantilize the adult population just so they can claim victory.

In places you don't go, and don't know, and obviously aren't invited to, everyone still smokes.

yaacov• 5 years ago

Seriously curious, where do you live where you can take a baby to a bar? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

AlotOfReading2• 5 years ago

Smokers rarely consider how their choices force the rest of us to deal with them. My partner shouldn't have to carry an inhaler, but public smoking forces her to. There shouldn't have been epidemics of children with diseases caused by secondhand exposure, but smoking made sure it happened. I have no problem with smokers lighting up in private airtight boxes, but don't force the waste products into everyone else's lungs by smoking in public.

thraxil• 5 years ago

You can (and pretty much always have been able to) take your babies to any pub in the UK and it's not exactly like pubs are unpopular as a result.

hdjjhhvvhga• 5 years ago

The USA has a very poor public transport infrastructure, it's very difficult to live without a car, and in some areas it's plain impossible. Build the infrastructure first, then we can talk about reducing the number of cars.

lucideer5• 5 years ago

That's somewhat putting the cart before the horse. In high-density areas, the existence of cars & car-supporting infrastructure are active barriers to public transport improvement.

If there's any genuine desire for improvement in public transport in the US, a holistic approach has to be on the table. Anything else is just an excuse not to bother.

xvector3• 5 years ago

If people are encouraged to dump their net worth into vehicles then we will never solve the problem due to the fact that most people engage in sunk cost fallacy with their purchases, especially large ones.

adrianN3• 5 years ago

It's impossible to build the infrastructure without taking away space from cars and/or drastically changing zoning.

yesco• 5 years ago

I think it's important to emphasize that, in the US, it's not "some" areas that are just plain impossible to live in without driving; it's the overwhelming majority.

Time and time again I see Europeans and even some people who live in the US (but who have only lived in Cities) who completely underestimate the magnitude of this.

xvector3• 5 years ago

[delete]

DoreenMichele7• 5 years ago

Being inoffensive and avoiding confrontation aren't the same thing. You can politely engage with people who don't see eye to eye with you. It's done pretty often on HN.

If you delete your reply to this, I will try to delete mine and maybe the whole thing can disappear.

bborud9• 5 years ago

That's not a valid comparison. Mobility and transportation is a necessity for a functioning society. Your food doesn't make it onto the table without being transported there. Are you going to fetch the eggs out at the farm on foot? No, seriously, I am asking you a direct question: how are you going to transport food if you are not going to use any cars or trucks anywhere along the process?

Cigarettes are not a necessity for a functioning society.

Stick also doesn't work as well as carrot. You could tax fuel to discourage "unwanted behavior", but it doesn't have the consequences you want. It drives up prices, which affects the population unevenly.

I can afford at least one doubling in fuel price without it affecting me. Perhaps even two. Do you think the guy who has to drive 2 hours to work from the middle of nowhere to work in an Amazon fulfilment center can afford this?

Electric cars becoming a viable option for more people is a positive change. That's how we solve problems: by creating better alternatives. And if they do not emerge easily: help these industries along by providing them tax breaks and help.

I live in a country that has some of the highest gas prices in the world. High taxation of gas did _nothing_ to reduce the use of cars. It might have made the needle shiver a bit, but it didn't move it. I also happen to live in the country that has the most electric cars per capita. Electric has 70% market share among new cars sold. In 20 years, you will not even be able to buy a new gas powered car here.

That's change. That's the all-important break between hydrocarbons and land-based transport. That's the hard part.

This didn't happen due to gas tax or any other disincentives. It _ONLY_ happened by providing a better alternative. By cutting tax on electric cars so the market could reach the critical point where electric is viable. Now that we're there, we can slowly start to roll off the tax cuts as prices on electric vehicles drop.

It is tempting to piss on the things you don't like. But just being against things and not providing viable alternatives is not a plan. It is also not a plan to have vague dreams of things you cannot execute on. (If you think this constitutes a plan, ask the Chinese about "the great leap forward" or the Russians why the Soviet industry didn't become the envy of the world).

It doesn't create any lasting change. Lasting change comes from providing people with better alternatives and the enthusiastic participation of the masses.

roenxi3• 5 years ago

Mobility and transport by car aren't necessary for a functioning society. Trains, buses, bicycles and walking can build a perfectly functional society. It'd be disruptive, certainly.

Smoking was taking a group of people and telling that they can't do something they want to do. Banning cars would be similar. People don't really seem to be honest about how arbitrary the anti-smoking campaign is. I'd much rather people smoked than drank.

vincnetas3• 5 years ago

Having to drive 2 hours to work from middle of nowhere does not sound like good base for functioning, SUSTAINABLE society. You want to live in the middle of nowhere, you have to factor in the costs of your choice.

msk-lywenn2• 5 years ago

« Are you going to fetch the eggs out at the farm on foot? » (France) We used to, when I was a kid. But more and more gigantic supermarkets put the little farms out of business and now we can’t anymore.

So, to answer your question: yes. (Maybe on a bike though, it’s faster and I enjoy it more than walking)

teucris3• 5 years ago

Very few of the people on this forum are advocating for a complete removal of vehicles from society! Cars and trucks have a purpose and we should always use them when it’s the best choice for hauling goods. But we overuse cars because our infrastructure is designed for cars, causing a negative feedback loop.

bayindirh4• 5 years ago

Cars are the problem, point it out.

Umm, no. In my case, cars are not the problem. They're the result. My city lacks decent and efficient transport from my home to places I go (office, university, etc.), and the lack of transportation is valid for many people, so we get cars.

If the same transportation infrastructure present in Barcelona, Amsterdam, Stockholm or London was present in my city, I'd just take the options and maximize my walk too. I may again have a car for trips, etc. but, it'd be used much less certainly.

So, I dislike the traffic, pollution, noise, parking problems and all, and I want to be a part of the solution, OTOH I have to live, have to show up for work, have to go to shopping and take all that stuff home.

dragonwriter• 5 years ago

My city lacks decent and efficient transport from my home to places I go

Because cars.

Yes, cars are also the result. It’s a self-sustaining cycle that takes active intervention that appears suboptimal in short-term analysis to break out of.

chucksta2• 5 years ago

I live in Philadelphia, often times when the roads are in need of repair (read: all the time) parts of the subsurface get revealed. Often time there are old trolley tracks, that are still in the ground, which were simply paved over for a road and cars.

Cities were recreated over the course of the last 100 years to support car travel over any other means.

kewrkewm534• 5 years ago

Cars and private car ownership are not a problem. Cars using fossil fuels, and unnecessary private car traffic in large cities are. Electric vehicles solve the first problem, better public transport the second.

For the vast majority of people living in the countryside car ownership is a necessity, at least as long as city dwellers aren't willing to pay for government public transport to rural areas.

Thus, being anti-car is idiotic since cons of cars outweigh the pros only in certain contexts.

hexedpackets• 5 years ago

Electric cars still generate a massive amount of pollution. Brake pads and tire wear in particular are large sources for every type of car.

thefr0g5• 5 years ago

at least as long as city dwellers aren't willing to pay for government public transport to rural areas

Why can't the rural population pay for that themselves? If each of them can afford a car shurely they could collectively fund public transport themselves?

tomjen3• 5 years ago

Had there been more money to invest in vaping, it is likely more people would have stopped smoking earlier.

So I am not sure I get your point.

RickJWagner• 5 years ago

Maybe where you live.

Where I live, cars are a necessity. The planet belongs to all of us, rural people don't make that much pollution.

So I'm fine with car-bashing where it's not needed for decent living. Where cars are needed, they should be left alone or else we're legislating a lower standard of living for peer residents.

masterphilo• 5 years ago

This is just a case of false equivalency. Smoking and car-usage are completely different phenomena and the one should not be used make judgements about the other.

You're going to have to do more than that to convince me & others why car usage is that bad, sorry.

specialist2• 5 years ago

We need to completely revamp how we commute...

Very interesting. What's this glorious post-car future you're PROposing? Please say more.

zahma• 5 years ago

I live in a dense city center where there is a severe shortage of space for dedicated infrastructure. As more people ride their bikes, the logical next step is to remove cars from the roads to ensure cyclists have ample space and cars can’t pass recklessly or otherwise discourage further uptake by newcomers. A four-lane street that has one lane for buses and taxis, two regular traffic, and a two way cycling lane separated by a low curb is perhaps the most dangerous place I’ve had to ride here, and that’s because cyclists are all packed into such tiny areas. Closing roads to further discourage commuting would go a long way to wrestle back control of the streets.

Being anti-car isn’t the best first step, but it is inevitable that we take up this position when viable alternatives — not just cycling — are available and convenient.

roschdal• 5 years ago

I am pro cars with petrol engines.

matttproud• 5 years ago

You should give Howard Kunstler‘s The Geography of Nowhere and Duany, et al.‘s Suburban Nation a read. (There are other good ones, too).

These will contextual like what an overhaul of the planning and codes process should look like.

mtmsr• 5 years ago

Public traffic space is limited (and in major cities exhausted) supply. Being "pro something else" is automatically anti-something. If do not make the latter part explicit it will just hurt the weakest group (typically reducing space for pedestrians).

noduerme16• 5 years ago

I'm anti-car (cars as a regular transit method, parking lots, urban sprawl, burning up hydrocarbons, etc), but I love my car. I love working on it, I love driving it, I love the fact that I can go anywhere with it at any time without consulting a bus or train schedule.

I'm anti-smoking. I'd tell anyone not to smoke. But I love cigarettes.

I'm in favor of gun control. But I own guns.

See where I'm going with this?

I'm happy to have a conversation with anyone about the better alternative ways to live, but about 99% of the responses in this thread rub me the wrong way because they're sanctimonious, pompous and aggrieved, and want to explain the right and wrong way to live from the perspective of a child.

One major thing they fail to take into account is that people have grown accustomed to certain freedoms (like not asking permission to go somewhere, or waiting for a bus), and a naive attempt to start solving the world's problems by curtailing other people's freedoms is a non-starter.

Ultimately, you can convince people why these things are bad for society and why there are better alternatives (or why they should be given up completely), but there are major reasons why society adopted these things in the first place and when you come at it from the angle of "you're wrong, you're terrible and you suck and you need to quit smoking / stop working on your car / give your guns to the government", you're going to hit a huge amount of resistance compared with trying to make incremental changes and presenting a case for better lifestyle alternatives.

jeromenerf• 5 years ago

People have difficulties to accept change when innovations go from liberating to considered harmful in a decade. Cars, smartphones …

What feels weird is the « reaction »: as environmental concerns progress, cars (and smartphones) are still being manufactured and marketed as more powerful, faster, shinier, brighter, … production costs are still dwarfing the energy saved by new models efficiency, by a lot.

I like driving my roadster car. It has a rather humble 1.8l engine, I bought it second hand and I don’t commute with it.

noduerme16• 5 years ago

This is true. I was always anti-smart phone and anti-social media. As well as being anti buying anything unnecessary. My car is 40 years old. But now my modest positions seem at odds with the holier than thou PC police, who indulge in all of the above and yet somehow feel morally superior enough to 'splain to me why no one should drive a car. This all goes back to not approaching people by telling them what you're against, because it makes even the most righteous person come off as a hypocrite.

908B64B197• 5 years ago

One major thing they fail to take into account is that people have grown accustomed to certain freedoms (like not asking permission to go somewhere, or waiting for a bus), and a naive attempt to start solving the world's problems by curtailing other people's freedoms is a non-starter.

It's easy, people want flexibility, shorter and more comfortable commute. If you offer that, they'll ditch their cars.

I'm not certain bureaucrats can innovate to make it a reality, so instead you'll get endless committee on transportation and ever ballooning pension funds.

noduerme16• 5 years ago

Smarter public transit would be wonderful. When I lived in Europe, I never owned a car. In the US I live in a small city with unusually good public transit that is not representative of the normal American sprawl. I only use my car when I want to get to a far away beach on a Sunday, or go visit friends outside of town. If you present people with options you will certainly find a majority of people who would love to stop making car payments, paying for gas and insurance. So long as the alternative isn't an enormous hardship that outweighs those costs, which unfortunately it is right now in most American cities that were designed for automobiles.

dredmorbius9• 5 years ago

The real key to this post is how to message and advocate effectively for major social change. (I totally missed this on my first read as well.)

Cars, like much else in modern life, aren't purely functional objects and totems, but are very strongly linked with lifestyle, status, and identity. A campaign that directly attacks these ... probably won't go well.

There have been similar campaigns in the recent past, though, which have been highly effective. The campaign against smoking, begun in earnest in 1961, is probably among the more successful.

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro...

That involved a lot of approaches. Education was one prong, but increasing costs, decreasing the opposition's abiity to propagandise (the tobacco firms), increasing costs, reducing the number of places where smoking was acceptable, changing attitudes toward whether or not smoking was "cool" or a status signal, etc., all contributed. It took literally decades. But it worked, with US rates now less than half their 1945 peak.

fomine33• 5 years ago

In Tokyo, some young people now tend to think that not to have car is cool (that's now concern for big car brands). Just curious is there similar thought in Europe or other urbans.

Suspected reasons: car isn't ecological, is obviously dangerous and takes responsibility, isn't so useful because there are great public transport (unless have children), or sour grapes because salary in japan is low compared to car price and parking in Tokyo.

dredmorbius9• 5 years ago

One of the biggest factors driving reductions in car use (ownership, but also driving) has been expense. For all that basic economics gets many things wrong, increasing price is a highly effective way of reducing a specific behaviour.

Costs may be any of several factors. Purchase price is one, but that's relatively minor. Insurance, registration, parking, fuel, requirements to have (or have in the car) child-safety seats (an expense themselves, but also taking up room in the vehicle, possibly for little effective safety, see: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/car-seats/), smog and other inspections, etc., etc.

Eventually a tipping point is reached, and not using or even owning a car is the preferred option.

Given the role of land use, transit, and other private-ownership alternatives (including ride hailing services / taxies), that's not a simple matter of price. But a set of policies working in concert can effect that kind of change.

em500• 5 years ago

I saw a telling cartoon in an Asian magazine a few years ago, that basically looked like this:

         Poor     Rich
   1960  bike     car
   2010  car      bike

fomine33• 5 years ago

How "just ban" won't work: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/world/europe/france-fuel-...

holoduke• 5 years ago

I love cars. Not only how they look and work, but because it can bring me to places where other people don't usually go. It gives me the ultimate freedom feeling. Going far in car to some remote country/region is such a nice thing to do. I don't want to live in a city from where I rarely leave. I need my cars.

re-al• 5 years ago

I don't understand the emotion, or even the idea that I have to feel something about cars or roads. What is it to do with me, why should I care? Its not as if I can do anything about it.

The governance structure provided us with road infrastructure in the past. We were sold this idea and developed our lives around it.

Now the governance structure wants us to live in smart cities, with no cars. This allows for greater control and tighter management of the tax paying stock.

No one gets to vote for this stuff. It is not a way of life I would choose - I don't like being manipulated. I'm not going to stand at the sidelines and clap these changes on. It is communitarianism - but its not a good thing.

dalbasal2• 5 years ago

So... IDK.

Intellectually, I agree with this. Applied to the personal sphere, a company, family or whatever... being pro something else is probably the way to go. As a macro-political goal... perhaps not.

For a big, hairy example, look at revolutions, or politics generally. Take the American, French or other republican revolution. They were anti-King. Democratic republics were an afterthought, something to fill the void. The Communist Manifesto is notably light on communism. Half of it is anti capitalism. The other half is anti other versions of socialism. Most independence movements of the last century+ were nationalist by default, the actual motivating sentiment was anti imperialism. The hole in the ozone layer was reverse by being anti-cfl, not pro-replacements. Meanwhile, solution-focused movements like the overfishing haven't been very effective.

It's not a pleasant thought, but I think people are just easier to rally against something than for something.

bttrfl• 5 years ago

This is a good advice but on gov level. Governments don't need to be anti car, they just need to stop being pro car and incentivise their use. Stop subsidies, stop tax benefits for both users/producers, stop building new roads, stop turning free spaces into parking lots etc. and be pro something else.

Just make 99% of the car traffic infeasible (slow, expensive...) and market will come up with alternative ways to make 99% of activities that today require a car feasible without them.

devaler• 5 years ago

I’ve found that when it comes to their cars, people seem to get offended very easily (at least in my part of the U.S.). Case in point: I suggested physical traffic-calming solutions for my neighborhood in order to combat excessive speeding, and a community member said, “We don’t live in communist China.”

slifin• 5 years ago

It's fine to be anti car, I think the "concession" you do need to make is that the context is really important, I live in the middle of a busy city that really suffers from traffic problems

When I'm talking about pedestrianising or bike lanes or e-scooters etc it's from the perspective of a busy city that does not have enough room for cars

It's important to acknowledge that most car alternatives are not an option for people like farmers or people who live out in the sticks and so people in the country are typically not who I'm talking about when talking about anti car ideas

usrusr• 5 years ago

The car-dependent are so exceptionally good at spinning every pro-something into anti-car (unless it's pro car) that any attempted distinction between pro-something and anti-car is futile. Embrace the antagonism they force on you, be anti-car.

machinehermiter• 5 years ago

anti-car? people need to quit social media. It is rotting your brain.

11235813213455• 5 years ago

What I'd love is changing the road safety rules in favor of bikes (because bikes lanes can't do everything, sometimes they are terrible or not existing)

  1. High priority vehicles firemen/police/amulance    
  2. Shared transports (bus/tram)  
  3. Bikes  
  4. Other motorized vehicles - cars

Also reducing drastically driving speed to reduce risks

Ajedi32• 5 years ago

A big part of the problem is that all existing alternatives are objectively inferior on an individual level.

Cars provide long or short distance uninterrupted point-to-point transportation in a private environment with climate control and a large cargo capacity. Every alternative is worse in some or all of these ways, and the few advantages they do offer are usually only worth those drawbacks in rather niche circumstances.

specialist2• 5 years ago

Offense beats defense.

This OC's advice is completely, utterly, logically, emotionally, psychologically, economically, and in all other ways thoroughly correct. Any one who disagrees has obviously not done any policy work.

Other perks when advocating for progress:

Messaging is generally easier. If you're explaining, you're losing.

Focus! Avoid getting dragged into pedantic slap fights, distracting side quests, arguing about details and semantics.

It's hard to win fights on enemy turf.

Everyone is already complaining about everything. Be the one who has a plan, something positive to say. Honey vs vinegar.

hootbootscoot4• 5 years ago

What mirrors my visceral full-body negative reaction to large swathes of asphalt and often extremely noisy and apparently aggressive (look at modern autos front-ends and tell me they are not designed to look like predators) swarms of vehicles speeding by as quickly as they possibly can, most emitting vast clouds of bad-smelling exhaust gasses that are carcinogenic and contributing to climate change as well as general poor air quality for the unfortunate humans nearby, anyway, I was saying: what mirrors my revulsion at the inelegance of cars and their road support system is a love of treelined paths. A love of trees. A love of well designed botanical gardens. A love of 100 year old walnut trees, or mango trees large enough to provide shade for an entire housing block.

We can have a paradise on earth here, as soon as it stops being "cool" and "normal" to turn this planet into a wasteland.

We can design our transport around a sensible way of life that doesn't involve all the human ants having to shuffle themselves 100km from their dwellings each day, in pursuit of informatic careers of deep personal meaning.

etc.

hootbootscoot4• 5 years ago

I will also propose separating transport planes. There is no excuse for mixing cars and pedestrians in an inner city. I see no viable excuse for traffic lights and forcing petrol-burning vehicles to idle. All car traffic that crosses with living spaces should be in tunnels etc, and all flow controlled as in highway entrance/exits and roundabouts, etc.

Don't Be Anti Car. Be Pro Something Else.

Related Stories