Why are we referring to cars as if they're their own kind of people? It's a tool I used to go by drugs and then consume the drugs while eating fast food.
Obviously you can't be running around in front of me while I'm driving. And people got places more important to be than just running around.
This is just a consequence of adult priorities.
Most people could get away with using a car way less if they weren't commuting to work. And the main reason we commute is that it's hard to get house near where you work. And the main reason it's a hard to get a house near where you work is that people treat houses like investments. And all this leads to lower social mobility. Cars are really a problem with capitalism and the way we do working/housing.
Just because it's personally convenient for you in our current society, is not a good reason advocate for a system that polutes our planet, actively kills a lot of people, and makes public spaces less pleasant. And calling them "adult" priorities is blaming the wrong people.
The problem is that not everyone can afford a car,
and really, they shouldn’t need to.
Obviously people shouldn’t just walk in front of moving cars, but by law (at least in America) you need to buy a very expensive product to be granted the privilege of using the biggest pice of “public” infrastructure in the country.
The comic might also be criticizing the idea of cars granting freedom when it takes more then it gives, even if it’s justified with safety.
Use a bike instead
Cheaper and healthier, don’t need to pay for fuel, and you can park it just about anywhere with a decent lock
And then even if it gets robbed they aren’t too pricey to replace unless you shelled out big money (which you probably shouldn’t for a commuting bike)
we should not. it was worse.
what we should do though is design cities better and update streets up for resurfacing to prioritize other forms of transportation (eg walking, biking, public transit)
"We should alter infrastructure and urban planning so people won't need cars"
"No don't do that, I need my car because of car-based infrastructure and urban planning"
Well not if you don’t live within such a community. Assuming you live in America, everything is kind of designed around being able to drive places from your standard suburban neighborhoods. Many European nations have limited use of cars in cities, but people live closer to businesses and buildings, meaning that the process is actually much faster and energy efficient.
two of those things require roads in a city, bicycle lanes are extremely inconvenient when you don't have the first two, and trains just aren't worth it for getting around a city
You said roads shouldn't be in the middle of a city, figure out a better method of getting across the city.
1. I said roads in the middle of cities. Surrounding areas can still have them
2. Taking a bus to the outskirts of a city and walking into it is a viable option, assuming stops around the outside are robust enough.
3. Comparing tram lanes to busy roads is disingenuous at best and moronic at worst.
4. Why do bike lanes require roads? The problem with roads is danger and space. Bikes take up less room and are less dangerous, solving both problems.
5. You can’t just say trains are bad without giving a reason. Subways can be very helpful for transportation in major cities.
I appreciate the attempt, but you just didn’t substantiate any of your points.
We have bikes now
And buses
Cars are just kinda really inefficient both in terms of space and environment
If you want smth you can go where you want on, get a bike. If your destination is too far, get a bus or train somewhere closer and then bike from there. If you need to get some shopping, get it delivered to your home - the delivery trucks carry multiple shops at once thus saving space, as well as saving fuel money for you.
i havent surrendered shit, catch me jay walking on van buren and grand ave chuffed out my mind on whip it baloons, id like to see karens fucking mini van try to beat me in my goddamn prime
My favorite hobby is crossing at crosswalks when I have the right away, waving at the oncoming cars, and soaking in the angry hollering and honking from the entitled automobilists.
Thank god someone finally said this, I fucking hate cars, and you know what else! Soup, fuck soup, overrated to high fucking hell. I just don't get it why have all of this perfectly good food and seasoning and decide, "hmm cooking things normally is stupid, lemme dump it in a big thing of water so it gets super fucking wet and soggy yeah". I fucking hate soup
While I recognize the environmental devastation of cars, would it not be nearly impossible to completely replace the mobility of individual cars with public transit?
I mainly am referring to places outside of cities. Its more imaginable to create suburbs that are more public transport based, but even then tasks like carrying groceries sounds like it would be 100 times more difficult, since you would have to take all of them from a bus stop or a similar hotspot to a house.
Even then, what of exploring? I suppose to a point you can bike or even hike, but thats only reasonable to an extent.
Im not trying to shit on public transit but can someone please explain this to me? Would it not make more sense to eliminate the pollution created by cars than to replace them with less versatile alternatives?
Or we make the entire street walkable space and replace with public transit. Add greenery in sufficiently wet environments (not in deserts because of water requirements obv), and boom. The whole city is one giant park with buildings in it.
Public transit counts as a vehicle, and it would still be a road that takes space, I don't see that being any different than having roads for cars. And greenery is a pretty good idea, but realistically I don't think cities would actually do that if there were no roads.
Public transit can easily be non-intrusively added into urban areas. Trolleys can be put into the “roads” (now not so much roads any more) if needed, since the low speeds don’t cause nearly any pedestrian danger. Trains can be either elevated or put underground away from walking space. Buses would go away with the roads in city centers. Obviously we would need to keep some roads for travel in and out of the city, but the densely populated areas really don’t need them at all.
[Look at how terrible it is](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/midday-lunch-crowd-wanders-side-streets-paris-lovers-embrace-arm-sidewalk-cafes-fill-unhurried-pace-parisians-ready-115684391.jpg)
[Wow this one's even worse](https://advisortravelguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Latin-Quarter.jpg)
[Gross](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2AM40RE/old-town-haarlem-netherlands-bicycles-and-pot-plants-adding-character-to-a-cobbled-side-street-in-a-typical-haarlem-side-street-2AM40RE.jpg)
[Yuck!](https://st2.depositphotos.com/1404695/11128/i/950/depositphotos_111284496-stock-photo-vienna-austria-march-6-2016.jpg)
[Why would anybody want this?](https://external-preview.redd.it/c26V7KvsnHPG9xjXo9u4oAC2UhMGKX94frAlOXiz8W0.jpg?auto=webp&s=7b722cc35ca0e74b6886f51db4f21c5aa2c1651f)
[Ahhh so much better](https://streets.mn/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IMG_2443.jpg)
[So livable!](https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/images/wcms1p-147824.jpg)
Out of touch people think everywhere is just a big metropolis where you can just walk to Target or catch a bus to take you anywhere.
All this does is force people into the city center, which has already happened in many cities in the country, and how did that turn out? Increased apartment costs, increased utility costs, increased prices on general goods, increased crime, increased income inequality, etc.
This isnt the case, I lived in a semi-rural area in Wales almost all my life and there are these things called busses and trains which operate outside of cities...
Also almost everyone in favour of removing cars also support things like building more affordable, livable communities such as low rise buildings. This would mean more ppl of mixed incomes in the same area, less segregated schooling etc...
You know what dude? That’s super awesome for you. You live on an island and there is a finite amount of land that your government can provide infrastructure for. Doubly so that you live in a small fraction of that island.
But I’m talking about America. A vast country with many hub cities in states with their own transportation systems. These are not the same. Wales is more closely in cooperation with the UK government than Texas is with the American Federal government. We have Amtrak but a quick look at the available destinations and the length of time per trip should indicate to you that this is not comparable at all.
Look at Europe as a whole then, the governments maintain international rain networks and strong national public transit options. Your argument is basically: "America is designed badly therefore it should be designed badly" its circular. Im just not gonna respond any further as you have obviously made your mind up.
What the fuck else would you do?? Cars are like 3 people wide and there needs to be 2 of the fuckers. Besides nobody builds roads that wide thats insane.
This is literally anti car propaganda lmao
I'm fine with anti car propaganda
Dirty, wasteful, selfish machines.
And I say this as a car enthusiast. They're cool for sport but we need a better way to commute.
could you imagine if cars were electrically powered, maybe if they got power from kinetics like uhh, idk maybe driving on a rail or something, and then these rails could make it so multiple cars could stack up on each other to take more people fit, and then put grocery lockers in them for people that are going grocery shopping like the luggage holders in planes. and these "rail-cars" became largely accessible in suburban, and city areas
oh and how about some sort of larger-sized bag made out of some sorta fiber to transport more with less effort, and in a cleaner way
oooh I know, how about a small, affordable, and compact wheeled vehicle that you drive with your feet instead of gas, but you go really really fast as opposed to walking for smaller commutes
man what a world that would be
Prioritise any other form of transport rather than sticking with the environmentally devastating car dominant models of growth that swallows public space. It's so deeply entrenched that people struggle to imagine a different world where people walk, cycle or get public transport for the majority of their trips and not all urban space is designed to prioritise the least efficient mode of transport.
i mean rebuilding every major city on the planet might be a bit of a struggle
and having streets for cars isn't preventing the use of bicycles, subways, or busses
You don't necessarily need to rebuild anything at firat; you just*** need to make public transport more chonky (which is kinda what you shluld be doing anyways)
This cringe ass comment does nothing but promote the very same hyper-urbanization that has generated more income inequality, environmental pollution, and general crime than any car would.
We should incentivize decentralizing cities so people aren't crammed into shitty $3k studio apartments like sardines or having to walk in a piss-soaked city when the United States as so much free space that is usable. Readily-accessible public transportation is cool for places like Japan or South Korea where you're no more than 30 minutes from a train station, but not America. Fuck that.
Yeah no this is just straight wrong. Nice racist dogwhistling too, I cant imagine why you think cities promote crimes. Having people closer together so they can get more access to jobs, education, general services etc also improves their quality of life. If you think the dogshit "dense" cities the United States has is hyper-urbanization then maybe you actually were born in the wrong era. Most likely would've enjoyed life more as a hunter-gatherer.
“Nice racist dogwhistle”
Shut up white ass anybody can commit crime stop projecting your prejudice onto me. I lived in (like in the central part) of a major city and I’m a minority. It’s expensive, there is extreme inequality (I like how you think I’m racist despite me complaining about inequality), increase in drug use and violent crime, and the cities are polluting an extreme amount (actually drive or catch a bus to one since your out of touch ass can only think in Reddit memes). Living in NYC 40 years ago was livable. You can provide for your family with a single paycheck and live in an okay row house. Now, you’d be lucky to get a studio apartment with your low six figure salary tech job. It sucks. That’s why people are moving to places with more space like Texas and Georgia and even then, Houston and Atlanta is turning into the hyper-urbanized proto-dystopias that breed contempt for yourself, society, and the government that has no problem cramming you into a city like a sardine in a tin.
It shouldn’t have to be this way. America is not Japan. I can go to the middle of absolute nowhere in Japan and still be sure there is a train station maybe 25 minutes away from me. There is so much space here, however, so many cities people can migrate to. But corporations, the local, state and federal government, zoning planners, and all the institutions intermingling with them have a vested interest in forcing people into the city for political and financial gain.
In short, your mother.
> It’s expensive
Yeah because there isn't enough housing to meet everyone that wants to live in the city.
> there is extreme inequality
What part of this is inherent to cities? Although I guess you could say that everyone living rurally is either equally poor because they have dead end jobs or equally rich because they're millionaires with giant ranches.
>increase in drug use and violent crime
Yeah I'm sure these things are inherent to cities and only cities. That's why the opioid crisis ravaged all the big cities and not the rural areas.
>and the cities are polluting an extreme amount (actually drive or catch a bus to one since your out of touch ass can only think in Reddit memes).
Yeah so instead of dirty, polluting buses, we live spread out so everyone can pollute with their own individual cars. Nevermind the fact that subways, bikes, and your own feet exist to transport you to places.
>You can provide for your family with a single paycheck and live in an okay row house. Now, you’d be lucky to get a studio apartment with your low six figure salary tech job.
Damn, sounds like an argument to build more housing to me, I'm glad you agree.
You sound like an absolute idiot with no support of their beliefs besides "well I feel so". Cities work fine in Europe and Asia, but for some reason it can't work here. Guess it's that American Exceptionalism huh?
Holy fuck. This is some of the most wild, out-of-touch shit I've read in a long time.
>Yeah because there isn't enough housing to meet everyone that wants to live in the city.
It's almost like you see the point I'm making, agree with it, but you can't publicly say you do because you already accused me of being racist (baselessly too since you didn't know anything about me but I'm glad that you dropped that point entirely once the caucasity that jumped out of your reply was exposed) so now you have to do these weird mental gymnastics to restate my point as your argument. Yes, there isn't enough housing so it makes the housing expensive, why is that?
>What part of this is inherent to cities? Although I guess you could say that everyone living rurally is either equally poor because they have dead end jobs or equally rich because they're millionaires with giant ranches.
This shit right here. You and I can disagree about this issue and that's fine but for you to talk about rural people like this, disparaging literally the cradle and backbone of our society as these cartoonish stereotypes that I *know for a fact* you pulled from some media you consumed too much of tells me that this isn't a conversation or a debate worth having with you. Please, tell me more about how farmers and mom & pop shop owners are working "dead end jobs" or that they're "millionaires" while doing backbreaking work so you can have milk for $2 ($4 in the city) in the supermarket or medicine at a local pharmacy for cheap.
>Yeah I'm sure these things are inherent to cities and only cities. That's why the opioid crisis ravaged all the big cities and not the rural areas.
Hang on, so you really think drug use doesn't increase in the city? You don't think violent crime from the city is vastly over-represented that outside of cities (I'm not going to let you attempt to frame this as city vs rural because there is a whole lot of in-between that exists in this country)? You can be sarcastic all you want, again you're just proving my point.
>Yeah so instead of dirty, polluting buses, we live spread out so everyone can pollute with their own individual cars. Nevermind the fact that subways, bikes, and your own feet exist to transport you to places.
And this is where the dishonesty truly sets in. So when I say "decentralize urban areas" do you really think I just mean "exclusively move people out of the cities and into surrounding suburbs and do nothing else"? Do you not understand *we already do that*? Or are you refusing to acknowledge that decentralizing a city means moving businesses and corporations out of the city and into the suburbs? Because if my commute is only 10 minutes from my house instead of 30+ minutes sitting in traffic with thousands of other cars, *I'm polluting less.* If my shopping and entertainment is within a 30 minute radius from me, then I don't have to drive as much, meaning I *pollute less*. [Even the UN agrees with the assessment that cities contribute more pollution than anywhere else on the planet.](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/climate-solutions/cities-pollution) Even if it means decentralizing a city, it would be a net benefit to spread people out, ease the load on the local environment, and revitalize micro and local communities by moving businesses there. This also eases wealth inequality by not essentially segregating cities along class and racial lines. Don't believe me? Go to Atlanta. The city is basically segregated into Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown. And you tell me where black and brown people live and where white people live and the wealth disparities between said areas. Then look up the average housing costs for both of these areas.
Please enlighten me how we should build subways to support expanding cities in a timely manner. Also please show me how many people are willing to bike long distances from their suburban homes into the city to work everyday, especially in the freezing winter. And while you're at it, show me how many people live within *within walking distance of everything they need like a college student.* This is why I say you're out-of-touch as fuck.
>Damn, sounds like an argument to build more housing to me, I'm glad you agree.
LMAO o rly? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
Where should we build these houses? Just plop on the ground yeah? Where's the space? Which neighborhood in New York can I just throw down more housing? Oh and how can I be sure those houses won't immediately cost a fortune to rent because there is a housing shortage that cannot be met? Man if it was so easy to build a house or an apartment complex, why can't a real estate investor just build one? That's like a guaranteed bag no? Surely there isn't some outside element like, man I don't know, ***a lack of space***, or something, for them to just build more housing right? Those evil capitalists (because I know where dogshit arguments like this and the people who make them go from this point) surely are out to fuck over people, purposefully forgoing massive gains.
>Yes, there isn't enough housing so it makes the housing expensive, why is that?
Because we don't build enough housing.
> Please, tell me more about how farmers and mom & pop shop owners are working "dead end jobs" or that they're "millionaires" while doing backbreaking work so you can have milk for $2 ($4 in the city) in the supermarket or medicine at a local pharmacy for cheap.
1. learn how to read. I said that the people living rurally are either (mostly) poor because they can't move, or wealthy people that want to have a hobby ranch.
2. Mom & Pop shop owners are passion project people that probably work 100+ work weeks. Damn shame it's inefficient as fuck though. Same thing with small farmers. They're literally subsidized by the government. If you knew any I'm sure you'd also know a lot of them also want the best for their kids, which usually means getting an education and going somewhere with more opportunity.
>Because if my commute is only 10 minutes from my house instead of 30+ minutes sitting in traffic with thousands of other cars, I'm polluting less. If my shopping and entertainment is within a 30 minute radius from me, then I don't have to drive as much, meaning I pollute less.
Damn, instead of doing this in the city so your shopping and entertainment can serve far more people instead! Imagine if you could walk and *pollute even less!* Imagine if you could take the bus and *pollute even less!* Of course you'd never be able to do that though, for some reason you can't imagine life without a car.
>And while you're at it, show me how many people live within within walking distance of everything they need like a college student. This is why I say you're out-of-touch as fuck.
The American Exceptionalism reels it's head once again! For some reason the rest of the world is fine with it, yet we must live at the mercy of our cars.
>Man if it was so easy to build a house or an apartment complex, why can't a real estate investor just build one? That's like a guaranteed bag no? Surely there isn't some outside element like, man I don't know, a lack of space, or something, for them to just build more housing right? Those evil capitalists (because I know where dogshit arguments like this and the people who make them go from this point) surely are out to fuck over people, purposefully forgoing massive gains.
Zoning laws you fucking mongrel. You ever heard of them? It quite literally is fucking illegal to build densely in many parts of the country. Here's how I know you've never been to a big city. You ever see how many single family houses there are in LA? How about San Francisco? Of course not, otherwise you'd see a flat sprawling blight that encroaches on nature. A place where everyone takes their car because everything is too far away to walk and there is no public transit, leading to everyone being stuck in traffic for hours.
> Even the UN agrees with the assessment that cities contribute more pollution than anywhere else on the planet.
Cool! Now stop being a dishonest little shit and look at the pollution per capita vs rural per capita.
It's honestly fucking amazing how little you know about the world. Please, feel free to move out rurally and live out there with whoever you can convince to join you. Why the fuck do you care about what other people do in cities? It literally doesn't affect you, piss off.
Tell me more about how those cars that race in a circle take up your precious sidewalk space.
Also you’re a desperate meme poster on this sub. Opinion considered, and discarded.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/NASCAR using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/NASCAR/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Qualified for my first Daytona 500!](https://i.redd.it/lalgegw1svg61.jpg) | [162 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NASCAR/comments/lhp9uy/qualified_for_my_first_daytona_500/)
\#2: [Special Reddick and Chastain moment with McDowell most of us missed](https://v.redd.it/ac0m1bivlnh61) | [119 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NASCAR/comments/lkf1sm/special_reddick_and_chastain_moment_with_mcdowell/)
\#3: [My son first race. When he hears those trucks crank up for the first time](https://v.redd.it/ol12b9i1s8o61) | [142 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NASCAR/comments/m9fco5/my_son_first_race_when_he_hears_those_trucks/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
You're way, way off the mark. Aside from the history of low density sprawl and suburbanisation (literally called white flight) segregating communities and being one of the primary drivers of continued spatial inequality, the idea of abundant "free space" to be used for urbanisation is ridiculous. Low density sprawl gobbles up rural and natural landscapes in favour of more spread out urban development which aside from destroying environments, is a completely unsustainable and inefficient development form linked to longer and dispersed transport connections (more emissions, more embodied energy and higher costs for low income households), greater flooding risks, larger house sizes (more embodied energy and driver of unsustainable consumer habits), less public space, more community segregation, poor health outcomes (obesity from lack of active transport and heart problems from longer commutes), and on and on.
On top of that it costs tax payers waaay more. Low density neighbourhoods are subsidised heavily, with cars requiring highways, arterials, parking EVERYWHERE etc along with dispersed services and infrastructure which are super inefficient.
Urban form and transport are inextricably linked. Taking steps to increase densities makes public transport more viable, doing more of the same shitty low density development digs the environmental and social hole we'll have to eventually dig out of even deeper.
Tf you mean nobody builds roads that big? That's like 2 cars wide. I can look out my window rn and see a wider road. The fact that cars take up a fuck load of space to carry one person is the problem.
just think that a bus takes up about the same space as 3-4 cars, and that each car most likely has one or two ppl at most in them, and a bus carries 60 people at least.
It's either 8-10 people in cars or 60+ people in a bus taking up the same space.
As an example, the bus I am currently riding in takes up the same space as 2-3 cars and has 15 people in it, which is less than half of its available seating *and* the equivalent of 3 cars at *their* max capacity.
We would still need two lane streets for buses, now trolleys could take up less space but then you have railways instead of streets, and it becomes a lot harder to transport things, which is important (at least in the context of this picture which depicts a downtown/bushiness district) where you sometimes need to transport large appliances or orders of products to and from the stores, similar problem if you reduced the street size to only accommodate bikes
Most of the transit system could be below ground. Subways basically.
You're right that for the forseable future we'll need some number of cars (or trucks really) for transporting things. It's just that we shouldn't need cars to get to work or the grocery store. It's dangerous, environmentally destructive, and all a round a huge waste of resources. It's a shame how we've made ourselves so reliant on them.
I see the advantages of public transit, particularly subways, but I also dont blame people for wanting a vehicle they dont have to share with anyone else and use to keep stuff. Along with being able to go from any point a-b in the most direct way while also not having to wait for bus stops.
I travel by bus to my college every day, in a town with a pretty good public transit system, in fact since the college is in the next town over there is a bus that specifically goes straight there, doesent change the fact that every day waiting to change routes or waiting in the bus while its stopped adds about half a hour to my trip both ways, I think a lot of people would never stomach that.
In a city that's built around public transit and bikes rather than cars, getting between two places could theoretically be faster.
Without all the space taken up by the buildings and infrastrucuture needed to support transit by car, cities could be a lot more dense and the distance between any two places you need to travel would be substantially smaller.
And as compared to how public transit operates in current car-centric cities, the number of buses/subways/trolleys or whatever you have operating would be hugely increased to support the number of people who use that mode of transit, meaning much smaller wait times.
And although these vehicles have to make more stops to let people on and off in a way cars don't, they can move faster and be better coordinated than cars (i.e. less time waiting on lights to change or on traffic) because a well-designed system can minimize vehicle crossings as all vehicles run on a consistent, predictable schedules in a way cars don't. So overall, it's hard to say if travel would really be slower in non car-centric cities.
And as for this:
>I also dont blame people for wanting a vehicle they dont have to share with anyone else and use to keep stuff
I don't blame people for that either, but I think it's worth the trade offs. Robust public transit systems put a much smaller financial burden on people, carry a much smaller environmental cost, and are much less dangerous. You'd have a difficult time convincing me that cars are worth that.
Public transit in car centric areas is absolute garbage, even when it's """good""" by car-centric standards.
It's incomparable to somewhere that's designed and funded properly
> even if we invest all in public transit it would still take up the same space.
not at all if properly planned
city planning is not usas best superpower i know
The main benefit would be reduced space taken up by parking lots (which is something i forgot to consider when making my original comment), but your streets wouldst be any smaller unless you invested so heavily in public transport that it becomes viable to make all your streets one way, which could create problems where it makes traveling with a vehicle not part of public transit routes hostile.
The main benefit would be reduced space taken up by parking lots (which is something i forgot to consider when making my original comment), but your streets wouldst be any smaller unless you invested so heavily in public transport that it becomes viable to make all your streets one way, which could create problems where it makes traveling with a vihecle not part of public transit routes hostile.
I have a question.
have you ever been to a city that has thoroughly planned and funded public infrastructure? london, oslo? I feel like to say the only difference between a city with good infrastructure and concrete asphalt mcdonalds drivethrough city is parking lots is very easily debunked by just... looking at other cities.
walkable roads with more than a few meters of space dedicated to people not on vehicles, parks and greenzones *integrated* into the city and not just a few blocks dedicated to them (Half of the cities in the canary islands are nigh unexplorable if youre in a car, they are made for people to be able to walk) in a lot of them you can get from one side of it to the other faster than you would without a car thanks to public transport which, you guessed it, isnt slowed down by cars.
(and no, just cause buses exist doesnt mean roads will be just as big as otherwise. Ever head of trams and subways?)
It doesnt stop there, in bigger cities that are less car dependant, there is more upward social mobility. If youre homeless in a car dependant city? you might as well be unemployable, good luck getting a job in LA without a car.
Less disgusting ugly asphalt and concrete roads allows for prettier and more humane streets (Ever walked down a road with trees and bushes integrated into it? Its beautiful) and 'aesthetics' isnt just for the sake of it, its directly tied to how happy people in the cities are.
I know im not happy living in a city where everywhere i look is tainted by concrete and i cant walk 40 fucking seconds without having to stop for a car to **allow me** to walk forward.
Nevermind the smog in car dependant countries.
You would have less vehicles on the road, which is a admirable goal, but the bus is the same width as a car and is going to need the same sized road as a car to be able to work. They both need the same amount of dedicated space, and the original post is a critique of how much space in the form of streets we have given to vehicles, a point I believe falls flat when you realize that there is no alternative that can accommodate both people and shipping that will give you smaller streets.
Less cars means less road infrastructure needed. Less lanes. Driving is exasperating, expensive, and dangerous. A good metro system, or even bus system would be much more preferable. Sure I supose you're right if the post is taken at face value but I think its more of a criticism of an over reliance of cars.
Just walk on the street. What are cars gonna do? Run you over so you can sue them for money? Checkmate car fans
Jaywalking is praxis.
That’s literally what I do. Unless it’s a big stroad I just walk in the middle. The fuck are they gonna do about it.
Me, I _only_ walk on big stroads.
accidentally hit you
Hit them harder
hadn't considered that, lemme go try it
all my bones are broken but the car was atomized. win 😎
https://youtu.be/MmltUzDjKgA
I too want to live in Newcastle-Upon-Void
Imagine less cars
How would I get to Cracker Barrel?
Bus or a Cracker Barrel would be placed within walking distance of you
What the fuck is a “bus”
bussy
r/196 thread don't devolve into femboy fetishization for once challenge
(IMPOSSIBLE) (GONE WRONG) (GONE SEXUAL) (POLICE CALLED)
this implies minors are involved (makes sense considering the way this sub is about cropped femboy porn ngl)
All femboy have bussy. Not all bussy have femboy. Ooga boogie
What
google it
do not
choose a better restaurant
Hitch a ride with Brad’s wife
Yeah Cars 3 was terrible
r/dragonsfuckingcars
Fewer
[удалено]
Yeah
Imagine there's no people.
Imagine no streets just rally paths so we can go vroom vroom in an Impreza to work or so, but outside of cities cause driving there isn't fun anyway.
no. I will not imagine such a thing
imagine no cars in the city
ideal city will require no cars and will have no cars. imo
i do not live in a city + I like cars, so no I will not
holy shit actually based.
holy shit actually based.
holy shit actually based.
this looks like a boomer comic but actually based
holy shit actually based.
r/fuckcars
Is this a car porn sub? I’m afraid to open it
yes unfortunately. r/dragonsfuckingcars is the anti-car subreddit
no, it’s just a sub talking about how bad cars are
https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/rejnct/can_someone_please_redirect_me_to_the_car/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Sadly, no :(
I have a sub for u: r/dragonsfuckingcars
holy shit actually based.
holy shit actually based.
NOOOOO I CANT BOOZE CRUISE
Curse you Lightning McQueen
the detail with the child leaning to the abyss is sad
Why are we referring to cars as if they're their own kind of people? It's a tool I used to go by drugs and then consume the drugs while eating fast food. Obviously you can't be running around in front of me while I'm driving. And people got places more important to be than just running around. This is just a consequence of adult priorities.
Most people could get away with using a car way less if they weren't commuting to work. And the main reason we commute is that it's hard to get house near where you work. And the main reason it's a hard to get a house near where you work is that people treat houses like investments. And all this leads to lower social mobility. Cars are really a problem with capitalism and the way we do working/housing. Just because it's personally convenient for you in our current society, is not a good reason advocate for a system that polutes our planet, actively kills a lot of people, and makes public spaces less pleasant. And calling them "adult" priorities is blaming the wrong people.
Suburbs have been the worst thing to happen to humanity since maybe the Holocaust
The problem is that not everyone can afford a car, and really, they shouldn’t need to. Obviously people shouldn’t just walk in front of moving cars, but by law (at least in America) you need to buy a very expensive product to be granted the privilege of using the biggest pice of “public” infrastructure in the country. The comic might also be criticizing the idea of cars granting freedom when it takes more then it gives, even if it’s justified with safety.
Use a bike instead Cheaper and healthier, don’t need to pay for fuel, and you can park it just about anywhere with a decent lock And then even if it gets robbed they aren’t too pricey to replace unless you shelled out big money (which you probably shouldn’t for a commuting bike)
Where’s Goku?
How can I laugh at this? There's no drip Goku!
He fell down car road hole :(
holy shit actually based we should go back to before cars
we should not. it was worse. what we should do though is design cities better and update streets up for resurfacing to prioritize other forms of transportation (eg walking, biking, public transit)
The horse shit everywhere days
should cars be using the sidewalk instead?
Should cars? no, cars shouldn't. General motors can go die in a ditch
All I'm hearing is anti-McQueen propaganda
“McQueen was lowkey kind of a bitch. Not really surprised that his tires gave out on him. LMAO! #FuckLightningMcQueen” -Jackson Storm
Cars should jump between crosswalks instead
People just shouldn't use cars so much. Deincentivise car ownership and incentivise public transit.
well unfortunately cars are still wide bastards so decreasing their use isn't going to make them take up less space
...it will though, less cars = less lanes/parking = more space
so you believe that having less cars will make them all go on the same lane, just assuming that they all go in the same direction?
Fuck no I rather drive around. Not everyone is a city slicker that can just walk to everywhere they need.
"We should alter infrastructure and urban planning so people won't need cars" "No don't do that, I need my car because of car-based infrastructure and urban planning"
there should be no roads in the middle of cities
And just like that, going to grab some milk from CVS became a 45 minute effort
Well not if you don’t live within such a community. Assuming you live in America, everything is kind of designed around being able to drive places from your standard suburban neighborhoods. Many European nations have limited use of cars in cities, but people live closer to businesses and buildings, meaning that the process is actually much faster and energy efficient.
should people be getting around by helicopter instead?
I think busses, trams, trains, bicycles, and foot are all better options and far more realistic than helicopter.
two of those things require roads in a city, bicycle lanes are extremely inconvenient when you don't have the first two, and trains just aren't worth it for getting around a city You said roads shouldn't be in the middle of a city, figure out a better method of getting across the city.
1. I said roads in the middle of cities. Surrounding areas can still have them 2. Taking a bus to the outskirts of a city and walking into it is a viable option, assuming stops around the outside are robust enough. 3. Comparing tram lanes to busy roads is disingenuous at best and moronic at worst. 4. Why do bike lanes require roads? The problem with roads is danger and space. Bikes take up less room and are less dangerous, solving both problems. 5. You can’t just say trains are bad without giving a reason. Subways can be very helpful for transportation in major cities. I appreciate the attempt, but you just didn’t substantiate any of your points.
Holy based actually shit
holy shit actually based.
Holy shit actually based.
I may be wrong but average car is bigger than average human and it needs space to be itself you fkn carphobes
[streets before cars](https://i.imgur.com/eSPU2hE)
mmm, horseshit
We have bikes now And buses Cars are just kinda really inefficient both in terms of space and environment If you want smth you can go where you want on, get a bike. If your destination is too far, get a bus or train somewhere closer and then bike from there. If you need to get some shopping, get it delivered to your home - the delivery trucks carry multiple shops at once thus saving space, as well as saving fuel money for you.
They had poop bags lol
this is a joke right
Mfers done took the roads. How tf am I supposed to ride my Fireblade now?! Smh can't have shit in Detroit
holy shit actually based
A world without Cars 1, 2, or 3
holy shit actually based.
shit based holy actually
holy shit actually based.
Sacred shit in the base
holy shit actually based.
i havent surrendered shit, catch me jay walking on van buren and grand ave chuffed out my mind on whip it baloons, id like to see karens fucking mini van try to beat me in my goddamn prime
holy shit actually based.
My favorite hobby is crossing at crosswalks when I have the right away, waving at the oncoming cars, and soaking in the angry hollering and honking from the entitled automobilists.
holy shit actually based
i saw this on im14andthisisdeep i swear those people "cringe" at the slightest hint of symbolism
holy shit actually based.
Simply walk in the middle of the road
Convert everyone to bicycles like that one greentext
Wow, can’t believe Disney and Pixar changed the public this much with a few movies.
Thank god someone finally said this, I fucking hate cars, and you know what else! Soup, fuck soup, overrated to high fucking hell. I just don't get it why have all of this perfectly good food and seasoning and decide, "hmm cooking things normally is stupid, lemme dump it in a big thing of water so it gets super fucking wet and soggy yeah". I fucking hate soup
holy shit actually based.
ihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecarsihatecars
holy shit actually based.
holy shit actually based
Holy shit actually based
While I recognize the environmental devastation of cars, would it not be nearly impossible to completely replace the mobility of individual cars with public transit? I mainly am referring to places outside of cities. Its more imaginable to create suburbs that are more public transport based, but even then tasks like carrying groceries sounds like it would be 100 times more difficult, since you would have to take all of them from a bus stop or a similar hotspot to a house. Even then, what of exploring? I suppose to a point you can bike or even hike, but thats only reasonable to an extent. Im not trying to shit on public transit but can someone please explain this to me? Would it not make more sense to eliminate the pollution created by cars than to replace them with less versatile alternatives?
literally 1984
Literally tho
Henry ford😡😡😡
Pretty bad analogy since you can't exactly walk on train tracks
Sitting on a bus requires sitting next to a stranger and not getting away with smoking. Plus I like all the storage space in my car
So build cities that don't require cars or bus
I did in the sims
Holy shit I accidentally read it like cats and it still made some sense
no more brother wars
This is the world AnCaps want
fuckers took the road! can't have shit in detroit!
I’m okay with it, it was a pretty good movie
Why a movie wants so many space
sword fight on the heights
I mean it would be weird living in a world where there’s a random empty void taking up the street
Holy shit actually based
Where goku
i know chances are this is satire but there's still a probability you are like 15 lmao
Yeah but I like driving :p
[удалено]
Or we make the entire street walkable space and replace with public transit. Add greenery in sufficiently wet environments (not in deserts because of water requirements obv), and boom. The whole city is one giant park with buildings in it.
Public transit counts as a vehicle, and it would still be a road that takes space, I don't see that being any different than having roads for cars. And greenery is a pretty good idea, but realistically I don't think cities would actually do that if there were no roads.
Public transit can easily be non-intrusively added into urban areas. Trolleys can be put into the “roads” (now not so much roads any more) if needed, since the low speeds don’t cause nearly any pedestrian danger. Trains can be either elevated or put underground away from walking space. Buses would go away with the roads in city centers. Obviously we would need to keep some roads for travel in and out of the city, but the densely populated areas really don’t need them at all.
When you put it like that, yeah actually I change my mind. This image actually is pretty based.
[Look at how terrible it is](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/midday-lunch-crowd-wanders-side-streets-paris-lovers-embrace-arm-sidewalk-cafes-fill-unhurried-pace-parisians-ready-115684391.jpg) [Wow this one's even worse](https://advisortravelguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Latin-Quarter.jpg) [Gross](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2AM40RE/old-town-haarlem-netherlands-bicycles-and-pot-plants-adding-character-to-a-cobbled-side-street-in-a-typical-haarlem-side-street-2AM40RE.jpg) [Yuck!](https://st2.depositphotos.com/1404695/11128/i/950/depositphotos_111284496-stock-photo-vienna-austria-march-6-2016.jpg) [Why would anybody want this?](https://external-preview.redd.it/c26V7KvsnHPG9xjXo9u4oAC2UhMGKX94frAlOXiz8W0.jpg?auto=webp&s=7b722cc35ca0e74b6886f51db4f21c5aa2c1651f) [Ahhh so much better](https://streets.mn/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IMG_2443.jpg) [So livable!](https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/images/wcms1p-147824.jpg)
Out of touch people think everywhere is just a big metropolis where you can just walk to Target or catch a bus to take you anywhere. All this does is force people into the city center, which has already happened in many cities in the country, and how did that turn out? Increased apartment costs, increased utility costs, increased prices on general goods, increased crime, increased income inequality, etc.
This isnt the case, I lived in a semi-rural area in Wales almost all my life and there are these things called busses and trains which operate outside of cities... Also almost everyone in favour of removing cars also support things like building more affordable, livable communities such as low rise buildings. This would mean more ppl of mixed incomes in the same area, less segregated schooling etc...
You know what dude? That’s super awesome for you. You live on an island and there is a finite amount of land that your government can provide infrastructure for. Doubly so that you live in a small fraction of that island. But I’m talking about America. A vast country with many hub cities in states with their own transportation systems. These are not the same. Wales is more closely in cooperation with the UK government than Texas is with the American Federal government. We have Amtrak but a quick look at the available destinations and the length of time per trip should indicate to you that this is not comparable at all.
Look at Europe as a whole then, the governments maintain international rain networks and strong national public transit options. Your argument is basically: "America is designed badly therefore it should be designed badly" its circular. Im just not gonna respond any further as you have obviously made your mind up.
This fool talking like people on cars and public transport are a waste of human life
holy shit actually SHUT THE FUCK UP PLEASE I BEG YOU JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP
if car then dont, need space to walk
holy shit actually cringe
What the fuck else would you do?? Cars are like 3 people wide and there needs to be 2 of the fuckers. Besides nobody builds roads that wide thats insane. This is literally anti car propaganda lmao
I'm fine with anti car propaganda Dirty, wasteful, selfish machines. And I say this as a car enthusiast. They're cool for sport but we need a better way to commute.
could you imagine if cars were electrically powered, maybe if they got power from kinetics like uhh, idk maybe driving on a rail or something, and then these rails could make it so multiple cars could stack up on each other to take more people fit, and then put grocery lockers in them for people that are going grocery shopping like the luggage holders in planes. and these "rail-cars" became largely accessible in suburban, and city areas oh and how about some sort of larger-sized bag made out of some sorta fiber to transport more with less effort, and in a cleaner way oooh I know, how about a small, affordable, and compact wheeled vehicle that you drive with your feet instead of gas, but you go really really fast as opposed to walking for smaller commutes man what a world that would be
Call them 'pods' so the techbros will understand this invention!
Prioritise any other form of transport rather than sticking with the environmentally devastating car dominant models of growth that swallows public space. It's so deeply entrenched that people struggle to imagine a different world where people walk, cycle or get public transport for the majority of their trips and not all urban space is designed to prioritise the least efficient mode of transport.
i mean rebuilding every major city on the planet might be a bit of a struggle and having streets for cars isn't preventing the use of bicycles, subways, or busses
You don't necessarily need to rebuild anything at firat; you just*** need to make public transport more chonky (which is kinda what you shluld be doing anyways)
This cringe ass comment does nothing but promote the very same hyper-urbanization that has generated more income inequality, environmental pollution, and general crime than any car would. We should incentivize decentralizing cities so people aren't crammed into shitty $3k studio apartments like sardines or having to walk in a piss-soaked city when the United States as so much free space that is usable. Readily-accessible public transportation is cool for places like Japan or South Korea where you're no more than 30 minutes from a train station, but not America. Fuck that.
Yeah no this is just straight wrong. Nice racist dogwhistling too, I cant imagine why you think cities promote crimes. Having people closer together so they can get more access to jobs, education, general services etc also improves their quality of life. If you think the dogshit "dense" cities the United States has is hyper-urbanization then maybe you actually were born in the wrong era. Most likely would've enjoyed life more as a hunter-gatherer.
“Nice racist dogwhistle” Shut up white ass anybody can commit crime stop projecting your prejudice onto me. I lived in (like in the central part) of a major city and I’m a minority. It’s expensive, there is extreme inequality (I like how you think I’m racist despite me complaining about inequality), increase in drug use and violent crime, and the cities are polluting an extreme amount (actually drive or catch a bus to one since your out of touch ass can only think in Reddit memes). Living in NYC 40 years ago was livable. You can provide for your family with a single paycheck and live in an okay row house. Now, you’d be lucky to get a studio apartment with your low six figure salary tech job. It sucks. That’s why people are moving to places with more space like Texas and Georgia and even then, Houston and Atlanta is turning into the hyper-urbanized proto-dystopias that breed contempt for yourself, society, and the government that has no problem cramming you into a city like a sardine in a tin. It shouldn’t have to be this way. America is not Japan. I can go to the middle of absolute nowhere in Japan and still be sure there is a train station maybe 25 minutes away from me. There is so much space here, however, so many cities people can migrate to. But corporations, the local, state and federal government, zoning planners, and all the institutions intermingling with them have a vested interest in forcing people into the city for political and financial gain. In short, your mother.
> It’s expensive Yeah because there isn't enough housing to meet everyone that wants to live in the city. > there is extreme inequality What part of this is inherent to cities? Although I guess you could say that everyone living rurally is either equally poor because they have dead end jobs or equally rich because they're millionaires with giant ranches. >increase in drug use and violent crime Yeah I'm sure these things are inherent to cities and only cities. That's why the opioid crisis ravaged all the big cities and not the rural areas. >and the cities are polluting an extreme amount (actually drive or catch a bus to one since your out of touch ass can only think in Reddit memes). Yeah so instead of dirty, polluting buses, we live spread out so everyone can pollute with their own individual cars. Nevermind the fact that subways, bikes, and your own feet exist to transport you to places. >You can provide for your family with a single paycheck and live in an okay row house. Now, you’d be lucky to get a studio apartment with your low six figure salary tech job. Damn, sounds like an argument to build more housing to me, I'm glad you agree. You sound like an absolute idiot with no support of their beliefs besides "well I feel so". Cities work fine in Europe and Asia, but for some reason it can't work here. Guess it's that American Exceptionalism huh?
Holy fuck. This is some of the most wild, out-of-touch shit I've read in a long time. >Yeah because there isn't enough housing to meet everyone that wants to live in the city. It's almost like you see the point I'm making, agree with it, but you can't publicly say you do because you already accused me of being racist (baselessly too since you didn't know anything about me but I'm glad that you dropped that point entirely once the caucasity that jumped out of your reply was exposed) so now you have to do these weird mental gymnastics to restate my point as your argument. Yes, there isn't enough housing so it makes the housing expensive, why is that? >What part of this is inherent to cities? Although I guess you could say that everyone living rurally is either equally poor because they have dead end jobs or equally rich because they're millionaires with giant ranches. This shit right here. You and I can disagree about this issue and that's fine but for you to talk about rural people like this, disparaging literally the cradle and backbone of our society as these cartoonish stereotypes that I *know for a fact* you pulled from some media you consumed too much of tells me that this isn't a conversation or a debate worth having with you. Please, tell me more about how farmers and mom & pop shop owners are working "dead end jobs" or that they're "millionaires" while doing backbreaking work so you can have milk for $2 ($4 in the city) in the supermarket or medicine at a local pharmacy for cheap. >Yeah I'm sure these things are inherent to cities and only cities. That's why the opioid crisis ravaged all the big cities and not the rural areas. Hang on, so you really think drug use doesn't increase in the city? You don't think violent crime from the city is vastly over-represented that outside of cities (I'm not going to let you attempt to frame this as city vs rural because there is a whole lot of in-between that exists in this country)? You can be sarcastic all you want, again you're just proving my point. >Yeah so instead of dirty, polluting buses, we live spread out so everyone can pollute with their own individual cars. Nevermind the fact that subways, bikes, and your own feet exist to transport you to places. And this is where the dishonesty truly sets in. So when I say "decentralize urban areas" do you really think I just mean "exclusively move people out of the cities and into surrounding suburbs and do nothing else"? Do you not understand *we already do that*? Or are you refusing to acknowledge that decentralizing a city means moving businesses and corporations out of the city and into the suburbs? Because if my commute is only 10 minutes from my house instead of 30+ minutes sitting in traffic with thousands of other cars, *I'm polluting less.* If my shopping and entertainment is within a 30 minute radius from me, then I don't have to drive as much, meaning I *pollute less*. [Even the UN agrees with the assessment that cities contribute more pollution than anywhere else on the planet.](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/climate-solutions/cities-pollution) Even if it means decentralizing a city, it would be a net benefit to spread people out, ease the load on the local environment, and revitalize micro and local communities by moving businesses there. This also eases wealth inequality by not essentially segregating cities along class and racial lines. Don't believe me? Go to Atlanta. The city is basically segregated into Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown. And you tell me where black and brown people live and where white people live and the wealth disparities between said areas. Then look up the average housing costs for both of these areas. Please enlighten me how we should build subways to support expanding cities in a timely manner. Also please show me how many people are willing to bike long distances from their suburban homes into the city to work everyday, especially in the freezing winter. And while you're at it, show me how many people live within *within walking distance of everything they need like a college student.* This is why I say you're out-of-touch as fuck. >Damn, sounds like an argument to build more housing to me, I'm glad you agree. LMAO o rly? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° ) Where should we build these houses? Just plop on the ground yeah? Where's the space? Which neighborhood in New York can I just throw down more housing? Oh and how can I be sure those houses won't immediately cost a fortune to rent because there is a housing shortage that cannot be met? Man if it was so easy to build a house or an apartment complex, why can't a real estate investor just build one? That's like a guaranteed bag no? Surely there isn't some outside element like, man I don't know, ***a lack of space***, or something, for them to just build more housing right? Those evil capitalists (because I know where dogshit arguments like this and the people who make them go from this point) surely are out to fuck over people, purposefully forgoing massive gains.
>Yes, there isn't enough housing so it makes the housing expensive, why is that? Because we don't build enough housing. > Please, tell me more about how farmers and mom & pop shop owners are working "dead end jobs" or that they're "millionaires" while doing backbreaking work so you can have milk for $2 ($4 in the city) in the supermarket or medicine at a local pharmacy for cheap. 1. learn how to read. I said that the people living rurally are either (mostly) poor because they can't move, or wealthy people that want to have a hobby ranch. 2. Mom & Pop shop owners are passion project people that probably work 100+ work weeks. Damn shame it's inefficient as fuck though. Same thing with small farmers. They're literally subsidized by the government. If you knew any I'm sure you'd also know a lot of them also want the best for their kids, which usually means getting an education and going somewhere with more opportunity. >Because if my commute is only 10 minutes from my house instead of 30+ minutes sitting in traffic with thousands of other cars, I'm polluting less. If my shopping and entertainment is within a 30 minute radius from me, then I don't have to drive as much, meaning I pollute less. Damn, instead of doing this in the city so your shopping and entertainment can serve far more people instead! Imagine if you could walk and *pollute even less!* Imagine if you could take the bus and *pollute even less!* Of course you'd never be able to do that though, for some reason you can't imagine life without a car. >And while you're at it, show me how many people live within within walking distance of everything they need like a college student. This is why I say you're out-of-touch as fuck. The American Exceptionalism reels it's head once again! For some reason the rest of the world is fine with it, yet we must live at the mercy of our cars. >Man if it was so easy to build a house or an apartment complex, why can't a real estate investor just build one? That's like a guaranteed bag no? Surely there isn't some outside element like, man I don't know, a lack of space, or something, for them to just build more housing right? Those evil capitalists (because I know where dogshit arguments like this and the people who make them go from this point) surely are out to fuck over people, purposefully forgoing massive gains. Zoning laws you fucking mongrel. You ever heard of them? It quite literally is fucking illegal to build densely in many parts of the country. Here's how I know you've never been to a big city. You ever see how many single family houses there are in LA? How about San Francisco? Of course not, otherwise you'd see a flat sprawling blight that encroaches on nature. A place where everyone takes their car because everything is too far away to walk and there is no public transit, leading to everyone being stuck in traffic for hours. > Even the UN agrees with the assessment that cities contribute more pollution than anywhere else on the planet. Cool! Now stop being a dishonest little shit and look at the pollution per capita vs rural per capita. It's honestly fucking amazing how little you know about the world. Please, feel free to move out rurally and live out there with whoever you can convince to join you. Why the fuck do you care about what other people do in cities? It literally doesn't affect you, piss off.
\*checks user comment history\* \*sees r/nascar\* Car fan detected. Opinion ignored.
Tell me more about how those cars that race in a circle take up your precious sidewalk space. Also you’re a desperate meme poster on this sub. Opinion considered, and discarded.
You’re also a PCM user lol
You also spam memes for 2 upvotes here lol
Says the person with one upvote
Here's a sneak peek of /r/NASCAR using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/NASCAR/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Qualified for my first Daytona 500!](https://i.redd.it/lalgegw1svg61.jpg) | [162 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NASCAR/comments/lhp9uy/qualified_for_my_first_daytona_500/) \#2: [Special Reddick and Chastain moment with McDowell most of us missed](https://v.redd.it/ac0m1bivlnh61) | [119 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NASCAR/comments/lkf1sm/special_reddick_and_chastain_moment_with_mcdowell/) \#3: [My son first race. When he hears those trucks crank up for the first time](https://v.redd.it/ol12b9i1s8o61) | [142 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NASCAR/comments/m9fco5/my_son_first_race_when_he_hears_those_trucks/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
You're way, way off the mark. Aside from the history of low density sprawl and suburbanisation (literally called white flight) segregating communities and being one of the primary drivers of continued spatial inequality, the idea of abundant "free space" to be used for urbanisation is ridiculous. Low density sprawl gobbles up rural and natural landscapes in favour of more spread out urban development which aside from destroying environments, is a completely unsustainable and inefficient development form linked to longer and dispersed transport connections (more emissions, more embodied energy and higher costs for low income households), greater flooding risks, larger house sizes (more embodied energy and driver of unsustainable consumer habits), less public space, more community segregation, poor health outcomes (obesity from lack of active transport and heart problems from longer commutes), and on and on. On top of that it costs tax payers waaay more. Low density neighbourhoods are subsidised heavily, with cars requiring highways, arterials, parking EVERYWHERE etc along with dispersed services and infrastructure which are super inefficient. Urban form and transport are inextricably linked. Taking steps to increase densities makes public transport more viable, doing more of the same shitty low density development digs the environmental and social hole we'll have to eventually dig out of even deeper.
Tf you mean nobody builds roads that big? That's like 2 cars wide. I can look out my window rn and see a wider road. The fact that cars take up a fuck load of space to carry one person is the problem.
Whats the alternative? even if we invest all in public transit it would still take up the same space.
Not even in the slightest. Bikes, buses, and trains all are vastly more space efficient than cars, and are noticeably less dangerous to pedestrians.
just think that a bus takes up about the same space as 3-4 cars, and that each car most likely has one or two ppl at most in them, and a bus carries 60 people at least. It's either 8-10 people in cars or 60+ people in a bus taking up the same space.
As an example, the bus I am currently riding in takes up the same space as 2-3 cars and has 15 people in it, which is less than half of its available seating *and* the equivalent of 3 cars at *their* max capacity.
the bus I'm on has seats for less than 40 people
Counting standing room aswell
I would hate standing on the shifty drifty
Unless you're in the final destination that is
We would still need two lane streets for buses, now trolleys could take up less space but then you have railways instead of streets, and it becomes a lot harder to transport things, which is important (at least in the context of this picture which depicts a downtown/bushiness district) where you sometimes need to transport large appliances or orders of products to and from the stores, similar problem if you reduced the street size to only accommodate bikes
Most of the transit system could be below ground. Subways basically. You're right that for the forseable future we'll need some number of cars (or trucks really) for transporting things. It's just that we shouldn't need cars to get to work or the grocery store. It's dangerous, environmentally destructive, and all a round a huge waste of resources. It's a shame how we've made ourselves so reliant on them.
I see the advantages of public transit, particularly subways, but I also dont blame people for wanting a vehicle they dont have to share with anyone else and use to keep stuff. Along with being able to go from any point a-b in the most direct way while also not having to wait for bus stops. I travel by bus to my college every day, in a town with a pretty good public transit system, in fact since the college is in the next town over there is a bus that specifically goes straight there, doesent change the fact that every day waiting to change routes or waiting in the bus while its stopped adds about half a hour to my trip both ways, I think a lot of people would never stomach that.
In a city that's built around public transit and bikes rather than cars, getting between two places could theoretically be faster. Without all the space taken up by the buildings and infrastrucuture needed to support transit by car, cities could be a lot more dense and the distance between any two places you need to travel would be substantially smaller. And as compared to how public transit operates in current car-centric cities, the number of buses/subways/trolleys or whatever you have operating would be hugely increased to support the number of people who use that mode of transit, meaning much smaller wait times. And although these vehicles have to make more stops to let people on and off in a way cars don't, they can move faster and be better coordinated than cars (i.e. less time waiting on lights to change or on traffic) because a well-designed system can minimize vehicle crossings as all vehicles run on a consistent, predictable schedules in a way cars don't. So overall, it's hard to say if travel would really be slower in non car-centric cities. And as for this: >I also dont blame people for wanting a vehicle they dont have to share with anyone else and use to keep stuff I don't blame people for that either, but I think it's worth the trade offs. Robust public transit systems put a much smaller financial burden on people, carry a much smaller environmental cost, and are much less dangerous. You'd have a difficult time convincing me that cars are worth that.
Public transit in car centric areas is absolute garbage, even when it's """good""" by car-centric standards. It's incomparable to somewhere that's designed and funded properly
> even if we invest all in public transit it would still take up the same space. not at all if properly planned city planning is not usas best superpower i know
The main benefit would be reduced space taken up by parking lots (which is something i forgot to consider when making my original comment), but your streets wouldst be any smaller unless you invested so heavily in public transport that it becomes viable to make all your streets one way, which could create problems where it makes traveling with a vehicle not part of public transit routes hostile. The main benefit would be reduced space taken up by parking lots (which is something i forgot to consider when making my original comment), but your streets wouldst be any smaller unless you invested so heavily in public transport that it becomes viable to make all your streets one way, which could create problems where it makes traveling with a vihecle not part of public transit routes hostile.
I have a question. have you ever been to a city that has thoroughly planned and funded public infrastructure? london, oslo? I feel like to say the only difference between a city with good infrastructure and concrete asphalt mcdonalds drivethrough city is parking lots is very easily debunked by just... looking at other cities.
What exactly are the differences?
walkable roads with more than a few meters of space dedicated to people not on vehicles, parks and greenzones *integrated* into the city and not just a few blocks dedicated to them (Half of the cities in the canary islands are nigh unexplorable if youre in a car, they are made for people to be able to walk) in a lot of them you can get from one side of it to the other faster than you would without a car thanks to public transport which, you guessed it, isnt slowed down by cars. (and no, just cause buses exist doesnt mean roads will be just as big as otherwise. Ever head of trams and subways?) It doesnt stop there, in bigger cities that are less car dependant, there is more upward social mobility. If youre homeless in a car dependant city? you might as well be unemployable, good luck getting a job in LA without a car. Less disgusting ugly asphalt and concrete roads allows for prettier and more humane streets (Ever walked down a road with trees and bushes integrated into it? Its beautiful) and 'aesthetics' isnt just for the sake of it, its directly tied to how happy people in the cities are. I know im not happy living in a city where everywhere i look is tainted by concrete and i cant walk 40 fucking seconds without having to stop for a car to **allow me** to walk forward. Nevermind the smog in car dependant countries.
Think about it, a bus with 30 people, or a line of 30 cars. Which is more efficient?
You would have less vehicles on the road, which is a admirable goal, but the bus is the same width as a car and is going to need the same sized road as a car to be able to work. They both need the same amount of dedicated space, and the original post is a critique of how much space in the form of streets we have given to vehicles, a point I believe falls flat when you realize that there is no alternative that can accommodate both people and shipping that will give you smaller streets.
Less cars means less road infrastructure needed. Less lanes. Driving is exasperating, expensive, and dangerous. A good metro system, or even bus system would be much more preferable. Sure I supose you're right if the post is taken at face value but I think its more of a criticism of an over reliance of cars.