Well said.
this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
512 points (96.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
11666 readers
1370 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Always important to remember in this debate: electrification of transport is not just about carbon and climate. It's about public health, not to mention public sanity.
The filthy noisy combustion engine was never compatible with dense cities, which is where most people live these days. Anyone who has been to one of the few places in the world where urban transport has been completely electrified will testify to the difference it makes to be free of the internal combustion engine. It's night and day.
Let's not lose sight of the wood for the trees.
Let’s not lose sight of the wood for the trees.
I agree.
I wish my city would ban the loud sport cars.
They dont even have to be sport cars, they might just use a modified exhaust (you can add a thing at the end of it and you can make noise very very cheaply)...
And motorbikes.
Controversial take (for this community): Electric personal vehicles were the catalyst for the electrification of commercial vehicles. So while it doesn't address the problem of car-centric infrastructure, EVs have had a net positive impact on the environment by converting fleet vehicles to less polluting options as well as taking diesel trucks off the road.
Plus, even if you reduce the number of cars by 50% you still need to replace the other 50% on the road so the EV industry needs to grow
I wish there was some way you could sue the government for doing this.
Lol
Your title is correct not the post you linked
The conservatives where I live shit blood absolutely any time any changes are made to roads to make them even slightly more pedestrian and bus/bike friendly. Preventing accidents/deaths and generally having a more usable, inviting environment for anyone that isn’t a car is unacceptable if it adds even a second to their commute. Go live on the fucking highway if you like it so much.
It's funny because adding more non-car options tends to make using a car more pleasant. But conservatives aren't known for being smart, correct, or good at long term thinking.
Yeah. My city changed a one way street that runs 30 blocks headed away from downtown from a two lane multiple stop sign traffic hazard to a single lane with plenty of parking, a bike lane, turn lanes for busy intersections, and highly visible intersections with proper pedestrian connections. Traffic would get backed up before, but now it goes pretty much straight through at the same time of day with barely any sloowing down. Sure, all the cars are in the same lane, but prevoiusly they were just spread out between two lanes and slowing down way more often to merge and turn more slowly.
Haven't heard of any new plans to do the same with comparable streets despite being a roaring success. People look at a single lane and don't understand it can be faster for everyone than two when done right.
Tax rebates for massive luxury electric SUVs but you're on your own if you want to buy an e-bike worth less than the total tax rebate for an EV. Most places won't even build infrastructure for anything other than cars. My city has roads with no sidewalks that go straight to downtown and some newly built suicide bike gutters along a major stroad.
Some states have programs, I know Cali has a program for ebikes https://www.ebikeincentives.org/
Though I will admit most of Cali is not bikeable (at least socal imo, norcal is better)
Here's a list from what I could find online on it. https://tstebike.com/blogs/new/unlock-savings-2025-u-s-state-e-bike-tax-credits-and-rebates
As long as a majority of Americans live in suburban areas, car dependency will continue.
That's not even true. E-bikes solve the low density suburb problem. You just need to actually build out appropriate bike lanes and trails. Suburban neighborhoods aren't unfixable.
Many millions of Americans spend at least an hour commuting to and from work every day. I don't think they're going to want to do that on an e-bike.
Your vision is too small. What do you think the biggest problem is for deploying transit to suburbs? The last mile problem. You can have a train to the suburbs, but people still then need to drive from the train station to their home. With an e-bike, that solves this problem.
Sure, you can cite some hypermiler that commutes 2 hours across rural land between cities, but now you're just masturbating to edge cases, the equivalent of someone that justifies buying a giant truck because they move a couch once a year.
E-bikes solve the last mile problem of transit. Look at how trains and bikes actually work in countries like the Netherlands. People tend to bike to the train station, ride the train, then take a bike to their destination. With an e-bike, your train stops only needs to be within a couple of miles of both your start and destination. E-bikes make solve the problem of the incompatibility of low-density suburbs and transit.
I used to do something like what you're describing. I would drive my car to a light rail station then take the train into the city to work. I suppose what you're talking about is just replacing the car with an e-bike. That's fine, but I don't see a huge difference in this scenario between an e-bike and an electric car, especially since I wasn't just driving to the light rail station, I was also driving to the grocery store and to restaurants and to the houses of friends and family, etc.
Now, if I had lived in the city nearer to my work, and to stores, and restaurants, and shops, etc, an e-bike would have made a lot more sense.
Most people in suburbia have a stores within a reasonable e-bike distance of them. And yes, there isn't a ton of difference between the e-bike and an electric car in that context. Which is the entire point! The difference is that one costs a minimum of $30k, while the other can be had for less than $1k. And for the resources to build one electric car, we can build dozens of e-bikes.
If suburbs were developed to be people-centric, you really wouldn't need a car for 99% of your daily tasks. Most trips by car are very short, and can very easily be replaced by non-car modes of transportation.
The argument I usually hear from car-brains is that we have to pRoTeCt RuRaL cAr DrIvErs.
Unless you’re transporting anything of a decent size which most people do frequently.
Unless you’re moving furniture or have a physical disability it’s not really an issue. It’s also easy to use Uber/Lyft/etc and book a large vehicle on the occasions you do actually need it.
I guess if you’re buying a ton of pet food/litter or drinks regularly it could be a pain, but if an area is actually designed well you won’t be carrying it very long. And if you plan ahead and have one of those little luggage/shopping carts you don’t have to carry it at all.
Source: have lived for the past 15+ years without a car.
Define “decent size” and define “frequently”.
It's incredibly rare to see pickup trucks in the suburbs or city hauling stuff. Sure, there's that one guy who collects metal scraps once a week, but that's about it. He's using his truck to make a living, not to take his kid to school up the road.
Heavier or more awkward than you can comfortably carry. Weekly/monthly food shop, furniture, weekend getaways, etc.
As long as new housing is built in suburbs due to zoning, people will continue to live there.
All of the housing in my city that is near downtown or near business districts is either abandoned, run down, or gets converted into businesses.
True dat. I remember how quick they were to start criticizing remote work. Saying how it isn't fair to the office building owners when people work from home. Less traffic & congestion was probably one of the few upsides of the pandemic to me.
Not practical to have zero cars. Residential areas aren’t set up for it. How you going to get your shopping in with 2 kids when it’s pissing of rain like it is 70% of the time here in Scotland.
Priority should be public transport with cheap public autonomous taxis that can drive 24/7 and unclutter the streets.
Most of America's suburbs are designed to have a supermarket somewhere on the outside of the zigzagging streets of the residential homes. Golf carts would be perfect, in the vast existing suburbia. Legalize golf carts for slow streets in the burbs, and you'd get a massive reduction in car use. A quick electrification of vehicles.
I like bikes, I get it that many people don't. But at the very least legalize golf carts on slow streets. I feel that the average suburban home wouldn't mind getting a golf cart as a second vehicle. It's a quick way of hopping to the strip mall to get milk, or a morning coffee.
I don't think you'll find anyone with a lick of sense in here that's advocating for zero cars -- just that the way the system is currently set up prioritizes cars above everything else when it ought to be the other way around -- cars ought to be the very last resort instead of the first option most people go for. Taxis absolutely have their uses, and yes they should be cheap, but not so abundant as to divert people from using mass transit like buses or trams
thanks, henry. your horrible ideas still echo throughout history to this day. elon's taking notes.
bUt oUr pRoFit MaRGiNs!
This is an argument of scarcity. That scarcity (of money, in this case) is artificial, and created by those who won the last election to make the scarcity even more extreme.
The fact is we need both, and to get both we have to change ideas and to change ideas we need to get people onboard and a good way to get people onboard with clean renewable energy in the US is cars. It’s a gigantic fucking place and trains and bikes aren’t practical in some of it.
I don't even know about that. EVs are prohibitively expensive for most people, and will continue to be for a while, if the idea is to have electric monster trucks on our streets.
Now, unless the future of EVs in North America include those tiny, affordable EV cars, then they might save themselves. Good luck with that! LOL
why not both
The money wasted in electric car subsidies is much better spent on mass transit and cycling and pedestrianization initiatives, all of which move far more people at much less cost per person. Electric cars are being posited as the solution (as opposed to drastically improved mass transit) because that's the only way auto companies can stay relevant and maintain their supremacy
It's all about protectionism for an obsolete car industry. If we legalized golf carts, and ATVs, most families in the suburbs would buy one of those. They'd use it for groceries, school runs, dentist appointments, and getting coffee down the street. Their main car would sit idle the majority of time, because it's a hassle to drive a large car. It would make living in suburbia someone more tolerable, as you would see your neighbors more in golf carts.
Also we should be looking to reduce car use because car infrastructure is incredibly expensive and environmentally destructive.
Electric cars still need ashphault, make tire dust, require salted roads. Roads will still have surface water run off contaminated and artificially heated damaging natural water ways. Roads will need to be repaved more often due to EVs weighing more.
By the end of day, we are barely getting ahead environmentally with EVs if at all. Some EVs like an electric hummer will generate more carbon through their lifecycle (production, use, and disposal) than an ICE compact car.
So what do you suggest? No cars allowed at all? Even in European countries with strong public transportation cars are still useful and allowed (except in crowded city areas). It's hard to imagine life out in the boonies without access to a car...
I think we should pursue better public transportation primarily, but I also think efforts to make electric vehicles better are an important piece of the puzzle to transporting ourselves sustainably.
I claimed reduce car use, not no cars at all. If we cut car trips in half in favor of walking, biking, or transit thats a huge improvement. Car dependancy has other issues as well with land use causing sprawl and strip malls, which often sit abandoned and a new development is built further down the road. I think reducing car use and improving density and livability of cities goes hand in hand.
I think there needs to be an effort to advocate for reduced car use, many of the suburbs would be much nicer if people could be allowed to use golf carts on the roads. It would be a step in a better direction, break the obsolete car industry, and bridge to walk-able communities in existing burbs that can't be easily or quickly redeveloped.
Yup. Even if we don't reduce the number of cars, driving them less often is a massive benefit.