!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I live in a rural area over 30 miles from the nearest city in a town with a population in the low thousands. The nearest place I can get any goods is over 4 miles away. I’d be completely fucked without a car.
I know that’s not everyone’s situation, but just pointing out there are people living in remote places with no other transportation options.
That's how it is out here too.
Especially in the winter when we can easily have a foot of snow on the ground.
My property doesn’t even have paving, and trying to get the drive graveled was such a pain I just ended up slapping on all-terrain tires, both to deal with getting on and off the property slope in mud, and also because there’s country roads (dirt/sand) here and street tires suck on that in general and especially when it snows.
Especially since public transit is usually locally funded (at least in the US), in areas like this the tax base doesn't exist to be able to functionally fund public transit. We would need to completely rethink and re-organize how public transit is funded and rolled out for this to functionally work in remote areas.
Or, you know, we could continue lettings cars be a thing for remote populations kind of like how in some far northern territories people use snowmobiles to get around part of the year because there's simply too much snow to try to use another type of vehicle at all.
I think the latter, having specific types of transportation still be a thing in places where they're needed, makes a lot more sense, honestly.
I kind of agree, but I’ll admit, I wouldn’t give up my car. I moved out here because I wanted out of city life and into more nature and quiet life. I only drive into town every 6 weeks for groceries and necessities in bulk and there’s no way I could haul all that on public transit. I want to be in the city as little as possible.
Well, like I said, I honestly think public transit doesn't make very much sense for remote areas. I think it makes far more sense to give people the types of transportation that work best for their use case, and in remote areas: that's cars.
I live in a city. I live 15 miles from where I work and I can drive it in about 20 minutes. If I wanted to take the bus, it'd take 3 hours and just as many changeovers because there's no direct run. Not even close. I already work long hours so there's no way in hell I'd spend 6 hours commuting, even if I could. For the record, I couldn't even if I wanted since my office is nice enough to leave me with only an hour to get home, eat and get to bed before starting all over again. Sadly, it's one of the failings of public transport even when it does exist.
It's like that here. I drove 15 minutes to school . My alternator died and I had to ride the bus for a week. It took over an hour, not counting the lovely walk across a 6 lane expressway and through a WalMart parking lot to reach the bus stop! I think we need a gradient. In rural areas, we have individual vehicles, cars, bikes, motorcycles, etc. In suburban areas, we offer coupled trains where cars link together into trains and drive in sync on a guideway until they break apart for last mile connectivity. In urban areas, we ban all cars, build out public transit, bike lanes, etc. Small electric cars could be permitted for special needs and for tradesmen who carry tools. This future can't happen in the US because they would just forget about us stuck poor's and we'd lose all mobility.
The late 19th century USAmerican colonization of Native American land shows that you don't need cars to make an industrial rural society. Trains will work just fine. This means you build towns to be walkable and centered around a train station, with agriculture surrounding each town. Modern heavily mechanized agriculture might make population densities so low that even this is not viable, but the products still need to be transported, so you can have trains that stop at each megafarm which can also carry passengers if necessary. When I was in Queensland a few years ago, I saw mechanized agriculture use a bespoke railway network to supply a factory, so clearly even now despite all the fossil fuel and car subsidies it's economically viable.
Though as you may know, industrial agriculture is dumb and unsustainable. Desertification due to requiring too much water, climate change due to fertilizer consumption, industrial pollution that kills millions of people per year and destroys ecosystems, lack of genetic diversity causing crop blights that risk famines or global shortages, insecticides that cause cancer and destroy ecosystems, most of it being wasted on the meat industry and on maintaining massive surpluses and exports to ensure western global domination, etc.
If we want to do agriculture right, we want to do food forests. It's more labor per calorie, but it's resilient, local, and it doesn't make the planet uninhabitable by the next century. Food forests are more compact too, which means that a rural population tending food forests can have a much higher population density, or can consist of large villages separated by rewilded natural landscape (and/or low density food forests for migratory communties). This makes trains even more convenient to get around because they can run more frequently.
Meanwhile if you want to live in the wilderness away from these towns, then an absence of car roads means you can live far away while only being a couple kilometers away. So you still don't need a car because you can just hike along a trail to get to town in under an hour. Need to carry a lot of stuff? Use a Chinese wheelbarrow. Maybe a battery-powered one with stability and steering assistance if you don't feel like getting exercise. They carry more than a modern American SUV and they don't murder children either.
Some of these responses are crazy. Just because it’s the rurals doesn’t mean I don’t have a full time job, responsibilities, and limited free time, particularly in daytime hours. I need a reasonable means to haul things and go places, and to do it within reasonable time frames.
I got people suggesting horse, bikes, and now Chinese wheelbarrows for getting groceries every few weeks going around 65 miles round trip, y’all are killing me. 🤣
You'll probably manage just fine in a city.
Living in rural areas mass transit quickly becomes madness. Schedules are infrequent and routes are weird, and if you make them frequent and direct you suddenly drive around an empty bus while still building the exact same road you would for the few cars.
I'm less likely to get assaulted when my parents drive me somewhere vs having to take public transport.
I'm Asian American and I still have anxiety about the post-covid racism.
Car safety is a big thing. I'm damn glad I'm in my metal and glass cage when i drive through big cities. I sure as hell wouldn't be walking through one. I've had people jump out in the road to try to get me to stop so they can rob me. Swerve and floor it. Walking is not a solution in dangerous cities.
Big reason I'd never do public transport myself. Clean up the streets and maybe I'll try it. But being among a bunch of tweakers who may stab me with a needle for my 5 dollar bill, no thanks.
Is that sort of thing relevant? I take the bus all the time and have never felt in danger (except for one time when the driver went off on another bus driver, but I just noped off the bus before it could escalate). Yes there are interesting characters, but if public transit were more common perhaps the crazies would become less predominant.
Around here there is a whole police department dedicated to monitoring public transit.
Where the hell do you live? I've visited a lot of cities but have never been in a situation even remotely like that
Schedules matter less when you have more frequent transportation. Renting a truck, or ordering a taxi/uber xl would be lower in cost than paying for and maintaining a truck. Obviously there's a line somewhere in the middle when it makes sense to own and unfortunately it's pushed further because our Costcos are 50 miles away instead of having smaller corner shops.
Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I'm pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.
My penultimate child was at university about 10 miles from the house. There was a bus that got within a couple blocks of the sprawling campus, so I told her take the bus, but a year in said she could use my car and I'd walk to work since my commute was so short. That gained her about 3 hours per school day and lost me about one hour. Car is a time machine.
Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I’m pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.
If your city were designed properly, that wouldn't be true. Not that it was the most scientific thing in the world, but Top Gear famously demonstrated biking being faster than driving across London, for example.
Oh we have the worst, most starved public transportation, half the buses run only every hour, and on the bike to work - only to work - I do occasionally get there faster if there is traffic but there is no bike lane, I either use the sidewalk if no pedestrians, or the road if people are using the sidewalk. Traffic has to be pretty damn bad before I can move faster than the cars, I still have to stop at the same lights.
We have the most generous annual E bike voucher raffle in the nation, I believe, and the city is working on bike lanes, but really, the road between my house & work has no bike infrastructure at all. The public transportation problems are because that's funded by the county not the city, the suburbs don't want to pay for it. But inside the city we need it.
Quite frankly the grand majority of things lost by a lack of car ownership could just as easily be made up by just building better infrastructure
You are missing that a lot of people do not live in cities. In a city, access to public transport is basically anytime, anywhere. Outside of city centers, public transport is very, very limited, even in Europe. Without a car, you are basically lost.
Saab 900 Turbo never exists and I'm sorry Mother Gaia but that's not a world I want to live in
Family Road Trips.
What about all the family on the train, watching the scenery?
Without cars there would be A LOT more people on the sidewalk. In the past, before cars, there were so many more people on the street it's not even funny. The roads were full of people.
I think I'd be a good person to answer this. I've lived in Houston (needless to say, extremely car-friendly) without a car for almost 2 years; currently I'm living in a city that banned cars within its city center in 2015 which resulted in very visible changes, but the rest of the country is still very pro-car and quite car-friendly
A couple of things that cars benefit everyday life that would be difficult to do without a car. There's probably more but these are the ones I can think of:
Also I think some positive points associated with cars are doable without cars:
I just want to say, I absolutely love this kind of question because it forces you to imagine realistically what a car-lite world would look like, and it completely changes the line of thinking from problem identification to problem solving, and in a way that truly will change the world for the better
For me personally, the loss of a car means potentially the loss of certain hobbies. I like to go camping and backpacking, and that means taking a certain amount of gear out into remote areas. While I might be able to minimize the amount of gear needed, there's no getting around the remoteness of the hobby, and that necessitates a car for transportation.
The other hobby is dog related. I enjoy doing things, including sports, with my dog. Transporting the dog, at least as it currently stands in America, requires a car. Large dogs are not allowed on public transit pretty much anywhere here. When you also consider that I may be taking jumps or poles or other larger equipment with me to train in new places, losing access to a car makes that a near impossibility.
I'd go so far as to say many outdoor recreation hobbies either require or are made easier by having a car or larger personal transport. Kayaks, boats, skis and snowboards, fishing poles and the list goes on and on. Sure you could setup rental places, but if you do a hobby a lot you ultimately want to own your gear so you can get something that suits your preferences and needs.
I'm not opposed to a less car-centric society, but eliminating personal vehicles would make many hobbies problematic or impossible.
Well in Australia's context where I live, you need a car to get anywhere (depending on where you live). The way QLD was built where i grew up, everything is spaced out. 30 mins to the cafe, 45 mins to the shops etc. Our country has public transport but really only in major areas.
Where i grew up, which wasnt anywhere remote and was 1 hour away from a major CBD, i was fucked if i didnt have a car. Going anywhere meant walking for ages under the Aussie sun or wait for a bus that comes every 30 minutes to take you a quarter of the distance.
It wasnt really a sense of freedom (which i 100% agree with) but having a car meant i could go directly to places.
Without a car, it would have taken me ages to get anywhere.
Whole sections of the country that are zoned for suburban single family housing would not exist as they are today. Not because they'd be illegal or anything, but they'd be incredibly unpopular if most people didn't own a car, which is needed to basically get to or from a suburban neighborhood.
I understand the question to be something like: what happens if a majority of people are absolutely dead-set unwilling/unable to own a private automobile. And I think the immediate answer is that suburban neighborhoods cease to exist, at least at the current density levels. Either a neighborhood must densify so that transit options make sense, or they must aim to become rural living. This also means that things like suburban schools either turn into walkable urban schools, or into small one-room rural schools.
I don't actually think rural living will go away, because the fact is that the grand majority of people -- USA and abroad -- do not prefer rural living. The 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st Century trends are that people tend towards urban areas, where services and jobs exist. That said, there will always be people that want to live in the hills on 20 acres, and therefore need an automobile. And it's certainly sounds appealing to some, myself included. But that has never been the majority, so if a majority of people refuse owning an automobile, they will also mostly refuse rural and suburban living.
There is no plausible situation where over 50% of people willingly decide to: 1) not own a car, and 2) live in a suburb or rural area. This is from the fact that all other modes of transport into a suburb or rural area are either: 1) nonexistent (eg metro rail), or 2) ludicrously expensive (eg Lyft, or transit with 15% fairbox recovery) if the cost was borne by the people living there (as opposed to being subsidized heavily by other taxpayers.... Ahem, America).
Edit: some more thoughts: standalone strip malls would also change character, because the smaller ones that aren't on a rail or bus corridor would be undesirable commercial real estate. If they still exist, they'll likely be integrated into housing, so as to become the #1 most convenient option for people living there. Captive audience, indeed.
But larger strip malls and shopping centers actually might florish: they usually have enough stores and services that transit already makes sense. Indeed, shopping malls are actually really good transit center locations. But instead of giant parking lots, there would be housing, because why not? People who reject cars have every reason to live next to, or on top of, a mall: fully pedestrianized, air conditioned, lots of stores and dining options. Some places even put schools and post offices in their shopping malls. I would also expect that dwelling soundproofing to get better, because the paper-thin walls of American homes and apartments are awful.
In this way, malls are no different than casinos, cruise ships, and downtowns: a small island of paradise to visit, and is distinct from home. Malls will still exist after cars, the same way that Las Vegas exists in the middle of a desert: it is a big enough anchor that draws people.
I genuinely love vanity plates. I think they’re a really fun way to express youself and the plate goes with you regardless of context: you’ve got the same plate in the office parking lot and at the hobby group.
I’ve seen hobby and interest references, from LAXBRO to NCC1701. I’ve seen meta plates, from the VW Beetle with SCARAB to the Nissan Cube with RUBIKS. I’ve seen professional references, BONEMAN (a podiatrist) to CSHFLO (somebody I knew who worked in finance).
And I’ve once seen SQRTRGY which I can only imagine means “squirt orgy” but I’ll never know.
I know it’s a little thing, but I think it’s fun. (Doesn’t make up the pollution and danger of cars, tho.)
When I think of vanity plates I think of the guy who registered his as "NULL" in the hopes that he could avoid traffic tickets by looking like a database error. But he ended up showing up every time anyone's plate number was missing, so it showed him as having thousands of traffic violations.
I'm going to assume that in such a world, every city including the bullshit ones have reliable transportation that's good enough to not be much more time consuming than driving. Because it would be too easy and lame to say "well taking the bus to work takes 4 hours and driving takes 45 minutes so I literally could not survive that".
You would be losing the ability to drive to the nearest legal state and smuggle back weed. 🤷 I mean, the Flock cameras basically were invented to catch people doing this anyway. So maybe we would lose nothing after all.
So for example, last night I went to see a play with my wife in the big city we live outside. 8pm show. Our location has better options than most in the US for public transit, but still not enough to fully rely upon and it’s hard to envision that changing.
We have a regional transit rail system we could have taken. It would drop us off close enough to the theater, perhaps 2 city blocks.
But the station is 6km from our house so the problem is on this end. We live in an area that’s not quite rural, more suburban, but it is out on the open countryside a bit and this natural beauty is what we love about living here.
We do have excellent bike lanes and even a network of bike trails that are separated from the roads. Our local station is about a 20 minute ride. We can do it but we’re in our 50s and it’s not our first choice when getting dressed up for a date night to begin with 20 minutes of vigorous exercise. And we would have had to repeat that ride at 11pm on the way home, tired, with a glass of wine in our bellies.
So the problem I guess is our home location. We live in a medium-to-small sized town that’s nestled up against a state park. The only public transit I can really imagine would be a bus system and it would have to cover a very wide area with many vehicles to serve this region. And even then I can’t imagine it would be quick.
I would still prefer a world without cars. I guess I’m just telling you why cars still fit into our needs and why our options are.
In the future I’m pretty optimistic that we can change the math on busses. Autonomous vehicles would allow us to move away from large busses piloted by a human driver to many smaller ones with more comprehensive coverage and better approximation of point-to-point transit.
The appeal of this path is that it’s something car-centric areas can transition to smoothly. We can get mass autonomous bus service going without banning cars and building rail lines or other large projects.
A small country that was laid out centuries ago, before cars, has a different layout and distribution of people that makes things like rail work better. The problem is that the US is huge and was built on cars, which are excellent for spreading individuals out with no regard for central planning.
Today’s generation of Americans are stuck with cars and not always in love with them. The way our population is distributed, it’s hard for mass transit to replace them, so it really doesn’t matter how great civic rail works in Lisbon.
We might address the topic of whether it’s responsible for people to be so spread out. I would certainly have a hard time saying goodbye to my beautiful natural surroundings.