We should really be investing more in public transit, it’s way better than electric cars and could be way more convenient if implemented properly
Design a city around electric wheelchairs and you’ll have a system accessible to everyone.
Conveyor belts everywhere ♥️ no need for electric wheelchairs.
What about people with a fear of wheelchairs?
Checkmate atheists!
Go start a public transport company. If you’re right the market will reward you :)
That’s not really how that works.
When it comes to public transportation, they rarely pull a profit on their own. What they do is drive the economy in the places they go, make a city more accessible to everyone (further driving the economy), and cut costs for the city in other places. They’re a loss leader to save money and improve quality of life in a multitude of other areas by huge margins.
Everything is profitable if you raise prices. In a way you’re just offsetting a certain segment of the populations transportation costs to everyone else under that system. Maybe you could privatize the roads too and use the tolls to fund more buses which operate at a profit. Its fun think of insane libertarian free marker solutions to such problems :) Cars might be less appealing if people had to pay the associated infrastructure costs on a per km basis.
The US government subsidizes farmers by a huge amount because for every dollar they spend they get a dollar and some change back in value. This happens all across different sectors and is beneficial for everyone involved. The farmers get a new pond for free and everyone else in the US gets a reliable, cheap supply of food. It’s a win/win.
Public transport is the same way. It needs to be cheap so everyone can afford it, otherwise you leave huge swaths of the population without access to their basic needs, or you cut their already short supply of money even shorter. There’s a reason progressive tax rates are ubiquitous across the world. By supporting public transport, you send people to places they produce value or spend money, increasing taxes earned across the board, while simultaneously reducing the cost of maintaining the roads because there’s significantly less wear and tear. It’s also CHEAPER to use public teansport. Cars are goddamn expensive! Repairs, insurance, the cost of it in the first place! A ride on the bus is like $2. You’d have to TRY to ride it enough to make it more expensive.
I digress. The point is that you indirectly get more out of it than you pay into it.
We’re at a point (and have been for a few decades) that just taxing cars isn’t going to fix the problem. We’ve demolished cities to replace them with vehicle infrastructure. If you tax cars without fixing the walkability, all you’ve done is make people pay more in taxes. You have to have the infrastructure before you can incentivize using it.
The reasons for farm subsidies are… Debatable. If you keep food cheap people don’t notice currency debasement as much. Personally I think it might make more sense for prices to rise to a point where farmers are profitable without subsidies. Those subsidies are value extracted from the tax payer anyway… You’re paying for it.
You’re right too in that buses and trains are a lot cheaper and should always out compete cars. How much do you think fares would have to rise to make public transport self sufficient ? Make it so it funds its own expansion and service improvement.
The Toronto Transport Commission is my local example. From what I can napkin math they get about 1 billion dollars in subsidies per year from the city (maybe some provincial and fed money too… I rounded up generously). They collect a little over 700k fares a day. Wouldn’t take much of an increase with like almost 250 million fares a year to close that gap.
Privatize the roads and have cars users pay their share of that infrastructure cost and get the burden off of working people and I bet a small share increase would be pretty affordable.
The farm subsidies are to ensure enough farms are profitable enough to have an excess in the event we lose a ton of farmland or crop. If something happened we would not bounce back fast enough if we did not have excess, and excess would not happen if the free market pushed prices so high or low that the change in demand caused people to stop farming.
On the subject of bus fares, it’s not that simple. If bus fares increase, some people will stop riding the bus and switch to cars or other forms of transport (or not go at all) which will likely reduce fares and possibly increase congestion which would slow down the busses which would cause less people to ride them which would…
I’m not saying that’s exactly what would happen, I’m just saying you have to be careful. People only ride the bus when it’s more affordable or more convenient
Ideally taxes are progressive, whereas food price increases are always regressive. That is to say that taxes affect the rich more, and food prices affect the poor more.
Im just gonna ignore the overall stupidity of going “The market will solve it” and instead point out the fact that a public transit company would almost definitionally be under the umbrella of the government. Private transit company is the term youre looking for.
In case anyone wants to correct a corrupted sign that the department of transportation hasn’t gotten around to: https://www.safetysign.us/my_weblog/2011/07/instructions-on-how-to-hack-electronic-road-signs.html
What purpose does this serve other than alienating the people you’re trying to get on your side?
You have to have the alternatives in place before you can convince people to make a change.
Buses already take hours vs. minutes and any road construction that closes stops & routes down adds time and distance to an already long commute.
If you want people to choose your option, you have to make it an option worth choosing.
It’s more like a chicken or egg problem. No alternative without masses knowing about the problem. It took me 25 years to see what we sacrifice for cars. Maybe this flashy billboard approach helps to shorten that time for someone else.
Cars raped my father!
They turned me into a newt!
I would if I could right now and I’m going to move next year to a place where I can sell my car and forget about it.
Removed by mod
Okay done. Now that I have eliminated this here my contribution to CO2 emissions, what do we do about the 100 companies that cause 70% of global CO2 emissions? Or is that no longer an issue once my car is taken out of circulation?
Transportation is a quarter of global emissions, with passenger vehicles making up half of that number and is only getting larger as more people in the world decide they need a car.
The number you’re looking for is 20 companies making up 30% of emissions. They’re almost exclusively oil companies, with more than half of them being state owned enterprises. Reduce the need for oil and you reduce the amount they pollute.
So, how do you do that?
Personal vehicles are the most flexible in terms of emissions. Increasing the usability of public transportation has a direct correlation with the number of vehicles on the road. Sure, people out in the middle of nowhere need a vehicle and nobody is looking to take that from them, but you could HALF the number of people in the US with a car if cities had proper public transport or were as walkable as they were barely 80 years ago.
The private sector is more difficult. We’d need to rebuild our train infrastructure that has been gutted and raided by our rail companies in order to get trucks off the interstate. Coincidentally, that would get MORE people off the road since you wouldn’t need a car to go between cities.
Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that we’re incapable of solving multiple problems at the same time. We can make cars unnecessarily (not GET RID of them) while also cutting emissions in other areas.
Make no mistake, we do need to address other areas, but cars are an easy target that would reduce tons of emissions and increase people’s quality of life as well. Cars are a massive waste of space and a huge ongoing drain on taxpayer dollars for very little benefit when you compare it to the alternatives.
They’re just trying to get to work, what is this attempting to accomplish
Lmfao, this is a completely nondisruptive protest, it literally does nothing to stop people from getting to work.
In the UK, we’ve been having protests which actively disrupt traffic, which gets people going “why can’t they protest in ways that affect oil refineries/politicians etc” except people were doing that prior with no media coverage, and since having gained media coverage and then doing that, they get criticised for protests targeting politicians…
What this goes to show is that disruptive protesting will get media coverage, and that many people will pay lip service but will inherently lose their shit over people protesting if it even has the slightest chance of disrupting someone’s day.
Making people aware that many child deaths are preventable for example. Car accidents are the leading cause of death for kids 4-15 years old.
Okay so… they still need to get to work. Are you missing that essential point.
They could get to work via public transit (safer, cleaner and faster), if it actually got the same funding as cars got.
We are causing children to die and get paralyzed out of convenience. Sure, people need to get to work but with how things are now it comes at a steep price.
If most people drive then it has massive negetive consequences for both drivers and non drivers. Roads, parking and infrastructure all have financial costs, opportunity costs and negative externalities and take up valuable land in cities. Climate change is just the icing on the cake. Cars also cause noise pollution, stress, traffic and make cities less safe.
Public transport and biking don’t have these problems and per passanger cheaper when taking in account public and private spending.
Unfortunately you can’t fit all this on a small led billboard so I guess we have to settle for whatever this guy did.
Personal transport also has massive benefits. Try transporting a few sheets of drywall on public transport. Try moving a sick person to the hospital. Try living outside of an urban centre…
Taxis and deliveries exist for moving drywall and sick people. If time is of the essence then an ambulance is better. People who live outside of an urban center would probably like convenient public transport instead of going downtown in a car and trying to find parking.
Sure if you live in suburban US you have to drive anywhere to get to anything and in my opinion that sucks pretty hard. It doesn’t have to be that way forever though.
How many times are you moving drywall or transporting sick people to the hospital anyway?
Well two of probably a dozen or more requirements a week right? Your solution is “pay someone else with a vehicle” and after a certain number of times that makes less sense than just having a vehicle. Also imagine being a single mom who works with like 5 kids… Trying to manage that with paying for cabs or trying to use a bus…
For non urban people like me you unfortunely need a vehicle to get everything. I vastly prefer public transport if I’m going into a major city because parking is a major inconvience and expense.
Public transport in areas with low population density is unprofitable and poor service … Too few vehicles so long waits between pickups. My town has literally a single cab … Better be the first person to call if you need a ride to work …
Yeah it would be great if everyone wasn’t forced to have a car in order to get to work. Thanks for agreeing!
I don’t understand this comment. Are you saying this is trying to stop them from getting to work? (It isn’t.) Are you saying cars are the only way they can’t get to work. (It isn’t, though many places we need to invest more into other options.)
Literally yes to all of that. Do you work in an America and work a job?
How does a sign stop them from driving to work? Also, you can choose to live closer to your work and bike or walk or take public transportation.
Regardless, this is to convince people to speak up and ask for improvements to alternatives rather than letting people act like driving is the only option. Its the only reasonable option to a lot of people in America particularly, but it isn’t the only option possible, and it’s also not the cheapest or most reliable. It will stay the only option if people don’t realize we can have something better if we work towards it.
So, you clearly don’t have a job in America. You really be saying “choose to live closer to your work” during a housing crisis and where people are stuck renting forever lol. You are incredibly out of touch with reality.
You are simultaneously saying “they have to have a car because they don’t live anywhere near work because there’s not enough housing” and “we shouldn’t try to reduce our car dependence so that we can use the now-unnecessary parking lots for housing”
Dude, what is your issue. I gave several options and said that driving is the only reasonable option for many people currently, but they need to work for making other options available, because they are possible. I do live in America by the way and understand the realities plenty, which is why I said people need to work for better solutions. This is a fucking sign though, which isn’t blocking anything, and you’re arguing they need to shut the sign down because it hurts your feelings because you aren’t taking another option and aren’t doing anything to fix things.
Walk. Get a different job. Move closer to work. So many options that don’t involve killing children. But you’ll just throw your hands up because “they still need to get to work!”
Believe me, I don’t like cars either but this is a dumb as hell response. Just get a different job lol, is that your response to solving cars? I hope I don’t have to tell you how ignorantly stupid of a response is, who are you even sending that message to? Yes, work is a requirement of living, so it literally is a hands up situation because it’s a requirement. Must be nice in your mom’s basement to not have to work and understand the real world.
Also equating driving a car to child killing is fucking unhinged. I don’t know if you think this is some sensational eye catching response to prove a point, but it just makes you sound irrational and crazy to the point where you’re going to get laughed out of the room.
deleted by creator
The problem is that citys are built around cars.
The first question is not how people can reach shops by foot, or with public transit. The first step is always to build streets to stuff and later figure out if you can might fit in a bus route, or maybe a cycling lane.
The comments on this post are such a joke. The name of the community is literally ‘fuck cars’ and people are getting bent out of shape because we’re posting about our dislike of cars.
I like cars. They’re comfortable and convenient.
If you like cars so much you won’t mind paying for it instead of forcing the rest of the country to subsidize 50% of your little hobby.
A world where roads and public transit are all operated as for profit ventures without any tax ? Man now you’re talking … I’d love that
You can like cars, go ahead. What I don’t like is that I’m forced to have one to complete each and every task outside of my house. I am forced to have and use a car for everything. I WANT to take a quick walk to a shop for milk, not take a 15 minute drive to a big box store, a seven minute walk across its ridiculous parking lot, then do it all again in reverse. Why am I forced to have a car each and every day without fail in order to survive?
If you really want to you can structure your life in a way where food is close to home… did that through college. Paid for cabs for groceries … Walked and used transit or my bike. Was pretty miserable in Canadian winters and not very convienent. Plus pretty expensive… You can do it. Or just admit you like cars :) as long as most people secretly actually like cars and use them then society will be structured in a way to accommodate that. The world’s a big place and in order to have most of the things you need really close isn’t really entirely realistic.
You paying for cabs to get groceries is not “not needing a car” that’s still needing a car to do anything. I’ve been to enough countries in Europe personally for extended periods that I know it’s feasible to have a completely 100% walkable life. WALKABLE. Not “I still need to pay for a cab to get groceries.”
It’s completely realistic for most of your basic needs to be met within walking distance in the world today. Sure, you may want a car to get to some specialty shop across town or to go to some other place more quickly. But that a choice you can decide to make over public transportation.
My only complaint is that I’m absolutely, 100% FORCED to have a car in order to survive. This is absurd and a uniquely American problem.
If you rented or bought a house close to a grocery store you’d mostly be able to do it. European cities were built when horse and carriage were still the best option. I think if city centres were designed to be car free and have everything organised to be walkable that’d be great for people who want that… There are certainly a lot of situations where someone needs to have a car … Here and in Europe.
If you rented or bought a house close to a grocery store you’d mostly be able to do it.
Very expensive to do. Also due to zoning laws you’d have a hard time living near a grocery store since they’re literally not permitted to be next to each other in most places.
Yes, there are a lot of situations where someone would need a car. However, the difference lies in how big “a lot” is. Right now, pretty much everyone needs a car to survive unless they’re deep in a city center. This should not be the case.
i like turtles
Me too
deleted by creator
I live ~5 minutes from my work, but unless I want to walk/bike on the shoulder of a road where people are regularly going 60mph I have no option besides driving. And i live in a small town, must be even worse for medium/large sized cities
Not in places where they build proper roads/infrastructure. Generally this gets better the larger the city is, not worse.
Your situation sounds terrible but your local jurisdiction could choose to fix it. If enough people advocate for it, it will happen.
How many are built for bikes/walking and not cars? All i see are parking lots on top of parking lots all over the goddamn country
Most towns/cities here in the Netherlands are
I’d love to see them, too bad I’m trapped in the US
I work 25min by foot from home, and while most of it is by busy carcentric streets, I can walk a bit through a park.
If I drive a car I can get there in 10 minutes or 15-20 in a rush hour.
I can ride a bike (my own or a city bike that’s free for under 15min) in 13min.
Or I can either take a bus (25min) or a tram (around 30, because I need to walk further but less than a straight walk.
I actively refuse to move to any “cheaper” new suburbs because then I would have to sit in a car for 80 minutes no matter how I feel about it that day.
you can’t stop driving when the city is trash and doesn’t have pt, this is just thoughtless optimism that isn’t helpful to anyone
I mean, you could quite possibly cycle… moreso if you opt to use an electric bike
Out of curiosity how big is your city/your normal commute?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Okay but, counterpoint, cars kill kids.
Edit, so I don’t have to keep repeating myself, and because this is important fucking information:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/
Passenger vehicles are by far the most dangerous motorized transportation option compared. Over the last 10 years, passenger vehicle death rate per 100,000,000 passenger miles was over 20 times higher than for buses, 17 times higher than for passenger trains, and 595 times higher than for scheduled airlines.Other comparisons are possible based on passenger trips, vehicle miles, or vehicle trips, but passenger miles is the most commonly used basis for comparing the safety of various modes of travel.
Thank you for excepting the exhausting challenge to explain this to a bunch of meat-/car-brains.
Buses kill kids too. Trains too. Airplanes too. Let’s get rid of transportation.
Or is it about the numbers all of the sudden?
You’ve got to be a special level of dumb to think that anything in life has zero risk. Even food kills kids under certain circumstances.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/
Passenger vehicles are by far the most dangerous motorized transportation option compared. Over the last 10 years, passenger vehicle death rate per 100,000,000 passenger miles was over 20 times higher than for buses, 17 times higher than for passenger trains, and 595 times higher than for scheduled airlines. Other comparisons are possible based on passenger trips, vehicle miles, or vehicle trips, but passenger miles is the most commonly used basis for comparing the safety of various modes of travel.
deleted by creator
-
“Per 100,000,000 passenger miles”. It’s literally right there.
-
Name anything else we do that kills more kids. I will wait.
deleted by creator
You’ve said, “You suck at abstraction” to two people now who’ve explained very clearly what’s wrong with your understanding of the study. If you can’t be bothered to explain yourself nobody will know what you mean.
It’s hard to see how “quality of life” can be balanced against enormous numbers of people killed, but it sounds like you can’t name anything that kills more kids? Maybe because there is nothing? Maybe this is a huge problem and saying, “cars kill kids” is actually pretty valid?
Cars are terrible for quality of life unless you live rurally. Not only are they massively wasteful, their highways cut swathes through communities, they create noise pollution, they dominate our landscape and rob us of communal spaces, and they cause urban sprawl and force us into enormous and stessful commutes.
There is no part of our lives that is made better by cars. You can’t just say “quality of life” and expect that to mean anything unless, again, you explain yourself. You don’t seem interested in doing that though.
-
Those aren’t absolute rates, those are effectively per capita
deleted by creator
Uh. It’s literally per type of vehicle per 100,000,000 miles against passenger vehicles.
You can have your car, go nuts, but people who don’t want one shouldn’t be forced to have one to survive. I should have the freedom to not need a car.
Drowning kills kids. Shall we get rid swimming pools?
There are other, better ways to transport people that are not only more efficient, but significantly safer. Cars are basically the worst way our society could practically organise our transport needs.
There is no other way to swim than by getting in the water, but if your pool in particular keeps on killing loads of people then maybe your pool in particular has a problem and should be shut down.
Edit:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/
Passenger vehicles are by far the most dangerous motorized transportation option compared. Over the last 10 years, passenger vehicle death rate per 100,000,000 passenger miles was over 20 times higher than for buses, 17 times higher than for passenger trains, and 595 times higher than for scheduled airlines.Other comparisons are possible based on passenger trips, vehicle miles, or vehicle trips, but passenger miles is the most commonly used basis for comparing the safety of various modes of travel.
If there was an alternative you couldn’t drown in then yes, we should get rid of swimming pools.
If the leading cause of death globally 4-15 year olds is car accidents then it’s not a dirty play IMO.