this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
96 points (85.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

9692 readers
756 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 CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

My original question was "How do we disincentivize the purchase of pickup trucks/SUVs" but then I thought it would be better to approach the larger problem of car dependency and car ownership. One option is, of course, to create public transit infrastructure and improve it where it already exist. This, however, doesn't change the fact that some will still choose to drive. What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You have to do both I'm afraid

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

no, you really, absolutely don't.

more importantly, you missed the part where being anti-car is just a tax on poor people. It's also ableist. We still need cars, and punishing people who need them isn't helpful.

"poor people, like people on disability payments, shouldn't be able to afford to drive, but rich people can do whatever they want" is a horrible dystopia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree with you, it's not fair, but afaik the research and data shows that in order to get people to use their cars less there has to be more downsides to using it as well as easier alternative transportation.

Otherwise people will just keep driving

[–] Ookami38 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can own your car and drive it from time to time, ideally not in the city. Those aren't what we want to discourage. Discourage driving daily, driving in the city. Make those things simply easier, faster, and cheaper to do than using a car, and, while it won't KILL cars completely, it'll reduce them enough to make a noticeable difference.

After that's successful, and the working class hasn't completely shit themselves, we can start with making cars less desirable than they are right now. Once only the enthusiasts and most stubborn own a car, we can add some kinds of taxes, so that at the end, we're left with only the enthusiasts, which I think is a perfectly reasonable goal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, but you must also do things like add tolls, rush surcharges, etc to actually get the car usage down.

Simply making the alternative better alone won't make the majority drop the comfort of their own car because it will never be as good as driving yourself.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

no, you don't. that's all a poor tax, again.

and remember: most of the people who need cars (for mobility reasons) are among the poorest.

So taxing people through tolls and such is just punishing the disabled. ie ableist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You do if you actually want the traffic to go down and you want to afford the public transportation infrastructure that will be required.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

in short, you're not good at math and have no idea the cost of public works if you think they're on the same scale.

(also, it doesn't address the ableism)

[–] Ookami38 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure my second paragraph, starting with the word "after" (that word does a LOT of lifting) addresses that aspect.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It usually happens at the same time, you increase cost. Then you use that cost directly to build and maintain the public infrastructure required.

[–] Ookami38 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware of that being how it usually happens. The problem is, relying on that leaves a lot of people out to dry. Spend a bit now, so that we can make the transition smoother and more likely to happen at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree, I'm also colored by living in Norway where we are way ahead of America in this process. It's been very gradual indeed.

But it is fair that people using the roads pay for them

[–] Ookami38 1 points 4 months ago

Sure, I can agree with the people using them paying for the roads. I just don't want to see it go from what we have currently to something much MUCH worse for your average individual, which if we do these things without setting up safety nets first, they will be.