this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
563 points (98.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9808 readers
55 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The new law permits pedestrians to cross a roadway at any point, including outside of a crosswalk. It also allows for crossing against traffic signals and specifically states that doing so is no longer a violation of the city’s administrative code. But the new law also warns that pedestrians crossing outside of a crosswalk do not have the right of way and that they should yield to other traffic that has the right of way.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good, especially since the law just targets POC.

If car traffic became 50% worse to make walking traffic 5% better, that's a win for humans in the city. It'll help convince more people to use non-car methods of transportation and that helps spark people to vote for and invest in more non-car infrastructure.

Ditching cars in populated cities isn't a magic law or anything, it's a slow incremental burn; legalizing pedestrians walking strictly helps that

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Ditching cars should be done everywhere (not just in populated cities).

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Agree, but it's certainly easier to do in NYC than rural places in the US, so I advocate for starting there

[–] yonder 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At least in North America, around 80% of the population lives in a populated area. That means even if we only eliminate cars for urban areas, that's still most of the cars removed. The only way I see people in rural areas getting around without a car would be with electric cargo bikes and robust train routes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Buses would be the short term solution except for the really far out rural areas, during the time in which far out exurbs and suburbs are redesigned for maximum density.

[–] merde -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

do you really expect people in rural areas to ditch cars?

will they go back to carts and horses?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The US used to have a comprehensive rail network. Every single town had a train station. We already had the solution to this problem.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I live in a rail hub in the us. The city is nicknamed after it and train tracks literally run through the city center.

It would take me 6 hours to walk there.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If it takes 6 hours to walk across your city it's not rural. Your city needs comprehensive public transportation.

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

I think he means it would take six hours of walking to reach his city. I mean I live four miles outside of town (which incidentally I'd need to travel to to reach a railroad) and even though it's smaller than 3000 people it still calls its self a "city". Also I'd like to note it's four miles of hilly terrain, which depending on season may feature hundred degree plus temperatures or foot deep snow.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I live about ten miles outside the nearby city.

However my town has a train station. From my neighborhood of single family homes, I can walk about 20 minutes, or a bus drives by regularly to get me to the town center which includes the train station

I’m certainly not rural, but there’s no reason my scenario can’t apply to 80% of the population if more cities/towns were designed for it.

And this is in the US

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Please tell me you're exaggerating. I live in a small city and it only takes me maybe an hour to walk across town. If it's taking you 6 hours, it's not rural.

[–] merde 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

and what do you use to get to the train station?

how do you carry goods to that station? Does your train have a stop in every farm?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wow you're right there is a use case for a vehicle therefore it's literally impossible to have public transit in rural areas, despite the fact that it already existed /s

[–] merde 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it's not like i don't hate cars, i do. But i really can't see how you're going to convince "rurals" with that argument

good luck to you

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

We aren't discussing tactics for convincing people of anything. We're discussing facts. And the fact is there's no reason public transit can't work in rural areas as you stated.

[–] merde 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i'm not from the U.S.

there's a well established network of rails here and we can say that rail transport is the backbone of this country.

yet people in rural areas still think that cars are essential just to survive ☞ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests

i may think otherwise, i can live without a car, but it's condescending to tell them "there's no reason public transit can't work in rural areas"

even those who commute by bike+train have cars because "public transit" isn't a solution to all their needs.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It may or may not be "condescending" to tell people they're wrong, but it doesn't make them right or change the basic facts.

I'd recommend checking out a different community since you seem to be very invested in making excuses for pro car people, and less interested in challenging people's assumptions about cars.

[–] merde 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

no, thank you. i'm fine here

your condescension continues 👍

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's an opinion, you try living 10 miles out of town a mile up a private road when you are out of your prime. Tell is how a car is unreasonable, these are your personal opinions and this community specifically echos them. I can understand more public transport but it's not a one size fits all, explain to me how a diesel bus that gets 3.5-6.5 mpg going 10 miles out of town for 3-6 people is more eco friendly then several people having much more fuel efficiency cars.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

A bus isn't going to drive a mile up everyone's private roads in the middle of nowhere, public transport is not a one size fits all, it can get people in town to other parts or other towns but it can't replace cars for everyone

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Honestly? Buses would be a good short-term solution that can be implemented immediately with the right political will, and enough force.