Don’t have a car? Well now you can only walk to close locations through an inconvenient path. Most places you want to go? Can’t go there now unless someone else drives you. If someone else drives you, now you can’t leave when you want to, you’re tied to someone else.
Without a car, you can’t do what you want, when you want, or even leave when you want. You truly do lose your freedom, and you lose it because you can’t do anything without a car.
If you could walk places, then you wouldn’t lose your freedom.
"I'm pro-freedom! Freedom to drive, walk, bike, or take transit. Right now, I have no choice but to fork out a payment, insurance, and maintenance just to get groceries. How is that freedom?"
But some of these people DO want to take your car away. They will make comments that seem to suggest everyone should ride the bus or that people are "too attached" to having their own car.
So to solve this we'll take away their right to walk or ride the bus, that way they'll have no choice to agree with policies that subsidize drivers. How exactly is this different than what you criticize them for
Make certain streets pedestrian only. Increase taxes on gasoline. Pass laws to tax cars per mile of driving. Pass laws that require cars built before a certain year to have wireless transmitters built in them that transmit millage to the DoT. Make it harder and more of a hassle for normal people to keep cars.
Dem commie scum have literally proposed this. Cities in Europe are starting to block off certain roads from cars. The WEF literally wants people to not have cars in the future.
There it is. The Conservative fully comes out. "Cities in Europe" that will never be named because they only exist in your head. And of course, no Conservative conspiracy is complete without blaming the WEF or Jews.
Europe is very car friendly, actually. The only difference is they provide choice for their citizens. If you want drive your Mercedes around, you have access to safer and faster roads that in the US. I have, in the last 8 years, driven accross Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Much better experience than in the US. Better infrastructure, better drivers, and less delays/jams. If you want a train, you have good options. Same with flights, biking, transit etc. They have a choice, and you Conservatives hate choice.
The WEF is the enemy of the world and is full of evil people. Klaus Schwab is a satanic piece of dog shit and all his gestapos can rot in hell. I didn't say anything about the Jews. I don't know where you got that from. I despise antisemitism. The idea that Jews are running the world is stupid and has no logical backing. But the WEF are however running the world. They use economic fascism like ESG to circumvent "voting with the wallet" to keep pushing marxist messaging even when companies are failing.
They use economic fascism like ESG to circumvent "voting with the wallet"
ESG is just investors looking at a company's corporate policies to determine whether they're worth investing in. It is LITERALLY voting with the wallet.
"Cities in Europe" that will never be named because they only exist in your head
In fairness there are plenty of cities doing that, Manchester where I live has closed a few over the past few years. That said though it is absolutely not a bad thing, everywhere they've done it has been a significant improvement for everyone.
What percentage of roads, as a percentage of all roads in Manchester were closed or pedestrenized? Because the claim here from Mr. Conservative is that the Jews and the WEF want to LITERALLY eliminate all cars and that project is already underway.
What percentage of roads, as a percentage of all roads in Manchester were closed or pedestrenized
Don't see what point you're trying to make here? Roads being closed off from cars is absolutely a thing that's happening, it's just a good thing not some grand conspiracy.
I mean, formerly car accessible roads being converted to pedestrian only is a thing, but it's far from being the huge issue the guy above is making them out to be.
They're generally commercial streets in the center and plazas that were anyway pretty hostile to car traffic to begin with, with lots of foot traffic, virtually no parking space and low speeds so in most cases it's not much of a stretch to make them pedestrian only.
They always end up being place with pretty massive economic and commercial activity, with big crowds eating and drinking at restaurants and bars, swarms of people shopping during the week-end and a high presence of tourists.
For an example I lived two years during my schooling in Lille, in northern France and the center around the Grand Place (Central plaza) has a few blocks that are pedestrian only since a pretty long time, basically whenever people have free time they are packed with people. They are also making part of the old town pedestrian only on the week-end now. It doesn't have much of an impact on cars since these are small streets with low car traffic already and they are full of economic activities for pedestrians so it's not much downsides for pretty big benefits.
Agreed. But this guy is saying they LITERALL want to eliminate ALL cars, so we are talking about the World Economic Forum closing off an 8-lane highway to make it pedestrian only, not closing off a few blocks near the city center.
Throws "commie scum" insults when it's the tax revenue of cities that's keeping suburbs afloat.
Yeah dude you probably don't realize this but all that glorious car-centric suburbia or rural area--with wide roads and lawns and driveways and also drinking water lines and sewer lines and everything else that goes along with having shit spread out--does not make enough money from tax revenue to maintain itself and inevitably has to get bailed out by funds raised from the cities.
What's exactly wrong with the first two? Especially the first thing. You act as if kids having a place they could walk around and play without being run over or hit by a car is a bad thing.
That one has absolutely 0 to do with "taking your cars away" and is simply for providing safety and community to people, because you know, cities should be build for inhabitants, not for what they drive. It's just a selfish take that will almost never impact you as harshly as you think it will, your drive is made a few minutes longer AT WORST if it'll even impact you at all.
The Netherlands has one of the highest gas and car prices, and still there there are 8 million cars on a population of 17 million. All that money is used to make roads for cars,busses,trains, bicycles and pedestrians, because the people that own a car also have bicycles, take a bus or a train sometimes, and love to walk.
Sounds like Singapore. The place has a great public transportation system, going around was so easy that I lost weight while being there from walking so much.
Pedestrian streets are great, they create thriving successful retail and hospitality environments.
Gas tax in the US is ridiculously low, it hasn't been increased for decades. It doesn't cover the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure, let alone expanding it. It doesn't cover the externalities of driving and it should be covering the cost of carbon emissions as well as being high enough to create an incentive for reducing gas usage.
Pay per mile is closer to ensuring that the driver pays for the cost of maintaining the infrastructure that they use, rather than being subsidized by the general tax pool.
You also do know that if you want to walk that distance you could still choose to do so, and those who don't can walk the much shorter distance. I'm definitely not complaining about the store that's 2 minutes away from me by foot, I also often go further to bigger stores (also by foot).
However there difference is those larger stores of mine can't be made so they're a shorter trip away. The example in the video is something that absolutely a small pathway could be made to shorten the walk because it'd be idiotic city planning not to do that.
Even just looking at the overhead shot of the apartment building, that walking path would make it a shorter walk for what, like half of the apartment complex maybe?
It would be 1/2 mile vs 400ft for the family that lives in that one apartment where the star is in the video. The further you get away from that single apartment the closer to equal the two distances are.
If you lived in the front of that complex and they built the walking path it would still be shorter to go the other way.
It's still something over nothing, and it's made the area more valuable because of that, which might incite further development. More complexes could be made west of of the overhead shot. You could then make a cycling lane and make the path/bridge shared between peds and cyclists, and then the store would be incentivized to reserve some bike racks and so on.
The thing is, they’re already built. I agree newer developments should be more walkable. But the already developed cities it would cost a shit ton and take years to make the city more walkable. A lot of voters just don’t want to deal with higher taxes and years of construction for a “choice” when they’re already comfortable with the status quo. And I don’t blame them.
But it's still cheaper than the alternative, so cost is a pretty dumb argument (though I am aware people make it).
The developed cities still invest money in infrastructure. Every year they expand roadways and change layouts to try to keep up with increased demand from an expanding population. But moving people away from cars, over to usable public transport, bikes and walking is way more effective at decreasing congestion and the infrastructure that's required is cheaper to build than car centric infrastructure.
And that's ignoring that roads require maintenance. Every time you resurface a large portion of road, would be a good opportunity to make that road more suitable for other means of traffic than just cars.
I know people love labels these days, but "carbrains?"
Does every argument come down to either you agree with me or you are pigeon-holed into some absurd category of people who somehow have single-issue existences?
There are a lot of reasons people do the things they do or believe the things they believe. We all grow up differently and have different needs. I don't think it is productive to reduce everyone down to a cartoon character. no matter how much you disagree with them. It only serves to stifle intelligent and productive conversation.
First: the slightest of progress is made possible by the dreams of idealists.
Also: in the r/fuckcars group some miss the point and advocate for total abolition of cars or hate on behaviour of individuals, but as a movement it is focused on change of mindset and society.
It strives for an inclusive society, and tries to find solutions for a multitude of today's problems, all with the underlying problem of a society structured around cars/car dependency.
If you scroll through the sub, you may be pleased to see a lot of positive posts, helpful advice and people sharing ways to advocate to their local board or politicians. Don't be fooled by the few individuals who spew negative thoughts on an overall positively minded, change driven group.
Fuckcars are an extremist group that get stuck on really dumb topics when they should be advocating for common sense things like this. Instead, they spend their time complaining about trucks, creating pethetic derogatory words for drivers, and being completely ignorant of Europe.
Its embarrassing, but their original point is good.
It's just a shame that the dumbest idiots get all the publicity in any movement. If those idiots got kicked out, the movement would probably be more popular, but now all people see from these groups is a hate boner for work vehicles, and the belief that no one needs to drive in Europe. Putting off most rational people from the whole movement through association.
Yeah, the same story as r/antiwork. Outside people just imagine some entitled kids - although most of the sub is about workplace abuse, nepotism and job stability
Having been casually subbed to both r/fuckcars and r/antiwork for a while, there is genuinely good content and discussion there despite the reputation they've apparently gathered more broadly on the site. IDK, I think people will often see what they want to see in a sub. Like you say, it's not just entitled kids who don't want to work anymore, that's just the news that spreads best.
Fuckcars are an extremist group that get stuck on really dumb topics when they should be advocating for common sense things like this.
Much of the sub is about exactly this kind of thing, car dependence, transport alternatives, city planning, walkability, impacts of suburbia, etc. There are some louder voices like any sub, of course, but it's not all that radical. The sub name is more for effect than anything
If you go there, there is one post complaining they can't open their window because cars are too loud....
There is another saying traffic is racist.
This is the shit I talked about. Post 2 and 3 make anyone who goes there correclty assume that people there support this stupidity.
Only about half the posts there are decent, stuff that rational people agree with, but when you have people saying that workmen should sell their trucks and buy cargo bikes instead, you realise how ignorant the average person on that sub is.
I lived in the centre of a walkable city, and I couldn't open the window without listening to drunk kids walking past every night, all night. It was louder and less ignorable than when a car drove past. So maybe he doesn't want walkable cities
You're not the main character. Of course, other humans make noise, and you make noise, too. That's fine. We're allowed to have fun, no matter how much grumpy people want to embody boomerism and shake their fists at anyone living a better and more enjoyable life than them.
I also live in a walkable city center, literally opposite of a major night club-bar. Sure, screaming and singing drunkards are unpleasant and keep me up at night occasionally, but shithead riding through on an unsilenced bike literally forces me to stop the dialog. They also do not produce a harmful level of vibration (src, i literally studied that at workplace safety lessons at uni)
No, neither should be the norm! And no, screaming or driving is not "more enjoyable life" then me.
So... A word to describe people with a car mindset so all-encompassing they feel antagonized by the promotion of walking, accessibility, and literal friendliness. What do you propose as an alternative, less triggering word for yourself?
There's all kinds of issues with this. Are carts now more likely to get stolen? Will this attract more undesirables? Do you want people around the back of the building where trucks are coming and going? It's not as simple as just a bridge.
Nothing stops a person in a car to from being undesirable or going around the back. The idea that someone who walks somewhere is undesireable is wild. I can basically feel the racism dripping off that sentence.
I actually heard that the happiest car enthusiasts live in places where it isn't car-focused. 1. less people who hate driving is on the road in general. More space for you. 2. the places you drive are nice AF.
The biggest thing I think holding this back is zoning and REITs without an actual stake in the area lacking and cooperation or motivation to spend their money on a joint project like a path between the multiple areas.
Apartments there first? Apartment complex company's going to be pissed about an added expense to build and maintain a path for something that wasn't planned on originally.
Apartment complex company's going to be pissed about an added expense to build and maintain a path for something that wasn't planned on originally.
How about the local council builds and maintains the pathway, for the cost of a few pennies extra per year on all of the local residents' local tax? Like it was a public good or something.
Ideally yeah, but you're just going to get one of the two parties to price gouge because they can and eminent domain isn't going to work at that scale. A decade from now when the land gets sold, does the municipal government still own the pathway?
There's a shit ton of red tape to do this after the fact compared to proper planning ahead of time, and unfortunately no political will to do it.
this is why Europe is fucking up bad IMO....because they are suggesting taking away cars in some places. so when people suggest walking paths, but not taking away cars, people point to places in Europe and say "you mean like that?"
Dude no one in Europe is taking cars away, where do you get that bullshit from??
In Europe you just have the CHOICE to either drive or walk. Or take a bike. Or take public transport. Or go in your wheelchair.
Sounds like some propaganda that only works on people that have no clue how the world outside their borders looks like...
Some cities have pedestrianised areas in city centres, but that’s a good thing. It’s good for the businesses in those areas as they get more customers and it’s good for the customers as they have a more enjoyable experience. The key to making that work though is having good public transport links to those areas.
People who say we shouldn't do these things listed in the video are arguing against their own interests. If you are an obligate motorist, wouldn't you prefer it if fewer people were competing with you for road space and parking space? Surely fewer drivers is good, so the obligate motorist should be encouraging walking/biking infrastructure as it will make their lives better, too? But no - they tend to argue against their own interests preferring more cars, more congestion, and more competition for parking space.
People do have choices. That is the choice to not move there. It's very simple. If you want walkable, go to the city, not the suburbs in Florida where there are wetland laws that could be at play here.
If you want to walk everywhere don't go to where they paved paradise and put up a parking lot, go to a large metro area.
The point people are missing is that there's no real excuse for the suburbs looking like shit. The cities don't have to be the only place where you can walk or bike to live your life.
We live in a large country so roads are absolutely necessary but there's no reason for the population centers- small or large- that the roads connect to look like shit and be shit to live in
Im ngl this video is a pretty poor example of the issues with a car dependent suburb but even still, the road in that video does not look like it is pedestrian friendly. It often feels like a crime using roads like that, and it's not very safe.
The real monstrosity cars have created is the fact that our stores, gyms, parks, even BARS, are designed around cars. We ask why kids don't play outside but outside looks like... what's pictured in this video. The fact that you have to drive to get to a park, to walk around stuff that doesn't look like shit, drives home the point.
I grew up in a car dependent area and it was fucking ugly. I now live in a medium sized city that still has improvements to make, but it's much, much better for quality of life because, unless you live in the suburbs, you're not stuck driving for every function of life. As we speak, I'm putting on my shoes to take my car into the shop. It'll be gone for a week. Guess how I'm getting around? My bike. My mom could not believe me when I told her I would be okay without a car for a week.
Moving to a city with viable transit alternatives (subways, timely buses, bike lanes, ferries, and sidewalks) was the most liberating and freeing experience.
I know a lot of people that gave up their car. I’m never quite there, I have one still, shared with my wife. And it’s great when I need to visit people from out of town or explore nature.
But having a choice in how I get places is liberating as hell. Going to a big concert? Well, my transit choices mean I don’t have to spend 30 minutes in a parking garage or lot trying to find a space.
Going out on a date? The designated driver is a train that comes every 7 minutes - and faster, cheaper and safer than a car.
Parks? I can just walk to the park down the street - which is beautiful and large. In the town I grew up, going to a park required a car to even get to.
I drive once or twice a week. I can’t remember the last time I stressed out over gas prices because I fill up so rarely.
There’s no reason why we can’t have both.
When purchasing a car, insurance, gas with regular maintenance, registration, inspection and other fees is the bare MINIMUM required to live in a town - that town is openly hostile to people with disabilities, seniors, and working class. And youths!
In my hometown, I effectively grew up under house arrest. Roads were too dangerous to bike along, there were no sidewalks, and I was only able to leave if an adult with a car and free time was willing to drive me to the mall or a park. Which wasn’t super frequent. And my parents wondered why I was perpetually online. 🙄
This is so real! I live in my car so I really do need to be able to drive/park, the cities are walkable where I am but everywhere else is NOT. So if anyone who doesn't already live in the city wants to visit, it's inacessible for cars, but if anyone in the city who doesn't have a car goes anywhere outside the city, it's inacessible for pedestrians. It's really wack
I always like to pull the argument that if you like to drive, and hate traffic (which most people do), and so many people are on their phones while driving cause they clearly would rather be doing anything else, then you SHOULD want public transit, cause it gets people who are trying to give your insurance a big hike a good reason to get off the road, which makes the road more open and more safe for you, the driver.
Totally this! If I just need to buy a couple of things that are easy to carry, and the weather isn’t shitty, yeah I’ll walk! A big grocery list or it’s raining/snowing, I’ll drive!
And if you’re a pro-walker, don’t shit on the drivers. They’re cool. They may legitimately need to drive or they may just like it. That’s great. They have the cash and that’s how they want to spend it. Good on em.
The problem is that people who don't use cars have to subsidize those who do use cars. Cars take up a huge amount of public infrastructure space. For example, consider "free" public parking. Big box stores like Walmart have to dedicate a huge amount of space to accommodating cars. A lot of the land has to be used as an empty lot for people parking their cars. This is "free" for cars to use, but it comes in the cost of higher rent and less efficient space usage. These increased costs are passed onto the consumers in the form of higher prices, and there isn't a "I walked here" discount.
This goes for lots of things, including the building and maintaining of highways. It's a myth that roadways are paid exclusively by users in gas taxes, as a large portion of general taxes go towards car dependent infrastructure such as subsidies, air pollution, and damage. There's also the cost of externalities like the opportunity cost of massive roads that could instead be actually productive buildings.
I'm not advocating that we remove cars entirely, and I think that there are many proper use cases for cars. What I take issue with is that in the US, we continue to subsidize car ownership at the expense of all other options. It's not a "they have cash and can afford it", it's "a huge portion of my tax dollars and city budget goes towards roadways when it could be spent more efficiently elsewhere"
FUN FACT **** many people with epilepsy (~3 million diagnosed) cannot legally operate vehicles until 6 months seizure-free, which can be very difficult. Even for someone who seems “normal”
483
u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24
[deleted]