top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 80 points 3 years ago (12 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 60 points 3 years ago (23 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (20 replies)
    [–] 43 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago*

    In the USA at least. In Europe it's everything but perfect, of course, but at least we have some public transport in cities and between them.

    But yeah, the bike paths here in Austria are just getting bigger since some years again - and every cm seems to be a hard fight...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    The problem is that destinations are spread too far apart for walking, viable transit, etc. because the zoning code forces developers to build low density and massive amounts of parking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    I can spend 17 minutes driving to work, or 1.5 hours catching buses. Easy choice for me.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    Right, that's why we need to stop subsidizing streets and roads, make users pay the cost of them, and put the tax money toward transit. It's really impossible to ask anybody but the most devoted to make extremely inconvenient choices. Certainly, there are some lunatics who'd drive a car even if it took 1.5 hours, but most people would choose the 17 minute bus.

    Cheaper, sustainable, safer, better for mental health, better for non-drivers (children, elderly, disabled). It just makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago

    I also had a commute of about 17min with car. The same route with an electric bike takes me 35min. I'm not out of breath with it and I still have some exercise. I still take my car when it rains.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    Alot of people forget that just becuase a bus commute works for them doesn't mean it works for everyone.

    Alot of people have a legitimate reason for owning a car, and if we want then to use public transit then we need public transit to fit their needs in travelling.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 28 points 3 years ago

    Sure, I'll just take the...

    Oh wait, I'm in the US and they would have rather destroyed the planet than set up public transport

    Oh wait again...

  • source
  • [+] 26 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children)
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    40 minutes is a long ride, true. Maybe buy a foldable bike or a bike rack for your car, park your car outside of the city and reduce car traffic by riding from there to your workplace by bike? It sure would make this city a better place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    I used to do a 40 minute bike commute twice a day. Once it becomes part of your routine those 40 minutes are easy to conquer. Now I do the same distance by speed pedelec in 25 minutes. I'm faster at work now than when I used to go by car.

    If you can't make the trip safe though, than you shouldn't. But you can, like me, start out on nice days and incorporate into your days as a workout just to try an see.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    You're allowed to drive if there's no other infrastructure connecting point A to point B. This post is dumb because it lacks nuance. There are some cases where driving makes sense. If you live in a city where other options are safe and reliable, you should use those instead. And if you live in a city where there should be safe and reliable options but there aren't, well that's what you should be really upset about.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    Nobody is trying to get rid of cars for those in rural areas, as that's unfeasible. The ONLY place people genuinely care about cars existing is in cities where they can be built and changed to be walkable. I shouldn't NEED a car to get to a grocery store. I shouldn't NEED a car to get to work. I should NEED a car to get to anything fun to do. This is a feasible goal.

    It's about choice. I have no choice but to have a car. I don't want a car. I am forced to have a car because the alternative is... There is no alternative, right now.

    It's about the freedom to have the choice to not drive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 14 points 3 years ago

    Question. How did they move that sign there?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    This is a hack of matrix boards like these that I can 100% get behind.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
    [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    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

  • source
  • [+] 9 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    The British people conceive of the bike as an exotic machine used for Olympic time trials. We would never actually use one to go to the shops. This is fundamentally a nation of bigoted Dunning-Kruger morons that keep voting for the people who don't build cycle paths and other progressive policy. Every day we fall further into irrelevance. These people think that if we act like Victorians we will achieve the success of that era, meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [+] 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›