[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 128 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


>>
Same as anti-child people or atheists: Eternal seething about the choices of others, no intrinsic desires of their own.
>>
I think the ones who actually live their values and participate in activism are good, and most of their critiques of American cities are correct, but I also fear that for most people it is basically slacktivism e.g. bitching about "why cant we be more like Europe?" on twitter or reddit while also making no lifestyle changes. A lot of them also have either no real prescriptions, or only ones that are outlandish and unrealistic. "Just be more like Europe" is kind of an asinine suggestion for a few reasons and doesnt really suggest any path forward besides bulldozing places like LA and Houston and just starting again from square one

I also really dislike the defeatist attitude that a lot of them have, and think that it can end up accidentally re-enforcing the status quo. Not Just Bikes is kind of an example of this even though I like a lot of his videos. He moved to Amsterdam from America to live car free and recently did an interview where he literally says something like "there is no reason why any American who can afford a car shouldn't buy one." Stuff like this only re-inforces the idea that car free living is an impossibility in America. The truth is that you can life without a car in basically any major metro area as long as you choose where to live strategically, even it areas notorious for being car centric like DFW. If you care deeply about car free activism this is something you should strive to do, since if you never pay to ride a bus or a train, and never bike through the city, the cities are just going to continue to argue that there is no will to invest in walkability or transport
>>
>>1883551
>doesnt really suggest any path forward besides bulldozing places like LA and Houston and just starting again from square one
and what's wrong with that? car enthusiasts already levelled all the walkable urban areas for parking lots and overpasses, just tear those out and put the city back. ez.
>>
>>1883553
and how do you suggest we pull it out exactly?
>>
>>1883544
There's unironically no need for cars in any city. With that said, any such movement is too little, far too late.
>>
I dislike cars. I dislike how loud they are. I dislike how terrible they are for the environment. I dislike how dangerous they are to people not in cars.
>>
>>1883547
>no intrinsic desires
Nice non-statement
>>
>>1883544
I like those people. Cars are shit and shit up my city something fierce.
>>
Personal automobile ownership is one of the worst things to happen to mankind, but to be honest it's probably too late to fix it.
The best we can hope for now is small changes like more public transit, inter-city rail and limited car-free spaces in cities, but it seems unlikely we will ever completely eradicate the car menace.
>>
>>1883544
anti car people are as obnoxious as they come. I think the US should have some more options than we have now but we will always be more car centric than Europe and that's a good thing.
>>
>>1883544
Cars have been the most destructive innovation humanity could bring itself, from environmental to logistical to financial. Cars have been a shitshow at the developmental level and short sighted govies and corpos ruined the USA thanks to a car dependent ecosystem.
>>
>>1883594
>Cars have been a shitshow at the developmental level
There's more money to be made if cars are inefficient and require frequent part changes
>>
>>1883544
I see more and more cars in my city every week, it's not even hyperbole. All of my side street routes I've created to avoid cars as much as possible are now filled with traffic or guys in huge cars going 20+ over the speed limit on neighborhood roads. Cars are turning into a bigger problem and eventually it's going to break.
>>
>>1883607
The same reason big oil never invested into alternatives for oil, in fact, they sabotage any effort against big oil. Then goes the financing required at the governmental level to build the infrastructure for cars to drive on with a large percentage of that money lost to corruption, overspending, and miscalculation. The car has even been destructive at the social level. Technologies like the train and plane brings the world closer together but technologies like the car, isolates society and one of the things that makes humans very powerful is the ability to group. The car ruined humanity at every level.
>>
>>1883640
>technologies like the car, isolates society and one of the things that makes humans very powerful is the ability to group
damn, I just realized why 'they' pushed for the car and 'the nuclear family'

'they' wanted change the mentality of humans so that we wouldn't organize and assemble against 'them'
>>
I mean, I am an anti-car person so I like other anti-car people.
I want to get around my city by bicycle, without getting menaced or "negligent-homicide"-ed by drivers.
I want the "arterial road" running through my residential neighbourhood to go from 60 km/h with wide, turning lanes to something more like 40 km/h and appropriately sized for that speed, so that people can cross the road mid-block to get to the bus stop, rather than walk a km to the lights.
I want plazas and stores set directly against the sidewalk, rather than giant parking lots we have to walk through dodging cars. And once it's abutting the city easement, then maybe the city can actually put in bicycle parking.
I want small businesses providing services directly in my neighbourhood, rather than banning them because of the fear they will crowd our side street with cars.
I want speed limits slightly lowered and electronically-enforced on the urban expressway behind my building, so the vehicle noise stops poisoning the health of thousands of residents in the high-rise buildings along the highway.
There are more people killed and injured by vehicles than by "criminal" violence in my city, but traffic enforcement and road safety budgets are being cut to finance another police surge.
I miss when we had snow in winter and when summer wasn't a health threat, and wish we had done more to protect our climate, but it's too late for my generation to see things go back to how it was.

I'm just tired, so very tired of it all. Living humbly with my bike and my tiny life in a 30 km radius. Parents kept pushing me to get a car, and I did give a try for a few years, but it was not and still isn't for me.
>>
>>1883648
Other way around for me, I get around by bicycle as is my preference, but I want nothing to do with anti car people or "political cycling" people

Whenever someone around here gets run over by a car, I unironically think to myself "well, it's not so bad, they were probably one of those anti car people", or perhaps "one less of those kind of people"

I would rather die from getting run down by a motorist than associate myself or give even an inch to the anti car people, I hate them so goddamm much it's unreal
>>
>>1883646
I honestly doubt that they thought about it any more deeply beyond growth of their business at any cost. But it can certainly have that effect and the intent doesn't make much difference at scale.

That said, I'm not completely anti-car, I'm more, "pro funding alternatives that are ultimately cheaper and have less negative externalities in the long run." I don't think it's a good idea to make our cities all big, grey, and depressing with parking lots being bigger than the thing you're trying to get to. I don't think we really need to get rid of all cars - or that it's a realistic goal - but I do think it's possible and desirable in most places to start implementing things that we know make walking, biking, and transit better options for some trips - including stuff that will make driving ultimately less convenient in some cases. People will be miffed at first but it'll be worthwhile big picture when they realize one by one that it doesn't matter if getting to that one store takes a minute and a half longer in their car when they could literally just tie their shoes and walk and enjoy some flowers or whatever. Every new bike lane, every pedestrianised street, every new transit line et cetera will ultimately get a few people to change their habit over time, and that will add up.

Car driving and cycling are just cultivated identities that are tools for rich people to sell you crap - and they'll cultivate any identity they think they can get you to buy into so you can buy their shit. From there it becomes an easy jingoistic point of conflict for people that want to sell your attention over nonsense culture wars - getting ordinary folks to fight over a few inches of painted pavement so that they can keep selling you cars by the thousands and ignoring the externalities as the cost of freedom or some shit. Don't let their bullshit get in the way of figuring out how to make a better town and a better life.
>>
A cager has a cage inside of his mind
>>
>>1883651
the system cannot be reformed, faggot
>>
>>1883551
>you can life without a car in basically any major metro

It's actually far easier and more reasonable to live car-free in a smaller, older town (e.g. cities that were streetcar suburbs / had interurban lines). I believe that if you live car-free in a metro like DFW your rent is going to be very high.

The city that I am from takes 30 min. side to side on a bike. It has multiple supermarkets and other services and also a very low COL. Most people just choose to drive because there is no reason not to, but plenty of people still go car-free.
>>
>>1883547
>Eternal seething about the choices of others
in most of america there is no choice. you MUST buy a car or are unable to have a real job.
>>
>>1883681
Grim. Round here it is pretty easy to live car free.
>>1883660
Odd, in my town the car free people usually are the well educated people with the high end jobs living in the city and the cagers are working class poorfags from the burbs and their beloved car is their status symbol #1.
>>
>>1883684
Don't worry, those "well educated people" will soon enough get a reality check when their "high end jobs" get cancelled because they don't create actual value.
Microsoft is cutting at least 10k jobs, other already did, others will follow.
>>
>>1883544
the reee ban cars people are a scourge on the pro public transport community. Do they believe the buses and trains are good enough?
>lets ban cars in the city
fine. how do I move about in the city?
>there is a half hourly bus where transfers are never synced up
so a 10 minute car trip now takes upwords of an hour
>but congestion
only a problem during the rush hour, and the bus is twice as slow as traffic then

frequent buses and trains, in their own row must be a priority, and "banning cars" can only come in a softer way as an afterthought through removal of parking spaces and congestion charging
>>
>>1883544
I think they're based and redpilled.
>>
>>1883697
'reee ban cars' people are largely not real

they are an imaginary construct used to dismiss any shift away from car-centric cities whatsoever, such as the ones you mentioned.
>>
>>1883709
much like 'abolish the police' or 'eat the bugs'
>>
>>1883694
Fatty, I'm from Europe. Here rich people live in the city and poorfags in the ghetto.
Also
>types on a computer
>bitches about IT devs
NPC much?
>>
>>1883697
>so a 10 minute car trip now takes upwords of an hour
Do you believe even a 3x time savings on your trip is worth making it an order of magnitude more likely to kill or seriously injure someone, probably yourself, with your means of travel?

Then again, I'm not in the "ban cars" camp. I just think driving is a profoundly vile and self-serving choice that people make, because the entire system has been engineered to remove any consideration for the effects to others from their decision-making. To the point that automakers lobby to keep safety tests for non-vehicle occupants out of the mandatory consumer reporting because it might reflect badly if consumers were so much as aware of the consequences of their choices.
If people actually chose cars, with conscious and sober consideration for the harm their decision does to everyone around them, then I'd have a bit more respect for it.
>>
>>1883713
anon do you know how to drive and have the means to do so?
I will flip the script on you and say i respect anticvarfags far more whent hey ahve actually decided it rather than as a cope and seethe
>>
>>1883714
Yeah, was going through the progressive licensing system in my jurisdiction and got to the very last stage before a permanent license. Drove probably a hundred hours over those five years, including road trips to visit relatives. But two things: 1) I get road hypnosis comparatively easily compared to every other driver I've ridden with, 2) I rented a place 5 km away from work, even though it's a shitty high rise, so having a car was actively stupid
When the time limit on the temporary license tier I had came up, I did at least schedule the exit test. Ended up failing it due to the parallel park (I have no trouble parallel parking, but I use the side mirrors to gauge distance and the test used road pylons that weren't visible from the side mirrors).
>>
>>1883719
...I should add that the failure and time limit thing were fixable. You restart the progressive licensing from the start, but there are no time limits in each tier because of your past driving record, so it could have been "do written, do road test 1, do road test 2" as quickly as I wanted to reschedule them.
I gave up the license because it was irrelevant to my life and reflected the kind of person I didn't want to be.
>>
>>1883712
I'm european too and here the dirty poor live in the city while the rich live in the outskirts because cities are filled with criminal nigs and muds.
>>
>>1883675
Either a smaller dense city or a major metro with an actually working subway system. A major sprawl metro would be a nightmare to live without a car.
>>
File: xx.jpg (346 KB, 1542x650)
346 KB
346 KB JPG
>>1883582
>Personal automobile ownership is one of the worst things to happen to mankind,

I drove across the country in a rented Mustang, it was one of the coolest experiences of my life

The more I encounter anti-car, walkable city and environmentalist types the more I realize it's not about the actual message but seething poors and commie psychopaths who want to control people who are more free and living better lives than them
>>
File: chudsnail.png (128 KB, 918x640)
128 KB
128 KB PNG
>>1883722
No you don't. you're just another angry /pol/ snail projecting.
>>
>find anti-car person
>force them into a car
>the car & anti-car annihilate each other in a vast explosion
lol
>>
>>1883735
Oh geez, don't make me fantasize about drivers facing tangible consequences for hitting a pedestrian with their car.
>>
>>1883684
>the cagers are working class poorfags from the burbs and their beloved car is their status symbol #1
Ditto, it's surreal.
>>
>>1883730
I am European. Cope and seethe more retard urbanite.
>>
>>1883694
>Microsoft is cutting at least 10k jobs, other already did, others will follow.
>>1883745
>I am European
First and foremost, you're a retard, quoting events in California and then claiming to be European. Second you're some contrarian poorfag hating on le ebil cities and thats pretty much all you have to say in regards to urban transportation. thanks for your brain farts, but I think you know yourself how irrelevant you are. NPC trough and trough.
>>
>>1883753
Cope more you utter retard.
You think this is different here? It's worse because of muh energy crisis, especially here in Germany.
I hate cities because they are full of smelly pooskins, which is also why I go to work by bike or car instead fungi express.
So yeah.. cope and seethe urbanite cuck.
>>
File: GigaChad[1].jpg (80 KB, 1280x720)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>Yes, I do bike to work and the grocery store while still owning a car for occasional longer trips, how could you tell?
>>
>>1883551
>most of their critiques of American cities are correct
Not really. They glorify only the parts of European cities they like (oldest, medieval-era cores) while all their other "facts" about cities are either lies, exaggerations, or conjecture.
>>
>>1883764
>while still owning a car for occasional longer trips,
That sounds pretty stupid. Car sharing would be the way to go.

>>1883755
>here in Germany.
There we go, at least we now know what kind of raging retard you are. I bet you have minimal education, are unemployed, live in the pampa, vote AfD, and dream of the day you're not poorfag anymore because you can aford the leasing of a big fat car, so everybody can see you're not a total loser. Sorry anon, but that shit is permanent and you're simply irrelevant. deal with it.
>>
>>1883544
Based af chad types.
>>
>>1883780
>seething poor projecting faggot lol
I am doing my PhD, I work full-time, I vote for AfD.
COPE more you seething poor urbanite retard.
>>
>>1883780
Ach Berlin...
>>
>>1883755
The energy crisis is your own fucking fault though. Who would've thought driving down all your own energy production and relying largely on energy from an authoritarian state that has a history of waging war on its neighbours is a bad idea. Only DDR cucks are retarded enough to reminisce the good old days so much that they are willing to do something so fucking stupid.

Europe would be doing so much better if we just glassed DDR before unification, with the people inside. The two countries in all of Europe that are the most cucked when it comes to Russia are Germany and Finland. Both of them because they weren't a part of the USSR. Well Germany sort of was but not fully.
>>
>>1883793
Yeah no.
Russia ALWAYS held up their contracts and supplied us with cheap energy.
Too bad that this country is still occupied by anglo-semitic cancer that won't allow German-Russian friendship and trade.
The enemy of the people is the amerimutt golem.
>>
File: url.jpg (16 KB, 200x356)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>1883725
>seething poors and commie psychopaths who want to control people who are more free and living better lives than them
This bears repeating. Urbanists btfo
>>
>>1883725
>personal automobile ownership
>rented car
>>
>>1883794
They held up their contracts because they want you dependant on their energy so they can have you by the balls when they need it. That's extremely short sighted politics from you. Sure using cheap Russian energy while building up your new energy production would be smart. Having your entire long term energy plan be one of the most corrupt and warmongering countries in the world is extremely fucking dumb. As I said, Germans and Finns are the most cucked and naive when it comes to Russia because they didn't live under Moscow's rule during the cold war. And as I said, Europe would be better off if we just glassed DDR before unification, including you/your parents.

And as weird as it may sound the anglo-semitic, amerimutts are right this time. If you do not stop Russia right here and push them out of Ukraine, including Crimea, they'll be in the next country soon. And then you're wondering how there's full blown world war going on because Russia decided it's a good plan to invade Poland because no one stopped them yet.
>>
>>1883822
Yeah no. They had good relations with Germany for over 20 years and that's what mutts didn't like.
Which is also why they staged and couped Ukraine.
Mutt golems truly are the enemy of the people.
>>
>>1883544
Gay biggers the lot of em
But i am one of them so
>>
>>1883786
>I am doing my PhD, I work full-time, I vote for AfD.
pick one and only one. if you invent a vita at least try to be credible. Ossi.
>>
>>1883823
And you could still have good relations with Russia if they didn't decide to invade another sovereign country. But what do they do? They can't just stop being Russians and decide the smart thing to do is to throw away all their good relations and invade another country.

Glassing DDR would've solved this blindness towards Russians. Now we'd have to glass all of Germany because the old DDR commies have infiltrated all of it.
>>
>Ossi (lol)
>AfD voter
>Russia asskisser
>hate cities
>hate public transport
>hate bicycles
>cager fetish
fits you. what are you doing on /n/ except being a colossal asshole venting your frustrations?
>>
>>1883829
COPE and SEETHE retarded faggot.
I'm worth more than you will ever be, btw wessi too.
>>
>Motor vehicle crashes are the 1st or 2nd leading cause of death in every major industry group.
I'm anti-car because the average american is far too mentally retarded to safetly operate a motor vehicle under most circumstances. They're angry, dumb, emotionally stunted little sociopaths and if you ever find yourself prematurely dead/paralyzed/severely injured, statistically it was likely the result of a motor vehicle collision where shit driving was a major contributing factor.
>>
>>1883764
based
>>
>>1883697
banning all cars is stupid but your arguments are even more stupid
>fine. how do I move about in the city?
you literally just said you are in the pro public transit group, are you actually retarded?
>>there is a half hourly bus where transfers are never synced up
>so a 10 minute car trip now takes upwords of an hour
it's called a proper metro system
>only a problem during the rush hour, and the bus is twice as slow as traffic then
busses should have their own lanes. they can operate alongside cars while being faster for the routes they operate.
>>
File: khvz90nst6q41.png (149 KB, 640x603)
149 KB
149 KB PNG
>>1883903
>If we make things hard enough on drivers, perfect mass transit will appear out of thin air!
>>
>>1883925
no, but it will discourage driving use, do you really think people want to just "ban cars" and not have any public transit improvements at the same time?
>>
>>1883926
>highway engineers are hard at work designing new roadways to reduce congestion and accidents, bringing interesting new designs to the table every decade or so
>mass transit advocates are creatively bankrupt and can't think of anything but crippling the road network and spending more money
"Carbrain" should be a compliment, really
>>
>>1883932
>>highway engineers are hard at work designing new roadways to reduce congestion and accidents, bringing interesting new designs to the table every decade or so
wow this is the most retarded cope I have ever heard, no "new designs" are gonna make cars anywhere close to as efficient as rail or even bus transit for moving people around, and they lead to sprawl and concrete to sustain them, also, induced demand heard of it?
>>
>>1883932
> new highway designs are free to implement
lmao at car-brained NPC with zero self-awareness
>>
>>1883945
>anywhere close to as efficient as rail or even bus transit for moving people around
Remember, buses and trains are only efficient when they're full or mostly full. They're not "more efficient" when they travel around empty, especially at night.

>induced demand heard of it?
Yeah. I have. And what you think of it is probably wrong. Every video on induced demand misquotes what the study actually said, and very little can be gleaned from the study except that highway lane growth and volume are proportional, but those also come with population growth.

You aren't going to create economies and population growth with wide freeways (otherwise any declining city can basically freeway themselves into instant growth), usually the population comes first, and then infrastructure accommodates it, and while you can argue diminishing returns as far as freeway expansion goes, there is a limit...an infinitely wide highway will not have an infinitely wide number of cars.

Of course, these don't matter. You'll just spam the same pictures floating around and scream "JUST ONE MORE LANE BRO" like a retard and think that trains will make all the problems disappear.
>>
>>1883948
>Remember, buses and trains are only efficient when they're full or mostly full.
That's not a problem, that's an opportunity.
>>
>>1883951
No one's going to be riding around town at 3am in the morning.
>>
>>1883954
Carbrain argument.
The point is to fill up buses in daytime.
>>
>>1883544
cars r great if u live in a country like germany where ppl acc know how to drive, anywhere else is barely tolerable and any third world country is total chaos
>>
>>1883948
>buses and trains are only efficient when they're full or mostly full
Not everything has to be profitable to be beneficial. There is a large social benefit to having cheap public transportation that isn't full all the time. For example; young and newly employed industry sector workers who can't currently afford a car or a place to store it but are working the graveyard shift. Public transport with full coverage costs more than it gives back but it creates economic opportunity for people of lower socioeconomic status. And I would argue, if I can reach a bit, that complete public transport costs less to have than what would cost to mitigate societal problems of not having it.
I think this is one of those things that really differentiates neo-anglos from the rest of the world. Some people may very well "know" that nationalized healthcare or subsidized public transportation is more economically efficient, both for individuals and the government, but some countries simply find the idea too repulsive due to well entrenched cultural values.
>>
>>1883903
>it's called a proper metro system
>busses should have their own lanes. they can operate alongside cars while being faster for the routes they operate.
these are not here, and the energy that's being spent on being anti car is energy that should be spent building these
>>
>>1883945
Yes. Public transportation is the definition of induced demand. Nobody sane wants to hop on a cattle wagon with hobos and nigs.
>>
>>1883968
>nationalized healthcare
Inefficient garbage that profits the poor, lazy, dumb and criminals.
Same with public transportation.
>>
>>1883837
>Berlin (lol)
>Green cuck
>Mutt bootlicker
>hates nature
>hates private property
>CAGE CAGE CAGE REEEEEEE
Enjoy your ape pox, faggot.
>>
>>1883725
Cars are exactly for what you did.
But they aren't for commuting alone in a city causing congested streets until the city decides to continue building the autobahn in your backyard or through your house, destroying your whole neighbourhood.
>>
>>1883837
You are just as much of a stereotype as that guy is. But what is worse is that you create those people simply with your twisted beliefs. That you want to force people to use your favourite mode of transportation, and brand all those people as 1 group. The so called cagers are not a uniform group, but all just normal people wanting to travel in comfort. Some are assholes, but that are either rich people, wiggers or muslims financing AMGs with their whole family.

Personally I dislike public transport because of dependency, and I hate being stuffed with smelly shit people. Encourage efficient motorcycles. If you present a viable alternative that is cheaper to run and does not waste time, there will be people who change the mode of transportation. Or you do it like Japan, tax up bigger cars and remove them for a small car class. But you cant get rid of the entire concept.
>>
File: .jpg (271 KB, 1000x737)
271 KB
271 KB JPG
>>1883981
>gets lung cancer from working 30 years in a coking plant
>"That'll be 50k + tip. Can't pay? Sorry buddy, you shouldn't have been lazy and poor. It's simply more efficient for everyone to pay for their healthcare themse-"
>>
File: .jpg (316 KB, 640x868)
316 KB
316 KB JPG
>>1883985
>Y-you hate n-nature!
>>
>>1883998
You forgot the part where the people in the 100 houses pay the welfare for the people living in the apartments.
>>
File: 2463473459867986.jpg (296 KB, 1200x988)
296 KB
296 KB JPG
>>1884006
False.
>>
>>1884009
>Look at my fancy image, heh, there I am right and you are wrong
The people doing these statistics always have a goal they follow and are always dishonest about the data they use.
>Sidewalks & Curbs more expensive in suburban areas
I thought you always complained that suburbs are not walkable?
Why does it cause so much anger in your that people just want to own a nice house in the outskirts and commute in comfort with their car? If you want to live a sustainable life, go ahead, but I really don't get why you need to force your lifestyle on others. Authoritarian, that is what you people are.
>>
>>1884012
>I really don't get why you need to force your lifestyle on others
It's usually the other way around, with suburbanites demanding subsidies and support for their lifestyle.
Locally, we had an instance where a city voted to reject expanding the urban boundary (the geographic area where the city commits to building and maintaining infrastructure). The city instead amended its growth plans to intensify the existing infrastructure to support higher density. The developers peddling suburbs went to the provincial government and lobbied them to overturn the decision.
>>
>>1884019
>suburbanites demanding subsidies
Depending on where you live, that might be true. I never heard any property owner cry about free shit and subsidies.
>The developers peddling suburbs went to the provincial government and lobbied them to overturn the decision.
Questions like that should be solved with a referendum. That's democratic. Either way the vote goes, people have to live with it. I understand your frustration, but that is just the ugly system we live in - intransparency and lobbying everywhere you go. And I know it is from all sides.
>>
File: referendum.png (26 KB, 739x111)
26 KB
26 KB PNG
>>1884020
>Questions like that should be solved with a referendum.
So... exactly what happened, before it was overturned?
>>
>>1884019
>It's usually the other way around, with suburbanites demanding subsidies and support for their lifestyle.
What world do you live in where that's the case? The only "proof" is ST's theory where the farther a city expands with low-density growth, the more resources a city has to expend on providing fire/sewer/infrastructure/police. Reality is that almost every single municipality has a set boundary (except for maybe Houston, but Houston has all sorts of other weird circumstances that don't follow the growth pattern), the suburbs maintain themselves with their own fire department, police, public works, etc.

And it fails to mention everything else:
>assumes there are no area-wide taxes that benefit a small core of the city (train lines)
>assumes that people don't spend more money in the city
>assumes that there is no redevelopment of the city (again, these arguments are based on "new development permits")
>assumes that there is no corruption or incentives that will pull development in different ways
>assumes that municipal bankruptcy is caused by this expansion pattern (you cannot name a city that has)
>>
>>1883662
Arent you scared you will be a permanent nigger from the fumes
>>
>>1884065
>being scared of smoke and noises
Why is /n/ like this?
>>
>>1883694
> 10k jobs
So 5% of their workforce. How massive!
>>
>>1884070
Butterflies in Britain that used to be white literally became black from the fumes you illiterate baboon
>>
When I was under 16 parents had to shuttle me everywhere and it was hell. Going to visit school friends was a whole ordeal.
At least these days they can shell our for an uber or something.
>>
>>1884012
Because it means when they commute to the city for work or leisure, they will need parking spots and large roads which are an eyesore. I don't mind being evil to get what I want and I can always craft effective narratives to mask that
>>
>>1884071
>5% of their workforce
That is quite a bit.
>>
>>1884063
>the suburbs maintain themselves with their own fire department, police, public works, etc.
they very often don't and you can very easily see this without even any hard data just looking at the location of those services in metro areas and how they are not equally spread out to form multiple "city centres", which is a fine type of development but US suburbanism does not do that at all.
>>
>>1884076
Its just a correction for their insane hiring rates in 2020-2022
>>
>>1884072
That was from industrialization revolution and not cars you gaslighting faggot/n/iggerbrain.
>>
>>1884041
The silence is deafening.
>>
>>1884083
>very often don't
The "car-centric" cities like Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles all have separate suburbs with their own services (or in some cases, small towns that just got sucked into the orbit). In some parts of expanding areas, they have something called an extra-territorial jurisdiction, but the cities don't provide services or maintenance to those areas, nor do the people living in those areas given a voice in local government, so that's basically a wash.

In other areas there's unincorporated areas but are still de facto muncipalities with weird tax codes, special districts, and other bullshit.
>>
>>1884041
>>1884089
Nah I was just busy buddy. Yeah it sucks that it was forced against the people's will, that's why I already said I understand your frustration. Politicians are scumbags.
>>
>>1883694
>those "well educated people" will soon enough get a reality check when their "high end jobs" get cancelled because they don't create actual value.

are you saying all the rich tech workers and software engineers have jobs that dont produce value? i dont believe it.
>>
>>1884229
I'm a software engineer and I frequently feel like I'm not producing value.
>>
>>1884231
>mfw no matter what board on 4chan you go on, everyone is a software engineer
damn thats crazy. but your jobs are very important and you're all millionaires with easy lives for a reason
>>
>>1884229
>it's all tech workers and engineers
Microsoft just let 10k go.
Cope more, retard.
>>
i'm 31 and dont drive but im not an anti-car person

i just dont drive because im a pathetic autistic friendless incel loser and dont see the point in having a car. i mostly get around with my bicycle, subway system, and bumming rides/carpoling with people for the few hobbies and job i do. yeah its inconvenient not having a car but with my lack of social life and severe anxiety i had when practicing driving, theres really no point
>>
>>1884232
World runs on software. There are a lot of us. Software engineering is becoming a blue collar job just to maintain it all.
>>
>>1884118
Those two posts aren't the same anon, anon.

It's also tough, because I acknowledge there's a housing crisis and we do need to build more. I just think the people buying houses in dumbfuck suburbs should realize their fucking road is going to be a bitch to repave in 30 years. Imagine if the road in front of your house was your responsibility to pay for, and then look at the shittiest driveway on your street.
If suburbs were taxed appropriately for the services delivered (and carbon were taxed appropriately for the whole "massive international climate disruption" thing going on), then yeah, you can have your suburb.

Here's another local story. The city I live in is actually the result of a forced amalgamation of a bunch of contiguous suburban municipalities into the downtown core. (again, the work of the provincial government against opposition by the municipal governments of each constituent city and referendum by the residents)
The suburbs had barebones government services, while the downtown core had a large and sophisticated municipal bureaucracy to deliver things like public health, public housing, business regulations like restaurant standards, parks and recreation.
Those benefits were gradually harmonized out into the suburbs, at the behest of the suburban councillors, but then they started balking at property tax increases. So now we have a city where everything is falling apart. Public housing has massive repair backlogs that aren't getting funded. Business and building regulations are tied up and stalled. The water fountains and washrooms in all the parks are fucked up so badly no one can go to a park further than a quick walk to get back home.
So now we have subsidized suburbs and everyone gets to enjoy shit fucking service.
>>
>>1884269
>magine if the road in front of your house was your responsibility to pay for
Actually in Germany we have a law about that. The local politicians can decide, when a road in the city or village gets newly paved, that the people owning the property at that street have to pay a sum of it, and that easily gets into 10k+ Euros. Everytime that happens people go into a rage. They would rather leave the street as it is. If we weren't taxed out our asses already, it would be fine. In the US people are taxed less so why should they not pay for stuff like that?
>and carbon were taxed appropriately for the whole "massive international climate disruption" thing going on
Only if they are being honest and stop blowing that crisis up. It is not a hoax, but its not the end of the world either - fuckers should keep their head cool. And especially stop to go after certain things like cars, houses and the like. As long as politicians travel with privat jets to discuss climate issues, I am willing to pay for nothing, since then it cannot be that bad.
>>
>>1883736
Imagine a world where cyclists were all incredibly volatile so if struck by a car they would explode like bombs
And car drivers were also incredibly volatile too
And all cyclists and car drivers were inexplicably hot anime girls with big boobs that were also explosive
Imagine
>>
>>1883981
Nationalized healtcare is one of the first things that make sense to nationalize. And it profits literally everyone.

>>1884012
No one hates you for wanting your own house and yard. They hate you for wanting other people to subsidize it for you.
>>
>>1884342
Absolutely wrong. Nationalized healthcare only works in a homogeneous society, an ethno state.
In the west however it is the blueprint to bankruptcy.
>>
>>1883713
>Do you believe even a 3x time savings on your trip is worth making it an order of magnitude more likely to kill or seriously injure someone, probably yourself, with your means of travel?
Unapologetically yes! I hope my motorcycle gives you an idea of how far along this spectrum I am. Cars are safe and sanitary cuckboxes
>>
>>1884342
>They hate you for wanting other people to subsidize it for you
Except they don't. The "we subsidize suburbanites" as is explained is 100% cope.
>>
Most of these people are Americans and America is beyond fucked. Nothing can be done about car culture. When I lived in the US, I had a car. Sometimes it was fun. I love road trips. The biggest shitty thing is how lazy it makes you and how it makes nightlife impossible. I got a bike but found myself sometimes driving the 1km to the grocery store. If you want to go out, the options are drunk driving or paying tons of money on taxis.

I still love taking road trips and country drives, but where I'm from I just rent a car when I want to do that.
>>
>>1884435
>If you want to go out, the options are drunk driving or paying tons of money on taxis.
Or you go out with a group with a designated driver. The idea of "I want to get fucked up and not having to worry about driving on public transit" is asking to be a victim of a crime on a late-night service.
>>
>>1884440
I've never been the victim of a crime. Public transit was almost non-existent in the two American cities where I lived. It was non-existent during late hours. The sober driver point is valid but obviously less than ideal. I thought I'd be able to drunk cycle because I do that all the time but a few sober experiences on American roads dissuaded me from going for it.

All I'm saying is effective public transportation and bike infrastructure/culture is way better than universal car ownership in my opinion and I think almost everyone who has experienced both will agree. A huge portion of the people that don't will be fat and lazy. I get why America has gone with the cars. There are a lot of fat and lazy people there. To be more generous, I acknowledge the infrastructure is expensive and it's bafflingly difficult to enforce such a cultural change. America has geographic and structural features that would make this even harder.

Anti-car people may be smug cunts, but they are not wrong.
>>
>>1884443
I'll add that I get why so many Americans are aghast at expanding public transport; because the existing infrastructure is so terrible. Why increase the footprint and cost of a bad thing? Surely that will just make an even bigger bad thing. I took the train when I first arrived in a new city. The journey took an hour (would have been 20 minutes in a car) and I witnessed a crack deal. There were darkly-complected gangstas smoking cigarettes and joints and playing loud music.

I don't know how you go from that to the buses, trams and bike lanes of The Hague. I'm not saying it's easy or even reasonable to do given the cost and difficulty. But one is better than the other.
>>
Comprehensive mass transportation is for functioning societies. America has a weak and dysfunctional society, largely thanks to degeneracy and muttification. I myself was anti car, until I moved back to a West Coast city and experienced just how bad the decline has gotten. Until America brings back a white only immigration policy, executes drug dealers and starts jailing criminally insane people again, mass transportation is not an option
>>
>>1884447
>I'll add that I get why so many Americans are aghast at expanding public transport; because the existing infrastructure is so terrible. Why increase the footprint and cost of a bad thing?
It's not just that, it's the cost/benefit ratio depending on where you live.
>city wants to expand public transportation
>proposes new tax in the "metro zone" to help pay for it (sales tax, etc.)
>proposed public transportation expansion only covers small part of entire district (as is usual)
>have-nots in the city vote for it since they benefit more than what they put in
>wealthy in the city vote for it since it may help traffic somehow, after all, that amount of money means very little to them
>middle class living in the farther-out areas will get hit with the bill but it does not benefit them much if not at all
>in a vote, either passes with a slim margin or fails
It stokes resentment against suburbanites for "ruining" mass transit expansion but mass transit is completely unfeasible if they don't put them in the tax zone. It's why the MTA taxes everyone in a 100-mile radius.
>>
>>1883996
Japan and Korea being at the bottom and US being on top can be a heavy implication that these healthcare costs correlate with obesity and general unhealthiness of the population. On the other hand Japan's and Korea's populations are aging so it should be increasing their healthcare costs and yet they are almost a quarter of that of the US.
I would still be against socialized healthcare in the US, especially because of too many people being insane. I don't want to subsidize the health costs of obese rednecks or troon self mutilation.
>>
>>1884342
one of the things that people fail to understand about nationalizing anything is that it depends on the government being operated well. in the united states, government often runs poorly because it's trying to serve too many masters and then the public gets a shitty service that is unable to be fixed due to these alternate masters overriding the democratic institutions.
Amtrak is so abysmal that people see it as proof that government can't do anything right.
>>
>>1884585
The excellent health of the Japanese and Korean populace is certainly contributing to their numbers, but the disparity of the US is far beyond obesity and individual choices of US citizens.
You either subsidize the mitigation of societal problems or you subsidize the isolation from those problems.
Isolation is a rut a nation like the US digs itself into, getting ever more expensive to the point that mitigating those problems in the first place would've been vastly more efficient, but at the same time being so deep that it makes the mere idea of course correction ridiculous.
That's why you say this:
>I don't want to subsidize the health costs of obese rednecks or troon self mutilation.
Even though you yourself partly know that single payer systems are more economically efficient, both for each individual and the state.
And believe me you, there are ways to mitigate obesity without imposing on personal choice once you realize that being healthy was, by state policy, made to be the hardest choice.
Also, tranny self mutilation is not gonna find itself on the state's bottom line once they have the burden of all healthcare, no matter how much the liberal establishment pays lip service to it to preserve voters or how much right leaning media wants you to think it is.
>>
>>1884602
>Amtrak is so abysmal that people see it as proof that government can't do anything right
what is the problem with Amtrak. What are it's many masters? That it should both make money and serve outlying communities?
>>
>>1884611
There's actually only one master and it's just a coincidence.
>>
>>1884611
>That it should both make money
Roads do not make money. They exist to facilitate the distribution of goods and people across distances too long or destinations too scattered for other modes. The government subsidizes them because it returns on investment more in external benefits.
Marine ports do not make money. They facilitate maritime trade of goods. The government subsidizes them because it returns on investment more in external benefits.
Airports and airlines do not make money. They facilitate fast transport of high-density goods and people across very large distances. The government subsidizes them because it returns on investment more in external benefits.

Railroads exist to facilitate efficient transport of goods and people across large distances. Why is making money suddenly of importance?
>>
>>1884616
>Why is making money suddenly of importance?
is that not part of the problem with Amtrak? conflicting goals of service for all and financial self sufficiency?
>>
>>1884619
it's more than that. it's all the competing interests.
it tries to be all things to all people without stepping on toes. it is at the mercy not just of congress, but state interests, city interests, rural interests, freight interests, labor interests, etc. these are all not aligned in goals, at all, but they are forced to operate as one unit.

i was just trying to convey as one example how decentralized our federalism compared to european countries. There's a lot of mutual distrust that prevents some thing that probably should be more streamlined at the national level from doing so.
>>
>>1883954
I did multiple times. At that point most over people are tired enough that they don't really wanna start shit. Those are the most quiet rides you can have basically, even if a dozen others ride the bus with you.
And the only time something ever happened was after I got off and the aggro guy from my neighborhood talked up to me, got nervous and wanted to take out his knife. I just made a dash for it and was fine. But since his friend was there and looked like he'll step in, it wasn't too bad.
>>
I'd like to add that if you ride a bike that's great, asking others to ride bikes is ok, but demanding they do or feeling superior for biking is literally ableist and ageist since it's a very small demographic who can feasibly ride bikes all the time. Plus it's super slow. So bringing bikes into the anti-car conversation seems really pointless to me. The focus should be on public transportation or electric vehicles or something actually useful and accessible. The bike solution seems kinda silly to say the least.
>>
>>1884643
The only thing that should be streamline regarding Amtrak is taking it out behind the barn and putting it out of the taxpayer's misery.
>>
>>1884652
>since it's a very small demographic who can feasibly ride bikes all the time.
Do you mean physically or reasonably considering the available infrastructure for bikes? Cause physically most can ride bikes if they wanted to. Maybe the US is a bit too obese for that, but that's another problem.
But few are actually demanding that everybody rides bikes. They just want the infrastructure to have it be a possible option.
>>
>>1883551
This is a relatively fait assessment. Something I'd add is that even if it isn't possible or feasible to be car-free, car-lite is far more of an option than given credit for; having one car for a family/couple and supplementing with biking/walking, or even for some demographics minmaxing a two car setup with one large utilitarian family vehicle (minivan/sub) and one uber econo commuter would be an improvement to the 3+ car setup some families have.
>>
>>1883553
I think the part of this some activists ignore is that for such a transition to be workable/feasible there has to be consolidation of car infra, which means some corridors get more car centric. As an example, Not Just Bikes will sing Dutch praises about their Urbanism, but frequently (not-always, but other activists aren't as good about it) ignores that they tolerate car-lite corridors, streets, and networks, by having intelligent and efficient car-centric corridors and networks. A sharp example of this Japan. Tons of discourse on their transit and urbanism, zero discourse on their extensive and profitable regional and local expressway networks. The main issue with American cities, and the heart of the stroad critique, is that every ROW functions as a throughway corridor, business frontage, and ped/bike ROW with little variation. The problem is that activists want it all downgraded, but the throughput is valuable and necessary, and successful examples indicate that for some roads to be less car-centric, you need to make up for some, not all, of thr throughput elsewhere. This means part of removing stroads is upgrading some of them to be better through corridors with significantly less or no frontage and potentially no ped/bike traffic (when there's no frontage). In some cities it might mean there's a compelling case for new expressways if it allows more urbanization elsewhere.
>>
>>1883582
See this is just a delusional take. No reason you can't have economically driven usage like Japan.
>>
>>1883780
>Car sharing would be the way to go.
The problem with this is that car rental markets are completely fucked and almost immediately unworkable for living without a car. The local car share things are still limited and niche, and for longer trips car rentals are setup for travelers who don't have an option to purchase a car.
>>
>>1884616
Those are all choices. Airports, ports, and some roads are than capable of making money. There's more than enough money flowing through any serious commercial airport to pay for it. The state subsidizing it is a choice. Expressways can be profitable. Japan operates their expressways at a profit. Eisenhower and America was going to have their expressways tolled and profitable, but a political choice was made to make them free, at the behest of oil/car lobbies.
>>
>>1883544
They tend to be anti-wheels, in my experience, meaning bike owners get fucked as well. They don't seem to get that the roads cars abuse are also used by trucks, buses, particularly daring cyclists, even streetcars. Even if cars are bad, those other uses are not, and when you reduce a 2 lane road with parking to one lane + 1 side parking and put in grey lifeless sidewalks with nothing in them, things fucking SUCK. When I have to go across town, I don't want to fucking walk, I want to walk with conservation of momentum, or pay someone else to move me, and I can't exactly bike down a grey sidewalk full of people, now, can I?
>t. lives near Rue Ste-Catherine pedestrianization
>>
>>1883544
Anti-car people are just poor retards with nothing better to do than to seethe at drivers who can use the most efficient personal transportation system invented.
>>
>>1884723
This. Whenever I see I car driver step out of their luxury mobility assistance vehciles, I think, there is a rich genius.

t. pedal peon
>>
>>1884723
I know this is a bait post but I wanted to post this image anyways
>>
>>1884732
Efficiency is a misleading metric when accounting for the nature of your journey; you are not going to be cycling 50 miles for non-leisure purposes, which is a task best suited for a car or train depending on where the local destination is.
Whoever made that graph clearly has ulterior motives. You simply cannot, with good intentions, use a metric that favours cycling and then use that as an argument against almost everything else that gives you greater range.
>>
>>1884735
When are you ever going to need to travel 50+ miles regularly for non-recreational purposes?
If your commute is over 50 miles than that's your problem for choosing to live so far away from your workplace.
>>
>>1884736
Choice don't got nothin' to do with it. Some people don't get paid enough to live less than 50 miles from their work.
>>
>>1884736
>When are you ever going to need to travel 50+ miles regularly for non-recreational purposes?
I didn't say regularly, but the example was brought up because it applied to me.
I travel that distance on a semi-regular basis to a place that has poor public transport and using a car is a no-brainer in terms of cost and convenience. The UK has the most expensive rail fares in Europe.
>>
12 year olds.
>>
>>1884671
Good points like that dont get you as many views on Nebula Anon.
>>
I hate cars, but it's way too late to get rid of them. Cars are nice if you ever get injured or become disabled. I used to ride bikes all the time but recently suffered some shitty leg and shoulder injuries. No way I can bike anymore.
>>
>>1884647
Must be nice, not living around crackheads. Where I'm from, late night is when the monsters come out spook the good little boys and girls with their public shitting, masturbating, stabbing, and fucking because when you're on meth or PCP it can be any time of day you like.

>>1884661
It's not that the US is too obese for it, it's that we're too spread out for it. Most of us don't live within 5 miles of our job, nor are there good living options that close to them. And don't just say some shit about "well there should be" well there aren't, and nobody is seriously suggesting we bulldoze the major cities and start over. Plus most of the US has hills, inclement weather, and/or urban wildlife (two-legged) that all make cycling a challenge. I'm not waking up an hour early so I can shower when I get to work because it was 89° with 98% humidity. Not if I can just drive in air conditioned comfort.
>>
I live in a rural area close to a big city so I naturally hate them.
>>
Carfags answer me this:

If one reason to own a car is "muh freedum", then why:

- Are your forced to pay insane insurance premiums?
- Are a slave to gas prices?
- Are a slave to parking space availability
- Are in constant fear some idiot will rear-end you?
- Constantly having to get your car serviced?


The only reason I see getting a car is because public transport is dogshit. That's it. If you had door to door public transport, that was well maintained, affordable and efficient, having a car would be completely moot. And even not having it door to door, you still have the option of cycling (assuming you can use your legs).

Everything else is cope.
>>
>>1884884
My main reasons for owning a car are, in order

>buying project bicycles
>hooning it
>road trips
>hypothetical gf
>fun to work on

Commuting in a car is indeed a retard cope.
>>
>>1884884
>Are your forced to pay insane insurance premiums
My premiums are fine and cyclists should be forced to have insurance and plates too.
>Are a slave to gas prices
Not the problem, the problem is the taxation on gas. Abolish taxation.
>Are in constant fear some idiot will rear-end you?
I'm not.
>Constantly having to get your car serviced?
It doesn't need to.
>door to door public transport
Will never happen and you make yourself dependant on the government.
>cycling
I'm not going to cycle over icy roads and rain/snow storm.
>>
>>1884892
>cyclists should be forced to have insurance and plates too.
In my country, anyone with a brain gets cycling insurance that is coupled to their home insurance, I pay about 15$ a month. I agree with plates or some serious form of registration, thefts are a problem.
>Abolish taxation.
No. More carfags on the road, and by extension, shittier air quality, more congestion, the problem is made bigger
>It doesn't need to.
In Europe you must get your car serviced regularly because you cant have fuckwits driving in pieces of shit that will cause accidents or contribute to further environmental issues.
>Will never happen and you make yourself dependant on the government.
Literally does. Any decent European city has this. I have a bus about 20m away, a tram about 100m. Each take me to anywhere I could possibly want. Anywhere else, walk or cycle. In extreme circumstances, Uber.
>I'm not going to cycle over icy roads and rain/snow storm.
Refer to this from one of your fellow carfags: >>1883662

But I agree, cycling on icy roads isn't everyone's cup of tea. But there are ice-tires, and hopefully your city de-ices the paths, right? Right??

I get it though, and I am not trying to change your mind, but I want you to be aware that an alternative exists and it's a lot better than when you enjoy. Saying this doesn't make me better than you. I understand your position, I have relatives living in a car-dependant country with dogshit public infrastructure. I escaped that, and as a result I have never needed a car.
>>
File: ridin an hatin .jpg (3.18 MB, 4807x3004)
3.18 MB
3.18 MB JPG
>>1884893
>In my country
say it retard
>>
File: 1674557134080.png (150 KB, 1080x1195)
150 KB
150 KB PNG
>>1884893
>thefts
Not talking theft. I am talking damages caused by reckless cyclists.
>shittier air quality, more congestion
Not a problem. Build more lanes and don't live in the city that is filled with niggers anyway.
I'm all for polluting nigger space.
>serviced regularly
Regularly, not constantly. That is every two years and a non issue.
This should be enforced for cyclists as well.
>Any decent European city has this
LMAO no. Driving takes less than half of what public transportation takes.
Other cities are a total mess as well.
Best part of driving my car: I don't have to see or smell pooskin.
>icy roads and rain/snow storm
I laugh at dead cyclists.
>>
>>1884898
uhhh anon if you're driving everywhere you should probably change your oil more than every two years
>>
>>1884895
Sweden.
>>
>>1884901
>mandatory government inspection
>oil change
>>
>>1884904
how the fuck is an inspection a service
>>
>>1884906
>In Europe you must get your car serviced regularly
Inspection.. service.. call it what you want, this is the post I replied to.
>>
>>1884908
how often do you change your oil though
>>
>>1884916
1y or 10k whichever first
>>
>>1884898
>hates fucking taxes
>wants a giant-ass government bureaucracy dedicated to checking if bikes have properly inflated tires
the absolute retardation on display. do you even know what a bicycle is?
>>
>>1884928
>vehicle safety must be government enforced!
>NOOOO NOT OUR BICYCLERINOS THOUGH!!!
Go back.
>>
>>1884931
alright, here's the srs answer you don't deserve:
because of the small (but not non-existent) risks posed by bicycles, the best safety framework for them is a combination of
1) point-of-sale and point-of-import regulations on safety features, such redundant front and rear brakes and ebike battery safety
2) liability on discovery of fault or as factor of accident damages

the regime of proactive inspection you are describing here is unlikely to accomplish benefits commensurate with its cost to taxpayers.
the balance between benefits and costs is very different when looking at a multi-ton, motorized vehicle. however, even with this different countries take very different approaches to whether proactive inspection is a cost-effective regulatory framework.

above all, proactive inspection is not an effective policy tool for dissuasion. if your goal (as implied by the character of your larp) is to make cycling miserable and dissuade people from cycling, then it's patently absurd to create a giant bureaucracy for running inspections, when you could just, say, levy a punitive tax on bicycles imported or sold that can piggyback on the existing excise tax bureaucracy in your jurisdiction. or just rewrite laws governing road use to ban bicycles from roads serving motorized vehicles.
so really your whole troll is just extra stupid. but have your (you)
>>
>>1884936
>cycling apologist downplays the necessity to maintain his vehicle
As expected.
>cost to taxpayers
The system is already there, it simply needs to be used.
>>
File: 1666923513104577.jpg (30 KB, 720x438)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>1884936
I like how the only thing that faggot you're replying to is doing is making naïive but well spoken and informed people like you come out of the woodwork and actually say something persuasive and influential.
>>
>>1884940
hey, i don't live in a jurisdiction with consumer motorized vehicle inspections, so sounds like a (you) problem
>>
>>1883675
I live in Houston and can largely get everywhere I need to in the midtown and downtown areas using bike or the rail within 20 mins at most (tho tiny service area for the light rail, but it is near my apartment and is still quite useful). But cycling around the city IS uncomfortable and often scary. It's basically a lifestyle choice, it seems unreasonable to expect most people to endure it. But if you decide to brave it, it's often more convenient than driving.
>>
>>1883544
Doing God's work
>>
>>1883544
Fully support it, I hate the congestion here (NYC)
>>
based and orangepilled
>>
>>1883544
I'm not "anti-car", I do have one and love the thing.

I'm more "anti-car being the only option to get anywhere or do anything"

If I could commute or get around the city on a tram, I would.

Maybe ride a bike without being run over?
>>
>>1884012
>>Sidewalks & Curbs more expensive in suburban areas
Yes, because they have to cover more surface per person.
>>
>>1884009
you do realize your image doesn't disprove the claim, right? the suburban net tax contribution could be triple or more of that of the urban one on a per household basis, meaning it would be "True" - contradicting your low quality post
>>
>>1885572
You want me to believe that the suburban residents of Halifax make, on average, 250% more money?
>>
>>1883713
Deaths per a billion?
Bro those are astronomical low numbers
>>
>>1883551
the problem i have with all of those "muh public transit" youtubers is that they conveniently leave out the fact that in their little Yuropean "paradises", they don't have to deal with hordes of niggers and people randomly pushing someone onto the train tracks every week (although im pretty sure this is changing over there). And now if you have a daughter, you'll have to deal with her getting groped by Muhammad, and you're expected to just deal with it. Bikes are a lot more feasible though
>>
I dont particularly hate cars (thats not true, i do hate cars, but just wouldn't ban them) . I just hate highways because I always bump into them on walking adventures and then have to play frogger for the next hour of my life. Even worse, there's no clear walking paths meaning you have to walk on the shoulder and hope both nothing goes wrong.

This is my problem with carfats. They think belive the world should revolve around them, they force you to drive into certain places due to zero buses, they constantly try to run you over, they put bus stops in obviously terrible locations, their train fares don't make a lick of sense, they refuse to but sidewalks everywhere, they look down at you whenever you prefer to walk somewhere, they pollute the planet with endless emissions and they never follow speed limits.
>>
>>1883551
>If you care deeply about car free activism this is something you should strive to do,
lifestylism doesn't work and never will. only government authority or economic collapse will free America from the cages.

though it looks like there are finally some top-down orders to curb energy expenses so first comes electric cars then comes no car for the poors. after that life will improve
>>
File: IMG_0023.jpg (220 KB, 1080x1440)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
>>1883725
No, i just want to be able to go out for a walk/run without having to worry about some jackass in an SUV/Truck running me over because he couldn't wait another 20 seconds for me to cross the street
>>
>>1885634
>Only government authority will free America
The exhaust fumes from that bus are going to your head, boy...
>And then when things are as terrible as we can make them, things will improve
This actually makes sense to numtits.
>>
>>1885638
>he couldn't wait another 20 seconds for me to cross the street
Why are you crossing the road when there's traffic about? Just look around and cross when it's clear.
I swear leftards just cannot fathom the concept of personal responsibility.
>>
>>1885645
The government authority I'm referring to is global governance, which is obviously coming. The era of absurd abundance and absurd waste is coming to an end. The cattle will no longer be allowed to live in luxury, and that's going to be good for them. Be thankful for the coming strife
>>
>>1884647
>I was only threatened with a knife once
>>
>>1885677
I think they are talking about actual, marked, and illuminated crosswalks wherein cars are legally required to stop.
They had to pass a law here that no one is allowed to drive through a cross walk while someone is inside it (even in a different lane), because jackasses just. would. not. stop. Granny could be 2 steps away from entering the lane but "plenty of space for my SUV!"
Jackasses still don't stop, but at least they might get stuck behind a driver that did stop as per legal requirements.
>>
>>1885769
We have those in all cities you are making shit up to complain about.
>>
>>1883648
>I'm just tired, so very tired of it all. Living humbly with my bike and my tiny life in a 30 km radius. Parents kept pushing me to get a car, and I did give a try for a few years, but it was not and still isn't for me.
>is literally autistic
>wants 90% of society to change for him
Instead you should just get run over with your buds and then the rest of us won't have problems with you or all the other terrible ideas you certainly support.
>>
>>1883710
So they are actually very real and you're just going to lie about your positions until you get your way?
>>
>>1885963
>Oh no, I'd have to slow down a little for that anon, woe me
Practically none of the stuff that anon said sounds that horrible. Why wouldnt you want some mixed zoning? How does a store at the corner of your street impede your freedom?
>>
>>1885963
>you should just get run over with your buds
alright, but when it's your (grand)parents or your school-age kids getting run over, then no complaints
>>
File: ussr.png (50 KB, 1425x950)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
i think of them as this, but gay and neurotic
>>
>>1885964
you're conflating twitter with real life, go ask random people if abolishing police is a good idea, 80% of them are going to tell you it's a dumb idea
>>
>>1886316
Getting rid of state-sactioned execution squads IS a good thing, trumpyboy.
>>
>>1886324
this is on that fin line f stupidity where I can't quite tell if a lefty wrote this unironically or if it's a normal person joking
>>
A lot of people here are grouping anti-car people into one big pile but thats just a general sentiment, how or why they dont like them is different for everyone.

I'll share this perspective: Picture a Mexican village, your house is usually walking distance from the town square, there are bodegas every couple blocks, there are tons of places where people hang out and most of the jobs are within the same area. Owning a car is only a necessity for those who plan to leave for business or need to haul materials, for which a lot will make do with horse-drawn carts or by themselves with a wheelbarrow, having a job does not necessitate owning a vehicle, but if it needs you to go far away or up into the mountain then your boss will probably pick you and all your coworkers up, meaning only 1 or 2 cars are enough for a business.

Compare this with urban living, where little enclaves of houses are surrounded by highways, freeways, and blocks and blocks of business buildings. Throw in a park or two, but some places have concrete playgrounds instead of green areas. To get anywhere in this city you rely completely on a car or public transport, if its the latter you have to walk alone at 4 am for a mile all the way to the nearest bus station, wait upwards of an hour for your bus to come and pray its not packed with people who make it hard to get off when you reach your stop, there is only 1 alternative and it also gets packed with people, covers only a fraction of the city, meaning you have to make connections and pay more for the transport which can cost you 1/5 of your pay. I can walk to work, but I have to go over holes in the ground, hanging or snagged wires, roads where the sidewalk just ends and you have to frogger the highway. Cars are a life threatening element every day for most people who have no recourse but to weave through cars for half of their time in transit

because the city is built ONLY for cars.
Cars are banned downtown and its great though, u can walk anywhere
>>
File: 00.gif (127 KB, 768x224)
127 KB
127 KB GIF
>>1886411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ
>>
>>1883709
>'reee ban cars' people are largely not real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSSNlM3Au1A
>>
>>1886411
>To get anywhere in this city you rely completely on a car or public transport, if its the latter you have to walk alone at 4 am for a mile all the way to the nearest bus station, wait upwards of an hour for your bus to come and pray its not packed with people who make it hard to get off when you reach your stop, there is only 1 alternative and it also gets packed with people, covers only a fraction of the city, meaning you have to make connections and pay more for the transport which can cost you 1/5 of your pay. I can walk to work, but I have to go over holes in the ground, hanging or snagged wires, roads where the sidewalk just ends and you have to frogger the highway.
That sucks, and I don't think anyone opposes improved mass transit on principle. But the numtot solution to what you just listed is "ban cars, either through extreme fees, or just outright" and then magically public transit will improve. The way to improve things isn't by making them worse.
>>
>>1884746
12 year olds, elderly, the blind, people with epilepsy, the mentally retarded, and basically every other disregarded member of society
>>
>>1884892
>Not the problem, the problem is the taxation on gas. Abolish taxation.
That's retarded, gas needs to be taxed more actually. Gas and vehicle taxes don't even cover half of the funds necessary to fund the giant network of roads in America.
>>
>>1884931
Every week in my local news I read about some horrific car crash that kills or seriously injures someone.
>>
>>1886472
If my city banned all cars outright, it would take me a 20 to 30 minute bike ride to get to the city center from the very edge of town, which is the same amount of time it takes for cars given all the traffic. It's ridiculous that cars get several 4 lane highways to inject them very slowly into the downtown area, but I have to take winding neighborhood streets and back alleys just to do the same.
>>
>>1883544
I don't know about the people but they have a point. Most cars these days are soulless and most drivers are miserable cunts. If we ended our dependence on cars, the streets would be left with soulful cars driven by people who actually like to drive to drive however they like.
>>
>>1886472
I think that's more strawmen infesting every online discussion these days.
>>
>>1885608
lol such a pussy
>>
File: 1641304743535.jpg (139 KB, 1180x598)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
>>1883544
Here is a Modernist (read: 60's) design for how our cities might look.
>>
File: 7474847847847.jpg (289 KB, 1000x669)
289 KB
289 KB JPG
cars ruined towns and cities and I'm tired of pretending they didn't
>>
File: 252524266246.jpg (116 KB, 1000x683)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
why can't our towns all just look like this everywhere, why the fuck should we let traffic through and destroy all this open space? I'd rather have them just park in a giant parking garage outside or have a train line come in to town if people absolutely had to commute to them from another town
>>
>>1886411
>how or why they dont like them is different for everyone
That would be fine. If you want to live in a different, more urban neighborhood, great. Why do YOU care if someone has to drive 20 minutes to a grocery store, or pays $1400 a month for a walk-in closet? (Both of these are exaggerations. Don't bother correcting it.)

My problem with the anti-car group is that they really can't stand people living a different lifestyle than them so they have to invent cope like "suburban subsidies" or vast industrial-complex conspiracies.
>>
>>1886516
>they really can't stand people living a different lifestyle than them
I guarantee you most people who are anti car are pretty much forced to live with a car in the US. In reality pro car people are the ones who cant stand people living a different lifestyle, even when there are valid critiques of automobiles and their effects on society, and politically suppress anti car development.
>>
>>1886508
Why don't they just make a parking garage?
>>
>>1886506
>Modernist (read: 60's)
I don't even know where to start with that. This board is such a disappointment sometimes.
>>
>>1886511
Urban planning in NA is just a joke. You're right in the sense that the initial problem is bad planning where every single place needs its own supersized parking lot, but all this wasted space also makes it necessary to have a car in the first place. And because people need cars, there's a higher demand for parking spots. A parking garage would at least free up lots of space there.
>>
>>1886537
This. If we made cars illegal it would solve every problem with having walkable cities.
>>
anti-car people are typical communist woketards. like everything involving such a group, if they don't like it, you can't have it either. forcing other people to be exactly like them is their motto. let them seethe and always remember to tell them to fuck off.
>>
>>1886434
Im actually appreciative of Mexico's relatively lax zoning laws, I can walk a couple blocks to a corner store where the owner is the main employee and he alone manages the store, two blocks down theres a dairy shop next door to a farm stand and a little mercery (basically a bodega version of office max idk the word in english) and just down the road from church, there are small restaurants too with home cooking so most old people dont ever leave the neighborhood for any reason, but for us younger people its hard with the 'Americanization' of the city, to put it that way.

>>1886516
>they really can't stand people living a different lifestyle than them
I think your pov is very skewed, see I can live anywhere I want, but car people keep building more and wider roads, pro-car people NEED to build more roads for their cars, always, and this affects everyone without a car by making the city life more and more car dependent, I care that someone has to drive 20 minutes to the grocery store because it means if I'm there I also N E E D to drive for 20 minutes, and thats without cars around, tell me how driving to and from work every day multiplied by how many people wake up to work on monday is good for anyone, tell me that cities with more car parks than houses are pleasant to live in.

The most important part is the kids, these people have kids and the kids grow up in an urban concrete block where they have no choice to go anywhere on their own and need to be driven by their parents to the nearest green area, usually sucks and is not maintained at all, this means that anyone who cant drive or cant afford a car is fucked by car centric infraestructure.

Also roads are fugly.

>>1886472
>the numtot solution to what you just listed is "ban cars, either through extreme fees, or just outright"
thats stupid, i didnt and no one who desires change would say that. That sounds like a very dumb person who saw 1 facebook video and commented as a couch expert under it.
>>
>>1886471
>He judged the book by its cover

Heres for every retard to read, because the video you posted actually offers real ways to get rid of cars and never proposes banning cars.

His actual proposed solutions are at the 8 minute mark where he just lists off how other countries have done it, by taxing the use of parking spaces and cars more, by making the downtown area a tolled zone, by making the speed limit in the city very low, removing street parking, adding bus only and bike only lanes, making public transit free.

If you actually watch the video its an argument for why cars are not the only way to traverse a city and that building cities around cars makes life worse for everyone, the proposed solutions actually include reducing the amount of lanes on the roads and block certain areas from car transit which have shown to work in New York and Barcelona and improve the quality of public transport with the side effect of improving the income of businesses.

Congratulations you fucking moron.
>>
>>1886479
if more people use the bus more bus get made more bus mean less people there you go
>>
>>1886586
>parking isn't subsidized anyway.
lol, any free parking is subsidized somehow, either by the business charging you more for goods or an apartment being more to rent if it has more parking spots.
>>
>>1886667
>taxing the use of parking spaces and cars more, by making the downtown area a tolled zone, by making the speed limit in the city very low, removing street parking, adding bus only and bike only lanes, making public transit free.
>"Hey, what do you know? If I shoot Usain Bolt in the knees, I'll bet my fat cousin can beat him in a race!"
Arbitrarily making cars prohibitively expensive and inconvenient to own and operate may not be "banning" them, but it certainly doesn't prove anything about other forms of transportation; except that they can't stand on their own next to cars.

>>1886671
That's not what "subsidized" means, you fucking idiot! Obviously, every part of a commercial operation costs money, and the customer ultimately pays for it. THAT'S WHY WE PAY MONEY FOR THINGS.
>>
>>1886687
>Arbitrarily making cars prohibitively expensive and inconvenient to own
you'll never find them advocating for anything else
>>
>>1886518
>In reality pro car people are the ones who cant stand people living a different lifestyle, even when there are valid critiques of automobiles and their effects on society, and politically suppress anti car development.
I disagree. I think you're conflating people that put up resistance to bicycle/transit/density for self-interest reasons (not really "selfish", as they usually share their views with others, and also implying that pro-transit/pro-bike aren't) to being "pro-car".
>>
>>1886687
>>1886691
It's not arbitrary at all. Downtown land is extremely valuable, it's just that you take it for granted that the state allows you to drive and park there for (relatively) little.
Why waste most of that land on the hilariously low passenger-per-land-area vehicles (cars) when you could use a good chunk of land to bring in more people by foot/bike/whatever else?
>>
>>1886687
>being more to rent if it has more parking spots
If the city doesn't price discriminate parking based on if the vehicle belongs to a resident or not then it's subsidized at the resident's expense.
>>
>>1886664
>>1886667
>poor
>wall of cope
Checks out.

>>1886669
These people should pay for their bus then.

>>1886671
Lol no. If it's private property of a business it's free market. Cope more.
>>
>>1886687
most of my town is just roads, i pay for those extra lanes every other year out of my paycheck and people owning cars should pay more for them than me.

>>1886715
i pay for bus
>>
>>1886721
Not enough, public transportation is heavily subsidized. Public transportation needs to be more expensive.
>>
>>1886729
ok
>>
>>1886516
>My problem with the anti-car group is that they really can't stand people living a different lifestyle than them
kek you never heard all car faggots complain about anyone outside of a car? They bitch so much about a bike being in front of them, or a pedestrian being in the crosswalk when they want to turn right. Car fags are the ones who can't stand people living a different lifestyle.
>>
>>1886518
""politically suppress anti car development""
maybe because ""anti car development"" means using the government to make cars suck? Nobody minds if you mean inventing some giga-bicycle that goes twice as fast for half the effort and you use that for all your commutes. Hell, improve the buses and get more drivers on them, less traffic for the rest too. Just don't intentionally hobble 95% of the population's mode of transport and pretend that makes you a good person.
People absolutely get angry at retarded shit like this >>1885273
>>
>>1883544
The fact is there are too many cars on the roads, there's simply no denying that. I speak as a car driver by the way.

The real problem isn't cars but the way some people use them, ie for regular 5 minute trips to the store, the daily 15 minute commute or dropping the kids off at school when walking would be the better option.

In my opinion single occupant cars should be banned during peak hours, and trips that could be walked or cycled within a hour should be banned too. I only use my car on those occasions when I have no choice, for example driving to visit my mother in Scotland (300 miles) or if I'm taking the wife and kids to the lake (5 of us 30+ miles). For everything else I walk or cycle as do my family.

I NEVER drive my car during rush hour, I cycle to work and back and I see thousands of lazy retards in traffic jams as I pass them.
>>
>>1886754
Based and bongpilled.
>>
>>1886702
>when you could use a good chunk of land to bring in more people by foot/bike/whatever else?
Because people don't want to come by those other means, they want to come by car.
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T BE DIFFERENT FROM ME!!!
It's also hilarious that you bitch about how "relatively cheap" it is for cars when every mass transit org in America has massive subsidies to keep fares affordable. Yeah a road costs a lot upfront, but it lasts years between maintenance; a bus costs money every moment it's in service, and that bill is footed by taxpayers that don't ride the bus.

>>1886703
>If the city doesn't price discriminate parking
It should be up to parking garage owners how much they want to charge, since they built it. Why does the city get a say? And anyway, whether they live there or are just visiting, they're probably spending money or doing some job in the city, the benefit of which outweighs the cost of a little concrete.
>>
>>1886754
>The real problem isn't cars but the way some people use them, ie for regular 5 minute trips to the store
Yeah thats true, but even in my city where I have a store "within" walking distance it's really unpleasant to walk there. I have to walk down a busy 35mph (but really 45mph) road; Then cross a 7 lane road while diligently watching out for people turning right and left; After that go behind a business and climb over a barrier; And finally navigate through an enormous parking lot. Then once I have all my groceries I get to do the whole thing in reverse. What pisses me off about city planners is that they put the parking lots in front of the stores, when it would make way more sense to have the parking lots behind the stores.
>>
>>1886780
Public transport is subsidized. But if you want to avoid a vagrant problem caused by poverty compounded with the fact you *have* to own a vehicle, or if you don't want your city gridlocked 24/7 because of parents chauffeuring their kids all the way trough high school, or a myriad of other reasons, you'll want it subsidized.

I'm talking about street parking, which is city-controlled. Serving your own residents means that half of them won't even come by car so they don't need parking and the other half doesn't need a 6 lane access road. Serving satellite-"town" residents means that every single one needs parking and they need a 6 lane access road trough a poor neighborhood of your choosing.
>little concrete
It's a fuckton of concrete. Just the land cities use for enabling suburbanites to go to them could be used for higher density residential zones that would bring more in tax just due to the fact they wouldn't need a monstrosity of a road and acres of parking to get to where they need to go.
>>
>>1886735
Car owners aren't the ones calling for bans.
>>
File: .jpg (306 KB, 960x1002)
306 KB
306 KB JPG
>>1886787
They don't have to.
>>
>>1886788
Sometimes I see these images and I wonder where those people are now. Told to pack up and fuck off, now they are forgotten. I'd like to find one of these people and ask them how it went.
>>
>>1886788
Much improved infrastructure.
>>
>>1886793
>making both trucks and people drive TROUGH each city between their start and destination
>demolishing places people go to in your city so that suburbanites in tax codes that don't even contribute to you come visit and go places that aren't there anymore because they've been demolished
>all this in the advent of widespread online shopping and remote work
okay retard
>>
>>1886794
Don't bother with retards who can't muster more than 3 words for their argument.
>>
>>1886795
True, my bad. But honestly, all they do is bolster the arguments they oppose. Half of the useful information and persuasive argumentation here is here because someone was baited into posting it.
>>
>>1886789
>Be a welfare-collecting NIGGER renting some old house for free
>Given 3 month notice to go find some other government-given hole to farm roaches in
Wow, such a heartbreaking tale of loss, someone should make a documentary
>>
>>1886797
I'd watch it
>>
>>1886788
https://youtu.be/hNpPVuT69xg
>>
>>1886794
>seething poor urbanite
Don't miss your bus.
>>
>>1886794
People from outside of town are employed at the tax-paying businesses in urban areas, they spend money at the shops and restaurants in the "city", and they probably pay into mass transit yet never see any benefits from it.
>>
>>1886735
>They bitch so much about a bike being in front of them
No one likes a slow vehicle ahead of them that won't them pass. That's common courtesy. Meanwhile, cyclists will go berserk the moment they see a non-bicycle in the bike lane, and go on unhinged rants about how they should deflate the tires, smash the mirrors, or commit other vandalism.
>>
>>1885963
Tell me where you live so I can hit and run your toddler with my shitbox car.
>>
>>1886843
>No one likes a slow vehicle ahead of them that won't them pass. That's common courtesy.
Seethe more tailgater.

>Meanwhile, cyclists will go berserk the moment they see a non-bicycle in the bike lane, and go on unhinged rants about how they should deflate the tires, smash the mirrors, or commit other vandalism.
You literally have the entire street, sides of the streets for parking, highways, underground and surface parking, all of the priority and preference and it takes big fines and the threat of taking your car away to get you to behave (and you niggers still can't behave and kill thousands of people every month).

Fuck. You.
>>
>>1886854
Nothing compared to how c*cists behave towards pedestrians, that's genocide material right there!
>>
>>1886858
>pedestrians
In the United States? Kek, thanks for the laugh.
>>
>>1886843
What cyclists are you even talking about? People on twitter and reddit?
I've never met a cyclist in real life who's said things even half as vile as I've heard drivers say out loud.

An actual conversation between cyclists:
>I like to put my hand on the car for balance if I have to stop behind someone parked in the bike lane.
>Nice! I bet that really makes the drivers seethe.
>Hahaha, yeah, and perfectly legal too!
>>
>>1886895
cagers will literally run over cyclists for fun, it's happened many times, recorded even.
>>
ragie cagie wagie slavies are confirmed retarded
>Sitting in traffic for just 2 hours can lead to brain damage
https://studyfinds.org/sitting-in-traffic-brain-damage/
>>
>>1886941
>still believing that most people commute 4 hours round trip by car
>>
File: 1675232036261.jpg (240 KB, 1473x835)
240 KB
240 KB JPG
>>1886941
>>
File: vtr.jpg (305 KB, 1280x915)
305 KB
305 KB JPG
>>1886895
>>1886854
>>1886896
I'm a motorcyclist, you people are being bitches.

You're on the slowest vehicles on the road, if you drove that slow in a car you'd be ticketed for holding up traffic; expect to be overtaken every minute.
What about SAFETY eh? Spend time looking at motorcycling forums/etc. We know we're vulnerable in crashes. We know it's riskier than driving a car. We know people often fail to see us and pull out in front. Yet we do not bitch and moan and blame it on cagers. The attitude is that people make mistakes, shit happens, take what precautions you can and be careful for yourself.
You people meanwhile are so butthurt about all the cagers, you blame then for everything. Do they fuck up sometimes? Yes, to err is human; some few are even dickheads about it. But YOU are choosing to run the risk by being on two wheels, when 99% of people are in cars. Accept it.

Instead of this, you seethe so hard >>1886895 that touching a car for a moment (?) is apparently a big W. When accused of unhinged rants about anybody even touching a bike lane, >>1886843 happens.
P.S.
lel, slow, >>1886963, take the L bus-tards.
>>
>>1886990
Great! I just want you to know your perspective on things and your lived experiences are so valid. It's really awesome that you feel safe and confident in spite of the vulnerability inherent in living authentically to yourself.
Would anyone else like to share their lived experiences with the group?

>>1886963
Gets the point across, but goddamn those graphs are fucking awful. Like, holy shit. Please use consistent axes (and if that makes them too small, maybe a 4x2 grid of graphs was a shit decision).
>>
>>1886990
motorcyclists literally invented the term 'cager' to seethe about cars lmao

fucking retard
>>
>>1883544
Hating on cars is the new Reddit meme, it’ll pass in a few years. It’s like when esveryone pretended to hate pineapple on pizza. Cars are a fine part of a cities transit mix. It’s not realistic for everyone to be using public transit.
>>
>>1883582
Personal automobile ownership is probably one of the best things to happen. The democratization of individual transport and freedom to not be to transit schedules represents a marked increase in quality of live, there is a reason why everyone wanted a car back in the 50s and 60s.
>>
>>1887001
Sometimes I think to myself "what would it be like if Henry Ford invented mechs instead of cars?" Like you gotta get in your mech and walk to work. Pedestrians would be crushed by inattentive mech pilots. Mechs would crash into each other and kill or maim the pilots. Mechs would be ridiculously expensive, require licensing and insurance. It's about as ridiculous as car ownership, and with the same effects.
>>
>>1887015
mechs would unironically be more based than cars because then humans wouldn't have to waste so much time, resources, and labor building roads that break down every winter
>>
>>1883681
>real job
as opposed to an imaginary job?
>>
>>1886990
You can simp for cagers all you want but they will never see you any better than they see cyclists you traitor fuck.
>>
>>1884232
>you're all millionaires with easy lives for a reason
that reason being they had the wherewithal to choose a career that would lead to such an end
>>
>>1887040
It's not all that difficult becoming a millionaire in Japan.
>>
>>1887023
It'd still be wildly impractical for cities cause you'd still have to build roads for mechs to travel down. As like with cars, mechs and pedestrians wouldn't travel well together in the same space. And also unless the mechs were like the size of skyscrappers (I was thinking more of a transformers sized mech), you would still have to build highways for the mechs. Otherwise it would be slow as hell having to traverse the terrain. Wouldn't be easy to get through thick forests, or over mountains, valleys, or rivers. I'm sure in this fantasy mech world of ours there would be people who would buy "All Terrain Mechs" Built Ford Tough™, and still pilot them down pavement roads, just like people do here in our real and boring world with those tricked out pristine Jeep Wranglers.
>>
>>1886958
>>1886963
I don't think you understand the point of that study, the study showed brain damage happened in as little as 2 hours of sitting in traffic breathing in exhaust fumes. That doesn't mean however you need to spend 2 hours before retardation occurs, every minute spent breathing in exhaust fumes is damaging to your brain. It also means, a 1 hour commute there then back is a total of 2 hours of brain damage. Every day you drive and sit in gridlock breathing exhaust fumes is your brain melting every minute.
>>
>>1887119
>eats ze bugs drinks ze soi takes ze vaxx
>b-but m-muh fumes
>>
>>1887119
That does explain the average cyclist.
>>
>>1886501
shitskin detected
>>
>>1887124
>eats ze bugs drinks ze soi takes ze vaxx
Do you faggots ever get tired of running this "joke" further and further into the ground?
>>
>>1887134
It's not a joke if it's a fact.
>>
>>1887136
Your feelings aren't facts you retard
>>
File: 1675291673110.gif (2.12 MB, 400x224)
2.12 MB
2.12 MB GIF
>>1887150
>t. vaxxed bug enthusiast
>>
>>1887035
The "anti-car" mentality extending to motorcycles is evidence that the "cars are inefficient!" argument is a red herring. Of course, the same people who like to throw the "cars are inefficient" argument often pretend like mass transit is inherently more efficient by definition (it is not).
>>
>>1887157
mass transit literally is inherently more efficient, I think you'd have to take the oldest, slowest diesel bus from the 40s vs a brand new hybrid van jam packed with people to have comparable efficiency numbers, for the same amount of space (even then 2 of those cars will be the length of the bus and hold less people)
>>
>>1887172
>mass transit literally is inherently more efficient
Mass transit is only more efficient for journeys with enough passengers. It is not the be-all and end-all solution to everything.
It's obvious that a motorcycle is more efficient than a near-empty train.
>>
>>1884732
(higher is better)
>>
>>1887157
>The "anti-car" mentality extending to motorcycles is evidence that the "cars are inefficient!" argument is a red herring.
Are anti-car people as a body actually anti-motorcycle? I have at most some culture-related complaints about motorcycles ("loud pipes..." can get fucked, they don't fix the fundamental issues putting vulnerable road users in danger). But I've actively recommended to people put off by the cost of full EV's to look at highway-legal electric motorcycles as options, for example.
If motorcycles doing 80 km/h on a traffic-calmed street becomes an issue because the narrow lanes are still spacious for bikes, we can deal with it then. But I've literally never seen anything on the local news about a motorcyclist killing anyone other than themselves.
>>
>>1887136
So you aren't even pretending to be stupid
>>
File: 1675325050138.png (523 KB, 1473x835)
523 KB
523 KB PNG
>>1887172
>>
File: citylife.jpg (52 KB, 630x507)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>1887220
>cope
cope
>>
>>1887035
I'm not simping for cagers, I'm berating you tards,

>>1887119
You think this is ANTI-driving? Would you rather take the bus, and spend twice as long in traffic? Maybe the bike, for thrice as long with none of the AC/fume protection?

>>1887134
"Eat ze bugs" is real, and your anti-car guys play right into it. They want to constrict individual freedom, what better thing could they do than ban cars? Because a car is freedom. Go where-ever you want, whenever you want. Unlike public transport, which is run by governments, or cycling which is just frankly impractical for any significant distance.

>>1887172
>busses are efficient
lol, not when there's 2 people on it. But the bus must run, otherwise there'd be no access to/from your quiet suburb, or in off-peak hours, right?

The inherent problem of mass transit is the organisation. You want to move 1000 people on one journey? Yeah, busses work great. You want to move 1 person on 1000 different journeys? Not so much (you can see here >>1887241 that it is very inefficient, being way worse than cars in every city at every point in time.)

>>1887157
Interesting point. Luckily, it doesn't extend to motorbikes inpractice, probably because anti-car people are too scared/mentally ill to drive cars, let alone motorbikes. Here, again, you see no logical search for truth, they just want to pretend to be my buddies and shut me up.
>>
>>1883544
I'm for reducing car dependency. I used to have a car, but then I sold it and moved to a moderately sized city. And damn am I saving a lot of money NOT having a car. Car ownership is such a money sink, especially for poorer people.

When I was poor and in college I had a 99 civic with like 300,000 miles on it. In addition to gas and insurance, every year like clockwork I'd have some giant issue with the car that would cost several hundred dollars. Like the alternator crapping out or the spark plugs and coils misfiring and failing.

Then I got a loan for a newer car which didn't have as many issues. But it's still fucking expensive, cause in addition to loan payments, gas, and what not, you need full coverage on the car until you pay it off. I'd say the auto industry nickel and dimes you left and right, but shit it's way fucking more than that.

I'm so happy not having to worry about that bullshit now. If I need a car I just rent one, but I haven't need a car in a while.
>>
>>1887253
>can't afford a car
>writes wall of cope
Checks out.
>>
>>1887267
I can, but why waste the money?
>>
>>1887267
It's not about affording a car, the financially responsible human sees that his money is being wasted on a depreciating asset which could've been invested instead. Money not wasted on a car could be put into an early retirement but most people are too stupid to invest and would rather consoom than break free from debt slavery.
>>
File: C7riR7uWsAEvkUz.jpg (512 KB, 2048x1536)
512 KB
512 KB JPG
>>1887175
A PT bus is going to cost about 300k €.
Idk but let's say 100k in maintenance.
I'm not gonna count off-service storage because car parking prices clearly imply that land occupied by vehicles is worthless.
Let's say it does a measly 30 km/h overall average.
Let's say the bus driver is paid 20 € per hour grossly.
It's going to cover 500k km minimum, at which point it warrants a costly engine rebuild.
That's 17000 man-hours worth 340k €.
Let's say 20 € you don't actually care and are just 140k € seething so you're not reading this.
Let's say fuel consumption is 25 l per 100 km.
That's 125 k liters of fuel, tax-deduced, so let's round that to 1 million € in fuel.

That's 1.74 million € total for 500k km of bus with conservative estimates.

Let's say the bus has ONLY 10 passengers on board on average over those 500k km.
That's 5 million passenger-kilometers for around 2 million €.
That's 40 euro cents per passenger per kilometer, that's cheaper in total vehicle costs than a car in Europe and we're not even counting the opportunity cost of land and infrastructure costs that would've been necessary for 5 million passenger-kilometers by car or other means.
>>
>>1887304
>Let's say 20 € you don't actually care and are just 140k € seething so you're not reading this.
Not that anon but how could anyone take you seriously with assumptions like "car parking prices clearly imply that land occupied by vehicles is worthless"? Also "let's say fuel consumption is 25 l per 100 km" is not a good estimate, it's closer to 40 L per 100km (less fuel efficient). Stopping and starting constantly you can expect closer to 80L to 100 km.
>>
>>1887246
You're clearly north american and, because of that, your life experience influenced by the environment you grew up in simply doesn't allow for meaningful discussion.
>>
>>1887276
It's not a waste, it's freedom.

>>1887295
>seething poor /biz/ cope
Funny how /n/ and /biz/ share the same poor brown user base.
>>
>>1887310
>car parking prices
Take your city downtown parking daily rate, multiply by 30 for each day of the month, divide by 12 for each square meter,
Can you rent downtown land at that price? In all my central EU examples I can't, not even close.
>closer to 40 L per 100km
Fair.
>Stopping and starting constantly you can expect closer to 80L to 100 km
Can't you say the same for cars? We both obviously don't care enough to look it up.
>>
>>1887320
Freedom to do what?
>>
>>1887322
>Can't you say the same for cars?
Even an "oversized" pickup truck (RAM, Ford F-150) are more efficient than buses (10L for 100km in city, higher for highways), and they don't stop and start NEARLY as much.

>Take your city downtown parking daily rate, multiply by 30 for each day of the month, divide by 12 for each square meter, Can you rent downtown land at that price? In all my central EU examples I can't, not even close.
Parking isn't rent space, though, and while it isn't a valuable asset in itself, it provides value to the area around it. Crying about parking is how parking is a "subsidy" and "takes land off of payrolls" could easily be applied to actual parks. If a building has high rents because it is adjacent to a public park, the park adds value to the building. Demolishing the park for another building means that neither building can benefit from the park's benefits and thus the rent of both will decrease.

Compounding this is that parking lots at least pay property taxes, while parks are a negative financial drain. Before pointing out that parks and parking lots are different, it is the same basic principle, yet I never see anyone advocating that we should bulldoze parks for apartments.
>>
>>1887328
Let's put on our thinking caps and imagine a nation where the government wants to exert full-blown tyranny. They don't want people assembling anywhere to overthrow this tyranny, of course, so they shut down the nation and tell people to stay home because, oh I don't know, there's a world-wide common cold
With only public transportation:
>Government shuts down inter-city trains and buses
>People are forced to walk or suck it up
With personal transportation:
>Government tries to shut down roads
>Public uses alternate roads, or overwhelms choke points
>Public assembles in capital
>Makes their displeasure heard

Cars are more important to freedom than guns, and no you can't take those from me either, you fucking commie.
>>
File: 1615323199551.gif (1.99 MB, 320x240)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB GIF
>>1887335
>Public uses alternate roads
Is this trolling? Cause this is a lot of text to type out to be this retarded.
>>
>>1887340
It's much easier to close down airports and train stations than it is to lock down every possible path between two places.
>>
>>1887335
When the government strangles fuel supply my bicycle will still be running. Finding alternate routes is also an order of magnitude easier by bike than by car. Bicycle is freedom.
>>
>>1887335
Did you know that Napoleon demolished large swaths of Paris build great wide straight boulevards, so that he could march his army through Paris to quell any rebellion by the people?
Roads are tyranny. Roads are oppression.
>>
>>1887348
Your bike can't go over a hundred miles before you get gassed. My old clunker gets at least 250 to the tank.
>>
>>1887352
If you want to win a debate don't use unfounded theories made by critics, and sell that as a fact.
>>
File: 1675382238086218.png (3.91 MB, 1675x1003)
3.91 MB
3.91 MB PNG
>>1887335
>>1887342
>Public assembles in capital

Take a look at cities that countries moved their capital to and tell me how much car travel is suppressed. Do you also notice any oddities or similarities?
>>
>>1887328
To move freely and not need to share the cattle wagon.
>>
>>1887352
Based Napoleon. The first thing communists do is take away guns and mobility of the people.
Roads are freedom.
>>
>>1887335
Bunch of truckers did that up here in Canada. After the police stopped being pants-on-head-retarded protest sympathizers, the entire thing was over in 8 days, with most of it going down in 2.
All that freedumb, eh?

The funny thing is, the kind of traffic-calming and controlling infrastructure that we want would have made it even easier to shut down that display of mass stupidity. Things like movable barriers on streets would already be in place to easily shut down access by vehicles. I look at videos out of Paris with controlled-access blocks and go, "God, that would have been so fucking useful to keep those assholes from rolling down residential streets leaning on the air horn."
Never mind the vehicular terrorism going on around the world lately. Funny how giving any idiot a multi-ton weapon-of-opportunity works out.
>>
>>1887405
>I look at videos out of Paris with controlled-access blocks and go, "God, that would have been so fucking useful to keep those assholes from rolling down residential streets leaning on the air horn."
Wait, doesn't that prove him right about government tyranny and shutting down roads to squelch protests and restrict the citizenry?
>>
>>1887412
You have to admit that the convoy occupations made real assholes out of themselves in the Canadian public consciousness though. If people are going to weaponize vehicles to commit mischief or outright terrorism, that makes the anti-car thing easier to sell.
(not an accelerationist, just commenting on the self-own there)
>>
>>1887421
>You have to admit that the convoy occupations made real assholes out of themselves in the Canadian public consciousness though.
Yes, relentless propaganda does tend to have that effect on people.
>If people are going to weaponize vehicles to commit mischief or outright terrorism, that makes the anti-car thing easier to sell.
This is such an asinine take if you want to sell your philosophy. A bike lock can be used to commit violence or vandalism, should bike locks be banned or heavily restricted?
>>
>>1887311
>You're clearly north american
Your ignorance of geography says you must be.

Anyway,
>your life experience influenced by the environment you grew up in simply doesn't allow for meaningful discussion.
So you're saying that because I've experienced good and free transport, you know you can never persuade me to ride in the cuckpod?

>>1887335
this 100%
>>1887405
here you show your hand, communist, though we all knew already you were.

You do not reject the freedom argument; you tout it as a benefit of public transport that the gov can shut it all down.
Absolutely cucked.
>>
>>1887431
>communist
I'm glad my eyeballs scanned this word first, so I know to disregard the entire reply.
>>
File: 1673296026230485.jpg (611 KB, 830x830)
611 KB
611 KB JPG
>>1887395
Huh. Cagers really got silent on this one.
>>
>>1887464
Yes because your argument doesn't make any sense at all.
>>
>>1887464
yes, because what is even the point it tries to make?
>>
>>1887464
Yeah, I'm anti-car and your point is inscrutable...
>>
File: file.png (2.82 MB, 1204x996)
2.82 MB
2.82 MB PNG
>>1887474
>>1887485
>>1887498
Most countries that have in the past 50 years moved their capital to some *newly* built city are authoritarian, or at least politically unstable, shitholes.
Brasilia, Naypyidaw, Putrajaya (lmao), Astana, Gaborone, Islamabad etc.
They have some or all of these characteristics:
>Low density - double story housing or widely separated commieblocks.
>Cul-de-sacs - pockets of housing are isolated with only one exit
>wide highways/freeways slicing up the city into sections
>no purpose built public transportation infrastructure (trams, light rail etc.), only buses
>overall hostility towards utilitarian non-car travel

The cities are very deliberately and similarly planned. Not necessarily to piss off urbanites but sure as hell with political instability in mind. The design discourages protest assembly and eases crowd control with military/police vehicles by allowing them unhindered access no matter how big the crowd gets. Car-oriented infrastructure is just something that comes with it.

Commies do it too. Compare pre- vs post-soviet St. Petersburg districts and try to imagine where protestors would assemble more easily and where you would find it harder to disperse and prosecute them.

Density and intermodality are the enemies of authoritarianism.
>>
>>1887504
yeah Australia does that too. It's simply that the bureaucrats wanted to live like that. (I see this as a car W) Looks nicer. Looks BIGGER. So good for showing off dictators too.
>>
>>1887504
I don't believe it's an explicit goal of these governments to make a city that is hostile to protests and gatherings, rather just an added bonus to having a more car centric capital.
>>
>>1883694
Those 10k jobs were the day in the life tiktokers
>>
>>1887519
>It's simply that the bureaucrats wanted to live like that
There's nothing simple about it. It's much more purposeful than that.
If you can buy the whole "ze bugz vaxx pod own nothing be happy" thing then believing that new capital cities are designed to crush political dissent (which I thought you were against >>> >>1887335 ) is not a big stretch.
Fact is these new capital cities are in shithole countries and are designed to be car-centric.
>Looks nicer
Not on the ground.

Also, I'm not trying to argue against cars altogether. I have one and use it when the situation calls for one. I have no interest in discussing car free utopianism or care about the retards that unironically advocate for it. But what does irk me is the reflexive straw-manning of anyone who advocates for more multi-modality as someone who wants cars banned altogether.
A 6 lane road shrinking to 4 lanes to allow for a bus lane and more pedestrian/cycling traffic is a slippery slope to car-free tyranny. But having the car be the only safe and practical option is... not?
>>
>>1887533
>A 6 lane road shrinking to 4 lanes to allow for a bus lane and more pedestrian/cycling traffic is a slippery slope to car-free tyranny.
Agreed.
>But having the car be the only safe and practical option is... not?
You got it senpai.
>>
>>1887555
That's retard logic
>>
i wouldn't know, i live in the netherlands
>>
>>1883544
Based
Results in more trains which I like :)
>>
>>1887267
Nigger are you retarded, he literally said he owned a car
>>1887320
>BUT ITS MY FREEDOM
I’ve argued with you in at least 10 threads, you’re either a retarded paid shill or genuinely niggerbrained
>>1887335
Suburbs and decentralized industry was literally thought up to prevent workers from organizing, you’re arguing for a system designed to make protesting and agitation harder by saying it allows you to organize and protest “Tyranny”, it doesn’t matter if you have a fucking car, gun ownership prevents tyranny not your 10,000 dollar aluminum can, a good rifle will only set you back a grand
>>
>>1887654
>seething poor
Maybe one day you'll be able to afford a car and stop seething.
>>
>>1884009
they just HAD to make romeo and juliet a racemix couple
>>
>>1887688
I literally own a car, I drive it maybe three times a week because I live next to a bus line and most parts of this city that don’t have a bus line aren’t worth going to. You’re just a retard that cries whenever someone says he’s stupid
>>
>>1886687
You don't need to use car to get to downtown. Use a tram.
>>1886729
Because existence of public transport actually brings profit to bussinises, unlike cars that just rush by.
>>
>>1886838
They also can't pay enough taxes to cover kilometers of infrastructure requiered for their single-family homes, making cities go bankrupt.
>>
>>1887705
>seething poor om the bus
Lol
Lmao

>>1887712
Wrong. Public transportation is a drain on society.
Just let private companies build modern, tall parkings for people with money (car owners).
>>
>>1887777
t.marshrutka mafia
>>
>>1883713
>Do you believe even a 3x time savings on your trip is worth making it an order of magnitude more likely to kill or seriously injure someone, probably yourself, with your means of travel?

Fuck yes.

The modern world is too safe already, everybody is a massive pansy about even the tiniest risks. Sit at home and wrap yourself in bubble wrap. Imagine there is a 1/400 chance of dying early. On average, each death costs 40 years of time, so there's an expected loss of 0.4 years. Now imagine you waste all your fucking time trying to reduce it to a 1/800 chance. You save 0.2 years expected, and (assuming 16 non-slept hours a day) you can't afford to spend more than 2 minutes 24 seconds per day on this safety before statistically the "safety" is consuming your life (i.e. KILLING you through a life unlived) more than it prevents loss.

So, switch your commute to the bus? Nah. And these public transport numbers don't include walking to the bus stop, which is much more dangerous than catching the bus.
>>
File: mech.png (745 KB, 720x1440)
745 KB
745 KB PNG
>>1887015
Real coincidence that I make this reply and now I see my same opinion copy and pasted on TikTok a couple days later, with this fag saying he had a totally original idea.
>>
>>1888376
Welcome to the internet retard.
>>
>>1888380
I know I know, just confirming my suspicions that there are two many zoomers here. We need some sort of leisure suit larry questionnaire or something to weed them out.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.