This is exactly why I want to live in a bikeable, walkable city! I really don’t consider babysitting a massive 2+ ton hunk of metal and plastic to be low effort or independent. On the contrary, it’s the most draining and stressful thing I do on a regular basis.
You mention “go far”, but I don’t think that’s actually the priority for people. What they really want is to get to their daily destinations – the store, the park, the office, the mall. The distance is a consequence of the car, not the other way around.
People will still want to go places that are beyond biking distance or need to do something that isn’t practical on foot/bike, and that’s fine. For most people, if they lived in a bikeable and walkable area, these would be a minority of trips. But for those minority of trips where a car makes sense, a car should be used. (Note: this doesn’t mean they need to own a car.) Cars don’t need to be eliminated from cities, just reduced and deprioritized enough to make biking and walking safe and appealing.
In my case it's also very low maintenance, maybe equal effort to maintain as my bike - charging batteries, adjusting brakes, lubing the chain etc. compared to filling up gas and occasionally topping off the oil, which is all the maintenance my Jeep tends to need.
There was recently a thread on HN about why Europe had become so wealthy. Many opined that exploitation of other led to Europe’s wealth, but others observed that such exploitation was only possible because Europe was already wealthy. The same applies here. Yes, the government had many car-promoting policies, but those policies were tolerated because cars were already desired and that desire made the car lobby popular, not the other way around.
But, many do due to the lack of alternatives. Especially in the US/Canada, but also in Europe (especially anything built recently). People will drive because they don’t feel safe cycling/walking, or because their destination is too far. Or they will own several cars while they could just go on with one.
I don’t think anyone is really advocating for completely removing cars from the street or cities. I personally don’t own one (and this is a priority for me - I don’t want one), but I do take rides with friends or a cab from time to time.
What most advocates want (including me) is to stop prioritising cars in every single decision. Mixed zoning laws will remove lots of car trips if you can just walk to the shop when you need a couple of items or a coffee. Making streets car free (bar few exception) will make people come out and enjoy the street. Making people pay a fair price for parking will avoid subsidising a huge amount of land for private use. Removing parking will add lots of space on the streets for things that people enjoy. Better public transportation will favour everyone, especially poorer communities. And proper ciclying and walking infrastructure will allow more and more people to do so safely.
If after that someone still want to use private cars, then be my guest.
1. To clarify: none of the barefoot walkers I know does that, they seem to be pretty content with the status quo and are not militant about propagating their lifestyle to everyone hence "if".
I'd bike it for sure but otherwise I'd definitely drive.
I just walked about 1km and back to a suburban market to get my lunch.
There's a tragedy of the commons here.
I don’t buy it. People want cars since our infrastructure is optimized for it. But I seriously doubt that most people want cars specifically as the optimized transit solution for urban environments.
Other people who also self-identity as ME matter too. THEY will still welcome YOU. absent the brum-brum which, in aggregate with other brum-brums, is a massive annoyance to THEM.
Depends on the downtown area.
If there is enough population living within walking distance of the shops to sustain those shops then the businesses will be fine. And the area will be more pleasant for those who do live within that area, so that's nice. It does become exclusionary for those who live outside the area as parent poster said but perhaps that's ok, as long as the population density there is high enough to keep it going.
But many downtown shop areas don't have enough population within walking distance to keep the businesses viable. Those areas depend on people from farther out driving in to spend their money. For those, making parking difficult (too far, too expensive) can quickly go into a downward spiral of shops closing, area decaying, becoming less attractive to visit, leading to even more shops closing, until the old downtown core is a ghost town.
So population density is key. If density isn't there one can't just slap a prohibition on cars/parking and expect it to work well.
An easy solution would be to tax vehicles in relation to how much road damage they cause. If drivers had to pay the weight of their vehicle to the fourth power, then they would all think twice before adding any more unnecessary (and lethal) kilos to their vehicles.
As a compact car owner I wind up renting a pickup pretty frequently, and it's already pretty cramped for my son in his carseat. Just owning one is ... alluring.
Some people want cars. Some people like cars. But everyone is forced to have them in most places in the US due to the feedback loop caused by investing in car infrastructure and sprawl.
Beyond that, though, even if something is a necessity, it’s rarely a race to the bottom. Your insurance example is actually an excellent instance of how markets tend to divide up: there’s the economical market (eg save 15% or more!) and the premium market (eg you’re in good hands). Same with cars.
Also I don't understand how the car market is as same as the mandatory insurance market. There is a race to the bottom on the, say, auto-insurance market while the vast majority of car promotions do not mention price at all, at most advertising preferable financial terms.
Re: cars vs insurance, used cars are the economical choice, so new car commercials are targeting the premium demographics.
0: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09658...
Why car manufacturers don't advertise to the "necessary" buyers at all? A new Kia Rio is still cheaper than a used MB GLS.
The first bicycle that looks somewhat like a modern bicycle was from around 1880.
And many people prefer the car for the simple reason that car infrastructure has been prioritised.
"go far, with little effort, directly where they want, independently" is bikes and public transit when the infrastructure is not car-centric.
It is not even go far with little effort. It is go far or close without having to mind weather unless it is really windy when trees fall on the roads.
When it is -15 degrees celcious or is pouring rain you don't care, have fun riding bicycle in such rain.
So not caring about weather/elements is not natural.
Most of the time I have to carry ~20kg of stuff with me, laptop, coat, umbrella, some food, some water. Getting groceries on my way back home.
Carrying ~20kg or even ~30kg of stuff around all the time is totally unnatural. Well going 50km away from your home on a daily basis is not natural at all. But a lot of people to make ends meet need to go even 100km away on daily basis.
Yes, going to your local shopping center with a car where you can walk in 10 mins and carry 5-10kg of goods is supper shitty and for 5-10 kg one could cycle with it. Going "all car culture" is bad is not the way to go, because for many people alternative is to "sit in one place and die" as they don't have shopping center available in walking distance.
I don’t understand why you think you need to bring 20 kg of stuff every day. That is what I carry for a several day camping trip.
What we’re asking for here are things like street and block systems, mixed use zones, bike lanes, buildings pulled up to the sidewalk instead of set back by giant surface parking lots, etc. When you have those things, the preferability of different transport modes change.
They had something bicCle-like, which was less comfortable with way less bicycle compatible roads.
Cobblestone and hills on a heavy bike without transmission? - Not good. Same with a paved bike path and either a lighter modern bike or even E-Bike? - Smooth riding.
That said: Their are cases where a car is needed, given the right infrastructure that need however can be reduced, so that people can make the choice. Which in turn can create new possibilities for the young, disabled or old, which won't be there in a car centric place.