Syt's Pictorial Collection of Stuff and Things (image heavy)

[Syt]

Playing sardines-in-a-box on a train or subway is no way to live, is all I am saying.

On the London Tube maybe, on Vienna public transport rarely.

[Syt]

Try doing grocery shopping for more than one person with and without a car to change your opinion in a hurry.

Weird, friends, including those with kids, manage to do that just fine.

[garbon]

Try doing grocery shopping for more than one person with and without a car to change your opinion in a hurry.

Weird, friends, including those with kids, manage to do that just fine.

I guess if one likes wasting an inordinate amount of time.

[Syt]

Waste time? For most it's a 5 minute walk to their supermarket of choice. Others I know have their shopping delivered, i.e. they go to the supermarket, pay, and then have their purchases delivered for a small fee (under 5 EUR). Sure beats paying hundreds of EUR every month in taxes, garage fees, etc. for a conveyance that sits idle 90+% of the time. If push comes to shove, there's still car sharing services if you have something larger to transport.

[Sheilbh]

what a city-dweller attitude.


Try doing grocery shopping for more than one person with and without a car to change your opinion in a hurry.

And yet cities contain families

It would be probably multiple little shops through the week because that is convenient if you don't need to go to the box out of town. The big shop is also not a good thing (I'm sure it leads to far more waste). My entire point isn't that we get rid of cars and everyone lives as they curently do with no change, my point is as the car was a wrenching social change we need to move away from it which will be a wrenching social change. But living without cars is not impossible (as most of human experience demonstrates), it's just different.

Cars are FREEDOM compared to mass transit. Yeah, ownership might decline with the advent of robotic cars (I can't wait for self-driving cars, I hope I'll be able to afford one if I live to be an old git), but to consider train and subway riding like sardines as a higher form of being than driving or riding a car is just plain wrong.

I think it's more about social cost than moral worth. Cars are environmentally catastrophic (and the carbon emissions linked to energy, residential, industry and agriculture is declining; the emissions linked to cars from manufacture to use are still growing) and I think they've also made our towns and cities more ugly and less liveable. So much of our physical environment is built around the car and not the human - it's not a good thing.

[Syt]

Btw, this attitude of "I need a car, because I don't want to be mildly inconvenienced" is why I think we've pretty much lost the fight against Climate Change, because it pervades every layer and aspect of society (and I'm guilty of it, too, of course).

[garbon]

Waste time? For most it's a 5 minute walk to their supermarket of choice. Others I know have their shopping delivered, i.e. they go to the supermarket, pay, and then have their purchases delivered for a small fee (under 5 EUR). Sure beats paying hundreds of EUR every month in taxes, garage fees, etc. for a conveyance that sits idle 90+% of the time. If push comes to shove, there's still car sharing services if you have something larger to transport.

I think there might be a point of confusion in this discussion. We all are quite aware that many people in major cities do not need cars. Location of services and public transport will suffice. After all, I've been in London for 5 years and don't have a British driver's license. But the discussion doesn't appear to be limited to whether cities should ban cars from city centers but rather Sheilbh's claim that cars should be banished entirely.

I just looked up my childhood home in Massachusetts. A one way walk to the local grocery store would take 1 hour while a car ride (and then no groceries to carry) would take all of 9 minutes. I find it hard to fathom all the steps that would be necessary to make it so that public transport would be a welcome option over the current car journey.

[Syt]

Waste time? For most it's a 5 minute walk to their supermarket of choice. Others I know have their shopping delivered, i.e. they go to the supermarket, pay, and then have their purchases delivered for a small fee (under 5 EUR). Sure beats paying hundreds of EUR every month in taxes, garage fees, etc. for a conveyance that sits idle 90+% of the time. If push comes to shove, there's still car sharing services if you have something larger to transport.

I think there might be a point of confusion in this discussion. We all are quite aware that many people in major cities do not need cars. Location of services and public transport will suffice. After all, I've been in London for 5 years and don't have a British driver's license. But the discussion doesn't appear to be limited to whether cities should ban cars from city centers but rather Sheilbh's claim that cars should be banished entirely.

I just looked up my childhood home in Massachusetts. A one way walk to the local grocery store would take 1 hour while a car ride (and then no groceries to carry) would take all of 9 minutes. I find it hard to fathom all the steps that would be necessary to make it so that public transport would be a welcome option over the current car journey.

I agree of course that cars have their uses, especially in rural areas or - especially in the US - communities built around car usage. I think cars are an inefficient use of resources, though. A car sits idle long periods of time, so if this resource could be more evenly distributed, I think we could do with a lot less cars (keeping in mind that there are peak periods, e.g. during commuter hours). IMHO car pooling and car sharing initiatives are important, and I sincerely hope that once self driving cars become widespread we can get to a point where they will be used like a utility instead of everyone owning one.

[garbon]

Waste time? For most it's a 5 minute walk to their supermarket of choice. Others I know have their shopping delivered, i.e. they go to the supermarket, pay, and then have their purchases delivered for a small fee (under 5 EUR). Sure beats paying hundreds of EUR every month in taxes, garage fees, etc. for a conveyance that sits idle 90+% of the time. If push comes to shove, there's still car sharing services if you have something larger to transport.

I think there might be a point of confusion in this discussion. We all are quite aware that many people in major cities do not need cars. Location of services and public transport will suffice. After all, I've been in London for 5 years and don't have a British driver's license. But the discussion doesn't appear to be limited to whether cities should ban cars from city centers but rather Sheilbh's claim that cars should be banished entirely.

I just looked up my childhood home in Massachusetts. A one way walk to the local grocery store would take 1 hour while a car ride (and then no groceries to carry) would take all of 9 minutes. I find it hard to fathom all the steps that would be necessary to make it so that public transport would be a welcome option over the current car journey.

I agree of course that cars have their uses, especially in rural areas or - especially in the US - communities built around car usage. I think cars are an inefficient use of resources, though. A car sits idle long periods of time, so if this resource could be more evenly distributed, I think we could do with a lot less cars (keeping in mind that there are peak periods, e.g. during commuter hours). IMHO car pooling and car sharing initiatives are important, and I sincerely hope that once self driving cars become widespread we can get to a point where they will be used like a utility instead of everyone owning one.

Okay so not a full defense of the notion of entirely doing away with them then?

Note, I didn't live in a rural area but in a city of 40,000. Which I would think suggests that adopting a metropolis approach everywhere would be a radical overhaul of how many people live. Presumably, in a car less world, you would either need to discourage people from living in spread out areas and/or tell them to adopt a horse and buggy.

[Syt]

Okay so not a full defense of the notion of entirely doing away with them then?

Note, I didn't live in a rural area but in a city of 40,000. Which I would think suggests that adopting a metropolis approach everywhere would be a radical overhaul of how many people live. Presumably, in a car less world, you would either need to discourage people from living in spread out areas and/or tell them to adopt a horse and buggy.

That's a North American issue I would think, though - my town of 30k in Germany was perfectly walkable, but it grew historically and organically for the most part from the 9th century, whereas a lot of U.S. cities are much newer, and in the last 50-60(?) years designed around people having cars to get around.

( That said, a common trend, thanks to ubiquitous car ownership in Germany was/is stores moving out of the city center and opening stores on a big lot on the periphery.)

[Sheilbh]

I think there might be a point of confusion in this discussion. We all are quite aware that many people in major cities do not need cars. Location of services and public transport will suffice. After all, I've been in London for 5 years and don't have a British driver's license. But the discussion doesn't appear to be limited to whether cities should ban cars from city centers but rather Sheilbh's claim that cars should be banished entirely.

I don't think not having a car should be an urban luxury. We need to make it possible for no-one to need a car. Through remote selling/working/services, more new and better public transport (the number of trams in towns up and down the country, even tiny towns, that were torn up to make space for cars is a shame), making the roads comfortable and focused on cyclists, more density (living in a town or village so you're close to the shops not in a country house/farm). I think it's more possible now because of the internet.

You know I lived in one of the most remote parts of thie Highlands - I was 8 miles from a town with supermarkets etc. That's do-able with a bus service or on a bike.

And chances are even after those changes cars will be a more convenient or comfortable option - so you need eventually to ban them. From a purely European perspective since 2000 we've reduced the carbon output of energy, industry, agriculture and our homes. The emissions from transport is still growing and it's overwhelmingly on the roads. Unless we address that and make cars unnecessary I think we can't really adress the issue (and I think it would lead to a better physical environment that we all live in too).

I think we view other ways of life that aren't as car-focused as somehow intrinsic to that culture - Danes or Dutch cycling everywhere is a picturesque, but somewhat eccentric/unique cultural values. But those countries, like everywhere else, were very car-centric until the late 60s/70s when there were campaigns that led to planners and governments making different decisions. That produced a culture that is less car-centric. We can have that if we make those choices and we can go further. Re-claiming our city centres is a nice start though.

You're right - as I say I've no idea what larger countries do (although maybe people should live closer together).

[Tamas]

I think it's telling that it is  you guys living in the centres of major metropolitan centres that are against cars. The realities of living in modern society in a more humane setting (non-metropolises) make cars the overwhelmingly ideal choice. Making car use mor efficient is fine but getting away with them is entirely unrealistic.

[Josquius]

I am worried about the outlook with regards to cars.
Pre corona the trend was very much against them. Cars are no longer a status symbol. Living somewhere you don't need a car is a goal for many.
With corona though I fear things are being pushed backwards significantly.

I think it's telling that it is  you guys living in the centres of major metropolitan centres that are against cars. The realities of living in modern society in a more humane setting (non-metropolises) make cars the overwhelmingly ideal choice. Making car use mor efficient is fine but getting away with them is entirely unrealistic.

I'm against cars too. 

And no, really disagree they're the ideal choice. They're immensely damaging for society.

Okay so not a full defense of the notion of entirely doing away with them then?

Note, I didn't live in a rural area but in a city of 40,000. Which I would think suggests that adopting a metropolis approach everywhere would be a radical overhaul of how many people live. Presumably, in a car less world, you would either need to discourage people from living in spread out areas and/or tell them to adopt a horse and buggy.

We need more of a solid hub and spoke model.
Its amazing that new housing developments keep being built in the middle of nowhere when there's plenty of small villages with underused train stations out there.

[Maladict]

Ban cars

(That is probably my most radical, impossible but sincerely held opinion )

Agreed, on all counts. A car-free city is the Dream (tm)

[Valmy]

My electric robot butler car will show you all the error of your ways!!111

Whenever I finally get one anyway.