Is There 'A Hill You're Prepared To Die On' ?

[Zanza]

I think that suggests too much agency of the car companies. Customers love cars because they fulfill some deep seated human desires, namely having personal space, being very convenient,very often still being the fastest or most versatile mode of transport, etc.

That's why customers desire cars. Not some nefarious scheme by the auto industry.

I guess it depends on what you consider "nefarious", but the car industry has absolutely taken an active hand in shaping the infrastructure, urban planning, and so in in North America (at the very least) to drive up dependence on cars.

National City Lines (a consortium operated by General Motors, Mac Trucks, Firestone Tyres, Standard Oil of California, and Phillips Oil) purchased 45 electric street car companies in US cities with the express motive to shut them down (which they did), for the explicit goal of undermining public transit and driving up car usage (which it did).

Car industry lobbying (primarily driven by the National Highway Users Conference) were very active in getting the National Highway Fund established. Between 1952 to 1970, the US government invested $1,845 million in highway infrastructure compared to $232 million for railways in the same period.

It is not a case of "all things being equal, cars just were more attractive and here we are". A number of very specific political decisions were taken over a period of time to shape infrastructure, city planning, economic policy, and many other areas of public policy to support the rise of cars.

Which is fine. But it means that "cars are just inherently so great" is not, IMO, a particularly compelling argument to stop us from making a new set of political decisions to shape infrastructure, city planning, economic policy and so on to lessen our dependence on cars if that is necessary to lower the risks from global warming.

Sure, in North America and surely some other places that's the case. I think the unique combination of unrestrained capitalist lobbying and a disdain for "socialist" public services made it especially wrong in the US. But you also see it in other countries. Even in Western Europe where governments still overspend on car infrastructure (except charging point  ). I guess in some places in Europe and East Asia it might tilt towards public transport, which as you can see from my first post in the thread is something I totally favor.

But while the auto industry surely lobbied on its interests and maybe even actively destroyed competition in North America, the needs of the customers were beyond its agency. Yes, you can create demand with the right marketing etc.

But in the end, what drives automobiles is that humans want individual transport and so far the car was the best way to fulfill this need. That's why it is globally successful, regardless of culture, political system, even wealth.

[Zanza]

That's why customers desire cars. Not some nefarious scheme by the auto industry.

I don't know why people automatically resort to "brainwashing" or "nefarious schemes". Publicity is all about transforming the act of purchasing into some profoundly meaningful act of personal accomplishment, collective and individual identity. It's about creating wants, and then transforming wants into needs. The fact that most people lived perfectly well, with a much higher proximity, with a lot less intimacy, for thousands of years, suggests very strongly to me that this isn't some "human nature" expressing itself (a highly dubious proposal whenever it's trotted out), but rather, precisely, the sort of desire that inserted itself in the aspirations of a growing middle class, given astonishing force by the post war industrial prosperity.

Throughout those thousands of years, the richest parts of societies lived in palaces often with lavish grounds and used stuff like palanquins for individual transport. This was only possible for the very top due to lack of economic productivity. The explosive economic growth of the 20th century changed that and now more people desire what was limited to the few before. That suggests that they did not "live perfectly well" before and that the higher proximity and intimacy were not desired, but rather forced by circumstances. 

PS: Saw that you already answered similar posts by others before, so I don't expect an answer.

[Zanza]

By the way, I work in the automotive industry and they expect demand to grow for at least one more decade, maybe longer in the luxury segment.

[Threviel]

This is an interesting discussion.

When I went to school a decade ago Volvo came to the campus sometimes and talked about the future. They talked then about self driving cars and how that would change the automotive industry. Going from lots of rather cheap cars standing still some 95% of the time to fewer, far more expensive, self driving cars always on the move and shared like a taxi almost.

It's obviously there we're going, but it's going to take a decade or so more. That change will change global economics, kill of a lot of the automotive industry and possibly change how we live our lives.

[Syt]

This is an interesting discussion.

When I went to school a decade ago Volvo came to the campus sometimes and talked about the future. They talked then about self driving cars and how that would change the automotive industry. Going from lots of rather cheap cars standing still some 95% of the time to fewer, far more expensive, self driving cars always on the move and shared like a taxi almost.

It's obviously there we're going, but it's going to take a decade or so more. That change will change global economics, kill of a lot of the automotive industry and possibly change how we live our lives.

I still hope we'll move to a "electric self driving car on demand" kind of setup. It would probably also be more economical, considering that cars usually sit idle for much of their life. Of course it would require a huge network where you can call a car to you quickly from many locations, not to mention the logistics of inter-city and international travel (though I'm hoping that medium distances at least could be covered with properly funded and managed rail networks). Mind you, this would be in addition to bus, tram, an subway services in metropolitan areas.

[Sheilbh]

By the way, I work in the automotive industry and they expect demand to grow for at least one more decade, maybe longer in the luxury segment.

Why do they think demand would stop growing after a decade or so? Surely the global middle class is still likely to grow at a huge pace that more than outweighs any demand in Europe or North America?

I still hope we'll move to a "electric self driving car on demand" kind of setup. It would probably also be more economical, considering that cars usually sit idle for much of their life. Of course it would require a huge network where you can call a car to you quickly from many locations, not to mention the logistics of inter-city and international travel (though I'm hoping that medium distances at least could be covered with properly funded and managed rail networks). Mind you, this would be in addition to bus, tram, an subway services in metropolitan areas.

Yeah in the UK I think the average amount of time actually spent using a car is around 10 hours a week - which is why I think good, reliable, regular, affordable public transport around work and commuting especially is very important because I imagine that's most of those 10 hours a week. I looked up my area which is an inner borough, it's the 10th most dense borough in the country - and it still has over 40% of households have a car. I imagine the vast majority of those are almost never used except for holidays (maybe) and moving house.

It's obviously there we're going, but it's going to take a decade or so more. That change will change global economics, kill of a lot of the automotive industry and possibly change how we live our lives.

Incidentally the other thing for Western governments is going to be pluggng the budget hole left by petrol taxes as we shift to electronic vehicles. In the UK it's not been raised in years because it's become so politically difficult but it's still a pretty sizeable chunk of revenue every year.

[garbon]

Yeah in the UK I think the average amount of time actually spent using a car is around 10 hours a week - which is why I think good, reliable, regular, affordable public transport around work and commuting especially is very important because I imagine that's most of those 10 hours a week. I looked up my area which is an inner borough, it's the 10th most dense borough in the country - and it still has over 40% of households have a car. I imagine the vast majority of those are almost never used except for holidays (maybe) and moving house.

What's the problem with them then?

[Zanza]

So far the experiments with floating car sharing were not very successful. The missing ingredient might be self-driving cars to balance the network.

However, usage of cars is not constant as the existence of rush hour demonstrates. People will only be willing to give up their own car when access to shared cars is similarly good as your own car.

That's why a reduction to 10% or so of the current volume will not be feasible. That would leave too few cars during rush hour. On the other hand, keeping a sizeable fleet that idles outside rush hour is not as attractive, but probably still pays off.

Furthermore, car sharing is also a bit of a surprise sometimes as the cars might be dirty, smelly or broken without this being reported. That's why even with much better car sharing options than now, people will not fully give up on car ownership. Especially if you either want a particularly comfortable or luxurious car, a bigger car for more persons or cargo or something else that is not offered by the fleet cars.

By the way, a fleet of autonomous electric cars means unemployed Taxi/Uber drivers and ownership by a few capitalists. Something society should be considering.

[garbon]

People lived without indoor plumbing, electric lights, television, the internet, refrigeration, and so many other conveniences for about as long as we've also had automobiles.  Our desire for such items can I guess be called "wants" in that we won't automatically die without these things, but our want for such items seems pretty deeply ingrained.

My point is simply that there is nothing inherently natural about defining the family as a small group of 3 or 4, or wanting to be alone in a car stuck in traffic for three hours a day, or to want a suburban house with an individual pool. We live in a world that has promoted relentlessly these things as tokens of success, as things people ought to want. The rest of the world, which has longed for industrialized prosperity for quite some time, has understandably adopted many aspirations. And for people who grew up in the suburbs, and who have a lot of nice memories of it, or have had great experiences road-tripping, or whose models are other successful suburban people, often their parents, yes - that desire has been inculcated from a young age.

It is the fear of being deprived of those things that scare people. For many people who grow up with multiple generations in a single household, the emptiness of our own homes is often jarring. For people who just couldn't wait to get out of their parents' house (or parents' who couldn't wait to send kids away), the single-family house is an aspiration. Single-family house with backyards in a suburban community is a recent aspiration; an over-abundance of cheap consumer goods, three cars per family, an individual pool for every household... these things may indeed manifest an aspiration to material luxury that has deep roots, but it's only the contemporary shape of that aspiration, not the answer to some deep-seated human desire.   

That feels like a much wider discussion then as that involves not only how we travel but how we arrange a very personal part of our lives - our home lives.

[Sheilbh]

What's the problem with them then?

This is where it links into density, space and cost of infrastructure which is a slightly different narrower point that is just about cities.

[The Larch]

There's a side effect to car culture that I believe has not been mentioned yet, and it is that once you reach a certain age in which you're not suitable to drive anymore you're basically locked out of lots of stuff that up to that moment were routine parts of your life.

It's a conversation I've had a couple of times already with my parents, about the possibility of them, at some point, giving up on driving due to not being suitable for it anymore. My mom, who is the main driver (my dad doesn't like driving and has already messed up the family car a couple of times in the past due to easily preventable driving mishaps) has just turned 74 and is not as sharp on the wheel as she used to be (a couple of times in which I've been on the passenger's seat with her I've had to scream to her to brake because she was almost going to run over a pedestrian crossing the street, and this sunday she got crossly beeped by a motorbike because she invaded its lane when overtaking a stopped car). Some modern car complements have eased up some parts of the driving experience (assisted parking is a particular godsend), but at some point it doesn't matter how many gizmos a car has if the driver is just not suitable anymore.

Yeah in the UK I think the average amount of time actually spent using a car is around 10 hours a week - which is why I think good, reliable, regular, affordable public transport around work and commuting especially is very important because I imagine that's most of those 10 hours a week. I looked up my area which is an inner borough, it's the 10th most dense borough in the country - and it still has over 40% of households have a car. I imagine the vast majority of those are almost never used except for holidays (maybe) and moving house.

What's the problem with them then?

Don't you see a problem with that?

For instance, I do own a car and a parking spot in my building, while I barely use it anymore. Back in the day I'd drive plenty for work, but it's been years since I've had to use it more than once or twice per month. On a pure money basis, I'd be better off renting a car a couple of days per month rather than owning one, with all its associated expenses (fuel, taxes, insurance...).

[Zanza]

The age topic will be solved in the next years as the assistance systems will just completely take over.

[The Larch]

The age topic will be solved in the next years as the assistance systems will just completely take over.

But it will still take a while for those models to completely enter the system. I doubt my parents will ever get another car after their current one.

[Josquius]

Throughout those thousands of years, the richest parts of societies lived in palaces often with lavish grounds and used stuff like palanquins for individual transport. This was only possible for the very top due to lack of economic productivity. The explosive economic growth of the 20th century changed that and now more people desire what was limited to the few before. That suggests that they did not "live perfectly well" before and that the higher proximity and intimacy were not desired, but rather forced by circumstances.

PS: Saw that you already answered similar posts by others before, so I don't expect an answer.

One could also argue that technological growth in the 19th and 20th centuries eliminated the need for personal transport thus opening up transport for the masses, as shown by the dramatic growth in city sizes at the time.
It was purely circumstances of the time which forced the rich in the days of old to keep a carriage on hand.

Yeah in the UK I think the average amount of time actually spent using a car is around 10 hours a week - which is why I think good, reliable, regular, affordable public transport around work and commuting especially is very important because I imagine that's most of those 10 hours a week. I looked up my area which is an inner borough, it's the 10th most dense borough in the country - and it still has over 40% of households have a car. I imagine the vast majority of those are almost never used except for holidays (maybe) and moving house.

What's the problem with them then?

A bunch of things.
1: Useless items that cost a lot in terms of resources and greenhouses gasses to produce sitting around rusting.
2: Something like 3/4+ of the street locked off for exclusive use of these items. Often just sitting there and not doing anything. In city centres this waste of space is particularly dumb.

3: When holiday time does come it eliminates the sense of travel and results in kids growing up only seeing the destinations of their life.

[garbon]

What's the problem with them then?

This is where it links into density, space and cost of infrastructure which is a slightly different narrower point that is just about cities.

Yes, there is an issue about where cars are stored - though in case of where I currently living and the garage is in the basement, probably limited extra space needed. Also, I'm not sure that many would be happy about increasing population density which is what would happen if say the block of flats across the street from me was extended as its car park no longer seen as necessary. Then getting more like packed in like sardines both in the neighbourhood and also added pressure on public transport options.

Don't you see a problem with that?

For instance, I do own a car and a parking spot in my building, while I barely use it anymore. Back in the day I'd drive plenty for work, but it's been years since I've had to use it more than once or twice per month. On a pure money basis, I'd be better off renting a car a couple of days per month rather than owning one, with all its associated expenses (fuel, taxes, insurance...).

No, but I'm not interested in policing what people want to do with their possessions. If they want to spend extra money to keep onto something they barely use, that's their business. What's next people demonised for having dogs as those are an unnecessary expense?

A bunch of things.
1: Useless items that cost a lot in terms of resources and greenhouses gasses to produce sitting around rusting.

There are many things we buy that are not simply utilitarian. Are you also gunning for people's rarely used hot tubs?

2: Something like 3/4+ of the street locked off for exclusive use of these items. Often just sitting there and not doing anything. In city centres this waste of space is particularly dumb.

Okay so design a better system where they can be stored in underground car parks. Note, the people rarely using them probably are doing some variation of off-street parking anyway as not worth the hassle and expense of regularly needing to move your car to avoid tickets.

3: When holiday time does come it eliminates the sense of travel and results in kids growing up only seeing the destinations of their life.

I've absoulately no idea what you are talking about here. As a child in the US, one of my formative experiences of travel was my family traveling by car to see sights many states away and the flexibility we had to 'go off the beaten' track. Not sure how a roadtrip is more limiting than a train/bus/plane that go from point a to point b on a set route.  I'm also not sure how a family having a car means that is the only way you can then travel. We still took commuter rail options when heading into the city.