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

[garbon]

@Tyr - Looking more at your image, is your complaint that roads exist? What then will public transit options like busses travel on?

[Sheilbh]

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.

Yeah my dad can't drive any more. My mum is a lot younger so it doesn't necessarily have a huge impact, but she works so she isn't always there - so it has had a big impact on him getting a vaccine shot for example.

And the public transport network in Dorset is very poor.

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.

The population is increasing. We already don't build enough homes to keep up with population growth. So we need to build somewhere - my view is that we should be emphasising increasing density wherever possible and obviously increasing capacity in public service including transport, rather than sprawling and going for low density developments that rely on cars.

I would say it should be easier to increase density because areas are already built up so less likely to have trouble getting approved or impinge on genuine countryside, but given that I've seen recent campaigns to stop a car park or Tesco being developed for lots of housing (including more than 33% social housing) sadly I think that's probably not true

[Josquius]

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.

Yep. My mam can drive but she's scared to do anything more than her usual drives to work and to the supermarket. As a result she basically can't come visit me unless she's with my dad. Which...really sucks now we have a kid. Thats a lot of the school holidays when she could be helping out but isn't. Because of crappy public transport.

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

As part of a different issue yes. People should stop buying so much useless shit.
With cars however there's a particular issue in that if you have a hot tub and leave it in front of your house you'd get in big trouble for blocking the street. With a car this would be allowed.

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.

More underground parking sounds nice. I'm definitely all for this.
Though its very expensive and simply isn't feasible for everyone. The geology of many cities simply wouldn't allow it. Then there's all those buildings already existing without underground car parks....

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.

This is where the sociological (and health) damage of cars really comes into play.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-07/kids-who-get-driven-everywhere-don-t-know-where-they-re-going

If you're taxied around between home, the park, grandma's house, the airport, then that's all you see. You have no sense of place in your town. You have vastly reduced connection and empathy for other people. People, particularly kids, don't get the exercise they should. Homes become prison cells rather than part of a community.

@Tyr - Looking more at your image, is your complaint that roads exist? What then will public transit options like busses travel on?

Its highlighting the huge amount of the street given over to cars and how restricted the space for people is.
Some roads are obviously unavoidable. But busses don't go down every street, they follow a reliable schedule, and they don't sit around in front of people's houses for days on end.

[Tamas]

If you guys read back on your comments, what it boils down to is: if you are not using a car their presence inconveniences your routine and thus you want to get rid of them.

And let's not get into the "useless spending" bit. Technically, food to avoid starving to death and shelter to avoid freezing to death are the only two "necessary" things in life, assuming that survival is a necessary goal. Everything else is optional and can be deemed "useless".

[Josquius]

If you guys read back on your comments, what it boils down to is: if you are not using a car their presence inconveniences your routine and thus you want to get rid of them.

Not in the slightest bit close to the point of the argument. That seems to be more a flipped version of your argument, that action against cars would inconvenience your routine as it stands.
For me, and seemingly for others on 'this side' too, the argument is more about the deep damage that basing society around cars brings and how much better it could be for everyone if we moved away from this.

And let's not get into the "useless spending" bit. Technically, food to avoid starving to death and shelter to avoid freezing to death are the only two "necessary" things in life, assuming that survival is a necessary goal. Everything else is optional and can be deemed "useless".

Yes.
But these things aren't black and white. People do need some level of fulfillment and entertainment up there on the hierarchy of needs. Mega yachts and super cars that are never used and all this sort of thing are eye rollingly dumb.

[Sheilbh]

If you guys read back on your comments, what it boils down to is: if you are not using a car their presence inconveniences your routine and thus you want to get rid of them.

How would a car inconvenience me?

I think people shouldn't have to rely on them because some people can't (the elderly, the poor, the young) and that shouldn't have an impact on the type of life you lead. I think if you do that you'll reduce the extent to which people want to use cars and reduce the numbers overall.

In addition transport's about 20% of carbon emissions (excluding the emissions in manufacture/industry which is separate) and the vast majority of that is from people using cars. It's an area that is growing as a proportion - moving to electric will help. But there is a growing global middle class, I believe have about 1.5 billion cars in the world (my understanding is there's more in Europe and North America than the ROTW combined) but more and more people will be able to afford them and I don't think we can afford for the rest of the world to be as car-reliant as the West has been while it's rich and for that number to, say, double or triple. That means that we need to look at what replaces a car-centric society and, as with energy, I think we have a bit of a moral obligation in the rich West to work out solutions - plus it would be in our own interests and address our own environmental impact.

Separately and more specific to cities I think there is evidence that cities that went for a car-centric model have done worse economically, I think the car-centric model interacts with race (especially in the US) and I think they make cities less liveable.

And let's not get into the "useless spending" bit. Technically, food to avoid starving to death and shelter to avoid freezing to death are the only two "necessary" things in life, assuming that survival is a necessary goal. Everything else is optional and can be deemed "useless".

But as I say an open wood or coal fire in your living room is useless spending. Central heating isn't.

[Jacob]

... 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.

That's a fair point. I absolutely agree that the desire for cars is not purely the result of clever marketing but because they fulfill a range of needs ranging from the fundamnetal to the more complex.

[Jacob]

The "cars sit idle most of the time" argument is mostly one of economic efficiency, I think. It's where things like Uber and Lyft come in in theory (though it seems their business model is less about leveraging under utilized assets and more about exploiting labour/ busting cartels/ avoiding regulation to drive up margins).

Personally I don't think efficient utilization is that relevant an argument. As garbon implies, it's up to people how effectively or ineffectively they use their assets... though I'd be willing to change my point of view if shown that underutilized cars have a massive environmental impact, for example.

[Jacob]

If you guys read back on your comments, what it boils down to is: if you are not using a car their presence inconveniences your routine and thus you want to get rid of them.

No.

It boils down to: society and government spends MASSIVE amounts of money on subsidizing car drivers, the car industry, the oil & gas industry, and the infrastructure needed to sustain car culture. Large parts of our cultures are organized around car centred lifestyles.

Given the dangers of climate change we should examine ways to reallocate some of that support to less environmentally damaging modes of transport, and we should pursue ways of making non-car centred lifestyles more accessible to more people (and by accessible I mean practical, pleasant, and affordable).

I have a car. I drive. It's not about inconveniencing me.

[DGuller]

I think an obvious argument why underutilization of personal cars has an environmental impact is that you need more of them.  The more a single car is used, the less cars you need to satisfy the transportation requirements.  The need for a driver to ferry his own car is certainly adding to the inefficiency.

[Barrister]

Going to the "it's inefficient to have cars sitting around all the time" argument...

Automobiles are depreciating assets.  The more you use them the faster they depreciate.  That's why  you really do want to buy the used car from 'the little old lady who only drove it on Sundays', and you absolutely want to avoid buying a used taxicab.  So from that perspective alone it's not necessarily inefficient to have an asset that is only used occasionally.

Electric vehicles might change that analysis, but I don't think so.  One of the advantages of electric vehicles is they have very few moving mechanic parts, which are the ones that wear out the quickest.  But since battery degradation over time is also a thing I think you still have the same problem.

Now there is the cost of parking - in particular in built-up areas.  So maybe it makes sense to just rent autonomous electric vehicles to go to work - but with an autonomous vehicle you own you could always go tell it to park itself at home during the day and come get you when work is over.

[Zanza]

The "cars sit idle most of the time" argument is mostly one of economic efficiency, I think. It's where things like Uber and Lyft come in in theory (though it seems their business model is less about leveraging under utilized assets and more about exploiting labour/ busting cartels/ avoiding regulation to drive up margins).

That and using other people's assets with very questionable sustainability regarding depreciation. The drivers use up their asset, but whether their generated income is sufficient to maintain  and eventually replace it is in doubt.

[Jacob]

I think an obvious argument why underutilization of personal cars has an environmental impact is that you need more of them.  The more a single car is used, the less cars you need to satisfy the transportation requirements.  The need for a driver to ferry his own car is certainly adding to the inefficiency.

Yeah. I guess there are two components:

1) How significant is the environmental impact of manufacturing cars? If we assume that people will drive just as much (so the gas usage is the same) whether they do so in many or few cars, does having many car significantly impact the environmental impact?

2) Conversely, if people used cars more efficiently for transportation (i.e. cars were used more hours a day, more people are in the cars when they're used) there could in theory be reductions in miles travelled and thus gas burned? I wonder how much of a reduction that would be?

[Jacob]

That and using other people's assets with very questionable sustainability regarding depreciation. The drivers use up their asset, but whether their generated income is sufficient to maintain  and eventually replace it is in doubt.

I don't think the inefficiency argument says anything about using other people's assets, just that the assets sit unused. But the point of whether using the assets more efficiently in terms of active time translates into economic efficiency is apt, IMO.

[Barrister]

It boils down to: society and government spends MASSIVE amounts of money on subsidizing car drivers, the car industry, the oil & gas industry, and the infrastructure needed to sustain car culture. Large parts of our cultures are organized around car centred lifestyles.

Whoah!  Slow down.

This is a line that gets thrown around a LOT but doesn't hold up nearly as well under scrutiny.

Okay the oil and gas industry I know the best.  When you look at the claims of 'billions on subsidies' they invariably turn out to be tax deductions that are available to any company in any industry.  Is it really a subsidy to the oil and gas industry to allow them to use past losses against future profits?  Was it a subsidy to allow oil and gas companies access to the same programs during the pandemic to help avoid job layoffs that were available to every other industry?

It can also be claimed that setting royalty rates is a "subsidy" on the idea that government should charge more per barrel of oil produced, but given how there's always a balancing act between wanting to maximize production of oil (and the accompanying economic activity that comes with it) and generating government revenue I have trouble calling this a subsidy also - it's a policy decision.

When it comes to the car industry... certainly there have been one-off giant bailouts in the past of domestic manufacturers.  But governments have mostly recouped those expenses, and in any event the foreign manufacturers received no such bailouts and are doing fine.  There have been specific subsidies to promote specific technologies (like the rebate on purchasing an electric vehicle) but I don't think many have a problem with that idea.

Then it comes to subsidizing drivers.  As I understand the argument here it is that users of the road do not pay enough through gas taxes and the like to fully pay for road construction, maintenance and repair.  But roads are a public good as well as a private benefit.  We all benefit when things like school buses and emergency vehicles are able to get around freely and easily.

Public transit, such as buses and LRTS, are very explicitly subsidized and nobody has a problem with that.