Car hate thread

>Takes up 80% of the space in any city for roads and parking lots >Creates a lot of unbearable noise and smell >Main purpose is to further accelerate society and atomize people >Anyone who is interested in cars is always a hick or an autist >Extremely unfun to operate, have to take a billion driving rules up the ass constantly >Everyone has a wildly different approach to driving meaning everyone is angry or unhappy with everyone fuarrrk cars, I fuarrrking hate them so fuarrrking much holy fuarrrking soykaf if I got 3 wishes removing cars from existence would come before any global or personal interests. I fuarrrking hate having to get into that fuarrrking thing, I hate having to be in hte fuarrrking thing. I pray to the Lord every time I leave a car because that means I wont have to suffer more time piloting that abomination. I fuarrrking hate how I have to drive one though because society is ltierally built around them and I would be literally unable to fuarrrking function without that abomination of a steel cage. If someone told me you will become deaf but cars will forever go out of existence I will tell him this is the happiest day of my life

>>Main purpose is to further accelerate society and atomize people More like making lobbyists happy and deresponsabilizing local government from creating actually functional transportation infrastructure.

Don't forget having to maintain the goddamn thing. Gotta get gas, gotta change your oil, gotta replace this and that every now and then. And if it breaks down, your whole life's on hold because you can't go anywhere until it's fixed. Growing up, I thought that the reason I had to rely on my mom's car to go literally anywhere was because she always had us living on the outskirts of town. Now I live in the middle of town and it's the same damn thing. Gotta get in the car to go anywhere. Only things within sane walking distance are houses, houses, houses, a couple convenience stores, and a fast food place or two. Not that I'd want to be on foot in this part of town anyway. >Everyone has a wildly different approach to driving meaning everyone is angry or unhappy with everyone Either people are getting to be worse drivers over time, or I can't stop noticing patterns after dealing with dipshit after dipshit on the road. The whole "BMW = awful drivers" meme holds true, and when you're close to one of the gates to the nearby army post, you'll always see a Charger or Mustang swerving through traffic to get there. And every time you look into the window of someone going 5+ below the limit in the center lane? Yep. Eyes are glued their phone.

>>27891 The amount of restriction you have behind the wheel is actually unbearable. Forget even taking your eyes off the road and appreciate the scenery, cause more than 2 seconds and you will fuarrrking hit something, but you cannot even drive how you are comfortable. Like to drive fast on empty roads? Too bad, you will always meet someone who is too slow for your pace but too fast to overtake. Like to take your time with parking? Too bad, someone will always come by and watch you maneuver impatiently. Thats not even mentioning how bad infrastructure is. I have never had so little fun doing anything in my life as I do driving, if I could I would never drive again but unfortunately my job requires me to use the car (not for transport but for the job itself) and without it it basically becomes impossible, but fuarrrk I hate it so fuarrrking much. Every time I get into the thing I find a new thing to be frustrated by. I am a very chill and melancholic person usually but when driving I actually have to regularly stop and take a break cause my hands are physically shaking from anger. Today some lady told me I park like a retard and I swear to God if I had been one meter close to her when she said that I would have just punched her in the face, that's how much anger those abominations rouse up in me.

Come to europe we have tightly packed cities

>>27894 im literally european mate

>>27895 oh yeah? I'm figuratively European.

fuarrrking American urban planning means that you have to own a car if you want to eat something that didn't come out of a dollar store (in the city). Or eat at all (anywhere else).

>>27888 I am going to get one of these Volkswagen (I pronounce the w as a v) campers or a Toyota Hilux (war chariot of the 3rd world), find your neighborhood, and dart around your house. My main complaint are these 3rd worlders at my workplace (I work at a warehouse) who speed in the parking lots. Everyone had to get reminded by human resources to knock it off. I like driving since it enables me to get to shooting ranges, grocery stores, and my evening job. Public transport does not do it for me.

>>27898 Public transport is equally as bad as cars, I hate them both

>>27888 I feel like there wouldn't be nearly as many cars as today if companies didn't lobby so hard for it, although I can see why in some countries it would be unavoidable even without lobbying. My main complaint is that the way cities are structured is so fuarrrking messy because they developed assuming most people would have cars. Not only that but the biggest source of pollution caused by cars (at least in my country) doesn't come directly from cars, but from people that for some reason decide to build expensive condos in the middle of fuarrrking nowhere paying no attention to where they are building, and in the process destroying water sources. Also >Today I failed my 3rd driving test Although I won't blame it entirely on cars because my city is a special kind of mess. Not only are the roads lacking maintenance, built with random sizes and corners, turns that despite being almost 180º give you no space to turn, but I also live in the hills. So every fuarrrking time I have to go switch to 1st gear otherwise my car will turn off.

>>27907 I passed my driving exam on my 3rd time but honestly years later I still feel like I would not pass it today. When I go somewhere I have never been before I actually have to quickly look up traffic rules again cause I just do not remember. I got a 100 on my exam and I still know soykaf. It is even worse in europe, there are entire places in my city where it is actually better to go on a 2 kilometer detour than go through there cause it is such a nightmare.

>>27888 I ride a motorbike and have a truck. You clearly just want to live in the pod, son. Have fun with your rent

>>27909 Did it perhaps occur to you that's part of the root causes of the annoyance? You have the choice between absurdly overinflated rent costs and increased annoyances of living near other people (with no real benefit if you don't use the city's amenities) and a bunch of stupid restrictions on what you can do in your own home and whatever land you happen to have, or having to drive for hours outside the city to have some place with a price that isn't completely ridiculous and can be truly bought with a few years worth of wage.

All the rich people (not mcmansion debt slaves) prefer to live and go on vacations in walkable towns with harsh parking restriction or complete ban on automobiles within premises. Yet they are the ones who lobby and sponsor building of ugly 10-lane highway roads in your home country/towns right in front of your window. Happens everywhere, even in US. Yes, there are towns with complete ban on automobiles and structure of 19th century garden-city in United States.

>>27909 You clearly did not even read the thread cause none of the problems I have with cars are the problems that the green idiots have, go huff some petrol >>27920 Yeah, the only people who are into cars are actual hicks or actual autists, cause such a thing is only good for someone who does not think or has a hard-on when they see a machine.

>>27909 Why do you act as if living in the middle of nowhere is liberating? Americans take refuge in suburbs/exurbs because black people chased them out of cities 70 years ago, you're a completely defeated people lol

>>27926 Not that lainon, but it's much cheaper to own a house & land in the middle of nowhere. You also don't get some whiny assholes from local regional government complaining about what you can and cannot build on your land.

>>27928 People who live "in the middle of nowhere" have a connection to civilization by boat in summer to bring supplies requested in advance and to trade goods, and for the rest of the year they trap furs, shoot fowl, catch fish and repair/build tools. Some subsistence farming in summer is possible if soil and climate allow. These people generally don't own a car, maybe a single tractor for 300-pop village and a couple of snowmobiles for moving in winter if show is too deep to use dogs and deer/horses. You'd have to leave even this kind of motor vehicle on the edge of a forest and proceed on skis. These kind of people don't drive pickup trucks to a nearest Walshart when their supplies of canned beans and energy drinks run out, there are no roads, no stores and no government officials nearby at all. That's if we talk about middle of nowhere, and not about another suburbanite LARP.

>>27945 It's quite strange that the only things that seem to exist to you, are extremes. There are farmers, y'know, country people. It's not in the middle of nowhere, but living in the countryside is definitely not a "suburbanite LARP". Just my 2 cents

>>27945 You don't have to live in northern Siberia to be "out in the sticks". Just living a few hours drive away from anything larger than a village generally qualifies.

>>27946 American "countryside" is indeed a modernist suburbanite LARP built by degenerates for the automobile, not for the man. You don't live in villages like normal humans do, and you usually don't grow food either, corporations do that for you, spraying pesticides on proprietary GM fields in the middle of nowhere where land is cheap (because any closer to cities, mcmansion sprawl occupies space). >>27948 Henry Thoreau lived in 15 minute walking distance from a town. He was considered a hermit back in the day. Are you a hermit? Hermit is a virtue, not a maxima of proximity and being a sociophobic loon. You're a modernist energy-guzzling degenerate. You wouldn't last a month without your precious automobile. Living anywhere near roads won't save you from globalist technocratic regime or whatever boogeyman you're hiding from, old Bolsheviks managed to find most remote settlements and gulag most resistant old believer sectarians in all corners of Russia by mid 1920's. There were "luckier" ones. Geologists found Agafia Lykova with her family in the 1978 in deep taiga when scouting for oil to fuel your precious automobile, her family genetic line essentially ended, so what was the point in running from the antichrist into the grave, to find imaginary salvation, are you actually freed by limiting your freedom this way? You can do much more good by not running from humanity. And to stop running from humanity, you need to curb your obsession with fast modes of transportation that warp your perception of surrounding world as something uncomfortable, malleable and escapable making it seem as irrelevant nuisance.

>>27955 > You wouldn't last a month without your precious automobile. He says to someone who owns neither a car nor a driving license. The boogeyman I'm hiding from is absurd land prices.

>>27926 Your sense of history is so revised it's unrecognizable. Have fun in the pod

>>27925 Car guys are some of the last trustworthy and decent men left on the planet

>>27908 I passed the written exam on my first try when I was 15, but wasn't able to attempt the driving portion until 10 years later (no access to a car for that time). I passed one the first try but only because the guy who did my exam was a retired cop who started working there to kill time and he was more helpful than he was supposed to be. He would say things like "Okay so go up and turn right at this light, and remember the law is you can turn right on red but you have to come to a full stop first." Said afterward he likes getting drivers who have gone years without having a license because they're usually the safest drivers since they've had to avoid getting pulled over for the years they've been driving illegally. >>27893 >Today some lady told me I park like a retard and I swear to God if I had been one meter close to her when she said that I would have just punched her in the face, that's how much anger those abominations rouse up in me. Sounds like you need to work on your anger problems, lain. >>27945 >People who live "in the middle of nowhere" have a connection to civilization by boat in summer to bring supplies requested in advance and to trade goods, and for the rest of the year they trap furs, shoot fowl, catch fish and repair/build tools. People who live in the middle of nowhere take care of a cowardly dog that saves them from a variety of monsters and curses, anyone else is just LARPing.

>>27961 >take care of a cowardly dog Only based comment here imo. Eustace had a truck though If you don't live on an infinite plain of dust and torment, stfu suburbite scum

>>27959 That's what happened, it's such a well documented phenomenon that we even have a name for it (white flight). Blacks moved to northern cities en masse in the 20th century and whites just up and ran away. They abandoned America's academic, cultural and political centers for their little suburban refugia where they didn't have to confront their problems. The funniest thing to me is that you think this is some kind of revolutionary act, when by moving away from the city all you're doing is surrendering the last bit of institutional power you have. This is a significant contributing factor to why american urban planning is the way it is. It's why you live in a place with no public transit routes. It's (part of) the reason why so many American neighborhoods are inaccessible without an automobile. Enjoy being a powerless underclass.

>>27963 it's just a economic issue. It's more expensive to live in the suburbs than it was in the city, so the wealthy went there and had cars to go to work. The poor had to stay in cities. I don't get what a racial spin ads to this. are you blaming (wealthy) whites for their fortune or blacks for their misfortune?

>>27964 There is a documented racial component to suburbanization, I bring it up because because the person I'm arguing with is obviously a /p0l/ type judging by his vocabulary and he thinks abandoning urban life is empowering when really it's a mark of defeat. I've seen many imageboard types advocate abandoning cities/academic pursuits/mainstream politics as if that's a way to "own the system" (which seems to reflect his views) when really you're just making yourself an underclass with no say in the direction of society.

>>27963 Your disdain for rural people (and frankly just poor people in general) is disgusting. And then you go acting like you care about black people. It's obvious what you people are

>>27975 Never mentioned rural people in my post, or poor people. Or even said that I cared about black people, just that american suburbs exist (in part) because of americans' propensity to run from their problems.

>>27963 >They abandoned America's academic, cultural and political centers for their little suburban refugia where they didn't have to confront their problems. You say that as if being around black is a problem. In trying to make blacks seem powerful, you end up being racist against blacks. >>27965 >I bring it up because because the person I'm arguing with is obviously a /p0l/ type judging by his vocabulary and he thinks abandoning urban life is empowering when really it's a mark of defeat. If you have to make bait-y posts based on whether you think someone posts on /p0l/ or not, you are not welcome here. Besides, why do you think abandoning urban life is a sign of defeat? Rural areas are much safer, much less polluted, have generally a lower cost of living, and you generally have much more freedom in general. If you wanted you could be completely self-sufficient in the right places, while you will never accomplish that in a city. You will most likely become a wagie, live in a much smaller place for the same price or higher, the air is polluted, there is a possibility that the streets are also polluted, vehicles are noisy, you can get almost nothing by yourself and have to buy everything, and those things are generally overpriced. In urban places surveillance is also much stricter, and your privacy is much lesser than that of the average rural. Many rural places also have more definite cultures, whereas generally in big cities cultures are diluted and eventually disappear. >you're doing is surrendering the last bit of institutional power you have. I thought you supported more blacks on institutions? Your phrasing makes it look like giving institutional power to blacks is somehow a mistake. That's racist. Besides, if we really wanted to be accurate, the ones with institutional power are generally not whites, but I won't get into this topic because I'm sure everybody already is tired of hearing about that. >>27976 >Never mentioned rural people in my post >The funniest thing to me is that you think this is some kind of revolutionary act, when by moving away from the city all you're doing is surrendering the last bit of institutional power you have. >Or even said that I cared about black people >Blacks moved to northern cities en masse in the 20th century and whites just up and ran away. >just that american suburbs exist (in part) because of americans' propensity to run from their problems. >whites just up and ran away. Equating americans to white people is racist. I generally don't care about racism, I'm a free speech kind of guy, but I expect you to at least be consistent. Also, if many people see your post as racist, you should at least reconsider how you post, if you actually care. Additionally, politics generally isn't welcome here but if you want to bring it up consider doing it on /hum/. The first poster you replied to also posted bait, but at least it wasn't political. You could've just ignored it.

>>27981 You completely missed the point of my posts. I'm not anti-racist and I'm not insulting rural people, I'm mocking imageboard dwellers who think retreating from the epicenters of america's institutions will somehow help the white race. I mock /p0l/ types not because I give a fuarrrk about minorities but because their attitude towards achieving their own goal (white racial empowerment) is contradictory and based on retarded memes. I elaborated that in 3 posts already figure it out and stop sperging at me.

>>27963 Importing hordes of racially different people from per-neolithic conditions on another continent to do menial agriculture jobs for your new burgeoning country is the dumbest thing Americans could agree to in the 16th century. I'm glad no other region on Earth had rulers this dumb at the time to condone future generations into insurmountable suffering Americas now undergo with their multiethnic soup of rootless miscenegated masses LARPing as made-up colorist affinity groups.

>>27981 >the air is polluted gee bill i wonder why

Op here, why the fuarrrk did this thread turn into american politics? I am not even american. Is it unimaginable for some that I dislike cars not because of any political reason but just because I fuarrrking hate cars? If you wanna talk about racism go to r/politics and stop derailing threads everywhere on the itnernet

>>27990 Civil sector cars make up a small fraction of the total. Sucks for you if you are on that street but otherwise insignificant. Also on the land you get smog from pesticide spraying. Read once a paper that linked increased lung cancer rates with wind blowing the pesticide cloud from the fields into the town. Essentially its the same as smoking - anything that irritates causes inflammation and that increases risk.

>>28000 cars > suburbanization > reasons for suburbanization > muh dreaded politikz :(. Every topic of discussion is only 2 or 3 turns away from "politics", if you're going to cry because people take the conversation in a direction you don't like then don't make a thread.

>>28009 Bikes (or horses) pulling wagons. Anything else is un-needed. If we didn't have urban sprawl, I wouldn't have to move every 3 years from the danger gorillas. >>28000 I hate cars, too.

its a burger problem. Others dont push everything into politics and manage to stay on topic t.visiting boards in other languages (also observable by posts in burger downtime vs burger hours)

>>28002 >cars make up a small fraction of the total Of total what? Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide? Yes, a fraction. Noise and particulate pollution in city right under your windows? No, they are the biggest pollutant in the city. A natural gas power plant which emits co2 and water vapor is the "cleanest" in terms of city-concerning pollution, even centralized burning of coal is in many cases better than decentralized, it's been known since 19th century on example of London where manufactures produced much cleaner smoke than individual fireplace-heated households. So are trains, or shorter commute routes due to cities being more compact and not damn airfields for parking mctrucks are also reducing all kinds of environmental pollution, local and global. >pesticide spraying That's real nasty. I'm glad our corporate overlords have sorted everything out. They get to eat greenhouse organic produce and lab-grown tissue, third world gets GMO crops that don't need pesticide spraying, and we fellow local population have to hide in makeshift stick house suburbs, sandwiched between urban pollution and rural pollution commuting by means of automobile to keep employment in either one of these.

>>28015 Thats why i wrote >if you are on that street but otherwise insignificant. Whole point of my post was if you escape to the countryside thinking im save you aint because of the fields getting sprayed. Other than that poorest countries are actually gmo and pesticide free. Some of the poorest are still all natural and grow their old sorts. They are under attack though, my vacation place is getting heavily lobbied in recent years. The eu borg collective wont allow anything nice to exist.

>>28016 I can hear trucks whooing kilometers away on nights. If not for triple-glazed windows, I'd probably go insane during day, everywhere I go outside I hear constant hum of automobile, there is no escape from it neither in city or in suburbs.

>>28015 > it's been known since 19th century on example of London where manufactures produced much cleaner smoke than individual fireplace-heated households Isn't smoke generally indicative of inefficient and incomplete combustion?

>>28019 Must be your location / soykafty architecture. Here its all quiet. They also build big walls around the biggest road that has all trucks to silence it. You dont even hear much if you stand on the other side of the wall surrounding the road. Other example of architecture fix: was once in madrid and it was quiet despite being in the middle of the city at night. What they did is take several houses and build a quad with a dead zone in the middle shielded by the houses themself. So you can have windows open without noise.

>>28020 It is. And white smoke is steam from remaining water, coal is hygroscopic, so even a minuscule amount of moisture is contained in it. This is why firewood should be cut from non-coniferous woods low in heavy resins like birch, in time of lowest sap content - winter frosts, debarked (birch bark has so many uses: from making vessels to waterproofing to producing tar, too valuable to be wasted in fire), and dried for 2-3 years prior burning for maximum efficiency of heat production. While countries with extreme weathers like Russia, Sweden, Germany or severe scarcity of fuels like Netherlands have been inventing better heating installations since 15th century or so, 17th century England went YOLO with their free supplies of coal and iron, which also badly influenced North America where winters were mild, yet forests abundant, and whose fireplaces were and still are no better than indoor hearth of early iron age in terms of heating efficiency or indoor/outdoor pollution. You can not expect expert advice or even understanding on environmental pollution and energy conservation from people who build their chimney 3/4 walls outside a house, they simply don't care. These are the people you argue in in this thread. >>28021 People did not have problems with noise before automobile no matter what side their windows faced: courtyards or streets (which are freight roads in the day and racing tracks in the night these days). Indistinct human crowd chatter (not accompanied by amplified electronic music blasting at insane decibels, mind you) and clacking of horseshoes are quite soothing in fact.

>>28009 Why would I care about *american* politics? Do you care about Norwegian politics?

>>28043 Not him but in a way, I do.

>>28043 NTA and point taken but I heard about your upcoming election and started to get interested.

Part of me wants to form a car and truck rally in from of OP's house. It would be like a street takeover with loud grunge and heavy metal music. Motorcycles would also be welcomed.

>>28181 If you really wanted to fuarrrk with someone nowadays and were ready to burn you would show up and claim he invited you to party. Fines for everyone scorched earth style.

>>27964 Post-WW2 America could afford to do anything it was an absolutely unprecedented time of prosperity as they were the global industrial powerhouse. Cost was of no matter especially to the whites of that time. Actually, the funny thing is, they were primarily that powerful because they made all the cars, tanks, for the world. Urban planning was basically a chore to past people, those initial suburbs were just slapped on there by the free market until they grew into the large tumorous growths you see in some parts of Old Growth California, Houston, and Detroit. They either didn't see the problems that would arise out of suburban living, or didn't care because they were selling tract housing like hot-cakes. >>27981 >Rural areas are much safer, much less polluted, have generally a lower cost of living, and you generally have much more freedom in general. If you wanted you could be completely self-sufficient in the right places, while you will never accomplish that in a city. You will most likely become a wagie, live in a much smaller place for the same price or higher, the air is polluted, there is a possibility that the streets are also polluted, vehicles are noisy, you can get almost nothing by yourself and have to buy everything, and those things are generally overpriced. In urban places surveillance is also much stricter, and your privacy is much lesser than that of the average rural. Many rural places also have more definite cultures, whereas generally in big cities cultures are diluted and eventually disappear. None of those should be a problem in the 21st century but I live in a small town. Concerning institutional power, nothing has really been done politically in the boonies since the feudal age. The base of power and the center of intelligentsia has always been the city. Vienna, Paris, Barcelona, Rome, Prague, Boston, Moscow. Suburbs atomize people and dissolve their political power. Ruralities usually don't atomize people as it is a small community, but it's just that, a small community that can't exercise much power. I guess it atomizes communities. If cities are like how you mentioned, tyrannical, polluted, dependent, cramped, how are you going to change that from the suburbs or rurals? Because if you leave the city to become worse and worse it will only chase you. Nothing in this world has ever been brought about by inaction.

op this is for you! im your Face

>>28262 >None of those should be a problem in the 21st century >Surveillance is not a problem >Noise is not a problem >Pollution is not a problem I beg to differ. At least 2 of those problems problems I can personally say that have been solved ever since I moved to a more suburban area, the only reason I can't vouch for surveillance is that I didn't really care or pay attention to surveillance when I moved, so I don't remember how it was in the city. >The base of power and the center of intelligentsia has always been the city. I won't deny this. But I would also argue that this isn't really that relevant to the discussion. Not all people want to become intellectuals or be involved in events, some want to just live in peace. >Suburbs atomize people and dissolve their political power. Depends on the dependency of suburbs to the city. The place where I live doesn't really have this problem, but that may just be because of the organization of my country and/or my city. >Ruralities usually don't atomize people as it is a small community, but it's just that, a small community that can't exercise much power. I also won't deny this, but you're focusing too much on "exercising power". They may be not able to exercise much power outside of their region, but when taking decisions on the region each individual has more power than an average person in a city exactly because they are a small community with less people. Even if we don't consider a democratic model, it is much easier to have your voice heard exactly because a bigger fraction of the population knows you than in a city, therefore even without being able to participate directly in the decision making process, it is much easier to indirectly influence those around you. >If cities are like how you mentioned, tyrannical, polluted, dependent, cramped, how are you going to change that from the suburbs or rurals? I won't, that's exactly the point. If you continue to live in the city with the hopes that you might change it that's fine, but most people that move away from the cities don't, including myself. I would love to improve the city, but more than that I love my life, and I don't want to waste it away in a place that consumes it without even paying attention to the lives that are being consumed. And I fear that this discussion will go nowhere, since people that dislike cities don't disagree with most things you say, they just view it in a different light. At this point it is just a question of morals.

>>28276 >Surveillance Of suburban wagies who infest it in daytime. A byproduct of inhuman modernist/brutalist architecture and planning that atomizes communities and requires external means of law enforcement and technologically-assisted surveillance. >Noise Suburbanite automobiles make noise. >Pollution All factories and pesticides are in suburbs as figured above in this thread, petroleum carriages of suburban commute workers contribute the most.

>>28284 >Of suburban wagies who infest it in daytime. That's nowhere near as bad. Most suburban wagies wouldn't want to involve themselves in any more trouble than they already have. >Suburbanite automobiles make noise. The flux of automobiles in suburbs is much lesser than in urban areas. >All factories and pesticides are in suburbs as figured above in this thread, petroleum carriages of suburban commute workers contribute the most. Then I think we're not talking about the same thing. In my country yes, there are cities around the most urbanized areas where factories are located, but it doesn't have to be that way, and it is not uncommon to find the opposite. However I'd agree with you 100% if that was the case, and in that case there would be no reason to move to the suburbs since it would be the same thing.

>thread about inefficient, dangerous and polluting transportation method >lainons turn it into American politics

>>28294 for burgers transportation was always a political / lobby issue. Frankly anything touching on countrywide issues cant avoid politics because its all based on influencing lawmaking and steering public funding/tax money.

>>28294 shut up. people will talk about whatever they want, you're free to watch from the corner with your dick in your hands you incessant whiny twat.

>>28294 Yes. That issue absolutely plagues America and Americans are over-represented on English imageboards. Derailers are cancer, but you shouldn't be too surprised.. An imageboard I moderate has a 'no politics outside this one thread' rule and I must say, it keeps the rage users out rather effectively. Hell, people should start putting 'no politics' in their OPs. Lainchan peace within 24 hours.

>>28301 /hum/ started as a containment board for politics. Didn't turn out well as the /hum/acks started spreading into other boards and derailing them. There are only a very small number of oldlains who actually participate in these activies, the vast majority of thread derailers need to lurk moar.

>>28303 >There are only a very small number of oldlains who actually participate in these activities, the vast majority of thread derailers need to lurk moar. I mean, yes, but it's more than just lurking. It's also being told to leave that crap at the gate. I suspect politics soykaffights will always plague non-politics threads unless we see an apolitical cultural resistance (certainly possible but rare and maybe unlikely) or moderator enforcement. To me, one cause is simple. You can see it in action both here and on older imageboards, along with hobby alt. boards. Many grillers and 'leftists' consider the post-2011 dominance of /p­ol/ users and 'storm users', or even 4chan culture altogether (such as wojak derivative monoculture), an invasive cancer that shouldn't be normalized on alternate imageboards, lest we meet the same fate. Many 'rightists' (especially post-2016 4chan refugees, but also a select few old users) consider topics such as pro-gay or pro-trans posts and 'sjws' in general an invasive cancer to imageboards, or even a conspiracy to cancel them from anonymous imageboards, which are mistakenly considered a free speech bastion of the internet, especially those derezzed or censored on more mainstream services. Both want to make the other group unwelcome because they see them as an enemy to 'their comfy imageboard', so as soon as certain topics come up, someone on 'the other side' tells them to fuarrrk off for their ideology and it devolves the thread into low-effort redundant politics soykaf. And I feel a board with major cyberpunk influences will always attract politically-passionate people just like punk does, especially since a lot of cyberpunk is a political satire. It's not quite like some other hobby boards that I browse where politics is usually started by non-local spammers/schizos and unanimously ignored or laughed at.

>>28304 >Both want to make the other group unwelcome because they see them as an enemy to 'their comfy imageboard' To expand on this, both see the other group as a thread to their 'safe space', in a sense. Many on the 'right' (I know left and right are soykaf meaningless terms, but they work here) see imageboards as a safe space from liberal censorship that prevents them expressing themselves and having a good time, and many on the 'left' see alternate imageboards a safe space from the low-quality edgy politics flaming that spread to many boards on 4chan (such as eternal racebait threads on /his/, /sci/, /fit/).

>>28303 good thing no one listens to what you think should be permissible discussion because lainchan would be (even more of) a corpse if they did.

>>28308 lainchan is one of the most active imageboards that I use.

OP, being against cars and for public transportation is against the hacker ethos, as it is also against ownership of yourself. Every criticism of this applies to personal computing or countless other enterprises, and that you don't see this is something that speaks poorly of you.

>>28320 personal computing uses up a lot of land? Wow, I had no idea!

>>28321 Had you been less sarcastic, I'd be less inclined to note that power production facilities and infrastructure does in fact take a lot of space and resources.

>>28323 cont Let's not ignore the refineries for the plastic and rare-earth mining.

Cars suck so much - in my homecity there are so many old and crummy kinds of cars that within ten or so kilometres of the center you can only smell a very pungent gas. Bikes are infinitely better and every1 shld use

>>28324 yes, but those are in planned installations and not in the middle of residential neighborhoods.

>>28324 >>28342 roads cover between 30-50% of the area of most urban centers. There is no way that power plants etc use that much.

>>28213 I just had to reply with these. I get that similar feeling that anon's interpretation of that man when I get fuel after my evening shift is completed past 3 in the morning.

>>28351 I thought the main pun was milk(skim) listed along fuel on the display pillar. Must be regular occurrence in the States then.

>>28353 The entire picture is about that cocky guy smoking a cigarette close to highly-flammable substances on a "family express" gas station.

Can't believe I haven't posted in this thread before. Cars are soykaf, and I'm glad I live in a european country where the problem isn't as big as in north america. I think the need to travel long distances in cars (or simply having the possibility to do it) can be tied down to capitalism, individual and egoistical consumption.

>>28355 Van camper party in front of your scheise apartment and in front of OP's home soon.

>>28380 I like Romani's culture, but if it's white girls again I'll blow it up

>>28381 Blah on the Gypsies and their gypping. White girls are more capable of being hot. Exile the Gypsies to Bangladesh.

Cars are the pinnacle of american individualism though, so that's why they will always be around >take up way too much space >useless in the practical sense, much more effective modes of transportation >almost completely revolving around the individual and being as convenient for them as possible >extremely expensive and over the top essentially it's centered around the individuals convenience, getting people around fast but inefficiently I like the netherlands for this, because I can get almost anywhere on a bike and train, but only if I need to can I ask my friend for a ride

>>28436 > I can get almost anywhere on a bike and train, Assuming you are privileged enough to live near a trainstation or within cycling distance of everything. Meanwhile in the real world there are people who are poor. They live wherever they can afford and work wherever they can get a job. And the only way to make those two ends meet is with a car. Stop being such a privileged white male eurocentrist and be better.

>>28437 > Implying only whites use public transic > Implying only males use public transic > Implying only EU has public transit, what's Russia? > Meanwhile in the real world there are people who are poor. Turns out in the really poor countries, bikes and mopeds are the standard, not cars.

>>28437 in the US, the overwhelming majority of people who use public transit are poor. This is because, as is obvious if you think about it for two seconds, a bus pass is cheaper than a car.

>>28437 Poor people live in dormitories and walk to factory in under 10 minutes.

>>28439 >in the US, the overwhelming majority of people who use public transit are poor. That's not the same thing as most poor people use public transit. Nice try though. >This is because, as is obvious if you think about it for two seconds, a bus pass is cheaper than a car. What is obvious is you are too stupid to understand the argument you are responding to. >>28438 >Turns out in the really poor countries, bikes and mopeds are the standard, not cars. Because cars have no existed in those places long enough to come down in price. Some also have absurd taxes and regulations that cut supply to unobtainable levels. These would be localized exceptions rather than the rule though.

>>28000 The original post you wrote is very political. This is all about urban design and america is an exemplar of car-focused design. Europeans often don't realise how good they have it, but of course designs are still catering too much to cars in most places

>>28441 >That's not the same thing as most poor people use public transit. Nice try though. Did I say it was?

>>28444 Not all Europe is good in this regard, for example towns with less than 20k residents are abysmal in Scandinavia regarding public transit to other towns.

>>28447 No people no money, Seems logical they would lack infrastructure. So how is that failure?

Everyone in this thread, who arguments against cars in favour of public transit should think about the fact that transit between cities and also in the countryside. Public transit is lackluster, at least here in Germany, at the most it goes every hour (about every half hour in the city) and it takes a long ass time to get to your destination, as the driver needs to pick up everyone on the tour. So not only are you limited in when you can go somewhere, you also are forced to account for long driving times. Additionally, you will also need to get to your exact destination, so, you have to walk or use public transit again (only in cities), which gives you additional costs. Furthermore public transport is expensive here, especially if you consider the inflexibility it comes with. Sure it's cheaper than a car (insurance-wise), but it also forces you to wait and drive for hours, and spend more time in a place than necessary.

>>28449 sure, if you're literally only concerned about getting your own ass from point A to point B then a car is probably better. But if you're somebody who cares about urban design, and thinks about what happens when everyone is on the road in their personal vehicle, you start to realize that cars are not the solution.

>>28450 So is public transport. If everyone would use public transport, the busses would be extremely crowded, and most likely the roads would be filled with busses. Transportation is a problem that gets worse the more people are alive. Population reduction is a real solution to this, but quite controversial. Optimized megacities with monorail or train networks are another solution, but they're quite hard to implement on top of the current infrastructure. Honestly, this is a pointless discussion, since optimization of everyday processes and improving people's lives is not in the interest of the higher ups anyways. People have to be kept busy and on a short leash, in order to make them compliant and prevent wrongthink. what before was religion, agricultural work and lack of education, is now money, wage/hourpay work, and sensory overload/internet of distraction. It is quite effective I must admit, and incredibly flexible. It can be used as a suppression tool, but also as a sweetroll. No one would like to miss out on their favourite Netflix show, or their favourite YouTuber, for example. But at the same time, those are the things that keep them caged, compliant, happy. This is the fundamental purpose of all these everyday minor inconveniences: take away time, nibble by nibble, at the bus stop, at the red light, at work, in the restaurant, at home in front of your pc. You're not supposed to think. Of course, this discussion is interesting to have, but unless someone of us is in a position of power, the results are pretty much going to waste.

people had horses for hundreds of years and things were fine. but then they had to go and "fix" something that was fine introducing then mandating these artificial horses called "cars". in the past, driving a horse was someone's job. that's all they had to do. now it's expected that everyone drives their death-mobiles around everywhere through these poisonous tacky roads that tear up the earth. going at ludacris speeds traveling vast distances just to get to some boring grey dump the same as where they came from. people can't grow food locally because the roads tore up the land and the govt stole the rest. so they have to rely on MORE GARBAGE CARS delivering food from big businesses far away and even overseas.

>>28452 People walked everywhere before, and it was all fine. People had their two healthy feet, and that was it. Now they brought those four legged beasts from the lands of those Mongol barbarians, and expect everyone to use them for transport. They soykaf everywhere, they are big and can trample a man easily, if they're not held under control all the time, and you have to cut their giant hooves nail on horseshoes that are expensive as hell, just so they can function and not get sick and die. Back in the days, if you needed to get something somewhere, you just put it on your back and carried it. No need for roads to walk the horses on, no need for bridges or low water to cross rivers, simple using stepping stones or a felled tree was enough. And carrying stuff was an actual job, not a crappy Part of everyone's work. And the food! All we had to grow back then was some grain for bread, and the rest was vegetables and fruits. Now we have to grow en masse for those stinky, dangerous horses. And most of the harvest goes to feed the these horses throughout the winter.

>>28453 > No need for roads to walk the horses on Bullshit. Riding on rough uneven terrain tires out a horse much faster than a dirt road.

>>28459 Alright fine I misread that statement, but it also applies to humans. Try taking a hike in the woods. Then walk on a trail. See the difference.

>>28460 no need to, i already do hike a quite a bit through rough terrain, mainly freshly tilled or unused crop fields. I also run barefoot on grass regularly, and it's not even very well maintained. lots of small sticks and thorns there. 15 km is my highscore in running barefoot. So it's definitely not as bad as you make it out to be. to be honest walking barefoot is so much easier on my feet, i am not even joking. I wish i had the hardiness to walk barefoot in winter, but alas, i still need to harden up quite a bit before i can do that.

>>28437 lol. You completely missed your point. 1- Assuming the lainon you're answering to lives in the NL, there are no places that are "too far from everything" there. 2- If in your soykafhole country there happens to have people who live "too far from everything", it's very likely to be their choice, since most jobs are around cities nowadays. If it's not, it just shows the infrastructures were build assuming people would travel by car, which is retarded and actually acts against your point.

>>28461 >to be honest walking barefoot is so much easier on my feet There is something about muscle support on your feet. There's a reason the whole low-profile shoe meme is a thing.

>>28451 >If everyone would use public transport, the busses would be extremely crowded, and most likely the roads would be filled with busses

>>28451 That is such a defeatist attitude. Why ever have a conversation at all at that point? Let's consider a singular person who reads this thread and is inspired to hate cars also. What can happen? What can a single person do? Like you say, not much, but maybe that person stops driving. Maybe they sell their car and use a rented car (hopefully not by a dystopian car rent service), making the parking problem a little better. Maybe they get into activism and actively pursue the issues of transportation and its logistics. Maybe they go into politics where they influence those who make the decisions. All of this might be a bit far-fetched, but these cases exist. Otherwise we wouldn't have any politicians or activists or whatever. But in any case, what is not at all far-fetched is the following: maybe they go around talking to their friends about this issue. Now if you think about it, we can repeat the chain of maybe's for every single person he talks with about this issue. I won't necessarily disagree with you on the domestication of the working class, but you are using this argument about cars and public transport to justify your worldview it feels like. If you have to wait at the bus stop, it's not because some evil corporate overlord has planned for you to waste your minutes browsing social media, but because those are the logistics of public transport. This is just opinion, but often times it is wiser to ascribe inefficiency to stupidity or lack of care instead of malice. This is not really relevant, but as you say the internet has become a curious tool for those in power and is definitely a tool to compel compliance.

>>28470 You have put some thought into this, and I respect that. I myself have used the argument of "it can't all be planned, things happen, that's human nature". The thing is, the "evil overlord" as you call it, is entirely capable of influencing the masses by adjusting tiny screws: lawmaking processes, donations, moneyflows. Tiny wheels, when turned, translate into enormous consequences, like in a gearbox. Of course, the inefficiency of the system can be attributed to the human factor, but the fact remains that the whole system is inefficient by design. Because the world is large, and spheres of influence have grown so large, you have to look at the things from a grand scale. Big problems may have very specific and incredible causes. I like to point to the AK-rifle as an example for this kind of problem: AK rifles are generally very reliable, hard to break, and easy to maintain. But some AK rifle pattern, specific to certain countries, are generally considered to be of dogcrap quality. And this can have many causes, ranging from grand scale problems like bad materials used, to small scale ones, like the omitting of specific procedures for building the trigger assembly. But often people overlook the fact, that even one single engineer, who has a drinking problem, can cause an entire army to have faulty rifles. Again, the system is flawed by design, and the inefficiency is used for the exploitation of people. This is not defeatist, this is real. I can not step down from this, and I will not.

>>28473 I don't have the energy right now to post a well formulated respone, but you have a very interesting view. There is no denying that seemingly insignificant inefficiencies can have chaotic effects like in the AK rifle example you mention. To get back to the topic of the evil overlord, who is specifically out to get you? Or are those in power targeting everyone? Out of spite, or do those in power simply not know better? You know, this exchange slightly reminds me of this passage in Catch 22 (pics related). The point is that Yossarian is deemed insane, but he might well be the only sane person in an insane world. I know I've went a bit off topic, I hope the mods will forgive me. In any case, I'm not sure I'm ready yet to give up believing that a better future with less cars is possible, practical and implementable withing the current political systems and climates.

>>28474 They're not targeting me specifically. I am merely another number in the statistic, insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It's the masses that are relevant, because the masses can bring change through sheer force. Why they do this, is subject to speculation. I do not know, if they simply wish to control everything, enrich themselves and keep their position of power for the sake of comfort. But this seems pointless, as it carries no purpose, no higher goal. I suspect that they may be benevolent towards humanity as a whole but, as all benevolent tyrants, they disregard the individual for the sake of humanity as a race. Because humanity is bound to descend into conflict without guidance. The total inefficiency of the system, the misery in the world, the... the seemingly hopeless attitude of mine. It is all a for the sake of controlling humanity. Maybe for the sake of humanity, maybe for it's detriment. I do not concern myself with the motives of the higher ups. I follow the movements of the world, and dance along. Step for step, avoiding danger and sneaking a drink here and there. Life is interesting because it is unstable, and you never know what awaits you. But you can anticipate it, prepare, and dodge the danger, as it flies by you. Anyways, i do not want to drive the thread away from its purpose. Thank you for your time, Lain.

I wish I could get rid of my car but having interests outside the city makes it essentially impossible 80 years ago you could travel almost the entire length of my country by train, there was a station a half mile from my home in a small town that would bring you by train to the nearest city in 40 minutes, where in 2 minutes walking you could get on an electrified tram system that would take you wherever you wanted to go in town. There were buses that would take you to any little town or village regularly and on the rare ocassion where wherever it was you were going wasn't serviced by a national public transport there would be a local transport system, even if only a horse and cart, or you could take the train as close as you could then decamp with your bicycle and pedal wherever Now the train line is a bypass, getting anywhere in the country that has a population less than 25k requires a car or hours of inefficient, smelly, infrequent buses, its a nightmare getting around any town or city on foot, everything stinks of diesel (which IMO smells kind of like cum) and the car isnt really even any faster, it takes me 40 minutes to get to work, my grandfather could have made the same journey, to my place of work, in 45 minutes, and he could have done it asleep, drunk, reading, eating etc. I hate cars

>>28464 Your assumption that all 60 people are making the exact same journey from the same place to the same destination is incorrect. Or you are missing the time dimension where people on the bus are wasting significant amounts of time traveling to destinations on behalf of other passengers.

>>28479 >you are missing the time dimension where people on the bus are wasting significant amounts of time traveling to destinations on behalf of other passengers kinda reminds me of something called traffic jams

>>28483 >kinda reminds me of something called traffic jams Traffic jams may or may not be a problem depending on where you are and the time of day. But buses will always waste your time going to stops you don't care about. So it's still a dishonest comparison.

>>28479 Your assumption of destination choice comes from experience with infrastructure designed by degenerates. You grew up with this infrastructure and have become accustomed to it. 1) Before modernist degenerates were let into city planning committees, all cities were traversible by foot from one end to another in under 30 minutes. You can see this on example of any city with old center in relatively intact state. You would spend slightly more time today due to incorporation of automobile roads and necessity to wait for crossing signals, but nonetheless time consumed is relatively small. 2) To cut times spent going from place to place in a city, people used to hire horse carriages (cabs) or used omnibuses/trams. With waiting times under 3 minutes between omnibus or horse-drawn tram, short distance commutes were cut down significantly, for longer distance points, a hired cab could bring you under 15 minutes in any part of a city. 3) First suburbs started appearing with the emergence of steam and electric locomotives which go faster and draw more weight than a horse harness. Each suburban station concentrates residential, business or manufacturing buildings in concentric fashion. Nobody wanted to live too far away from station because they'd have walk long by foot anyways, each railroad suburb was built with densities allowing short last-mile trips from homes or to factory. You can see this relation on late 19th century isochrone maps published by rail companies: commute time topologies stemming from central rail terminal to the outskirts go in star-ray pattern, further you go from a railway (by foot), longer the time spent walking, lesser population density. 4) On modern isochrone maps made for automobile trips you can notice a smoothed out blob-like amoeba shape rather than star pattern. This means: - More roads were built to be accessible for automobile incapacitating the majority of population who do not own or able to drive automobile at the moment (one or two automobiles per nuclear family still limit choice of destination for the rest): children and young adults ages 4 and up, elders ages 75 and up, these roads have taken up space in pockets between "star rays" around major railroads which used to be fields growing food, forests for recreation, micro climate regulation and local biodiversity. - It is impossible to plan transit routes that favor all households/businesses in low-density automobile suburb with decent last-mile accessibility. See: Las-Vegas sprawl and local bus routes. City center buses, trams and trains still have under 3 minute wait time like in 19th century - Walking to an uplink train station in automobile age suburb is out of question completely, privacy-invading globalist business enterprises like rentable e-bicycles are trying to plug as time-saving last-mile transit. 5) If you still prefer living in mcsuburb and driving, consider the following: - Automobile in principle is a luxury item, you afford it because underground mystery fuel and plastics made from it are cheap at the moment, but won't for longer. - Automobile suburbs were initially built for super rich people who did not have to commute to wage job in a city or factory every single day. Accepting non-regular commutes, you also accept longer commute times as a trade-off living faraway from unwashed prole. You can even live as far as night-train distance if you need to go to the big city less than once per month. - Millions of unwashed prole masses NOT choosing automobile as medium for their daily prole commute clogging every single major road around the city is in your direct interest as automobile driver. - New and wider roads always welcome more automobiles. This is one of Parkinson's law corollaries. - Less roads and more diverse nature/local food production in suburban area benefits you as a citizen and human bean in general.

An interesting book on how automobile changed courtship practices in USA, and consequentially, everywhere else. There is even a film called American Graffiti about teenagers who spend their time picking up girls (also inside another car) by riding slowly on main street side-by-side inconveniencing non-leisure drivers. Looks ridiculous to be honest, but apparently it used to be practiced until invention of Myspace, and now American teenagers are bed-ridden and pathologically addicted to small world on screen of their smartphone with courtship moved into cyberspace of discord chatrooms and broadcast mediums like tik tok.

>>28490 >Traffic jams may or may not be a problem depending on where you are and the time of day. They usually happen when a lot of people need to go to roughly the same place at roughly the same time. >But buses will always waste your time going to stops you don't care about. Oh no, my ride is five minutes longer!

>>28509 ayy yo, turn 5 minutes into 20 minutes in rural areas, and it's spot on Nah seriously, busses in the city are pretty nice. timing your arrival and departure, travel times can be annoying tho. One misstep, and you can be late not by 5 minutes, but by a halfhour, depending on the timing of the busses.

>>28510 As one who has lived in rural areas, I can tell you that the latency between buses is a lot more annoying than the total travel time. Because if you miss your bus, you might have to wait several hours for the next, instead of 10~15 minutes like in the city.

>>28213 >2.24 for gas fuarrrk this gay soykaf world

>>27906 You are just not living in the right place

Just love how this thread is over a half year and cartroids are STILL seething over OP.

ITT urbanites who failed their driving test every time

There are two Lains inside you

>>30507 only one goes outside because he can drive

>>30508 HERE IN MY CAR I FEEL SAFEST OF ALL I CAN LOCK MY DOORS

>>30508 Driving a car doesn't count as being outside, hon.

>>28511 >As one who has lived in rural areas, I can tell you that the latency between buses is a lot more annoying than the total travel time. In countries with many small villages the bus does not go direct to the city it zig zags from village to village in the general direction of the city which can easily take 2-3x longer than driving direct (e.g. 60 minutes instead of 20 minutes). And then you've got to get back as well...

>>30517 lain you have just described my situation. not accounting the jog to the bus stop it takes me almost an hour to get to the city by bus, while the same trip by car can take 25 minutes tops. >>30516 it does, chud >>30519 pandemic was actually fun as soykaf. I kinda regret that I didn't spend that time more productively, as I didn't have to waste X hours daily on commute and school. if there are any jewish satanic freemason pedophiles that are willing to give me one more shot, please give us another pandemic. lol

>>30524 It depends, if you choose to live rural you might not mind the commute. I live 30 minutes away from everything and I like that. So it's only a problem if you don't like where you live. That being said, I think in cities, as populations grow we're going to have to get away from car oriented cities in the future because we'll simply start running out of space. Urban planning is fuarrrked in general here, I think that's the root of the problem

>>30524 >its wasteful of time and resources. Why don't we address that problem first and foremost? I agree. Anybody who lives from state benefits should be kicked out of the cities so people who actually have jobs don't have to travel as much.

>>27888 >Takes up 80% of the space in any city for roads and parking lots Can't argue against that, cars are the dominant species on earth, infrastructure is made for them, not people. >Creates a lot of unbearable noise and smell I like the smell of gasoline, but I wouldn't want to live in big town with high traffic. >Main purpose is to further accelerate society and atomize people It's to move people and things over distances too long to walk/cycle or to places that aren't reachable by rail or air. I'd happily ride the train or my bicycle to work, but that would mean living closer to town, paying more for a smaller property and dramatically lowering my quality of life. I regularly drive people to and from town, coworkers, kids going to school, hitchhikers, I made some friends and got some opportunities that way. >Anyone who is interested in cars is always a hick or an autist Cars, like any other thing, are interesting provided you dig deep enough. I personally don't care much for mine beyond going from A to B with minimal maintenance an good mileage. I can see why some people are as interested in them as I am in computing. >Extremely unfun to operate, have to take a billion driving rules up the ass constantly I like the feeling of interfacing with a large, powerful machine, getting a feel for it, interpreting its feedback. Cars, like any tool, can be dangerous when in the hands of anyone unfit to handle them. Rules are put in place to avoid that. I don't want to see lunatics use potentially dangerous machinery of any kind. >Everyone has a wildly different approach to driving meaning everyone is angry or unhappy with everyone That is mostly down to which degree driving regulation actually is enforced. I find driving in most european countries I've been to be very safe and enjoyable, save for Italy. I wouldn't want to drive in Tunisia, though my taxi drivers there didn't seem to mind.

>>30611 >kek'd, it really is peak american cockiness You're the one who wants to rebuild entire cities around your personal preferences.

>>27963 >They abandoned America's academic, cultural and political centers for their little suburban refugia where they didn't have to confront their problems. The funniest thing to me is that you think this is some kind of revolutionary act, when by moving away from the city all you're doing is surrendering the last bit of institutional power you have. I've been living in apartments for over half a decade but I finally saved up enough to buy a house. Now I'm moving to the suburbs. In apartments, I've been flooded by neighbors, woken up by loud music, woken up by people running, can only manage a tiny balcony garden, can't make any significant changes to the apartment, and am deliberately locked away from infrastructure, like the water heater. If I was a neurotic control freak, I could spend every minute of every day trying to control the people around me to fix these problems, but I'd rather control things than people. Instead of fighting, I just moved away. Now when I see a problem, I just fix it. The HOA is not nearly as paternalistic as a landlord. As a bonus, I've learned more about construction and utilities in a month than I've learned in years. Humans are not meant to live packed in like sardines. The sort of political and institutional power a city provides is only valuable to bullies who want to control others. Cities are inherently authoritarian. >>30623 >You're the one who wants to rebuild entire cities around your personal preferences. Yes, the typical city goer wants the others to bend to their every whim, but since they have no power they seethe in frustration. $industrial-society-and-its-future

>>30625 >If I was a neurotic control freak, I could spend every minute of every day trying to control the people around me to fix these problems All you have to do is buy your own building instead of renting. Renting is just a tradeoff, less control for cheaper cost of living. >Cities are inherently authoritarian. You were in this situation because you wanted cheap living not because you were in a city.

>>30626 >All you have to do is buy your own building instead of renting. thats what he did. Trouble frequently is, in cities, buildings of equivalent size and quality are more expensive, and have smaller properties. Sometimes you can buy a flat, but that has many of the same problems as renting a flat. >renting is a trade off, cheaper CoL for less control depending on circumstances, its actually not that different in price. I have a lot of friends who've bought houses and end up spending less on housing then they did when renting. The big things you're buying with a rental are having repairs be someone elses responsibility, and having the less commitment to remain in the space.

>>30627 Owning property pays off more when you rent it out instead of living in it yourself. Then you can deduct all expenses from taxes you otherwise couldn't. Sitting in your own home basically lowers the profit margin of the home. >>30625 If you want a quiet rented place dont do it yourself, rent in a building with old people, they will do all the work for you.Many got nothing else to do than watchdog the apartment.

>>30625 >The HOA is not nearly as paternalistic as a landlord. Varies. My landlord doesn't give a fuarrrk about anything I do. The HOA horror stories I've heard from home owners on the other hand, some of those HOAs are insane. This juxtaposition of dense cities with modern American suburbs is both a false dichotomy and a strawman. When people talk about countering suburban sprawl and having walkable neighborhoods, it doesn't mean moving everyone into a big city and cramming them together. It means getting rid of the asinine, car-centric regulations on housing and zoning that were introduced by lobbyists from the automobile industry. Regulations that prevent suburbs from having nearby businesses or mixed housing which forces anyone in a suburb to commute any time they need goods, keeps tax paying businesses out of the neighborhood, prevents the neighborhood from earning money, results in that neighborhood's infrastructure maintenence being subsidized by taxes on city-based businesses and projects, more often than not resulting in economically unsustainable neighborhoods which slowly fall into disrepair and reliance on cities for their funding. You could live in a neighborhood where you can walk or bike to a grocery store in a few minutes without fear of getting ran over by a car and still have your own lawn and privacy.

>>30627 >Trouble frequently is, in cities, buildings of equivalent size and quality are more expensive Do you understand that "I can't afford it" is not the same thing as "it's impossible". >>30631 >other people need to pay more taxes so the government can build infrastructure to make my car-free lifestyle more pleasant Can I interest you in a free helicopter ride instead?

>>30633 >>other people need to pay more taxes so the government can build infrastructure to make my car-free lifestyle more pleasant >Can I interest you in a free helicopter ride instead? Can I interest you in a lesson on how to read instead? The current car-centric model results in people and businesses who do not live in the suburbs paying more in taxes to support car-centric suburbs and infrastructure. Modern suburbs are a drain on cities' finances and a large part of why so many western cities are broke or in debt. Your strawman is literally the opposite of the current situation, which is that people in walkable areas are paying more in taxes to support suburbanites' car-centric lifestyles.

>>30631 >This juxtaposition of dense cities with modern American suburbs is both a false dichotomy and a strawman. When people talk about countering suburban sprawl and having walkable neighborhoods, it doesn't mean moving everyone into a big city and cramming them together. Fair point. It is possible to hate cars without being obsessed with cities. >>30633 >Do you understand that "I can't afford it" is not the same thing as "it's impossible". If you want to do the alternative, then not being able to afford the alternative is the same as the alternative being impossible. Elaborate plans for ideal societies are worthless without an actionable plan to get there. This is why utopian idealists ("We just gotta kill everyone and recreate society!") are so annoying.

>>30634 >The current car-centric model results in people and businesses who do not live in the suburbs paying more in taxes to support car-centric suburbs and infrastructure Source?

>>30634 >Modern suburbs are a drain on cities' finances This ignores the fact that there's a lot of suburbs that are legally speaking seperate cities. Most big american cities with significant suburbs do this. If someone moving out is a drain on your tax base, ok. >people in walkable areas are paying more in taxes to support suburbanites' car-centric lifestyles. People in walkable areas are dependant on car and road infrastructure. Even NEETS who leave their appartments twice in six months are dependant on car and road infrastructure. This is what brings farm produce to processing areas, food into grocery stores, in some cases fuel into power plants, and video game developers into their places of work, among many other things. Roads are vital to the lifestyle of basically every Non Hermit. Its possible that they're paying more i.e. for upkeep of roads that 'properly' speaking aren't neccisary, but saying they all together don't benefit from them is absurd. Also: I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who got a bill when they decided to pave the road in front of my house. That wasn't paid for by mass taxes in my case, it was paid for directly from the pockets of my family and my neighbors.

>>30640 >car and road infrastructure. This is what brings farm produce to processing areas, food into grocery stores, in some cases fuel into power plants, and video game developers into their places of work, among many other things Idiot. All we have to do is build train tracks directly to every grocery store and alleviate the need for evil cars altogether.

>>30640 >This ignores the fact that there's a lot of suburbs that are legally speaking seperate cities. Most big american cities with significant suburbs do this. No, I am specifically talking about the suburbs which are legally a part of the city. The financial drain is not because of less people being in the city. The financial drain is because the infrastructure maintenance for suburbs is much higher than for mixed use areas, suburban homes generally see lower property taxes, suburbs see higher subsidies from local, state, and federal governments, and, due to zoning laws forbidding businesses or multifamily housing in most suburbs, generate little to no money for the city. >Most big American cities I should clarify that this isn't just a big city issue, but an issue that affects most typical American cities. >People in walkable areas are dependant on car and road infrastructure. Even NEETS who leave their appartments twice in six months are dependant on car and road infrastructure. This is what brings farm produce to processing areas, food into grocery stores, in some cases fuel into power plants, and video game developers into their places of work, among many other things. Roads are vital to the lifestyle of basically every Non Hermit. >Its possible that they're paying more i.e. for upkeep of roads that 'properly' speaking aren't neccisary, but saying they all together don't benefit from them is absurd. Yes, it would be absurd to say that. But again this is a strawman and a false dichotomy. Advocating for walkable neighborhoods does not mean that we need to destroy all roads and never use cars or that I think cars and roads aren't beneficial. It means getting rid of the zoning laws that make it illegal to build mixed use neighborhoods so that we can have pleasant neighborhoods that are financially self-sustaining. >Also: I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who got a bill when they decided to pave the road in front of my house. That wasn't paid for by mass taxes in my case, it was paid for directly from the pockets of my family and my neighbors It's very unlikely that you and your neighbors covered the full cost of it. Generally cities will cover 50% at the minimum, and often 100%, but that can vary from city to city. If suburbanites were to truly cover their own infrastructure maintenance needs, they would see their taxes skyrocket. On that subject, often taxes aren't the only thing cities are using to cover maintenance cost for suburbs. Cities will sometimes leverage their good assets to take on debt to cover the maintenance costs of existing suburbs - it's obviously a pretty bad idea to take on debt to pay for something that costs you money, but nonetheless this is a somewhat frequent approach because it addresses the problem in the short-term and keeps residents happy. More common however is an arguably even worse approach where the city relies income from new development projects (often new suburbs or big lot stores (which also usually bring less money to the city than walkable neighborhoods while also being much less resilient to economic changes)) to cover some of the old maintenance costs of other suburbs - guaranteeing more maintenance costs in the future for a short term illusion of wealth. There are also grants and bailouts from state and federal governments, but that's just taxes (more of which comes from dense areas) with more steps. Back in the 40s and 50s when modern style suburbs were starting to sprout up, it wasn't as huge of a deal. America had a lot of money (thanks WWII) and the federal government was funneling money into single-family suburban homes and other car-centric infrastructure (thanks automobile lobbyists). Now we're a few generations in and cities have racked up massive backlogs of suburban maintenance projects that most cities cannot afford to actually do. >>30639 A good entry-level source for this stuff is the book "Strong Towns: A Bottom Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity." The author is an engineer with city planning experience who goes into much more detail and examples than I ever could on lainchan. If you want a brief introduction to the ideas and some of the data before reading it, https://youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI covers some relevant data in a short video (links to articles and data the video is citing is in the description).

You suburb argument hyperfocuses on one aspect while ignoring benefits beyond direct taxes. I.E. bigger city = more smog = more health issues. Living outside with some green around will reduce sick and improve productivity. Note also that no matter how low land taxes are - what would happen if you put all these people in a soviet block? You get lots of unused land making no money at all. If you think farm land thats taxed waay lower to building land. And unless you got a central planned gov you would also get people simply leaving your place to cities that still allow them to own nice big homes. btw on the matter of roads - i believe that was also hit by planned obsolescence. You could have them much better requiring less repair which would drop cost significantly.

>>30666 >I.E. bigger city = more smog = more health issues. Living outside with some green around will reduce sick and improve productivity. works great until all the smog from the millions of suburbanite commuters gets blown into the suburbs instead. Also, greenery gets paved over to build housing tracts. Most of the trees in a typical suburb are planted. There's no reason the same couldn't be done in dense urban cores.

>>30666 >You suburb argument hyperfocuses on one aspect while ignoring benefits beyond direct taxes. I.E. bigger city = more smog = more health issues. Living outside with some green around will reduce sick and improve productivity. The argument was primary in response to a lain's misconception that walkable neighborhoods would increase taxes on others hence the focus on money. >bigger city Again, it is not a choice between suburbs or a big, cramped city. Walkable, mixed use, low and medium density neighborhoods are a possibility. >more smog Over half of the air pollution that causes smog is from vehicles, in some cities it is even higher (https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/smog-soot-and-other-air-pollution-transportation). When your city design encourages walking and biking over driving a car and allows people to live their lives without driving every day, vehicle use is reduced and thus smog is reduced. >more health issues Setting aside that your smog argument is inaccurate, one of the biggest health issues facing us today is obesity, which is partly caused by widespread sedentary lifestyles. Walkable neighborhoods help with because people are no longer spending their travel time sitting in a car. Instead they're spending that time walking or cycling and getting exercise. There are also less hospitalizations and permanent injuries from traffic accidents when less people are driving. >outside with some green around I think you have the wrong idea. Walkable neighborhoods should still have green around. Again, lawns can exist there. Furthermore many have nature paths that get you to your destination and roadside trees are often used to make the roads feel more cramped to discourage speeding and to protect pedestrians. I can say anecdotally that when I lived in a semi-walkable area, I spent more time outside with green around. I had a handful of regular destinations whose routes involved walking through nature trails. And not "there are some trees along the path" nature trails, but nature trails that took you through a thick enough forest that you could not see the city even when the trees were all dead in winter. But when living in unwalkable suburbs, the only thing around is flat lawns, a couple of planted trees (some that actually smell like cum lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrus_calleryana) and pavement. If I want nature now, I have to drive out of my way to a trail or campground. >Note also that no matter how low land taxes are - what would happen if you put all these people in a soviet block? Again, a dense soviet block isn't the goal. >You get lots of unused land making no money at all. Unused land is fine. It makes no money, which is fine, but modern suburban land costs money, which is bad. >If you think farm land thats taxed waay lower to building land. Farm land is also less expensive for the city to maintain (if the city even needs to) and provides a strong benefit to the community. Communities need food, they don't need culs-de-sac. >And unless you got a central planned gov you would also get people simply leaving your place to cities that still allow them to own nice big homes. Again, you can still have a nice house with a lawn and white picket fence and all that in a walkable neighborhood. Also, people generally like living in walkable, mixed use neighborhoods. The few that remain in America and Canada are pretty highly sought after, sometimes with giant waiting lists to get into. >btw on the matter of roads - i believe that was also hit by planned obsolescence. You could have them much better requiring less repair which would drop cost significantly. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a solution for building roads with little to no maintenance costs (aside from not using them). Doing the best we can now, we still expect expensive maintenance every 20-40 years (depending on asphalt vs concrete, traffic, weather, etc). Roads are not the only issue either, utilities infrastructure also needs to be maintained for example.

>>30664 >Generally cities will cover 50% at the minimum yeah thats interesting. I don't know and I'd have to try and look it up. Neighborhood wasn't even legally a city for what its worth, not sure but I don't suppose that's a big fraction of the population that doesn't live in a city/town thing, and county might have chipped in proprtionally. >Yes, it would be absurd to say that. But again this is a strawman and a false dichotomy yeah this is true. From what you're saying here you seem like a relatively reasonable guy, but the straw man does at least seem to exist in i.e. the OP, take this line >if I got 3 wishes removing cars from existence would come before any global or personal interests. Usually I'm kinda an anti car guy. Parking lots take up a dumb amount of space. Nobody likes sitting in traffic. It seems like there's a lot of things we could do better with respect to especially urban transport and planning, but there's sometimes a kinda detached-from-reality density fetishist type that would have everyone live in some sort of bizzare version of manhattan with rooftop farms and drone food delivery robots. I'm not sure such a (self sustaining) society is practical, and if it existed I think I'd quite possibly be happy-er living in a suburb. >thanks automobile lobbyists wasn't part of it also the 'well if we move more people and infastructure outside of city centres, when the nukes hit we'll fare better' type of attitude ? >urban economics I wonder if part of this isn't also a product of electoral politics. Mayor/council who serve for a couple years are more incentivized to spend money and get projects going than to penny pinch. >>30666 cursed trips but trips all the same >You could have them much better requiring less repair which would drop cost significantly. This is something I've thought about, do you have any specific ideas/things I should read about this ? Its also something that would need to vary considerably by region I'm sure. Roads in i.e. new england don't need to be the same as roads in louisiana or dakota. I do get the impression there's some regional differences in construction as it is today, but this might be more contractor style than a well thoughtout design choice.

>>30670 If you're not legally in any city, it's possible you and your HOA covered it all. There are cases where HOAs will separate from the city and take on all the infrastructure needs themselves, but that's a very small percentage. >the straw man does at least seem to exist in i.e. the OP To be fair, I think OP was just blowing off some steam and being hyperbolic. But yeah I don't doubt that there are some extremists who really feel that way about cars, especially in some of the more extreme environmental circles. But most of the time people talking about walkable and cyclable areas just want places where you don't need to own a car to have a good life. >there's sometimes a kinda detached-from-reality density fetishist type that would have everyone live in some sort of bizzare version of manhattan with rooftop farms and drone food delivery robots. I'm not sure such a (self sustaining) society is practical, and if it existed I think I'd quite possibly be happy-er living in a suburb. That's true. Definitely hate whenever media does an article or clip about some dude growing tomatoes on a big city roof and frames it as "is this the future of big cities?" >wasn't part of it also the 'well if we move more people and infastructure outside of city centres, when the nukes hit we'll fare better' type of attitude Yeah, me blaming it all on lobbyists is definitely fallacious. Lobbyists played a part, but nukes were a concern and a lot of people just liked the idea at the time. People back then also didn't need to be concerned about climate change or dependency on oil since the USA had the biggest oil reserves at the time. >I wonder if part of this isn't also a product of electoral politics. Mayor/council who serve for a couple years are more incentivized to spend money and get projects going than to penny pinch. My only insight into this is from the Strong Towns author. He briefly mentions it in his book and his takeaway from having interacted with many mayors and key townsfolk was that most of them just don't fully understand the problem and think they're doing what's best for the city, or are hopeful that it can be fixed if they buy themselves enough time. I'm a little more pessimistic and, same as you, suspect that local officials care more about short-term results that make them look good for their time in office than the longterm consequences. But admittedly for me, that is mostly just a gut feeling from a distrust in politicians.

>>30666 anon, I think you're forgatting that the goal of a city isn't to make profit, it's to get enough money to supply basic life nessecities. Of course farm lands give less money in tax to a city than a suburb, but farm lands don't need stroads, tap water, sewers or gas

>>30700 > goal of a city isn't to make profit, it's to get enough money to supply basic life necessities Your goal is a living place. Administration is max profit. Just look at housing speculation where they let corps buy up housing and keep it unoccupied as they merely speculate on it. End result is higher shortage which benefits sellers to increase prices but doesn't help anyone who needs to find a place to live in.

>>30699 You were also provided a short video that visualizes some of the data collected and you were told where to find the sources used in it. You asked a short specific question about a complex problem, naturally the answer will be more complex than the question.

>>30702 I don't think you understand how a city works

>>30706 i dont see you disproving my point

Been listening to the The War On Cars podcast recently. Quite a few interesting episodes. I've been considering starting a youtube channel to talk about urbanism in my city, and more specifically bike infrastructures. I already have quite a few ideas, I just need a gopro to record on bike and get some nice cager shots flood detected, post discarded how are you guys? I got hit by cars twice in june, once it was not very serious, the other I went flying for a couple meters and landed on my shoulder. Hurt like hell but thankfully nothing broken. Although it kinda left me traumatized, I take all intersections super-slowly now

>>32625 I've never been hit by a car. My method is to be extremely vigilant and also to make aggressive eye contact with car drivers.

>>35367 >anyone can relate? Not really. My car gives me freedom and makes me more productive. If it stops being useful I'll just sell it.

>>35421 Every automobile has an identifier number plate, every driver has to possess a "license" to drive a certain class of vehicle and also a permit to drive a vehicle with particular number plate. Automatically detecting suspect vehicles and restricting access to certain areas has been a staple of mass data mining applications for as long as automobile and computers exist. A pedestrian or bicycler on the other and does not need a license to walk or wear specific type of shoe. All identifiable features of body can be easily and legally obscured by clothing and garments. As I personally witnessed during covid lockdowns, road traffic halted to minimum removing air and sound pollution, people started walking and cycling from place to place since metro train access was also monitored and limited. Everyone wore masks so it was easy to blend it and avoid mass surveillance. Until pedestrians are required to wear always visible number plates on their chest and back like in 1984, or governments install automatic face recognition surveillance on every walking path, I'd vouch that current examples of walkable old towns (everything has to be in economically sound walking distance to be accessible, makes sense - right?) are less susceptible to forced movement restriction than planned (post)modernist automobile-oriented agglomerations.

>>35424 Every automobile has an identifier number plate, every driver has to possess a "license" to drive a certain class of vehicle and also a permit to drive a vehicle with particular number plate. Automatically detecting suspect vehicles and restricting access to certain areas has been a staple of mass data mining applications for as long as automobile and computers exist. >plates and licenses government problems, not car problems. >camera surveillance is a staple of mass data mining so is facial recognition ? also government problem, not car problem. >ped.s and bikers dont need no loicenses many places required to identify if interrogated by police, even if just walking. Various places have certainly toyed with licensing bicyclists like motorists. Government could impose requirements for plating and all that on bikes, they just choose not to. >garments can cover all identifiable features yeah a lot of the popular anti mask legislation in various places got swept under the rug when corona took off. maybe we'll go back to that again lol. >less air and sound pollution is nice yes, thats an actual car problem. with the exception of this all your complaints are basically 'wouldnt it be nice if the government didn't suck'. Yes it would be nice. >highly walkable places are less endangered by movement restriction. One needs to better define movement restriction to adequately discuss this. At the end of the day cities are all fully dependant on road infrastructure if only for food and rare goods. Cars are bigger so they do not require as fine a net to catch, but on the other hand they are faster and can carry more things than a man by himself and on another hand mass transit and such things can be shut down by one persons whim or a bunch of people not doing something, whereas cars can only well be quickly stopped within a city by a bunch of people doing something like blocking roads.

>>35563 Who are you trying to convince? You sound like a vegan. If your lifestyle really is superior then shut up and enjoy it. Everytime you screech about how terrible cars are your cognitive dissonance shines through. And as >>35562 says stop projecting your life onto everyone else. Some people enjoy living in the country. Some people have friends and family scattered across hundreds of miles. Some people need to travel for a living. If you can fit your whole life into walking distance then good for you.

>>35564 Nibba, all of it is basically tug of war, you're doing the same shutting me down, open your fuarrrking eyes. >Enjoying car ridden soykafholes Yea, there are people that enjoy eating bugs too. Mind taking a bite yourself? Traveling is not car exclusive, period. Sigh. No offense, you are right. We're just fighting for own convenience. Cartards strong and their lifestyle popular, though, the only difference.

>>35565 >Enjoying car ridden soykafholes You understand there is this big green place you can live which is not a city?

>>35566 >Yo you don't like it? Just don't buy it! Move, flee, run, close your eyes and whistle a cheerful song duuuude

>>35567 Acting like a child won't help your case. I appreciate you live in a city but many people don't. Some people enjoy living close to nature. And if the nearest food store is 10 miles away then a car is essential. And no it's not a "dirty, noisy, polluted and cluttered mess". All the things you complain about are functions of population density, not cars themselves.

>>35566 Rural people are far more dependent on their cars and trucks. At least it is possible to live in most inner cities without your own vehicle but outside the city/suburbs you'd be completely stranded. I speak from experience.

>>35568 >>35569 Yes, I'm talking about cities specifically. I've lived in a place like that, cars are indeed essential for those people, and I see no ill in them using those, but only as long as there's no better (yes, from my perspective) alternative.

>>35570 >I'm talking about cities specifically The point of the anti-car agenda is to get rid of all cars and force citizens to be utterly dependent on an increasingly malevolent government. EVs are the first step, only a fraction of current car owners will be able to afford a $50k EV and a $20k battery swap every 3 years. After that carbon credits will ensure that no matter how much money you have you won't be able to charge those EVs anyway. Can you imagine Karen waiting 3 months for a solar panel to charge her Tesla for one trip to the beach and thinking she's saving the world. Then they win. But I guess that's not what you want to talk about. >only as long as there's no better (yes, from my perspective) alternative So what are we talking about. You think that eliminating cars from your city will improve your standard of living? It's not like you're eliminating the people inside those cars. Don't you think it will make crowding even worse as everyone tries to move closer to the center or closer to public transport links. Because the thing about cars is that there are roads everywhere, people can spread their living space around. But if the only way to get somewhere is the train then everyone needs to live next to the train station.

>>35573 >Anti-car agenda I'm not a part of it, just want fresher air, cleaner streets and less noise. I understand that public transport can get your infrastructure just as cluttered, especially one that's been build around personal cars, so it would take more than just banning cars and spawning more public transport to make cities less polluted and optimize the space. Regardless, I still think cars are a part of the issue (let it be my personal issue, if that suits you better, sure) and that transformation is possible, especially in European countries where people seem to care about such issues more or less. I understand how you could find the modern conditions tolerable, and don't think said transformation will take place in any near future, though.

>>35583 I like you, I'll let you stay in my bunker.

>>35582 Banning personal cars in urban areas wouldn't be a problem if governments were competent enough to put in non-car-dependent infrastructure. But they're not.

>>35587 It's delusional the think you can design a system with extra constraints and it will somehow be more efficient than what evolved naturally. It's also delusional to think the designers of any new system will have your best interest in mind rather than their own.

>>35654 Nothing about the current dominance of cars "evolved naturally". The automotive industry lobbied (aka bribed) hard to de-fund public transit and build the sprawling car-choked freeway system we have today. Do you think the people who designed it had your best interests in mind?

It's a silly thing to whine about now. This is the way it works here. If it irks you then move. Like the smarmy pundits on youtube. It's tiresome. What do you want?

>>35664 These things can't be changed at this point. Actually moving against cars and making progress on that would fuarrrk up so many lives that you'd be a borderline criminal idealist.

>>35665 Actually, it wouldn't. Just invest in infrastructure and improved planning so that more people have the option to abandon their cars, and slowly incentivize it once that's in place. You'll never get 100% but you could definitely get more than 50%.

>>27888 I'll support public transport and walkable cities when the US finds a solution to having 12% of the population commit 50% of the crime and most of Europe stops threatening to flood the country with foreigners to prop up their failing pensions.

>>35668 This is my main concern. Imagine if you end up having children and having to expose them to whacked out junkies who are out of control. Does anyone have any hypothetical solutions to this?

>>35669 This is the same situation I'm in, if I were Japanese I'd have no issue with it. The problem is the US and large cities in Europe (due to migrants) are not civilized enough for population density to be comfortable. The US and western Europe are not yet willing to have a discussion on how to fix the problems with their ethnic ghettos. (I don't say this in a menacing way, I just don't think they're willing or possibly they're incapable of doing so). Further covid showed that sicknesses analogous to the flu are enough to shut down the entire area and draconian measures like stay at home orders are far more likely to occur. Prior to covid people would probably be more likely to support the policies/narratives discussed in this thread but we've recently been shown that we can't trust our government to not abuse control of transportation. Beyond all this rent and property prices are already out of control in the anglosphere, particularly Canada and Australia but the US and UK are undergoing a crisis at the moment as well. This crisis is more prevalent in urban centers that would accommodate public transport or walkable cities well. This will likely lead to society falling further into car reliance, which is not good, but because our society and government are unwilling to fix other issues it is the only way to avoid the ramifications of that inaction.

>>35666 >actually it wouldn't Actually it would >just invest You're clueless as to how the world works

>>35675 That lain you're responding to has the right idea. People will naturally switch over to more convenient public transportation - but it has to exist first. And it's not like building public transportation will suddenly stop every car in America - that's the type of fearmongering big auto would want you to believe. Have a read of >>28504 Speaking of fearmongering... >>35669 >whacked out junkies who are out of control Also >>35670 Regardless of whether or not this is even warranted, it's false dichotomy. You can start working towards walkable cities without worrying about >THE MIGRANTS ...or whatever else you're implying here. Your point about control of transportation is interesting, though. Opinions?

>>35656 >Do you think the people who designed it had your best interests in mind? Evolution is the opposite of design, incremental changes adapting to the changing environment. >The automotive industry lobbied (aka bribed) hard to de-fund public transit and build the sprawling car-choked freeway system Do you have any sources I can read about this? I don't mean to strawman but it feels like your thought process is: public transport is superior -> nobody wants to fund public transport -> it must be an evil conspiracy. It couldn't just be that nobody wants to fund public transport because it is inefficient and waste of resources and cities that build trains lines lose tax revenue to cities that build roads. >>35664 >stalling the shift to non-oil Good ideas don't require force. >>35666 >Just invest in infrastructure and improved planning so that more people have the option to abandon their cars Funny how it's always someone else who has to pay to build your utopia. How about you "invest" in whatever you want and leave me alone. >>35680 >Kick people off for rude or indecent behavior and arrest them for criminal behavior. And what if the police doesn't want to arrest them because that would be "racist"? You want to give up all your autonomy to the government but don't seem to realize the government gives zero fuarrrks about your safety or wellbeing.

>>35700 >Good ideas don't require force. ("force" here meaning persuasion and use of political will to achieve non-oil) ah yes, because [capitalism, the majority, the strong] are known for always making decisions in your best interest

>>35712 >use of political will Politics is making laws. When people don't follow the laws then men with guns force them to. Politics is force. >ah yes, because [capitalism, the majority, the strong] are known for always making decisions in your best interest What decisions is "capitalism" making for you? You are surrounded by advertisements every day. Isn't the fact that they have to literally beg you for money proof that they have zero power over you? Anyway the point is if EVs and public transport and whatever else you're selling is so great then people would just use them, you wouldn't need to force anyone. Admitting that you need to ban cars first is admitting that cars are better. And if cars are better then you are deliberately lowering people's standard of living by banning them. Not the rich who have private planes anyway, you are lowering standard of living for the poor.

>>35700 >Evolution is the opposite of design, incremental changes adapting to the changing environment. My guy, the freeway system didn't evolve through some natural process, it was designed and built by people. >Do you have any sources I can read about this? https://sci-hub.ru/10.1017/s0898030600007016 seems to have a fairly comprehensive overview of historical auto lobbying. There's also the "GM streetcar conspiracy" but IMO that's just an urban legend. Streetcars failed because they didn't have dedicated right-of-way. >Good ideas don't require force. They require a lot of effort. >Funny how it's always someone else who has to pay to build your utopia. How about you "invest" in whatever you want and leave me alone. Nigga we already pay for the roads you drive on, I'm saying how I think _our_ money should be spent. If I had to pay an extra $20 in taxes a year to get better transit options I would happily pay it. >And what if the police doesn't want to arrest them because that would be "racist"? Cops don't need to be anywhere near this. Give bus drivers guns, I say. >You want to give up all your autonomy to the government but don't seem to realize the government gives zero fuarrrks about your safety or wellbeing. I want the government to give a fuarrrk about my safety and wellbeing by giving me the option to not be trapped in debt for the privilege of being able to get from point A to point B.

>>35723 >My guy, the freeway system didn't evolve through some natural process, it was designed and built by people. They didn't build them all at once did they. You build a road and see how it goes. If lots of people use it maybe you build another one, or add a few more lanes. If nobody uses it you abandon it, maybe even build over it. That's how the road system evolves right. Only china builds thousands of miles of 5 lane highways going to nowhere just to hit government quotas. >Theoretically, [this article] attempts to combine aspects of two conflicting traditions: pluralism and neomarxism. My shaqiq what are you linking me? >If I had to pay an extra $20 in taxes a year to get better transit options I would happily pay it. Or the transport options could be privatized and then you'll see A. how much it really costs and B. how much people actually want it. >$20 in taxes How can I pay 1000x more tax than you but our votes are worth the same lol democracy. >Cops don't need to be anywhere near this. Give bus drivers guns, I say. Now we're talking. Cleanup the genepool. >giving me the option to not be trapped in debt for the privilege of being able to get from point A to point B What do you mean? Only idiots buy new cars. The Top Gear rule is £1 per CC (so don't spend more than £2000 for a 2L car). I don't know how that converts into dollars and your cubic inches autism but you've got google.

>>35719 >ur trying to ban cars >also ur lowering the standard of living for the poor >>35724 >privatize the roads because obviously we just aren't doing capitalism hard enough to solve the problem >cleanup the genepool mfw

>>35726 >Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if public transit became a private enterprise. The fares would go up Not necessarily, the new york subway was apparently private, cheap and profitable all at the same time before government capture. https://mises.org/wire/decades-transit-trouble-new-yorks-subways >>35727 Is someone triggered?

>>35728 >Is someone triggered? nah, just disappointed

>>35728 >Not necessarily As it stands, fares are so low in modern transit because they get massive government subsidies. If they had to pay for road usage I imagine buses would really feel the burden. Roads and urban railroads are also a situation where monopolies would naturally form, because space is so limited. Thus it makes sense that they would be regulated as utilities. also, from the article you posted: >The subways were never privately owned. >The IRT, despite repeated requests in the 1920s to raise the nickel fare, was never allowed a higher fare even though costs skyrocketed owing to World War I inflation. Seems like while they were privately operated, they were still under some kind of exclusive agreement with the city and probably were subsidized with tax money.

>>35734 >Or rather, the profit motive is to throw as much money around as you can so you can ask for a bigger budget next year. This also happens within departments of any large enough business. >Don't forget the government and their billionaire cronies own the media so when they run stories about how privatization is always bad and nationalization is always good that's not something you should take at face value. And various other billionaire cronies own other parts of the media and run stories about how nationalization is always bad. Who do you think funds the mises institute? The only difference is that the billionaires against nationalization think they can profit more off privatization.

>>35735 >Who do you think funds the mises institute? Artisans and small business owners who don't have the money or connections to twist government regulations in their favor and just want a level playing field. >The only difference is that the billionaires against nationalization think they can profit more off privatization. No the difference is that privatization creates lower cost and higher quality services for us the people.

>>27888 But driving is fun and is a necessity for most people who live in the west. China already has a pretty good system with electric cars where you rent batteries and swap them for charged batteries at swapping stations basically making the range argument against electric cars a moot point. A system like this was already proposed in the west but thanks to the jews monopoly on the automotive industry a lot of EV technology is effectively blackbagged and there is no good way to actually implement such a system because the zoning laws, corporate interests, and courts being bribed by corporate interests make it so that if you buy a property you can easily be screwed either being kicked off your property or the property essentially being a money pit thanks to corrupt government. Marvin Heemeyer being case in point >>Extremely unfun to operate, have to take a billion driving rules up the ass constantly Wildly exaggerated. Also, you can push your car to the max where you know cops can't sit such as narrow passes on hills for example >>Anyone who is interested in cars is always a hick or an autist Why do you hate autists? Also, that's a false dichotomy. Hicks usually only the boring stuff in automotives. Such as cruisers, choppers, nascar, big trucks, and "muscle" cars

Also usually public officials are blatantly bribed such as a cash. Usually it's by selling property WELL below it's market value to people

>>36504 >China already has a pretty good system with electric cars where you rent batteries and swap them for charged batteries at swapping stations What's your source on this? You can't swap out Tesla batteries for example because they weigh 2tons and are glued all around the car to distribute the weight evenly. You can't just stack them all in the front where they are easy to lift out because then the back wheels wouldn't touch the ground. If china really is doing this battery swapping I bet it is with tiny city cars with a 30 mile range and 30mph max speed or something, nothing compared to what you think of as an EV in the west. >thanks to the jews monopoly on the automotive industry a lot of EV technology is effectively blackbagged What are you even talking about this whole EV phenomena is being forced on us from above by malthusian billionaires. It's exactly the opposite of what you say, government and investment firms are flooding car firms with free money to desperately try to move EV tech forwards to the point where there won't be riots on the street when they outlaw ICE cars.

>>27888 trips of truth. fuarrrk cars. never driven one, never will. been saying fuarrrk cars since day one.

Cars r good stop being such a soy drinker

>>36510 >fuarrrk cars. never driven one https://fablesofaesop.com/the-fox-and-the-grapes.html >>36511 >cannot engage with the actual issues >can only repost badly made propaganda Many such cases.

>>36511 >it should be possible to access basic necessities without a car What's stopping you from moving to the middle of a city where everything is walking/cycling distance?

>should be possible to access basic necessities without a car it is.

>>36514 technically it's possible most people just don't wanna walk 2 miles each way to Walmart

>>36513 Turns out that a lot of people want to do that and the prices of housing are super high! Whoda thunkit.

>>36517 >Turns out that a lot of people want to do that and the prices of housing are super high! Whoda thunkit. That's a bingo. And you understand why the prices are so high right. Cars allow a large number of people to spread their living space across a large area. Because connecting houses with a patch of tarmac is dirt cheap. If everything has to be within walking distance than you are compressing the available living space down to a fraction of what it was. Much less supply means much higher prices. That's why you need to be careful about empty political platitudes like >>36511. It only sounds reasonable because they completely ignore the issue of resource scarcity.

>ctrl+f >"not just bikes" not found so much discussion on urban planning and nobody brought this guy up? not posting on bike thread cause it's in the name lovely videos with a hint of quiet rage against the machine https://inv.zzls.xyz/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo also some ai-generated images, for you, lain not sure what happened to the third one

>>36513 There is only ONE city in America where this is even possible. >>36504 Have you considered that cars are not fun for everyone >>36607 This guy is full of himself, fuarrrk his videos.

>fuarrrk cars, I fuarrrking hate them so fuarrrking much holy fuarrrking soykaf if I got 3 wishes removing cars from existence would come before any global or personal interests. I fuarrrking hate having to get into that fuarrrking thing, I hate having to be in hte fuarrrking thing. I pray to the Lord every time I leave a car because that means I wont have to suffer more time piloting that abomination. I fuarrrking hate how I have to drive one though because society is ltierally built around them and I would be literally unable to fuarrrking function without that abomination of a steel cage. If someone told me you will become deaf but cars will forever go out of existence I will tell him this is the happiest day of my life

>>36608 >There is only ONE city in America where this is even possible. If you want to have an honest discussion you need to elaborate. Otherwise I have to assume it's just ignorance and propaganda talking. >>36607 >"not just bikes" not found No idea what you're talking about buddy. We can't read your mine.

>>36512 >Calls everyone who disagrees a propagandist, when this recent spate of walkable 15-minute city posting/car hate sprung fully-formed onto the scene over all platforms simultaneously in such a patently inorganic way that it's obviously astroturfed They always accuse everyone else of doing what they do. The eternal Alinsky tactics.

>>36614 >Calls everyone who disagrees a propagandist Who is disagreeing with what? I said his meme is propaganda because it invokes a vague nice sounding thing, omits any discussion of costs, risks or negative consequences, and implies the only barrier to achieving nice sounding thing is a lack of political will. >this recent spate of walkable 15-minute city posting/car hate sprung fully-formed onto the scene over all platforms simultaneously in such a patently inorganic way that it's obviously astroturfed I agree.

>Don't require you to register your every move directly in the database of the government >At least not yet >Can get you and 4 person to the other side of the country in 4 hours if you want to >Make you not dependent of the one company that own your local mass transit >Some models are easy to maintain yourself I don't like it either, but they give more freedom than anything else money can buy. I occasionally sleep in mine. You would not believe how free you become once you master stealth car sleeping. Any parking in the country is my home now and it's free. I don't even plan anymore. I just go wherever it feel right, take the best looking roads I find and it get me where it get me. I discovered things I did not knew existed and went to place I never had the idea to go to. But sure, scanning your bus card and waiting in line to get where the bus go is fine too.

>>36854 btw im saying thats not even a real suburb thats numale bullshit where you have a 1 inch yard you arent even debating the thing """rich people""" like

>>36856 >nobody is "forcing" you do to do anything, you chose to live in modern city of aids where there is no way to do anything other than by driving around A lot of people don't get to choose where they live, lain. A lot of people just live where they can afford to. Anyway, you're forced to have a car as much as you're forced to have a phone. >in the future libnogs like you will rally to make it more and more illegal for someone to walk the streets because hes not fitting into the cookie cutter wagie shyt Everyone that disagrees with me is the same! Therefore if you disagree with me about one thing, you have all these other beliefs. I know this because I'm very smart.

>>36854 >>36855 What the fuarrrk are you talking about >>36856 Haha what are you talking about Immensely low quality posts. Like so bad that I dont even know what your opinion on this topic is.

>>36846 if you are not afraid to get your hands dirty, cars start at $5000. Fixing them is half of the fun. There is a reason why they manufacture their cars in a way that prevent you from doing it, but buying an old car is still an option.

>>36886 oh yeah let me just spend 5000 on something I have no clue on how to fix or do anything with and may not even work you also ignore all the other costs too Way to completely gloss over everything else I said too cars are chores that i shouldnt be forced into participating in. i am bad at driving. i dont like driving. living in a place where driving is required has ruined my life

>>36886 $5000 is pretty high. My first car was $1500, it was a piece of soykaf that constantly broke down and eventually blew a head gasket, but it did what I needed for long enough. I was dead set on not having a car payment, so I bought it since it was the only thing I could afford to pay for in full, but that was a dumb decision. Would have been better off spending $4-8k with a payment plan for a more reliable car, but would have been much better off if I didn't need a vehicle to get to my job at the time. Maybe you meant $500? I know people who buy $500 cars to fix and flip, but thats a time investment most people can't afford, plus the tool and replacement parts cost, and just gets an unreliable vehicle. >>36888 >living in a place where driving is required has ruined my life And many others. Their car breaks down, so they can't get to work, they’re not working so they can't afford repairs, so they never get back to work, so they lose their job. A terrible cycle. My first car died the first day of my job. If I didn't have multiple friends who were down to lend me their cars until my first paycheck came in, I'd have been fuarrrked.

>>36886 I love old cars without government tracking infotainment screens in them. I love fixing them and keeping them nice. I love the feeling of eventually knowing all the secrets of the machine. I love owning what I bought.

I delayed getting my license and that ended up delaying my entire life. It really should not be this way. I am soykaf at driving and put everyone at risk whenever I drive. But I am forced to drive to live. It really should not be this way. When you're under the driving age it is like kicking dead whales down the beach ass. You just never see your friends and never get to do anything. There's nothing leftist or rightist about wanting cities to be a pleasant place to be. Rural can be rural. Suburban can be suburban. But when I am literally living in an urban metropolis yet everything around me is barren and I need a car to function that's just a serious failure of civil engineering.

>>36922 I'm not a 100% mandatory walkable city fanatic but Ive lived in cities and appartments and because of this I know you to be a nut. Maybe you could have been better at finding places to live? A lot of landlords are pretty chill. They want a steady income off their property and as few as possible headaches. If you're quiet and look after things while paying the bills on time then they'll like you and be pretty helpful when you do need something. This doesn't solve the fact that maybe a lot of them are dirty/ill maintained in some way or other/may have vermin or other neighbor problems (in all fairness you might have the same problems buying a house), but a lot of them are a-ok places to live, and most of these 'universal facts' you're spouting are only true if you find a soykafty place, which certainly exist.

>go to shops >no smoking within 50 meters. $15000 fine >be in own "efficient use of space" housing >cigarette smoke comes in window from your neighbors every day >if you own: cant legally make him stop smoking because muh rights >if you rent: not allowed to move out without paying potentially tens of thousands in fees because muh contract you politics niggers were never right about anything and you users probably want shyt like shared ductwork and shared kitchens

>>36923 >and because of this I know you to be a nut. you probably are just used to smelling like feces and febreeze like most "hackers" >A lot of landlords are pretty chill [bla bla bla] this post wasnt about landlords its about the shyt conditions apartments are (always) in. the landlords dont help though >the will be helpful when you need something not when any of the above mentioned problems are present in the unit >in all fairness you might have the same problems buying a house and here's why i cant tell if you have autism or some reading comprehension proble. this thread is about "walkable cities" and implies packed together houses with no yards that operate the same as apartments. this post is not about apartments, its about how ALL housing will be in those walkable cities. >universal facts youre spouting are nonsense how so? do you believe 10 tenants who lived in the apartment within 5 years wont shyt it up? youre just arguing against common sense and things that are problematically proven without needing to verify it although i mean i have looked at hundreds of units across the entire spectrum of price range and demographic within the last 10 years

>>36922 This post is way too long and says nothing at all about anything. I have no clue why anti-walkable city people get so upset as if they're being held at gunpoint. You don't even sound like you live in a city, so why do you even care

>>36922 >I want a walkable city >OH YEAH WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THIS COMPLETELY UNRELATED SHIT THAT HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME FOR TEN YEARS Literally none of this , and I mean absolutely none of your post, has absolutely anything to do with the idea that "Cities should be designed so people can move around without a car"

>>27888 if areas werent infested with niggers and "refugees" and if the government didnt get such a hard on for controlling people like with lockdowns it would be a lot easier to make the argument to give up cars. maybe you should be attacking the root of the problem instead of the symptom

>>37158 poor argument >remove niggers >no need for cars, no need for suburbs >remove cars/oil >still need cars to get away from niggers its also ignoring that fact that the natural predator of bicycles are niggers

>>37159 If you think your mishmash of propaganda and memes deserved an argument then you are sorely mistaken. What you are responding to is what is known as a "soykaf post"

>>37166 That would be great actually. A perfect compromise. I've always wanted one of these tiny Japanese utility trucks, they seem like an ideal vehicle to me.

>>37168 Those 90's japanese cars are soykafty but in absolutely the right ways. They don't have overly comfy seats, they don't have this touch screen plastered dashboard that makes you feel like you're in a space ship. Electronics only where you need em. But in turn you don't need to disassemble the front by a mechanic just to change a head lights bulb. In some you can do it without tools whatsoever. Otherwise it's all basic tech anyone inclined to could do most repairs. With increasing scarcity of spare parts being the only drawback in favor of boot locked overpriced faux suvs that break down after 5 years that are being sold nowdays. The only way to go more pure is to get something like a lada niva or a uaz "buhanka" which doesn't even have servo steering. So you got to enjoy how much this is like kicking dead whales down the beach. US americans are jealous they can't have a cheap k-car or a toyota hilux so they have to come here and do their not just bikes whining. Cars rule and it's great to have one. "walkable cities" are basically the norm in europe unless you're talking about this open air prison bullcrap the WEF is proposing. Bigger issue is stupidly designed infrastructure, terrible zoning laws and people thinking of the left side of the road as the "fast lane" and force people to pass on the right side. Left side exits and "sproads" is also what's frequent in the US which makes it understandable why you see these mostly us based metropolitan city dwellers who most often truly don't see a need for a car since they put up with the continuously deteriorating public transport system or just call an uber try to oversteer into the absolute opposite direction that's either putting stupid little "bicycle highways" everywhere or this hunger games level nonsense where you get fined if you have to leave your designated sector too many times.

Less cars on the road makes the roads faster, safer, and more pleasant to drive on. It also makes road maintenance cheaper, road quality to generally stay higher, and parking more available. If you like owning and driving a car, then you should be pro-transit and pro-walkable cities, because those two things will make the experience of owning and driving a car better for you (if you ever drive near a city). It will probably also improve your life when you're not behind the wheel, due to lower noise pollution and gasoline fumes. But it seems that a lot of people think that cities and suburbs *should* be miserable hellholes and there *should* be tons of cars on the road. This mindset is one I really don't understand. Personally I don't like owning a car. I don't even have a place to put it, I have to park on the street. I don't enjoy doing car maintenance and I don't enjoy driving, especially over long distances. I'm not a good driver. I would very happily let people who actually want to have a car take the roads all for themselves, if I could.

>>39754 >Less cars on the road makes the roads faster, safer, and more pleasant to drive on I completely agree. Less people also means shorter waiting lines, faster doctor appointments, more rarely being woken up at 6am by a neighbor's power drill and the average post quality of image boards would also go up. Less people who urinate at the train station walls and stuffing the wagons like sardines, taking up all the seats while someone is playing their rap "music" on their crappy phone and so on. And while I too would enjoy blazing past the no car having plebians on the speed way built in honor of motorized chads such as I who can go anywhere they want at a moment's notice without being subject to train schedules, station locations, strikes and down times, I would worry that the unwashed masses would steal my hood ornament and wheel caps or scratch up the paint while I'm not looking. Thus the only real option is to go full malthusian and remove the warning labels from everything or figure out how to live in more densely packed city scapes. As mentioned before, the green washing nonsense doesn't help either with bike infrastructure in places where it's unnecessary and reduce residential parking spaces or emission regulations that paradoxically end up favoring larger cars being put on the market. Also importing the 3rd world while wanting to be dependent on public transportation and having everything "walkable" doesn't seem like a good idea either if you desire safety and space in those accomodations. I do not know of any people who want cities to be miserable. It looks like that's just part of it to some degree, though I remember things being nicer just 10 years back. What I keep seeing though is people keep going on about wanting "walkable cities" and as far as I can tell, europe already has that because their city planing was done before all the nonsensical zoning laws that make americans live in the ridiculous ways they do. By law you can't even have a corner store near where people live in the urbs and it's either only mcmansions or sky scrapers. But instead of fixing that they have to pester us people from the old continent with the way they screwed things up and how they plan to screw up things more in an attempt to remidy their prior screw ups. I really don't understand this mindset. Either way, personally I enjoy owning a car, various bikes, jog to my gym and have many things in walking distance to my living quarters. I know a guy who repairs cars while mine is so simple I can do a bunch of stuff myself. On a recent road trip I fixed my side mirror with some bubble gum until I find the time to get a proper replacement. Driving is kinda fun and just having the option to drive off somewhere is a pleasant thought.

>>39755 If we had less cars, CO2 emissions would be cut down and horses would do everything on the road (such as pulling carts), given the chance they need lots of care such as feeding, health checks, etc. I feel like something's up with cars on the road but I have a love for animals big and tiny, so please consider.

>>39755 You are trying to make a comparison between cars (inanimate objects that are not essential for many of the tasks that they are used for) and people (living beings that have intrinsic worth outside of their usefulness). The analogy doesn't work. > As mentioned before, the green washing nonsense doesn't help either with bike infrastructure in places where it's unnecessary and reduce residential parking spaces or emission regulations that paradoxically end up favoring larger cars being put on the market. Indeed, I completely agree. But do you agree that there are possible solutions to these problems and it would be good to try to implement them? >Also importing the 3rd world while wanting to be dependent on public transportation and having everything "walkable" doesn't seem like a good idea either if you desire safety and space in those accomodations. America is already 3rd world so it's not a major change. >I do not know of any people who want cities to be miserable. If you don't want to try to improve cities, that is equivalent to wanting cities to stay miserable. I don't see how large amounts of cars on the road could ever be a good thing. >What I keep seeing though is people keep going on about wanting "walkable cities" and as far as I can tell, europe already has that because their city planing was done before all the nonsensical zoning laws that make americans live in the ridiculous ways they do. Yes. You may have noticed that many posters here are American. >But instead of fixing that they have to pester us people from the old continent Do you think that the people complaining about car-dependent infrastructure *in America* are trying to get *Europe* to change?

You can always hate on Teslas now, it's trendy nowadays...

>>39761 >horsies are cool The reason houses on the east coast have raised porches is because the streets were buried in horse soykaf. Like it or not cars are better. >>39762 >America is already 3rd world so it's not a major change. There is a big difference between animals who were born and raised in your country and animals who have zero stake in your society and a home country to return to after they are finished burning yours to the ground. >I don't see how large amounts of cars on the road could ever be a good thing. The alternative is that all the people who used to drive into the city now need to live there. You think house prices are unaffordable now wait until you take away personal transport. >>44388 You hate them for the wrong reasons but whatever.

>>44393 >The reason houses on the east coast have raised porches is because the streets were buried in horse soykaf. Like it or not cars are better. Though I agree, I'd much prefer the risk of sometimes stepping in horse soykaf if I'm not watching where I'm going over the risk of being hit by a car if the driver isn't watching where she's going. But I don't know what >>39761 is on about. For most things a horse can do, there are many better options. >There is a big difference between animals who were born and raised in your country and animals who have zero stake in your society and a home country to return to after they are finished burning yours to the ground. What does that have to do with public transit? Are you so scared of immigrants you're afraid to get on a bus? I think you have sipped from the bottle of fearmongering a bit too much. Real life is not liveleak. >The alternative is that all the people who used to drive into the city now need to live there. You think house prices are unaffordable now wait until you take away personal transport. A city being walkable does not mean the roads to the city will vanish. A commuter would drive to the city, park in a garage, then walk/bike/trolley from there Consider a case where you live 30 minutes away from the west side of a city and your job is in the center of the city. Would you rather drive 30 minutes on the highway, enter the city, continue driving through the hell that is big city traffic until you reach the center, or drive 30 minutes to get to the west side, park, and hop on a trolley with a dedicated lane that takes you to the center? You and the other passengers of the trolley would, by virtue of taking the trolley over driving, result in less cars on the road and thus less traffic for people who actually need the road, while getting to your destination in less time, less effort, and less fuel. There is also the potential for public transit to and from the city. If you live outside the city in a place where many other commuters live, a train becomes feasible. This would get you and the other commuters to the city much more quickly. >house prices as laid out, a walkable city doesn't hinder commuting from outside the city, so people won't be forced to move there to work there (the opposite, as it makes it easier to commute) However an additional factor is that part of making a city (or anywhere) walkable involves getting rid of the zoning restrictions that make building housing in/near cities more expensive, and that make it difficult to build mixed use areas. That alone will not solve the housing crisis, as the housing system is a mess with many factors contributing to its soykaftiness, but more housing in livable areas doesn't hurt. A key factor is mixed use neighborhoods in smaller towns. There is no good reason why a grocery store should be forbidden from operating inside of a so-called residential area, but parking requirements and zoning restrictions force us to live in one part of town while we work and shop in another. Theres no reason the hundreds of people who live within a 10 minute walk from each other should need to drive to get to the nearest grocery store, a store which often only serves the people from that area. Just put the damn grocery store in the neighborhood it services. >take away personal transport Walkability does not take away your car or means to use it. It gives you other practical options for getting around. Options that are often faster and cheaper than driving.

>>44411 >What does that have to do with public transit? Are you so scared of immigrants you're afraid to get on a bus? The consequences of importing the third world goes way beyond everyday crime. We canceled all the bus lines that goes into the crime towers because fraud was so massive that the lines were running at a loss, despite being full of people and the drivers refused to check the tickets because too many of them got assaulted. The left gave it's usual crocodile tear thing and now I am forced to pay for their free bus lines. Becoming the third world mean fraud and violence are rewarded while the working man carry an always increasing burden. >a walkable city doesn't hinder commuting from outside the city, so people won't be forced to move there to work there (the opposite, as it makes it easier to commute) This is wishful thinking, not reality. Like all idealist progressive dreams. In reality, NYC have created a tax on car that ensure that unwashed plebeians don't get in the way of their betters and are instead forced to take a public transit that is so unsafe that thousands of national guards have to be deployed there on top of the police just to limit the number of murders. The metro always eat more public money, because investing in the transit system is investing in the city but nothing is ever done. The only bright side is that it's so easy to fraud that paying for it is purely based on voluntarism. I could probably mention the high speed rail of California. Cars, while I admit their faults, at least work and only eat a finite quantity of money. No, the only good answer is to decentralize jobs so we don't all have to live stacked on each other in pods that cost a lifetime of work.

>>44424 ameritard here, last I tried to use the bus not only was it late but the driver kept dithering at a couple stops making it go later. No reason. Normal sunny day, no inclement weather. Traffic wasn't bad. Just awful service. By the time I was on it I was committed but it would have been faster to bike starting at the same time. Driver was, you guessed it, not of european extraction. Ive been in NYC and public transit was awful there too. Seems like a great place to live if you have no sense of smell and enjoy public masturbation, urination, and spitting on woman, or standing packed like a sardine together with those who do.

>>44411 >I'd much prefer the risk of sometimes stepping in horse soykaf It's not really about occasionally making your shoes dirty it's about the constant stink and disease making life unbearable. >if I'm not watching where I'm going over the risk of being hit by a car if the driver isn't watching where she's going. Is that any different from being hit by a cyclist? At least a motorist who hits someone gets punished. >Consider a case where you live 30 minutes away from the west side of a city and your job is in the center of the city. Would you rather drive 30 minutes on the highway, enter the city, continue driving through the hell that is big city traffic until you reach the center, or drive 30 minutes to get to the west side, park, and hop on a trolley with a dedicated lane that takes you to the center? The point your rhetoric always misses is that everybody is trying to go to different places. Yes in your communist paradise all the workers will live in the same concrete tower block and all commute to the same factory at the same time everyday and a train or trolley would be the most efficient transport system. In reality though everybody lives in different places going to different destinations at different times. There is no such thing as efficient public transport because your bus needs to snake through half the city and stop every 60 seconds to let people on and off. It is basically always faster to drive from your house directly to where you need to be even if there's traffic. The whole war on cars just proves this point. They make cars expensive to manufacture, import, purchase, insure. They add taxes and tolls and "clean air zones" and people still drive because it's simply better. >>44427 >Traffic wasn't bad. Just awful service. Public transport is basically always a government monopoly. Even if it is technically a private company it is still subsidized by the state and shielded from competition. All your power as a consumer stems from your ability to withhold payment when the quality of a product or service is not acceptable to you. The fuarrrked up thing about government monopolies is that even when the service is so bad you give up using it you are still forced to pay for it through your taxes.

>it's about the constant stink and disease making life unbearable. What about the constant stink, noise, and diseases (consequences of air pollution) brought by cars? >Is that any different from being hit by a cyclist? At least a motorist who hits someone gets punished. That might surprise you, but people tend to die when they're hit with a ton of steel. >The point your rhetoric always misses is that everybody is trying to go to different places... Complete delusion. Seriously, come live in a European city for a couple months to see how possible it is to move around without a car. No, you don't need to live in a tower. Cars get subsidized a lot btw. Even toll roads aren't profitable. I hate paying for highways that are an eyesore, earsore, nosesore, and prevent me from walking between towns A and B.

>>44487 not him but Ive spent many months in europe and a lot of people have cars. Seemed like it would be very convenient to have one if you lived outside of dense urban center area (and even if you did it would be nice for any trips out of town). Overall very much like America! When I was there I didn't have one cause I was only there for a short time but it was very nice to have friends with cars and if I wanted to live there long term I would certainly consider getting one. >people tend to die when hit by big block of steel this is strongly associated with speed. low speed collisions are fine I've been hit by cars and no injury. >what about the constant stink and noise yeah its pretty annoying >highways It would require a very significant restructuring of cargo logistics to do away with these and Im not sure you'd like the solutions very much either. Highways have been a thing for thousands of years we're not doing away with them now

>>44487 >What about the constant stink, noise, and diseases (consequences of air pollution) brought by cars? Exaggerated. Especially with modern fuel and emission systems. You simply can't comprehend what it means to have rotting horse soykaf piling up on the street. >That might surprise you, but people tend to die when they're hit with a ton of steel. >[_] cars are pointless because there is so much traffic they cannot move >[_] cars are driving so fast in the city they hit and kill people You can't have both. Pick a propaganda lane and stick to it. >Complete delusion. Seriously, come live in a European city for a couple months to see how possible it is to move around without a car. Europe is on the verge of becoming a 3rd world region. Apart from some old car companies you produce nothing of value to the rest of the world. "Come and live like us", friend you are the one who is deluded. >Cars get subsidized a lot btw. 50% of fuel cost is tax. Ever hit a pothole in a supermarket car park? Roads are not that hard or expensive to build and maintain it's just everything the state does is horribly inefficient. >I hate paying for highways And I hate paying for your soykafty buses and trains and bike lanes. Imagine a world where you pay for your soykaf and I pay for my soykaf and we leave each other a alone. >and prevent me from walking between towns A and B Roads are not what's stopping you from crossing people's private gardens and fields to get to the next town.

>>44488 I know a lot of people have cars. My point was that it is possible and not really inconvenient to live without one. (Source: I don't have a car, living in a big-ish town, and I'm not planning on getting one) I know highways move a lot of cargo, but I would rather see rail freight being developped instead. >Highways have been a thing for thousands of years I don't think machines moving at 100+km/h have been a thing for that long. I'm not complaining about roads, which are used by various vehicles and are even convenient when going by foot.

>>44489 >stink, noise, etc are exaggerated I live in bigamericancity. If I go outside I hear the freeway to the west of me and the interstate to the east. Its not deafening but its decently loud. It goes on basically all day every day, with a little quieting down on Christmas and Thanksgiving. When CORONA hit and everybody locked down for uhh, just two weeks I guess, you could smell the difference in the air that I can only attribute to there being a lot less traffic for a prolonged period. I'm not saying cars aren't very useful and on the whole they're great but there absolutely are tradeoffs.

>Takes up 80% of the space in any city for roads and parking lots I agree with you. >Creates a lot of unbearable noise and smell In non-retarded countries, noise levels and pollution from car is heavily regulated But I agree with you for the US >Main purpose is to further accelerate society and atomize people Main purpose is to let people work further from home and boost the economy >Anyone who is interested in cars is always a hick or an autist I kind of agree with you >Extremely unfun to operate, have to take a billion driving rules up the ass constantly Real cars (manual) are fun to operate Rules were created for safety as people are retarded (see the part above about noise levels regulations). People don't want to die on their way to a work they hate because some retard is driving recklessly >Everyone has a wildly different approach to driving meaning everyone is angry or unhappy with everyone If you get mad at people following the rules of the road, you're the problem. I like to drive a bit faster than the speed limit, without being a total retard about it. But if someone is going 59mph on a 60mph zone, I'm not allowed to complain, I just slow down like a normal human being. There is no solution to it as long as people as retarded (forever)

>>44489 >You simply can't comprehend what it means to have rotting horse soykaf piling up on the street. Exaggerated. And who even said anything about moving around on horse in cities? >You can't have both. Pick a propaganda lane and stick to it. You were the one comparing being hit by a car and by a cyclist... Btw, not everywhere is congested all the time. Even in traffic, cars frequently accelerate to 50km/h or more to stop a bit later. I'm sure you knew that though. Please stop arguing in bad faith. >50% of fuel cost is tax Which doesn't make up for road infrastructures, let alone other externalities. >Ever hit a pothole in a supermarket car park? A car park doesn't suffer nearly the same constraints as a road or a highway. And you don't even notice the potholes there are because they aren't dangerous. >And I hate paying for your soykafty buses and trains and bike lanes. Look at it this way: all those people who aren't using a car reduce traffic for you. >Roads are not what's stopping you from crossing people's private gardens and fields to get to the next town. I'm thinking about a specific highway that does force me to bike 5km more to get to a bridge and back in order to cross it.

>>44491 >I'm not saying cars aren't very useful and on the whole they're great but there absolutely are tradeoffs. do not concede anything ever in any discussion, specially when your interlocutor is arguing in bad faith and only trying to waste your time, you are only hurting your own position. cars are useless everywhere and at all times and should be derezzed as soon as possible YOU the car driver reading this, should be detained, imprisoned and, ideally, castrated for contaminating the planet with your soykaf box

>>44490 >I know highways move a lot of cargo, but I would rather see rail freight being developped instead. Why? Trains are monopolistic by design. You can't load your own train onto the track without permission. Everything has to be monitored and coordinated by a central authority to prevent them crashing into each other. Why would you want to put all your food and medicine transportation at the mercy of a railway monopoly. There is literally no advantage. Well there's no advantage for you. It will generate massive profits for the oligarchs and politicians who control the railway. They certainly prefer trains over a road where any vehicle with wheels is free to travel and steal their profits. >>44491 Ha! Doxxed. Now we know you live east of a freeway. >>44493 >who even said anything about moving around on horse in cities? >>39761 >You were the one comparing being hit by a car and by a cyclist... The implication was that if there were no cars you don't need to bother looking where you're going. Getting hit by a cyclist at 20mp/h is not fun either my dude. Especially since they don't follow traffic laws so it is more likely to happen and they know they won't be punished. > you don't even notice the potholes there are because they aren't dangerous You don't notice them because they're not there. Because private companies fix their soykaf. Because it's not hard or expensive. The government is extremely inefficient at everything it does. >Look at it this way: all those people who aren't using a car reduce traffic for you. You're saying my taxes are paying for peasants to take the bus so the roads are free for me to race at 50km/h from traffic light to traffic light? You son of a bitch I'm in. >I'm thinking about a specific highway that does force me to bike 5km more to get to a bridge and back in order to cross it. I see. That is unfortunate.

>>44495 if the monopoly has cheaper prices than cars even when it can gauge prices at will, that's a conclusive proof that railway is more efficient. all trains should be state owned btw. but still that's a non-sequitur because it is a common occurrence around the world to have different companies operate the rails and the trains. there is a tendency in capitalism for capital to concentrate, with vertical and horizontal integration, but the same is true for cars. as a matter of fact, the car industry is an oligopoly where you have dozens of brands but only a handful of actual firms, and every year there is a new merger or acquisition the only exception is, of course, the electric car industry in china, which has an actual competitive market with dozens of actual companies <- not brands, but actual industries there is concrete proof that car companies in the us lobbied to have cities be designed for cars, not trains or subways. the same is true in many parts of the world - trains are only the norm in countries with strong institutions that aren't in the pocket of car lobbies, the best example being china >dlood Fetected; dost Piscarded.

I wish I lived somewhere cars weren't required. I hate America man.

>>44496 >if the monopoly has cheaper prices than cars even when it can gauge prices at will, that's a conclusive proof that railway is more efficient What makes you think that's the case? Perhaps there are situations like transporting coal across a desert, the tracks are already built you just hook up 100 wagons full of coal and choo choo off you go. That might be efficient. Although something might be cheap for other reasons like extremely low demand or it is being subsidized by taxpayers who don't have a choice. It sounded like the other post was talking about replacing all the semis transporting food and stuff into a city with railways instead. That's the thing I'm telling you you don't want. >all trains should be state owned btw That just makes it worse because the state is not even motivated by profit. They take your taxes through force and then toss you whatever scraps they feel like giving you in return and if you don't like it there's literally nothing you can do about it except vote for the blue party next time and hope they won't be exactly the same. >it is a common occurrence around the world to have different companies operate the rails and the trains You're missing the point though which is that whoever controls the network gets to decide who else is allowed to use it. Even if that's a private company trying to maximize profit that is still a monopolistic situation ripe for abuse and corruption. Competition is what keeps people accountable. Always be weary of people trying to reduce choice and competition no matter private or public sector. >the car industry is an oligopoly where you have dozens of brands but only a handful of actual firms Indeed. The absurd number of government regulations is what makes it impossible for new companies to enter the industry and thrive (which is exactly what the incumbents lobby for). >he only exception is, of course, the electric car industry in china That's because EVs are a new technology so much of the regulatory burden that comes with building a new car essentially got reset. Less regulations means more productivity. Europe also saw many new EV supercar companies pop up in the last 10 years. Richard Hammond famously crashed one in Switzerland. >there is concrete proof that car companies in the us lobbied to have cities be designed for cars, not trains or subways. Perhaps. But the US auto industry has completely imploded since then due to protectionism and unions making them pathetically uncompetitive in the global market. So if trains are so great and US car companies are on life support why didn't trains take over now? >trains are only the norm in countries with strong institutions that aren't in the pocket of car lobbies, the best example being china China builds out tons of useless infrastructure because they play stupid political number-go-up games just like the USSR did. What other countries? India are basically cavemen using 200 year old train infrastructure left behind by the futuristic civilization known as 18th century Britain. Japan has some trains I guess but they also have a vibrant car industry so that kind of dents your argument. >flood Fetected; dost Piscarded. You probably tried to post a no-no word. Or somebody with the same IP address just made a post within the last few minutes. It's cool that lainchan still allows tor posting after all these years.

>>44497 if you hate it so much then why dont you leave

>>44498 that it is significantly cheaper to move cargo by train >That's the thing I'm telling you you don't want. and you are incorrect. there is a reason why you haven't posted numbers and are trying your hardest to dismiss calls for evidence >That just makes it worse not really, in general the state can plan more efficiently than the market, among other reasons because logistics is an economy of scale. the only problem is that if you are poor you don't have as much political power, and depending on the country, none at all, so this planning might not benefit you and will be completely out of your control the free market that you are defending tends to concentrate capital - a point from the previous post that you omitted - which means that a few individuals will eventually have most wealth and thus political power (because they will have the money to lobby, bribe, own the media, etc. etc.) if left unregulated. you will arrive at the combination of regulatory capture and deregulation you see today in the more developed capitalist countries in other words, you are using a negative consequence of the free market: regulatory capture and disenfranchisement of common people, to ask for more free market. you are "falling for it again" as the kids say. instead of asking for more political power for you and the people whose interests align with yours >Competition is what keeps people accountable. no it doesn't. at most it can keep prices competitive but in no sense does that mean accountability. for example, what may dissuade someone from stealing from a shop are the potential legal repercussions - not competition. surveillance keeps people accountable, public pressure, interpersonal relations, transparency and popular participation. governments in general are more accountable and responsible than deregulated private companies of course, in the most developed countries the wealth concentration and it's consequences have produced a state very intertwined with private companies. the state is still more accountable but ends up working as insurance, both legal and financial, for businesses. the level of scrutiny for both actors is very low and the government positions are usually staffed by employees from this market they are supposed to regulate and "keep accountable" >The absurd number of government regulations is what makes it impossible for new companies to enter the industry and thrive not the fact that these are economies of scale and that anyone with the capital to invest in them knows it would be more profitable (and/or less risky) to invest in one of the existing companies instead. and that doesn't explain how many companies that existed have progressively merged into conglomerates and "potemkin brands". they were compliant with the (laughable) regulations but still concentrated >the regulatory burden most of those chinese companies are state enterprises or have a degree of state participation, which is the ultimate regulation, and yet they compete with each other and have much lower prices than anywhere else in the world. without subsidies >Perhaps it's a fact, go look it up >the US auto industry has completely imploded this is a ridiculous exaggeration, they are still one of the biggest sector, and they killed the rail industry long ago so it is not like they have any opposing lobby, even if they have diminished in relevance a little. if you shoot someone, it doesn't matter if you change your mind after pulling the trigger, you are still going to have to live in a world changed by your actions >China builds out tons of useless infrastructure you have been propagandized, look up the numbers of passangers their public transport network has. it's funny you mention india, compare their development to the country that builds useless infrastructure >What other countries? google. you seem to hate numbers

>>44499 Nowhere to go. No country would let me in. America is so horrible

Funny to see this flame war still going on. I personally do like to live in a "walkable city", however as a european I don't understand the recent obsession with concepts carrying that name since cities here are, in fact, already walkable. Most things I regularly or even only occasionally need are within a 20min walk already. Suburbanites and commie block dwellers wont ever experience the bliss of having a fresh coffee and croissant in the morning at a cafe just across the street of your apartment. But with the "refugee crisis", which is just our leaders deciding it would be great to flood this place with hostile military age males from 3rd world countries, this has become somewhat less appealing in the past years. So my question is, what exactly do you guys want? >>39762 >Yes. You may have noticed that many posters here are American. Yes, this is my problem with this thread. American road and infrastructure planing is notoriously stupid. And if I had to live next to a "sproad" or where people have an arms race with their cars, I would hate my life too. But that's a burger problem, not mine. But for some strange reason those trials for the open air prison version of walkable cities are conducted on this continent. And I'm not going to fall for this "nobody intends to build a wall" bullshit again and people trying to gaslight me only angers me more. Hence I reject any notion of this if it's not exclusively about sending arabs, africans and/or american cars back. >America is already 3rd world so it's not a major change. Hence your chances to get walkable cities are near nil. >>44500 >that it is significantly cheaper to move cargo by train Absolutely. If it's across land and there's a well maintained train track, moving cargo between major logistic centres that way will be the cheapest and most resource efficient method. The only exception is if it's across sea, where obviously you'd have to use barges between ports. But these ports can and are connected by rail. But here's the crucial thing. People aren't cargo. You can't just park a wagon full of passengers over night on a side rail. Or sort them through series of hand-off points. And sometime you just need to go somewhere, you know? And I have personally no issues taking the train in principle. I've commuted to school and work for many, many years but that has become too expensive and crowded, and frankly the design just isn't nearly as cozy any more as it once was, with passengers more stressed and hostile than relaxes and happy. So that on short distances I use the bike now and if I need to go somewhere more rural I might rent a car. >the state can plan more efficiently than the market It can but it won't. >they killed the rail industry long ago Last time I've checked the US cargo railways are doing great. But as I've said american planing is stupid and passenger trains just won't work the way they do in europe. >>44502 If you're brown just rip up your passport and come to europe. You'll get free housing too. But to address the congestion issue. The problem is when "arteries" are just placed across a city which then also gets mixed up with the "capillary" traffic. I hope that we can figure out some cheap super materials in the future and finally have those nano tubes or just revert back to stone and also develop better excavation capabilities to go under densely constructed areas without risking the ground collapsing so we can put a lot of the speed and passing through traffic and a lot of the parking space underground. And while we're at if, fix those horrible country roads with nice straight above ground sections that don't require me to go through every single town's center on the way and break from 70 down to 30kmh (you're an adult and can translate to freedom units yourself). But until then the answer to this thread is simply being european and having your migration and import policies in check.

>>44503 Every time you guys come close to having progress on passenger high-speed trains or a better infrastructure for trains, Elon Musk or some oil lobbying group kill the project before it can be done. Because they have so much to lose. (ex: Hyperloop was only created to kill a high-speed rail project in California)

>>44504 >you guys Laughs in 300kmh while sipping coffee and looking at forests and meadows passing by. While I'm not denying any fuarrrkery going on either against railroads or commercial trucks going on, a problem that's much deeper rooted in large scale non-bug populations, it is also good to actually have any destinations to connect along the path to make it viable. The US has its population centers more scattered out. Also I believe the hyperloop was more about testing their excavation tech which could become extremely lucrative if you check my previous post and that this was done by the "boring company" iirc.

>>44505 Im sorry I didn't read your post I was too busy looking down at all the little bug buildings and bug cars from my seat on a 600mph airplane

>>44506 Flying peaked when you could still smoke and hot stewardesses would give you head as part of the service. Now past 9/11 the best you can get is being fondled by the TSA guy while needing to check your shoes for explosives. At least with cars and trains I don't need to go through that humiliation ritual. Either way, exciting what tech could make commercial flights more viable since it's the only option for the US geography.

>>44505 Or maybe it was an honest miscalculation. There seem to be no repercussions for failing, so the best strategy is to always make big announcements and optimistic predictions even if you aren't 100% sure you can deliver.