Rio
02-06-07, 10:25 AM
I don't know if this has been covered a million times in here already, but I wondered what people think about the roots of the "Car Problem"? I think its a need for instant gratification. What do you think?
Living Car Free - What is at the Root of the "Car Problem"?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.Artkansas
02-06-07, 10:43 AM
You're going to have to define the question of "Car Problem" a whole lot better. Are you asking why people buy pre-made automobiles instead of assembling their own?
Roody
02-06-07, 11:12 AM
I guess that defining the "car problem" and getting to the root of it are almost the same thing. Instant gratification, yes, and cars really are quicker, and they give people the illusion of freedom and independence. The fact that the automobile companies are the largest advertisers on the globe contributes to the problem also.
patc
02-06-07, 11:17 AM
I don't know if this has been covered a million times in here already, but I wondered what people think about the roots of the "Car Problem"? I think its a need for instant gratification. What do you think?
That's an easy one: self-interest. The root of the "car problem" is the basic flaw in our species: most people, most of the time, will put what they want over the needs of others.
That's an easy one: self-interest. The root of the "car problem" is the basic flaw in our species: most people, most of the time, will put what they want over the needs of others.
Pax
02-06-07, 12:37 PM
I can't speak to the development of the problem but now it boils down to...you can't get there from here.
jondoh
02-06-07, 01:45 PM
There's a lot of different ways of looking at the "car problem".
1. low density housing with little public transportation pretty much requires a car
2. in America, culturally speaking, you're a looser if you don't own a car. Culture also requires us to be socially busy, going to many places that require us to spend money.
3. we've been sold a vision of what the car is supposed to represent-- FREEDOM! In fact, the opposite is true. If Americans really placed so much value on freedom, we wouldn't be in so much debt.
In my opinion, one of three things can put more people on bikes.
1. a change in social attitude toward bikes
2. high density living. If there is no room for cars, less people will drive.
3. energy crisis
I'm betting on #3 because we won't voluntarily drive less. We will have to be forced to.
1. low density housing with little public transportation pretty much requires a car
2. in America, culturally speaking, you're a looser if you don't own a car. Culture also requires us to be socially busy, going to many places that require us to spend money.
3. we've been sold a vision of what the car is supposed to represent-- FREEDOM! In fact, the opposite is true. If Americans really placed so much value on freedom, we wouldn't be in so much debt.
In my opinion, one of three things can put more people on bikes.
1. a change in social attitude toward bikes
2. high density living. If there is no room for cars, less people will drive.
3. energy crisis
I'm betting on #3 because we won't voluntarily drive less. We will have to be forced to.
gwd
02-06-07, 02:54 PM
I guess that defining the "car problem" and getting to the root of it are almost the same thing.
Yes. The process of accurately describing a problem helps solve it. Dumping the car must have solved most of my car problems. Inconsiderate drivers? Poorly designed suburbs? Increased risk of lung disease? These are problems, but the original poster typed problem not problems as though there is a single problem with multiple "roots".
Yes. The process of accurately describing a problem helps solve it. Dumping the car must have solved most of my car problems. Inconsiderate drivers? Poorly designed suburbs? Increased risk of lung disease? These are problems, but the original poster typed problem not problems as though there is a single problem with multiple "roots".
zippered
02-06-07, 03:56 PM
or too many cars in general. that's 100-some-odd years of marketing. mass consumption on a global scale. we've had advertising shoved down our throats all our lives, conditioning us to want more and better. i have a feeling that one of the root problems is the system of stock markets. i'm no economist, but when corporations have an obligation to their stakeholders to maximise their profits at the minimal expense... it's a recipe for disaster. all the other "problems" (accidents, obesity, urban sprawl, pollution, global conflict etc) are just part of the ripple effect. oh and don't forget that a massive population boom has compounded the whole thing.
now aren't i a ray-of-sunshine-come-michael-moore!*sigh*
now aren't i a ray-of-sunshine-come-michael-moore!*sigh*
deputyjones
02-06-07, 04:01 PM
There's a lot of different ways of looking at the "car problem".
1. low density housing with little public transportation pretty much requires a car
2. in America, culturally speaking, you're a looser if you don't own a car. Culture also requires us to be socially busy, going to many places that require us to spend money.
3. we've been sold a vision of what the car is supposed to represent-- FREEDOM! In fact, the opposite is true. If Americans really placed so much value on freedom, we wouldn't be in so much debt.
In my opinion, one of three things can put more people on bikes.
1. a change in social attitude toward bikes
2. high density living. If there is no room for cars, less people will drive.
3. energy crisis
I'm betting on #3 because we won't voluntarily drive less. We will have to be forced to.
I agree with this and will take it one further by paring it down to one problem: SPRAWL
If you fix the urban sprawl problem, the rest falls into place.
1. low density housing with little public transportation pretty much requires a car
2. in America, culturally speaking, you're a looser if you don't own a car. Culture also requires us to be socially busy, going to many places that require us to spend money.
3. we've been sold a vision of what the car is supposed to represent-- FREEDOM! In fact, the opposite is true. If Americans really placed so much value on freedom, we wouldn't be in so much debt.
In my opinion, one of three things can put more people on bikes.
1. a change in social attitude toward bikes
2. high density living. If there is no room for cars, less people will drive.
3. energy crisis
I'm betting on #3 because we won't voluntarily drive less. We will have to be forced to.
I agree with this and will take it one further by paring it down to one problem: SPRAWL
If you fix the urban sprawl problem, the rest falls into place.
ivegotabike
02-06-07, 04:01 PM
sprawl
zippered
02-06-07, 04:09 PM
i have a feeling that one of the root problems is the system of stock markets. i'm no economist, but when corporations have an obligation to their stakeholders to maximise their profits at the minimal expense... it's a recipe for disaster. all the other "problems" (accidents, obesity, urban sprawl, pollution, global conflict etc) are just part of the ripple effect.
“The whole global warming thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability”
~Jerry Falwell
dang, even mr. falwell himself agees with me :eek:
“The whole global warming thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability”
~Jerry Falwell
dang, even mr. falwell himself agees with me :eek:
AlanK
02-06-07, 07:35 PM
Most people don't know how the car lifestyle was gradually, and brilliantly foistered on the US culture. Here's basically what happened:
In the late 1800s-early 1900s most major US cities had efficient trolley (street car) systems. In the 1930s, huge conglomerates bought the street cars, junked them, and then paved over the tracks. To soothe over public outcry, they gave the cities busses. These busses worked fine (I assume) until they eventually started to break down. After that, automakers initiated an aggressive marketing campaign encouraging people to buy private autos: 'Why rely on public transportation, when you can have the independence of your own car?' Thus, the car culture was born and persists to this day.
Say what you will about their morality (or amorality), but the plan and marketing strategy by the auto/oil conglomerates was brilliant. They gradually and subtley created a situation where almost every resident in most US cities would need a product (car) they would sell. It textbook business 101 - create a need, then sell a product to satisfy that need.
We can blame the greedy auto/oil companies all we want, but US citizens let this happen. By letting self-interested, profit oriented companies assume the transit plan for US cities rather than treating transportation as a collective public resource, it lead to the situation we have now where almost everyone needs a car.
In the late 1800s-early 1900s most major US cities had efficient trolley (street car) systems. In the 1930s, huge conglomerates bought the street cars, junked them, and then paved over the tracks. To soothe over public outcry, they gave the cities busses. These busses worked fine (I assume) until they eventually started to break down. After that, automakers initiated an aggressive marketing campaign encouraging people to buy private autos: 'Why rely on public transportation, when you can have the independence of your own car?' Thus, the car culture was born and persists to this day.
Say what you will about their morality (or amorality), but the plan and marketing strategy by the auto/oil conglomerates was brilliant. They gradually and subtley created a situation where almost every resident in most US cities would need a product (car) they would sell. It textbook business 101 - create a need, then sell a product to satisfy that need.
We can blame the greedy auto/oil companies all we want, but US citizens let this happen. By letting self-interested, profit oriented companies assume the transit plan for US cities rather than treating transportation as a collective public resource, it lead to the situation we have now where almost everyone needs a car.
wheel
02-06-07, 08:40 PM
Bad habits that feeds the greed.
A self serving machine of destruction.
A self serving machine of destruction.
No Exit
02-06-07, 10:13 PM
Most people don't know how the car lifestyle was gradually, and brilliantly foistered on the US culture. Here's basically what happened:
In the late 1800s-early 1900s most major US cities had efficient trolley (street car) systems. In the 1930s, huge conglomerates bought the street cars, junked them, and then paved over the tracks. To soothe over public outcry, they gave the cities busses. These busses worked fine (I assume) until they eventually started to break down. After that, automakers initiated an aggressive marketing campaign encouraging people to buy private autos: 'Why rely on public transportation, when you can have the independence of your own car?' Thus, the car culture was born and persists to this day.
Say what you will about their morality (or amorality), but the plan and marketing strategy by the auto/oil conglomerates was brilliant. They gradually and subtley created a situation where almost every resident in most US cities would need a product (car) they would sell. It textbook business 101 - create a need, then sell a product to satisfy that need.
We can blame the greedy auto/oil companies all we want, but US citizens let this happen. By letting self-interested, profit oriented companies assume the transit plan for US cities rather than treating transportation as a collective public resource, it lead to the situation we have now where almost everyone needs a car.
I dont think it's a question of need so much as want. In the case of need, people would drive the same vehicle until it no longer ran.... and there would be more kias and hyundais instead of all the mercedes and bmws out there. There would also be more compact cars vs. all the giant SUVs out there. I think very little in our society these days is bought out of necessity as compared to what is bought out of desire. That's also what has fueled our progress... otherwise we'd all be happy rollin' out of bed at the butt crack of dawn farming for just enough to live off of. Instead, we all want something different.. and that's what drives most to work for it.
*disclaimer: I dont really belong here. I find the car free forum interesting and somewhat frustrating to read.
In the late 1800s-early 1900s most major US cities had efficient trolley (street car) systems. In the 1930s, huge conglomerates bought the street cars, junked them, and then paved over the tracks. To soothe over public outcry, they gave the cities busses. These busses worked fine (I assume) until they eventually started to break down. After that, automakers initiated an aggressive marketing campaign encouraging people to buy private autos: 'Why rely on public transportation, when you can have the independence of your own car?' Thus, the car culture was born and persists to this day.
Say what you will about their morality (or amorality), but the plan and marketing strategy by the auto/oil conglomerates was brilliant. They gradually and subtley created a situation where almost every resident in most US cities would need a product (car) they would sell. It textbook business 101 - create a need, then sell a product to satisfy that need.
We can blame the greedy auto/oil companies all we want, but US citizens let this happen. By letting self-interested, profit oriented companies assume the transit plan for US cities rather than treating transportation as a collective public resource, it lead to the situation we have now where almost everyone needs a car.
I dont think it's a question of need so much as want. In the case of need, people would drive the same vehicle until it no longer ran.... and there would be more kias and hyundais instead of all the mercedes and bmws out there. There would also be more compact cars vs. all the giant SUVs out there. I think very little in our society these days is bought out of necessity as compared to what is bought out of desire. That's also what has fueled our progress... otherwise we'd all be happy rollin' out of bed at the butt crack of dawn farming for just enough to live off of. Instead, we all want something different.. and that's what drives most to work for it.
*disclaimer: I dont really belong here. I find the car free forum interesting and somewhat frustrating to read.
Lambo
02-07-07, 02:41 PM
Too many people is the root of the fact that the planet is doomed.
Easter Island on a global scale.
Easter Island on a global scale.
Artkansas
02-07-07, 04:11 PM
Too many people is the root of the fact that the planet is doomed.
Easter Island on a global scale.
All those cute babies are really the most horrifying sight, aren't they.
Easter Island on a global scale.
All those cute babies are really the most horrifying sight, aren't they.
AlanK
02-07-07, 05:30 PM
Too many people is the root of the fact that the planet is doomed.
That's certainly a significant part of the problem, most significantly there are too many people to live a sustainable lifestyle. And what people like No Exit seem to ignore is that what we want as individuals is primarily the result of socialization. US culture is highly materialistic, and people are taught from they day they are born (observing their parents, advertising, etc) that succes in the US is equivalent to money and physical belongs (car, house, etc.). Many indigenous hunter/gatherer societies aren't materialistic. Consider a comparison between Western culture and many indigenous hunter/gather societies (not all):
Western culture operates from a linear approach and perspective, meaning that everything is always moving forward. While this means things will always change and there are new developments, there is a fundamental flaw to this approach; eventually you get to the end of the line, in this case the end of the line means the end of Western society. It appears we might be reaching that point, perhaps within the next 100 years or so.
Most indigenous hunter/gatherer societies operate from a cyclical perspective. They saw themselves and their society as part of a continuous ecosystem, and land and other resources were to used respectfully, but owned by no one. Most of these cultures took what they needed directly from natural resources, consequently their population level was kept sustainable with what ever ecosystem they occupied. This model is generally more sustainable over the long term than Western culture. Before they were eradicated by Westerners many hunter/gatherer societies lived sustainably for hundreds of years, and in some cases thousands of years. And while these socieities didn't have access to the level of health care developed countries do, they were typically healthy, only had to work 3-5 hour days, and had low levels of mental illness. There are still a small number of indigenous persons in the southwestern US who have lived the same way for about 2000-3000 years.
Even if there were significant interest, unfortunately there are now too many people for the hunter/gatherer lifestyle to undertaken by the multitude. The H/G lifestyle requires a signficant amount of undeveloped land that is only sparcely populated by humans. With all the people on this planet, we're stuck with modern agriculture; all we can do is try to minimize how destructive it is.
That's certainly a significant part of the problem, most significantly there are too many people to live a sustainable lifestyle. And what people like No Exit seem to ignore is that what we want as individuals is primarily the result of socialization. US culture is highly materialistic, and people are taught from they day they are born (observing their parents, advertising, etc) that succes in the US is equivalent to money and physical belongs (car, house, etc.). Many indigenous hunter/gatherer societies aren't materialistic. Consider a comparison between Western culture and many indigenous hunter/gather societies (not all):
Western culture operates from a linear approach and perspective, meaning that everything is always moving forward. While this means things will always change and there are new developments, there is a fundamental flaw to this approach; eventually you get to the end of the line, in this case the end of the line means the end of Western society. It appears we might be reaching that point, perhaps within the next 100 years or so.
Most indigenous hunter/gatherer societies operate from a cyclical perspective. They saw themselves and their society as part of a continuous ecosystem, and land and other resources were to used respectfully, but owned by no one. Most of these cultures took what they needed directly from natural resources, consequently their population level was kept sustainable with what ever ecosystem they occupied. This model is generally more sustainable over the long term than Western culture. Before they were eradicated by Westerners many hunter/gatherer societies lived sustainably for hundreds of years, and in some cases thousands of years. And while these socieities didn't have access to the level of health care developed countries do, they were typically healthy, only had to work 3-5 hour days, and had low levels of mental illness. There are still a small number of indigenous persons in the southwestern US who have lived the same way for about 2000-3000 years.
Even if there were significant interest, unfortunately there are now too many people for the hunter/gatherer lifestyle to undertaken by the multitude. The H/G lifestyle requires a signficant amount of undeveloped land that is only sparcely populated by humans. With all the people on this planet, we're stuck with modern agriculture; all we can do is try to minimize how destructive it is.
kjohnnytarr
02-07-07, 06:06 PM
All those cute babies are really the most horrifying sight, aren't they.
eh, I dunno. I don't think that the world is "overpopulated" per se. I just think that our resources and land are divided extremely unevenly. Think about the last time you flew a plane over the country, or saw a picture to that effect; most of America is empty space. There's room for plenty more here, despite what you hear on TV. Certain places in the world are overpopulated, sure, but the planet as a whole is far from saturated.
eh, I dunno. I don't think that the world is "overpopulated" per se. I just think that our resources and land are divided extremely unevenly. Think about the last time you flew a plane over the country, or saw a picture to that effect; most of America is empty space. There's room for plenty more here, despite what you hear on TV. Certain places in the world are overpopulated, sure, but the planet as a whole is far from saturated.
twochins
02-07-07, 11:48 PM
God given right
Lambo
02-08-07, 10:36 AM
Self-evident, inalienable
Roody
02-08-07, 01:26 PM
sprawl
Yes and no. Cars made sprawl possible, so cars cause sprawl. Sprawl makes cars "necessary," so sprawl causes cars.
Yes and no. Cars made sprawl possible, so cars cause sprawl. Sprawl makes cars "necessary," so sprawl causes cars.
Roody
02-08-07, 01:30 PM
God given right
Self-evident, inalienable
Americans in particular think they have a right to drive whenever and wherever they want. At this time they would fight for this "right." In fact, they do fight for this right, in Iraq, and I think soon in Iran.
Self-evident, inalienable
Americans in particular think they have a right to drive whenever and wherever they want. At this time they would fight for this "right." In fact, they do fight for this right, in Iraq, and I think soon in Iran.
makeinu
02-08-07, 02:00 PM
I think you guys have it all wrong. To get to the root of the "car problem" you have to first recognize that motorized vehicles are, in fact, superior means of transportation. Let's face it, they are quicker, they can go longer distances, and they require less effort. This naturally leads to the question, what is bad about motorized vehicles? Therein lies the answer to the "car problem".
The bad thing about motorized vehicles is that they destroy shared natural resources (ie the environment). Everything in life has bad qualities, so the fact that motorized vehicles have bad qualities does not, in and of itself, constitute a problem. No, the problem arises from the fact that the operators of motorized vehicles do not bear the burden of the bad qualities. The operator of a motorized vehicle does not only destroy his share of natural resources, but destroys a bit of everyone's share of natural resources. When someone drives a car, the pollution they create isn't confined to the air that they breath, but is spread out to all the air that everyone breathes. Thus the owner of a motorized vehicle does not pay the full price of operating that vehicle. The cost is shared among the entire population (present and future) and that is precisely the root of the "car problem".
This type of problem isn't unique to cars. Just like the "car problem", there are many problems which are the result of the abuse of shared resources and these types of problems are the very reason that government exists. The solution is simple: The government should simply devise the necessary machinery to clean up any pollution created by automobiles and pay for the development and operation of such machinery with additional taxes on automobiles and petroleum products. Unfortunately, the government is not doing its job by forcing automobile operators to bare the full cost of operating their automobiles and the general public would rather continue to take more than their fair share of environmental resources, having future generations pay the penalty. Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do to stop them and even if we could stop them it would be decidedly undemocratic.
The bad thing about motorized vehicles is that they destroy shared natural resources (ie the environment). Everything in life has bad qualities, so the fact that motorized vehicles have bad qualities does not, in and of itself, constitute a problem. No, the problem arises from the fact that the operators of motorized vehicles do not bear the burden of the bad qualities. The operator of a motorized vehicle does not only destroy his share of natural resources, but destroys a bit of everyone's share of natural resources. When someone drives a car, the pollution they create isn't confined to the air that they breath, but is spread out to all the air that everyone breathes. Thus the owner of a motorized vehicle does not pay the full price of operating that vehicle. The cost is shared among the entire population (present and future) and that is precisely the root of the "car problem".
This type of problem isn't unique to cars. Just like the "car problem", there are many problems which are the result of the abuse of shared resources and these types of problems are the very reason that government exists. The solution is simple: The government should simply devise the necessary machinery to clean up any pollution created by automobiles and pay for the development and operation of such machinery with additional taxes on automobiles and petroleum products. Unfortunately, the government is not doing its job by forcing automobile operators to bare the full cost of operating their automobiles and the general public would rather continue to take more than their fair share of environmental resources, having future generations pay the penalty. Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do to stop them and even if we could stop them it would be decidedly undemocratic.
rajman
02-08-07, 02:27 PM
Not sure that I can agree. In some cases, and in some environments, cars are superior means of transportation.
In some cases walking is the most reasonable - eg if I want to visit my neighbour across the street - I could a) cross the street, or b) walk a block to pick up my car, circle the block hoping to find a parking spot closer to my neighbour's house, and then cross the street to get there. In this case it seems insane to attempt to drive, as it increases the time required and the distance I have to walk.
For me to get to work I could a) walk - 15minutes/free, b) take the subway - 5-10 minutes $2.00, c) buy a car and drive over - 10 minutes + $10 day or more (probably closer to 20 all things considered), d) ride my bike - 5 minutes $1/day (maybe a bit less). It seems clear to me that the fastest is cycling, the cheapest is walking and the most convenient is the subway. However, one of my coworkers lives a block away from me, owns a car that she uses only to get to work and get groceries (also a 5 min drive / 10 minute walk to the nearest big box grocer - lots of little guys closer) at great expense to herself and depriving herself of retirement savings so that she can save 10 minutes a workday over walking (that's $60 an hour). Lots of people in Toronto drive short distances to work, when abandoning their second car (or only car) would save them time and money - it's not cost or convenience that puts them in a car.
Another case - IIRC in Barcelona there are fewer parking spots than cars. Buying a car entails that you will spend a lot of time parking/engaging the help of bystanders to lift your car into an available spot, in a compact lovely city with many alternatives for getting around.
People don't just drive because it's a superior means to get around. In some cases this may be true, but in a lot of cases it's because of a) status or b) they can't imagine any other way, and have never tried whatever alternatives are available. Often people drive even though it is a lot more expensive, time consuming and inconvenient that other means. When we have functions after school, the people who walk to the function often get there faster than the drivers because walking is just faster on congested city streets and walkers don't spend time walking through the parking lot, and at the other end walkers don't have to look for parking and finally they don't have to walk from said parking spot to the destination. So why do responsible people drive to these functions (even if alcoholic beverages are served)? Because they can't imagine any other way - they will sometimes complain that it took them longer to drive than to walk to destination - but the solution is to fix the roads/parking. That's all very well but there is a simpler, immediate, and cheaper solution. If you are in a hurry, walk.
That being said I think the status thing is a real barrier to getting people to choose alternatives. Maybe we should point out that if you get a carbon fiber or Ti frame you will have lots of status :)
Density is key if we are willing to allow the development of competition for transportation options. Otherwise we leave automotive transport with a monopoly.
I haven't addressed 'less effort'. I think this is true, but the amount of effort required for a 15 minute walk in good weather is achievable for most people in reasonable health.
</rant>
I think you guys have it all wrong. To get to the root of the "car problem" you have to first recognize that motorized vehicles are, in fact, superior means of transportation. Let's face it, they are quicker, they can go longer distances, and they require less effort. This naturally leads to the question, what is bad about motorized vehicles? Therein lies the answer to the "car problem".
[edit]
Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do to stop them and even if we could stop them it would be decidedly undemocratic.
In some cases walking is the most reasonable - eg if I want to visit my neighbour across the street - I could a) cross the street, or b) walk a block to pick up my car, circle the block hoping to find a parking spot closer to my neighbour's house, and then cross the street to get there. In this case it seems insane to attempt to drive, as it increases the time required and the distance I have to walk.
For me to get to work I could a) walk - 15minutes/free, b) take the subway - 5-10 minutes $2.00, c) buy a car and drive over - 10 minutes + $10 day or more (probably closer to 20 all things considered), d) ride my bike - 5 minutes $1/day (maybe a bit less). It seems clear to me that the fastest is cycling, the cheapest is walking and the most convenient is the subway. However, one of my coworkers lives a block away from me, owns a car that she uses only to get to work and get groceries (also a 5 min drive / 10 minute walk to the nearest big box grocer - lots of little guys closer) at great expense to herself and depriving herself of retirement savings so that she can save 10 minutes a workday over walking (that's $60 an hour). Lots of people in Toronto drive short distances to work, when abandoning their second car (or only car) would save them time and money - it's not cost or convenience that puts them in a car.
Another case - IIRC in Barcelona there are fewer parking spots than cars. Buying a car entails that you will spend a lot of time parking/engaging the help of bystanders to lift your car into an available spot, in a compact lovely city with many alternatives for getting around.
People don't just drive because it's a superior means to get around. In some cases this may be true, but in a lot of cases it's because of a) status or b) they can't imagine any other way, and have never tried whatever alternatives are available. Often people drive even though it is a lot more expensive, time consuming and inconvenient that other means. When we have functions after school, the people who walk to the function often get there faster than the drivers because walking is just faster on congested city streets and walkers don't spend time walking through the parking lot, and at the other end walkers don't have to look for parking and finally they don't have to walk from said parking spot to the destination. So why do responsible people drive to these functions (even if alcoholic beverages are served)? Because they can't imagine any other way - they will sometimes complain that it took them longer to drive than to walk to destination - but the solution is to fix the roads/parking. That's all very well but there is a simpler, immediate, and cheaper solution. If you are in a hurry, walk.
That being said I think the status thing is a real barrier to getting people to choose alternatives. Maybe we should point out that if you get a carbon fiber or Ti frame you will have lots of status :)
Density is key if we are willing to allow the development of competition for transportation options. Otherwise we leave automotive transport with a monopoly.
I haven't addressed 'less effort'. I think this is true, but the amount of effort required for a 15 minute walk in good weather is achievable for most people in reasonable health.
</rant>
I think you guys have it all wrong. To get to the root of the "car problem" you have to first recognize that motorized vehicles are, in fact, superior means of transportation. Let's face it, they are quicker, they can go longer distances, and they require less effort. This naturally leads to the question, what is bad about motorized vehicles? Therein lies the answer to the "car problem".
[edit]
Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do to stop them and even if we could stop them it would be decidedly undemocratic.
makeinu
02-08-07, 06:18 PM
Not sure that I can agree. In some cases, and in some environments, cars are superior means of transportation.
In some cases walking is the most reasonable - eg if I want to visit my neighbour across the street - I could a) cross the street, or b) walk a block to pick up my car, circle the block hoping to find a parking spot closer to my neighbour's house, and then cross the street to get there. In this case it seems insane to attempt to drive, as it increases the time required and the distance I have to walk.
For me to get to work I could a) walk - 15minutes/free, b) take the subway - 5-10 minutes $2.00, c) buy a car and drive over - 10 minutes + $10 day or more (probably closer to 20 all things considered), d) ride my bike - 5 minutes $1/day (maybe a bit less). It seems clear to me that the fastest is cycling, the cheapest is walking and the most convenient is the subway. However, one of my coworkers lives a block away from me, owns a car that she uses only to get to work and get groceries (also a 5 min drive / 10 minute walk to the nearest big box grocer - lots of little guys closer) at great expense to herself and depriving herself of retirement savings so that she can save 10 minutes a workday over walking (that's $60 an hour). Lots of people in Toronto drive short distances to work, when abandoning their second car (or only car) would save them time and money - it's not cost or convenience that puts them in a car.
Another case - IIRC in Barcelona there are fewer parking spots than cars. Buying a car entails that you will spend a lot of time parking/engaging the help of bystanders to lift your car into an available spot, in a compact lovely city with many alternatives for getting around.
People don't just drive because it's a superior means to get around. In some cases this may be true, but in a lot of cases it's because of a) status or b) they can't imagine any other way, and have never tried whatever alternatives are available. Often people drive even though it is a lot more expensive, time consuming and inconvenient that other means. When we have functions after school, the people who walk to the function often get there faster than the drivers because walking is just faster on congested city streets and walkers don't spend time walking through the parking lot, and at the other end walkers don't have to look for parking and finally they don't have to walk from said parking spot to the destination. So why do responsible people drive to these functions (even if alcoholic beverages are served)? Because they can't imagine any other way - they will sometimes complain that it took them longer to drive than to walk to destination - but the solution is to fix the roads/parking. That's all very well but there is a simpler, immediate, and cheaper solution. If you are in a hurry, walk.
That being said I think the status thing is a real barrier to getting people to choose alternatives. Maybe we should point out that if you get a carbon fiber or Ti frame you will have lots of status :)
Density is key if we are willing to allow the development of competition for transportation options. Otherwise we leave automotive transport with a monopoly.
I haven't addressed 'less effort'. I think this is true, but the amount of effort required for a 15 minute walk in good weather is achievable for most people in reasonable health.
</rant>
I said motorized vehicles are superior means of transportation, not necessarily cars. In most of the scenarios you listed above a motorcycle would be the fastest way to get where you are going (or perhaps a segway). Elevators, escalators, conveyor belts, etc would be better for other scenarios that you listed, but these are not as commonly employed due to cost. In particular, due to the fact that the cost is almost fully borne by the owner/operator of such devices instead of being offloaded to shared environmental resources.
Also, I think you're confusing people's willingness to put up with the hassle of using their cars in nonideal circumstances. People aren't stupid. It's not that they simply can't conceive of not using their car. It's just that they happen to find their cars to be such useful and versatile transportation tools that they are willing to put up with a little inconvenience every once and a while. They are like boyscouts with swiss army knives; Are there better tools for eating dinner than a swiss army knife? Sure, but in some contexts it's simply more expedient to always use the best overall tool rather than carefully planning the ideal tool for each scenario.
People may claim that they can't imagine anything else, but I guarantee that if the overall utility of using the car were much less than other alternatives then they would switch to other alternatives. For example, take manhattan businessmen; They have no problem using the subway because it is vastly superior to trying to drive in manhattan at rush hour.
The status thing is secondary. If people had to drive their cars inside their homes where they couldn't just release the noxious waste to the rest of the world then you'd see how quickly status would go out the window.
Also, people don't want to live in high density. That's why they all bought cars and made the cities sprawl. If people generally liked living in high density then cars never would have become popular to begin with. To say that lack of density is the problem is backwards. People want to sprawl, motorized vehicles enable them to do it, and mother earth pays the bill. You can't convince them that they don't want to sprawl; That motorized vehicles enable them to do it is simply a fact; The only thing you might be able to do is make them pay the bill, instead of letting them mooch off mother earth, but even that will be tough since they are the majority. Fortunately, oil is a finite resource and the public isn't too keen on nuclear power, so I think our chances of winning them over will only increase as the oil runs out.
In some cases walking is the most reasonable - eg if I want to visit my neighbour across the street - I could a) cross the street, or b) walk a block to pick up my car, circle the block hoping to find a parking spot closer to my neighbour's house, and then cross the street to get there. In this case it seems insane to attempt to drive, as it increases the time required and the distance I have to walk.
For me to get to work I could a) walk - 15minutes/free, b) take the subway - 5-10 minutes $2.00, c) buy a car and drive over - 10 minutes + $10 day or more (probably closer to 20 all things considered), d) ride my bike - 5 minutes $1/day (maybe a bit less). It seems clear to me that the fastest is cycling, the cheapest is walking and the most convenient is the subway. However, one of my coworkers lives a block away from me, owns a car that she uses only to get to work and get groceries (also a 5 min drive / 10 minute walk to the nearest big box grocer - lots of little guys closer) at great expense to herself and depriving herself of retirement savings so that she can save 10 minutes a workday over walking (that's $60 an hour). Lots of people in Toronto drive short distances to work, when abandoning their second car (or only car) would save them time and money - it's not cost or convenience that puts them in a car.
Another case - IIRC in Barcelona there are fewer parking spots than cars. Buying a car entails that you will spend a lot of time parking/engaging the help of bystanders to lift your car into an available spot, in a compact lovely city with many alternatives for getting around.
People don't just drive because it's a superior means to get around. In some cases this may be true, but in a lot of cases it's because of a) status or b) they can't imagine any other way, and have never tried whatever alternatives are available. Often people drive even though it is a lot more expensive, time consuming and inconvenient that other means. When we have functions after school, the people who walk to the function often get there faster than the drivers because walking is just faster on congested city streets and walkers don't spend time walking through the parking lot, and at the other end walkers don't have to look for parking and finally they don't have to walk from said parking spot to the destination. So why do responsible people drive to these functions (even if alcoholic beverages are served)? Because they can't imagine any other way - they will sometimes complain that it took them longer to drive than to walk to destination - but the solution is to fix the roads/parking. That's all very well but there is a simpler, immediate, and cheaper solution. If you are in a hurry, walk.
That being said I think the status thing is a real barrier to getting people to choose alternatives. Maybe we should point out that if you get a carbon fiber or Ti frame you will have lots of status :)
Density is key if we are willing to allow the development of competition for transportation options. Otherwise we leave automotive transport with a monopoly.
I haven't addressed 'less effort'. I think this is true, but the amount of effort required for a 15 minute walk in good weather is achievable for most people in reasonable health.
</rant>
I said motorized vehicles are superior means of transportation, not necessarily cars. In most of the scenarios you listed above a motorcycle would be the fastest way to get where you are going (or perhaps a segway). Elevators, escalators, conveyor belts, etc would be better for other scenarios that you listed, but these are not as commonly employed due to cost. In particular, due to the fact that the cost is almost fully borne by the owner/operator of such devices instead of being offloaded to shared environmental resources.
Also, I think you're confusing people's willingness to put up with the hassle of using their cars in nonideal circumstances. People aren't stupid. It's not that they simply can't conceive of not using their car. It's just that they happen to find their cars to be such useful and versatile transportation tools that they are willing to put up with a little inconvenience every once and a while. They are like boyscouts with swiss army knives; Are there better tools for eating dinner than a swiss army knife? Sure, but in some contexts it's simply more expedient to always use the best overall tool rather than carefully planning the ideal tool for each scenario.
People may claim that they can't imagine anything else, but I guarantee that if the overall utility of using the car were much less than other alternatives then they would switch to other alternatives. For example, take manhattan businessmen; They have no problem using the subway because it is vastly superior to trying to drive in manhattan at rush hour.
The status thing is secondary. If people had to drive their cars inside their homes where they couldn't just release the noxious waste to the rest of the world then you'd see how quickly status would go out the window.
Also, people don't want to live in high density. That's why they all bought cars and made the cities sprawl. If people generally liked living in high density then cars never would have become popular to begin with. To say that lack of density is the problem is backwards. People want to sprawl, motorized vehicles enable them to do it, and mother earth pays the bill. You can't convince them that they don't want to sprawl; That motorized vehicles enable them to do it is simply a fact; The only thing you might be able to do is make them pay the bill, instead of letting them mooch off mother earth, but even that will be tough since they are the majority. Fortunately, oil is a finite resource and the public isn't too keen on nuclear power, so I think our chances of winning them over will only increase as the oil runs out.
AlanK
02-08-07, 06:47 PM
Makeinu... Purely in terms of speed, yes motorized vehicles are a superior form of transit. They are fast, at least when not hindered by traffic. However in terms of overall efficiency numerous studies have shown bicycles are the most efficient overall means of transportation (a car would have to get at least 150 mph to be as efficient as a bike).
As for your sprawl argument, you really need to read the book "Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream". The authors discuss how suburban sprawl was conceptualized, and how unhappy many suburbanites are with it (yes, it is also true that many happy in the burbs). Before the prevalence of private vehicles, cities were designed to be more conducive to walking. And in many cities on the east coast like NYC - most people don't own a car because there's no need. Most New Yorkers live within walking distance of everything they need (groceries, restaurants, etc), and the subway will get them anywhere else.
As for your sprawl argument, you really need to read the book "Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream". The authors discuss how suburban sprawl was conceptualized, and how unhappy many suburbanites are with it (yes, it is also true that many happy in the burbs). Before the prevalence of private vehicles, cities were designed to be more conducive to walking. And in many cities on the east coast like NYC - most people don't own a car because there's no need. Most New Yorkers live within walking distance of everything they need (groceries, restaurants, etc), and the subway will get them anywhere else.
peace_piper
02-08-07, 07:12 PM
Shortly put, "Urban Sprawl".
But it's not simple as many other posters have put it far more eloquently than I. Cities are designed to have seperate districts, Residental, Commercial, etc. As long as you have those, you are going to have sprawl and as long as you have sprawl you're going to have cars. If there were no zones, we could alleviate most of the problem. If you could live in the house above your work, why would you own a car?
Another big root of the problem is cultural. Our culture and greater western culture in general values wealth by the things you have. Cars, multiple cars, expensive cars, big houses away from the middle of the city for peace and quiet (thus, requiring a car and the fuel cost to get to) proves "wealth". As long as wealth is determined by things, you will always have a car problem.
But it's not simple as many other posters have put it far more eloquently than I. Cities are designed to have seperate districts, Residental, Commercial, etc. As long as you have those, you are going to have sprawl and as long as you have sprawl you're going to have cars. If there were no zones, we could alleviate most of the problem. If you could live in the house above your work, why would you own a car?
Another big root of the problem is cultural. Our culture and greater western culture in general values wealth by the things you have. Cars, multiple cars, expensive cars, big houses away from the middle of the city for peace and quiet (thus, requiring a car and the fuel cost to get to) proves "wealth". As long as wealth is determined by things, you will always have a car problem.
makeinu
02-08-07, 07:21 PM
Makeinu... Purely in terms of speed, yes motorized vehicles are a superior form of transit. They are fast, at least when not hindered by traffic. However in terms of overall efficiency numerous studies have shown bicycles are the most efficient overall means of transportation (a car would have to get at least 150 mph to be as efficient as a bike).
Yeah, but what does that have to do with anything? If I'm paying for dinner then why do you care if the restaurant is a bargain or not? If anything, you'd probably rather go to a restaurant that's way overpriced....that's exactly what most people do by driving motorized vehicles.
As for your sprawl argument, you really need to read the book "Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream". The authors discuss how suburban sprawl was conceptualized, and how unhappy many suburbanites are with it (yes, it is also true that many happy in the burbs). Before the prevalence of private vehicles, cities were designed to be more conducive to walking. And in many cities on the east coast like NYC - most people don't own a car because there's no need. Most New Yorkers live within walking distance of everything they need (groceries, restaurants, etc), and the subway will get them anywhere else.
Authors can say whatever they want, but there are millions of free individuals out there putting their money and their lives on the line. By and large, those people are choosing sprawl over dense urbanization. Talk is cheap.
Believe me, I understand the appeal of urban living, it's the lifestyle I live, but most people feel differently. It is certainly their right to feel differently, but if they intend to act on that feeling then they should bear the full cost. Right now they aren't, but if they were then there wouldn't be any "car problem" (although I think it's more likely that most of them would simply decide that it isn't worth the cost).
But it's not simple as many other posters have put it far more eloquently than I. Cities are designed to have seperate districts, Residental, Commercial, etc. As long as you have those, you are going to have sprawl and as long as you have sprawl you're going to have cars. If there were no zones, we could alleviate most of the problem. If you could live in the house above your work, why would you own a car?
Who controls the zoning? The government. Who controls the government? Elected officials. Who elects the officials? The people. If the people really hated urban sprawl then they could change such zoning, but they don't.
Another big root of the problem is cultural. Our culture and greater western culture in general values wealth by the things you have. Cars, multiple cars, expensive cars, big houses away from the middle of the city for peace and quiet (thus, requiring a car and the fuel cost to get to) proves "wealth". As long as wealth is determined by things, you will always have a car problem.
You think the wealthy living in huge apartments in midtown manhattan have different values? I don't think materialism has anything to do with it.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with anything? If I'm paying for dinner then why do you care if the restaurant is a bargain or not? If anything, you'd probably rather go to a restaurant that's way overpriced....that's exactly what most people do by driving motorized vehicles.
As for your sprawl argument, you really need to read the book "Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream". The authors discuss how suburban sprawl was conceptualized, and how unhappy many suburbanites are with it (yes, it is also true that many happy in the burbs). Before the prevalence of private vehicles, cities were designed to be more conducive to walking. And in many cities on the east coast like NYC - most people don't own a car because there's no need. Most New Yorkers live within walking distance of everything they need (groceries, restaurants, etc), and the subway will get them anywhere else.
Authors can say whatever they want, but there are millions of free individuals out there putting their money and their lives on the line. By and large, those people are choosing sprawl over dense urbanization. Talk is cheap.
Believe me, I understand the appeal of urban living, it's the lifestyle I live, but most people feel differently. It is certainly their right to feel differently, but if they intend to act on that feeling then they should bear the full cost. Right now they aren't, but if they were then there wouldn't be any "car problem" (although I think it's more likely that most of them would simply decide that it isn't worth the cost).
But it's not simple as many other posters have put it far more eloquently than I. Cities are designed to have seperate districts, Residental, Commercial, etc. As long as you have those, you are going to have sprawl and as long as you have sprawl you're going to have cars. If there were no zones, we could alleviate most of the problem. If you could live in the house above your work, why would you own a car?
Who controls the zoning? The government. Who controls the government? Elected officials. Who elects the officials? The people. If the people really hated urban sprawl then they could change such zoning, but they don't.
Another big root of the problem is cultural. Our culture and greater western culture in general values wealth by the things you have. Cars, multiple cars, expensive cars, big houses away from the middle of the city for peace and quiet (thus, requiring a car and the fuel cost to get to) proves "wealth". As long as wealth is determined by things, you will always have a car problem.
You think the wealthy living in huge apartments in midtown manhattan have different values? I don't think materialism has anything to do with it.
AlanK
02-08-07, 07:32 PM
Authors can say whatever they want, but there are millions of free individuals out there putting their money and their lives on the line. By and large, those people are choosing sprawl over dense urbanization. Talk is cheap.
Believe me, I understand the appeal of urban living, it's the lifestyle I live, but most people feel differently. It is certainly their right to feel differently, but if they intend to act on that feeling then they should bear the full cost. Right now they aren't, but if they were then there wouldn't be any "car problem" (although I think it's more likely that most of them would simply decide that it isn't worth the cost).
I have a different understanding of behavior - it isn't so much a question of choice but primarily of conditioning. Behavior is the result of numerous environmental factors interacting the biology/genetics. The most influential of these factors is early socializtion. In the US most people are around cars from the day they are born. Consequently, they view cars as a typical, benign, and normal characteristic of their environment. This is a complex issue, and we're getting off topic (or I am anyway).
As for the second aspect of your argument, I agree completely. In most cities drivers don't pay the true socioeconomic cost for cars. If the actual cost of owning and operating a car were representative/equivalent of the damage they cause, most persons could not afford them. If the US operated on a truly free-market economy and the government did not subsidize cars would not be nearly as prevalent.
Believe me, I understand the appeal of urban living, it's the lifestyle I live, but most people feel differently. It is certainly their right to feel differently, but if they intend to act on that feeling then they should bear the full cost. Right now they aren't, but if they were then there wouldn't be any "car problem" (although I think it's more likely that most of them would simply decide that it isn't worth the cost).
I have a different understanding of behavior - it isn't so much a question of choice but primarily of conditioning. Behavior is the result of numerous environmental factors interacting the biology/genetics. The most influential of these factors is early socializtion. In the US most people are around cars from the day they are born. Consequently, they view cars as a typical, benign, and normal characteristic of their environment. This is a complex issue, and we're getting off topic (or I am anyway).
As for the second aspect of your argument, I agree completely. In most cities drivers don't pay the true socioeconomic cost for cars. If the actual cost of owning and operating a car were representative/equivalent of the damage they cause, most persons could not afford them. If the US operated on a truly free-market economy and the government did not subsidize cars would not be nearly as prevalent.
bragi
02-08-07, 10:39 PM
*disclaimer: I dont really belong here. I find the car free forum interesting and somewhat frustrating to read.
What do you find frustrating about it?
What do you find frustrating about it?
twochins
02-09-07, 12:09 AM
I said motorized vehicles are superior means of transportation, not necessarily cars. In most of the scenarios you listed above a motorcycle would be the fastest way to get where you are going (or perhaps a segway). Elevators, escalators, conveyor belts, etc would be better for other scenarios that you listed, but these are not as commonly employed due to cost. In particular, due to the fact that the cost is almost fully borne by the owner/operator of such devices instead of being offloaded to shared environmental resources.
Also, I think you're confusing people's willingness to put up with the hassle of using their cars in nonideal circumstances. People aren't stupid. It's not that they simply can't conceive of not using their car. It's just that they happen to find their cars to be such useful and versatile transportation tools that they are willing to put up with a little inconvenience every once and a while. They are like boyscouts with swiss army knives; Are there better tools for eating dinner than a swiss army knife? Sure, but in some contexts it's simply more expedient to always use the best overall tool rather than carefully planning the ideal tool for each scenario.
People may claim that they can't imagine anything else, but I guarantee that if the overall utility of using the car were much less than other alternatives then they would switch to other alternatives. For example, take manhattan businessmen; They have no problem using the subway because it is vastly superior to trying to drive in manhattan at rush hour.
The status thing is secondary. If people had to drive their cars inside their homes where they couldn't just release the noxious waste to the rest of the world then you'd see how quickly status would go out the window.
Also, people don't want to live in high density. That's why they all bought cars and made the cities sprawl. If people generally liked living in high density then cars never would have become popular to begin with. To say that lack of density is the problem is backwards. People want to sprawl, motorized vehicles enable them to do it, and mother earth pays the bill. You can't convince them that they don't want to sprawl; That motorized vehicles enable them to do it is simply a fact; The only thing you might be able to do is make them pay the bill, instead of letting them mooch off mother earth, but even that will be tough since they are the majority. Fortunately, oil is a finite resource and the public isn't too keen on nuclear power, so I think our chances of winning them over will only increase as the oil runs out.
ooh, i see another issue here...a new car owner just bought his or her car for 15K plus insurance for the year...and everyone knows your supposed to average 10000 miles or so a year in a car...so they are just programmed to do just that, buy a car and drive it everywhere because they bought the car and insurance...yes, there certainly is programming involved and all media from TV to magazines to newspapers to the internet all emphasize that this is the lifestyle to have buy successful poeple in the country and others...very few people think outside the box as we've done long ago
Also, I think you're confusing people's willingness to put up with the hassle of using their cars in nonideal circumstances. People aren't stupid. It's not that they simply can't conceive of not using their car. It's just that they happen to find their cars to be such useful and versatile transportation tools that they are willing to put up with a little inconvenience every once and a while. They are like boyscouts with swiss army knives; Are there better tools for eating dinner than a swiss army knife? Sure, but in some contexts it's simply more expedient to always use the best overall tool rather than carefully planning the ideal tool for each scenario.
People may claim that they can't imagine anything else, but I guarantee that if the overall utility of using the car were much less than other alternatives then they would switch to other alternatives. For example, take manhattan businessmen; They have no problem using the subway because it is vastly superior to trying to drive in manhattan at rush hour.
The status thing is secondary. If people had to drive their cars inside their homes where they couldn't just release the noxious waste to the rest of the world then you'd see how quickly status would go out the window.
Also, people don't want to live in high density. That's why they all bought cars and made the cities sprawl. If people generally liked living in high density then cars never would have become popular to begin with. To say that lack of density is the problem is backwards. People want to sprawl, motorized vehicles enable them to do it, and mother earth pays the bill. You can't convince them that they don't want to sprawl; That motorized vehicles enable them to do it is simply a fact; The only thing you might be able to do is make them pay the bill, instead of letting them mooch off mother earth, but even that will be tough since they are the majority. Fortunately, oil is a finite resource and the public isn't too keen on nuclear power, so I think our chances of winning them over will only increase as the oil runs out.
ooh, i see another issue here...a new car owner just bought his or her car for 15K plus insurance for the year...and everyone knows your supposed to average 10000 miles or so a year in a car...so they are just programmed to do just that, buy a car and drive it everywhere because they bought the car and insurance...yes, there certainly is programming involved and all media from TV to magazines to newspapers to the internet all emphasize that this is the lifestyle to have buy successful poeple in the country and others...very few people think outside the box as we've done long ago
gcl8a
02-09-07, 01:37 AM
That's certainly a significant part of the problem, most significantly there are too many people to live a sustainable lifestyle.
Do you really think so? I will agree that we are not currently living a sustainable lifestyle (as a species), but that is because we currently have sufficiently abundant resources to live as we do. There is no obvious need to most people to change (which obviously parallels your comments on socialization and lifestyle).
But as these resource run out in the coming decades/centuries, don't you think the species can adjust? There is more than enough arable land to produce the necessary food. The energy to produce that food will have to come from something other than fossil fuel, but that's an economic challenge, not a technical one. Similar arguments can be made for housing, medical technology, etc.
Do you think, _fundamentally_, that the world is overpopulated to the point where some kind of 'crash' or 'correction' is inevitible?
Do you really think so? I will agree that we are not currently living a sustainable lifestyle (as a species), but that is because we currently have sufficiently abundant resources to live as we do. There is no obvious need to most people to change (which obviously parallels your comments on socialization and lifestyle).
But as these resource run out in the coming decades/centuries, don't you think the species can adjust? There is more than enough arable land to produce the necessary food. The energy to produce that food will have to come from something other than fossil fuel, but that's an economic challenge, not a technical one. Similar arguments can be made for housing, medical technology, etc.
Do you think, _fundamentally_, that the world is overpopulated to the point where some kind of 'crash' or 'correction' is inevitible?
gcl8a
02-09-07, 01:40 AM
The bad thing about motorized vehicles is that they destroy shared natural resources (ie the environment)...
Excellent post. Excellent analysis.
Excellent post. Excellent analysis.
gcl8a
02-09-07, 01:45 AM
ooh, i see another issue here...a new car owner just bought his or her car for 15K plus insurance for the year...and everyone knows your supposed to average 10000 miles or so a year in a car...so they are just programmed to do just that, buy a car and drive it everywhere because they bought the car and insurance...yes, there certainly is programming involved and all media from TV to magazines to newspapers to the internet all emphasize that this is the lifestyle to have buy successful poeple in the country and others...very few people think outside the box as we've done long ago
People are not that stupid.
"Hey Honey! We only have 8,500 miles on the car this year, I'm going to go drive to Iowa and back to use up our quota!"
"OK, dear. Pick up some milk on your way home."
People are not that stupid.
"Hey Honey! We only have 8,500 miles on the car this year, I'm going to go drive to Iowa and back to use up our quota!"
"OK, dear. Pick up some milk on your way home."
acroy
02-09-07, 08:42 AM
A Want coupled with enough Wealth = a zillion cars
rajman
02-09-07, 04:04 PM
Touche - Motorcycles/scooters are indeed superior in many circumstances.
I don't agree about the density - the many of the most desirable neighbourhoods in Toronto (beaches, annex, forest hill) Montreal (the plateau, NDG), Vancouver (kitsilano, west end, etc)and Calgary (kensington, sunnyside, Marda Loop) are medium to high density areas. It's not that people don't want to move to dense urban neighbourhoods in my experience, it's that the people who already own property feel threatened by intensification projects (accessory apartments, townhouse, and condos) in their neighbourhood. NIMBYism is very strong when it comes to these types of projects not because no-one wants to move in (in my neighbourhood these types of projects have sold very quickly), but because the local residents don't think that density is good (even if part of the reason their neighbourhood is desirable is in fact it's density).
In my experience it's very difficult in conversation to convince people that walking, cycling and transit are feasible means of getting around (even if it is for a fraction of trips), to the extent that they won't even try the alternatives that exist.
I don't agree about the density - the many of the most desirable neighbourhoods in Toronto (beaches, annex, forest hill) Montreal (the plateau, NDG), Vancouver (kitsilano, west end, etc)and Calgary (kensington, sunnyside, Marda Loop) are medium to high density areas. It's not that people don't want to move to dense urban neighbourhoods in my experience, it's that the people who already own property feel threatened by intensification projects (accessory apartments, townhouse, and condos) in their neighbourhood. NIMBYism is very strong when it comes to these types of projects not because no-one wants to move in (in my neighbourhood these types of projects have sold very quickly), but because the local residents don't think that density is good (even if part of the reason their neighbourhood is desirable is in fact it's density).
In my experience it's very difficult in conversation to convince people that walking, cycling and transit are feasible means of getting around (even if it is for a fraction of trips), to the extent that they won't even try the alternatives that exist.
AlanK
02-10-07, 04:03 PM
Do you really think so? I will agree that we are not currently living a sustainable lifestyle (as a species), but that is because we currently have sufficiently abundant resources to live as we do. There is no obvious need to most people to change (which obviously parallels your comments on socialization and lifestyle).
But as these resource run out in the coming decades/centuries, don't you think the species can adjust? There is more than enough arable land to produce the necessary food. The energy to produce that food will have to come from something other than fossil fuel, but that's an economic challenge, not a technical one. Similar arguments can be made for housing, medical technology, etc.
Do you think, _fundamentally_, that the world is overpopulated to the point where some kind of 'crash' or 'correction' is inevitible?
That's a difficult and complicated issue/question to answer. One of the most significant problems is that as a whole human socities are moving in the direction of using more energy and producing more waste. It's important to note that it is not possible for all socities to live the type of lifestyle we due the developed western world. By this I mean if you consider per capita energy consumption and waste created in the US or any other developed country (even Eurpean countries who use fewer resources per capita than the US), it would be impossible for the entire world to live this lifestyle because it's simply not possible to produce that much energy, and more significantly even if it were possible the waste created would render the planet uninhabitable. It's possible that newer technologies might emerge which change that simple fact, but we don't know.
Right now I'm reading a book, Endgame Vol 1: The Problem of Civilization by Derrick Jensen. He's an environmentalist, and freely admits he's arguing from a certain perspective. Even considering this, he makes a strong case that any kind of technological civilization is not sustainable indefinitely because all civilizations are routed in the consumption of non-renewable natural resources (to varying degrees). Again, it's possible modern western civilization might be an exception, but based on scientific and historical evidence our long-term prospects aren't promising. Based on anthropological evidence, it appears the only type of human socities that are indefinitely sustainable are low-technology, low-density, hunter/gatherer communities. These communities are sustainable because they operate as part of a natural ecosystem, and as such their population growth and density is naturally adjusted for the ecosystem they inhabit.
But as these resource run out in the coming decades/centuries, don't you think the species can adjust? There is more than enough arable land to produce the necessary food. The energy to produce that food will have to come from something other than fossil fuel, but that's an economic challenge, not a technical one. Similar arguments can be made for housing, medical technology, etc.
Do you think, _fundamentally_, that the world is overpopulated to the point where some kind of 'crash' or 'correction' is inevitible?
That's a difficult and complicated issue/question to answer. One of the most significant problems is that as a whole human socities are moving in the direction of using more energy and producing more waste. It's important to note that it is not possible for all socities to live the type of lifestyle we due the developed western world. By this I mean if you consider per capita energy consumption and waste created in the US or any other developed country (even Eurpean countries who use fewer resources per capita than the US), it would be impossible for the entire world to live this lifestyle because it's simply not possible to produce that much energy, and more significantly even if it were possible the waste created would render the planet uninhabitable. It's possible that newer technologies might emerge which change that simple fact, but we don't know.
Right now I'm reading a book, Endgame Vol 1: The Problem of Civilization by Derrick Jensen. He's an environmentalist, and freely admits he's arguing from a certain perspective. Even considering this, he makes a strong case that any kind of technological civilization is not sustainable indefinitely because all civilizations are routed in the consumption of non-renewable natural resources (to varying degrees). Again, it's possible modern western civilization might be an exception, but based on scientific and historical evidence our long-term prospects aren't promising. Based on anthropological evidence, it appears the only type of human socities that are indefinitely sustainable are low-technology, low-density, hunter/gatherer communities. These communities are sustainable because they operate as part of a natural ecosystem, and as such their population growth and density is naturally adjusted for the ecosystem they inhabit.
gerv
02-11-07, 11:16 AM
One problem with cars is their owners. I read recently that the average family makes 11 errand-type trips a day in their car. I'm hoping that includes commuting, but it seems that these people are constantly on the move. Cars facilitate this type of activity, of course, but you'd think some of these average family members would say "Hey, this is crazy! What kind of a life am I leading?"
I guess we all know extreme examples of this, but I just can't believe the number of people who spend their entire lives rushing between events and restaurants and work and meetings and kids' music lessons.
I guess we all know extreme examples of this, but I just can't believe the number of people who spend their entire lives rushing between events and restaurants and work and meetings and kids' music lessons.
Saltheart
02-13-07, 02:58 PM
2. high density living. If there is no room for cars, less people will drive.
I think high desity living would exchange one set of problems f(ossil fuels/energy production) for others (higher crime rate [urban vs rural], psyhcological maladies, unemployment etc. In this day of technology we can produce as many jobs in smaller less urban population centers as we can in the large mega cities and do it in a more greener fashion. The internet has opened those options to us. We just don't have the proper motivation yet. JMHO
I think high desity living would exchange one set of problems f(ossil fuels/energy production) for others (higher crime rate [urban vs rural], psyhcological maladies, unemployment etc. In this day of technology we can produce as many jobs in smaller less urban population centers as we can in the large mega cities and do it in a more greener fashion. The internet has opened those options to us. We just don't have the proper motivation yet. JMHO
Saltheart
02-13-07, 03:10 PM
travel by motorised vehicles will become obsolete only when we develop a means of instantious transportation via some sort of teleportation method and that will only become a reality when we run out of fossil fuels to move goods and services.
Roody
02-14-07, 01:12 PM
2. high density living. If there is no room for cars, less people will drive.
I think high desity living would exchange one set of problems f(ossil fuels/energy production) for others (higher crime rate [urban vs rural], psyhcological maladies, unemployment etc. In this day of technology we can produce as many jobs in smaller less urban population centers as we can in the large mega cities and do it in a more greener fashion. The internet has opened those options to us. We just don't have the proper motivation yet. JMHO
Actually, crime rates are sometimes lower in dense cities, if they're properly planned. If there's a good sens of community, you have lots of neighbors watching out for each other, and good community policing to keep a handle on criminals. This is a main point that was made by city planner Jane Jacobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs), one of the visionaries of the carfree movement.
I think high desity living would exchange one set of problems f(ossil fuels/energy production) for others (higher crime rate [urban vs rural], psyhcological maladies, unemployment etc. In this day of technology we can produce as many jobs in smaller less urban population centers as we can in the large mega cities and do it in a more greener fashion. The internet has opened those options to us. We just don't have the proper motivation yet. JMHO
Actually, crime rates are sometimes lower in dense cities, if they're properly planned. If there's a good sens of community, you have lots of neighbors watching out for each other, and good community policing to keep a handle on criminals. This is a main point that was made by city planner Jane Jacobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs), one of the visionaries of the carfree movement.
Cyclepath
02-14-07, 02:29 PM
That's an easy one: self-interest. The root of the "car problem" is the basic flaw in our species: most people, most of the time, will put what they want over the needs of others.
It's the result of generations of brainwashing coupled with being kept in ignorance of environmental & other factors, & the deliberate corporate/government destruction of the mass transit system after WW2.
This was coupled with Federal subsidising of the national highway system (no "free enterprise" there, just as with unaccountable military contractors - the main engine of the economy - oil, & other major sectors of the economy).
It's the result of generations of brainwashing coupled with being kept in ignorance of environmental & other factors, & the deliberate corporate/government destruction of the mass transit system after WW2.
This was coupled with Federal subsidising of the national highway system (no "free enterprise" there, just as with unaccountable military contractors - the main engine of the economy - oil, & other major sectors of the economy).
patc
02-14-07, 04:45 PM
It's the result of generations of brainwashing coupled with being kept in ignorance of environmental & other factors, & the deliberate corporate/government destruction of the mass transit system after WW2.
On that note... we've had an on-again/off-again light rail plan here in Ottawa. It's been a saga worthy of the cheapest daytime soap (including a current lawsuit threat for $175 million!). Anyway, the point here: in a map of Ottawa from 1906 - that's right, 100 years ago - there is an electric streetcar system running througout the city. That's right, 100 years ago they had great public transit in what is now considered the urban core of Ottawa!
I think we need to turn back the clock.
On that note... we've had an on-again/off-again light rail plan here in Ottawa. It's been a saga worthy of the cheapest daytime soap (including a current lawsuit threat for $175 million!). Anyway, the point here: in a map of Ottawa from 1906 - that's right, 100 years ago - there is an electric streetcar system running througout the city. That's right, 100 years ago they had great public transit in what is now considered the urban core of Ottawa!
I think we need to turn back the clock.
wahoonc
02-14-07, 06:20 PM
It's the result of generations of brainwashing coupled with being kept in ignorance of environmental & other factors, & the deliberate corporate/government destruction of the mass transit system after WW2.
This was coupled with Federal subsidising of the national highway system (no "free enterprise" there, just as with unaccountable military contractors - the main engine of the economy - oil, & other major sectors of the economy).
The truth!
On that note... we've had an on-again/off-again light rail plan here in Ottawa. It's been a saga worthy of the cheapest daytime soap (including a current lawsuit threat for $175 million!). Anyway, the point here: in a map of Ottawa from 1906 - that's right, 100 years ago - there is an electric streetcar system running througout the city. That's right, 100 years ago they had great public transit in what is now considered the urban core of Ottawa!
I think we need to turn back the clock.
Here too! I was watching with interest as they tore up a what used to be a local main road, about 2' down they uncovered trolley tracks:eek: It dated to the 1920's. Our nearest large city(Raleigh, NC) has been off and on again for light rail for the past 10 years. Now they are talking about eliminating about 2000 parking spaces in the downtown area for the state workers and doing a park and ride gimmick. That is going to go over very well...NOT:p
I think the clock will be rolled back but it is going to get ugly before it gets there.
Aaron:)
This was coupled with Federal subsidising of the national highway system (no "free enterprise" there, just as with unaccountable military contractors - the main engine of the economy - oil, & other major sectors of the economy).
The truth!
On that note... we've had an on-again/off-again light rail plan here in Ottawa. It's been a saga worthy of the cheapest daytime soap (including a current lawsuit threat for $175 million!). Anyway, the point here: in a map of Ottawa from 1906 - that's right, 100 years ago - there is an electric streetcar system running througout the city. That's right, 100 years ago they had great public transit in what is now considered the urban core of Ottawa!
I think we need to turn back the clock.
Here too! I was watching with interest as they tore up a what used to be a local main road, about 2' down they uncovered trolley tracks:eek: It dated to the 1920's. Our nearest large city(Raleigh, NC) has been off and on again for light rail for the past 10 years. Now they are talking about eliminating about 2000 parking spaces in the downtown area for the state workers and doing a park and ride gimmick. That is going to go over very well...NOT:p
I think the clock will be rolled back but it is going to get ugly before it gets there.
Aaron:)
lyeinyoureye
02-14-07, 06:29 PM
Greed.
SmithW6079
02-18-07, 07:31 PM
Authors can say whatever they want, but there are millions of free individuals out there putting their money and their lives on the line. By and large, those people are choosing sprawl over dense urbanization. Talk is cheap.
Believe me, I understand the appeal of urban living, it's the lifestyle I live, but most people feel differently. It is certainly their right to feel differently, but if they intend to act on that feeling then they should bear the full cost. Right now they aren't, but if they were then there wouldn't be any "car problem" (although I think it's more likely that most of them would simply decide that it isn't worth the cost).
Who controls the zoning? The government. Who controls the government? Elected officials. Who elects the officials? The people. If the people really hated urban sprawl then they could change such zoning, but they don't.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Believe me, I understand the appeal of urban living, it's the lifestyle I live, but most people feel differently. It is certainly their right to feel differently, but if they intend to act on that feeling then they should bear the full cost. Right now they aren't, but if they were then there wouldn't be any "car problem" (although I think it's more likely that most of them would simply decide that it isn't worth the cost).
Who controls the zoning? The government. Who controls the government? Elected officials. Who elects the officials? The people. If the people really hated urban sprawl then they could change such zoning, but they don't.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
bigpedaler
03-03-07, 04:37 PM
That's an easy one: self-interest. The root of the "car problem" is the basic flaw in our species: most people, most of the time, will put what they want over the needs of others.
YO!!!!
NO MORE NEED BE SAID....
YO!!!!
NO MORE NEED BE SAID....
DM4
03-03-07, 05:15 PM
I have no car problems. All my cars work just fine. In fact, my wife and I just ordered another one last weekend. A very nice Aston Martin. We are taking a week or two to deciding on colors and options and hoping to take delivery by the fall.
Cars are fun :)
Cars are fun :)
ChipSeal
03-15-07, 02:32 AM
"I agree with this and will take it one further by paring it down to one problem: SPRAWL
If you fix the urban sprawl problem, the rest falls into place."
Hmmm. How would one go about "fixing" urban sprawl? Not allow someone to build a home on his property?
If you fix the urban sprawl problem, the rest falls into place."
Hmmm. How would one go about "fixing" urban sprawl? Not allow someone to build a home on his property?
wahoonc
03-15-07, 06:01 AM
"I agree with this and will take it one further by paring it down to one problem: SPRAWL
If you fix the urban sprawl problem, the rest falls into place."
Hmmm. How would one go about "fixing" urban sprawl? Not allow someone to build a home on his property?
By changing the zoning that encourages sprawl, by rising fuel prices, tax incentives to live in a denser area...In one area I used to live in they would not issue development permits until the infrastructure issues had been addressed. If the developers wanted to help pay for the extension of sewer and water lines they could actually get their permits earlier. Reduction of urban sprawl is going to take intense planning. It is a no brainer to go and knock down a few trees and plow a bunch of road ways thru what used to be a productive farm. But if you want to build a nice apartment/mixed use building in a revitalizing downtown area it it going to take a lot of planning.(I know I sit in on the revitalization meeting in my small town)
Aaron:)
If you fix the urban sprawl problem, the rest falls into place."
Hmmm. How would one go about "fixing" urban sprawl? Not allow someone to build a home on his property?
By changing the zoning that encourages sprawl, by rising fuel prices, tax incentives to live in a denser area...In one area I used to live in they would not issue development permits until the infrastructure issues had been addressed. If the developers wanted to help pay for the extension of sewer and water lines they could actually get their permits earlier. Reduction of urban sprawl is going to take intense planning. It is a no brainer to go and knock down a few trees and plow a bunch of road ways thru what used to be a productive farm. But if you want to build a nice apartment/mixed use building in a revitalizing downtown area it it going to take a lot of planning.(I know I sit in on the revitalization meeting in my small town)
Aaron:)