all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I think your article just radicalized the fuck out of me, which is saying something

I'm disabled and can't drive safely, which means I can't really go anywhere. I rely on friends to drive me or my local paratransit program (both of which have a lot of problems), or I use my electric wheelchair on the sidewalks... where there are sidewalks. Using the bike lane is fucking terrifying! And somehow it's never occurred to me that this isn't a problem with me (ie I need to figure out how to be able to drive safely, or get rich enough to afford Uber) and is actually a problem with my city. Cause yeah, if it wasn't for the goddamn cars threatening my life, I'd have been able to "walk" all kinds of places for years.

Hell, if not for cars, I'd be able to ride an e-bike to get places, because I wouldn't have to worry about being hit by a fuckin car. Forget going down the road for groceries, I could go almost anywhere. I could take myself to my own doctor's appointments. What the fuck.

I have even more thoughts that came into my head as I was reading this but my big question is this - what can we do? What can I do to get rid of cars? I can't safely ride a bike on the same road as cars thanks to my disability, so that one's out. How do we do this? I wanna do this!!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    Abolish free parking. Free parking is a massive subsidy, usually paid for by poorer people (some who can't even afford cars) to drivers (especially richer, white folks who rely on parking cause they're coming from the suburbs).

    Parking should fund bike infrastructure and mass transit, if it's allowed to exist at all. Make parking expensive enough and people will drive less and you'll be able to fund better options. I'm gonna recommend "The High Cost of Free Parking" (even though I've never read it, only listened to interviews with the author).

    Other than that, go yell at your representatives if you can. Call them. Go to city council meetings (if you can make it). If you can't, ask someone to bring a tablet with a video call and tell them exactly why you're not there. Tell them you know it can be done better. Tell them you want them to throw out their street design manual and replace it with a dutch one (I think this is may help). Be as absolutely loud and annoying as you can about everything that sucks and take every opportunity to tell people how much better it can be.

    Get involved with cycling and transit freedom advocacy groups, if you can. If there isn't anything in your area, consider starting one. Start listening to "The War on Cars" podcast (they did an interview about that book I mentioned), because they also have some advocacy related content. Try to get people in your city or town in contact with the Dutch Cycling Embassy. I'm sure there's some more and I hope other folks also chip in with ideas.

    Something something, welcome to the war on cars. (It'll make sense when you listen to the podcast.)

    Edit: Oh, here's something a little less aggressive than my ranting if you're wanting to convince non-anarchists: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the-dutch-cycling-infrastructure/

    Also, do you mind if I quote you? I'm still updating it and I might try to publish it. This is a great quote and it would be great if I could throw it in that section, if you wouldn't mind.

    Edit: Oh yeah, watch Not Just Bikes and introduce as many other people to the channel as possible. Never underestimate the power of being someone who absolutely will not shut the fuck up about what is wrong and the fact that it can be fixed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    chicaog sold its parking meters which effectively got rid of free municipal parking and upped the price big time. Its still available in private lots but many have some sort of limitation on ingress due to people not wanting to pay. Not really sure its effected driving at all. Granted though the money was not dedicated and it was largely a giveaway to big bussiness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago

    Oh, there are also "minimum parking requirement" zoning laws that force builders to subsidize parking.

    Another strategy can be to try to get gas stations shut down.

    I do think there's a lot of potential to change things through local government, but there's also direct action like Tactical Urbanism as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Thank you so much for your very thorough response! Please quote anything I wrote up there and let me know if there's anything else I can share that would benefit your writing, cause your article is very well-written and introduced me to a lot of ideas I've yet to encounter and that feels very empowering <3

    I've been meaning to head to city council meetings now that it's warm where I'm at and my symptoms have lessened. They sometimes offer for people to video call in which would be a great option for me so there's no reason to not and every reason to go be the metaphorical squeaky bike (or wheelchair) wheel :3

    (Or literal squeaky wheelchair wheel if I can go in person because my chair isn't the quietest XDD)

  • source
  • parent
  • 57 comments in c/fuckcars@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 40 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    Oh man, this author didn't even cover one of the major ways that cars are racist, but did hint at it in other sections. The car-dependent design of suburbia that we have today was explicitly racist in intent. After the US Supreme Court ruled that housing discrimination was unconstitutional, local leaders had to figure out a different approach to enforce segregation, and they did it by using wealth as a proxy. Under the new zoning and building codes, they made minimum lot sizes big enough, and maximum occupancy low enough, that poor people couldn't afford houses in the new subdivisions. The need for a car to get around further added to the cost. Then, they offered subsidies (like the GI Bill) to poor white people, and not to poor Black people. Voilà! "Natural" segregation.

    The handful of Black families that managed to amass enough wealth to move in anyway could be dealt with by more direct tactics.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 13 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Oh shit! I knew I was missing something. Thanks. I'll add that in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    Oh, you're the author! Thanks for writing. Just to be totally clear, I wasn't criticizing, but sharing more, because even after 8,000 words, there's plenty more to say on the topic. (e: Now I see the [OC] marker, which had wrapped to a new line in my browser.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Oh no, that was great. Do you mind if I just pull quote you into the article? I think you said it all as well or better than I would.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Awesome! Added. Lemme know if you want to be cited in a different way. Thanks again!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Then, they offered subsidies (like the GI Bill) to poor white people, and not to poor Black people.

    Wait... what? Is there some racist BS baked into the GI Bill that I'm not familiar with?

    As much (and it's a fuckin lot) as the military gets wrong, the GI Bill always sounded pretty cut and dry: do your time and don't die, fine, we'll pay for school.

    But do school me if there's more going on here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Oh, WWII era was pretty fucking dismal for civil rights. And as unacceptably shit in that regard our systems still are, we have made some decent progress, largely at the hands of minorities showcasing the best people our military has to offer - i.e., groups like the Tuskegee Airmen who were treated like shit, but proceeded to kick ass and take names anyway.

    The effects of all that shit still lingers, and we've got a lot of progress yet to make... but idk that today's GI Bill is a worthwhile target. Unless I'm missing something and it's still being used as a tool to fuck over minorities today.

    ...course, we do still have 2 years of Trump, and if the GI Bill being used to level the playing field in today's world makes it into his radar, I'm sure it will be revoked or just overtly made white only, cuz it's not like laws mean anything nowadays.

    But, I guess before I cling to it too confidently, I'll reiterate: Is (not was) some racist BS baked into the GI Bill? It (today's) still looks like an equalizer to me, despite its fucked up history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Also to be clear, I'm talking historically as in the time period in which car-dominance got baked into policy. And like Humpty Dumpty, when I use a word, it means precisely what I wish it to mean.

    Kidding! I've only ever heard "GI Bill" refer to the 1944 legislation, which sunset in 1956. I wasn't aware that people may use the term to refer to subsequent bills. TIL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Got it! That makes much more sense - we're talking about two very different things. Or at least, two very different states of the same thing. 'The GI Bill' in modern context just means that scholarship troops can pay for school with.

    Right now there are two iterations I'm aware of - the Montgomery GI Bill which you don't automatically get, but have to make deposits to that are deducted from military pay... making it extra fucked up if troops did that and were still denied the payoff at the end of the tunnel; and the Post 9/11 GI Bill which doesn't have a deposit, but carries some trade off that I don't remember.

    I believe they do require an honorable discharge, so if that's still being weaponized against minorities then access to it is at least partially locked behind a race gate, which stands out as the highest potential for abuse today.

    ...oh, there's also the "Forever GI Bill" but iirc all that did was knock a time requirement off of the other two - used to have to use with 10 or 15 or something years of separation; now it's good for life.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This article was good.

    Americans are shocked and terrified by the idea, I'm sure. “But they could be kidnaped.” That's kind of a car thing. When cars dominate the world, there are fewer people walking and cycling. Streets are empty except for drivers. There are fewer eyes on the street. With fewer eyes, fewer people together, it becomes more dangerous for vulnerable people.

    Jane Jacobs wrote about that in like the 1960s. It's really infuriating how unsafe car-centered spaces is, and how people erroneously think it makes them safer.

    You're much safer on a street busy with a mixed crowd of pedestrians.

    But, again, racism can't have that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    I've had the kidnapping conversation a few times and I'm still deeply confused by what pro-car people are even trying to say. In a walkable area you're at greater risk of someone coming into physical contact with you, yes, but then what? Are they going to run down the street with you on their shoulder? Maybe two cyclists could carry you together on a line? If they're dragging you into a building that's begging to be caught. Meanwhile, in car land, someone can grab you from your front yard and be be off to parts unknown in seconds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago

    cities skylines taught me more lanes isnt the answer, even if you want cars

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What the hell do you even do if your car breaks down? I see no shoulder. Also, best of luck if you are in a serious accident and need an ambulance to reach the scene.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    “The bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created. Converting calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles per gallon.”

    • Bill Strickland

    Nice

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    It gets better: a human on a bike is the most efficient mode of locomotion there is in terms of mass moved per unit of energy invested.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    In the case of cars with infernal combustion engines, it's even worse. Even for very efficient road car engines, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel is expelled as waste heat, through either the exhaust or cooling system. Of that smaller than 50% fraction, indeed most of the energy is spent overcoming aerodynamic drag of the car body, and friction from the tires.

    Sidenote: F1 made headlines a while back they had achieved >50% thermal efficiency, with an incredibly complicated hybrid system that recovered excess exhaust energy from the turbo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    everyone wants cheap oil

    Uh, no.

    One of the best things Trump did was increase the price of oil.

    And by cutting off oil to Cuba, he's making them one of the least oil dependent nations in America.

    We want oil prices to go up so high that it effectively becomes unavailable.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Electric cars need to be charged for long periods of time, leaving more vulnerable people trapped and isolated in predictable and low security locations. It would take a man to not see the problem here.

    I dont own a car either, but my understanding is that >90% of the time, usually that charging happens when the car is parked overnight while you sleep.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    My mother-in-law owned one. Before we got her a charger for home she had to go to a charging station. Also, if you're on a roadtrip you can end up charging while you're out. Most of the time you would be charging overnight, but not all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Newer "level 3" chargers can charge newer batteries from 20% to 80% inside of 20-30 minutes now. It's pretty impressive!

    I kinda hope charging rest stops that run on solar and have cafés and stuff where people can chill a few minutes and stretch their legs become a thing. :)

    Edit: I realize the thread I'm in, and I just wanna say: Hooray, love bikes! Love riding my bike. Which I could get more places on it, honestly.

    Electric car was next best thing because I gotta commute like 40 miles each way to my job here in the USA, and it hits 105ºF pretty often. Also: Nice for road trips. :)

    Would love to be free of it though. . .

    Edit edit: Love the writeup, BTW. :D Good stuff!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Their kids bike home on their own. By 12, kids are expected to generally handle their own travel
    ...
    Americans are shocked and terrified by the idea

    Depends where you are in America.

    I used to take the bus to school most days, because it was just faster. But on days where I woke up early enough and the weather was good, I loved the freedom to ride my bicycle to elementary school in the US.

    Unfortunately the middle and high schools were too far away to do this, but people weren't worried about kids being kidnapped in the 90s in the US, and I'm sure that's not an issue in dozens of cities in the US today.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I'm just going to trust AAA on that, rather than launching into a rant about how they destroyed mass transit. The premise of Who Framed Roger Rabbit came from something real that actually happened. I'm just gonna leave that as homework

    Guess I have to watch that movie again

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    Mods, we want more content like this.

    And no more fucking memes, for the love of god. Ban posters of low effort crap, so that we can maintain a minimum level of quality for authors like OP.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    every time I get my partner oat milk.

    You're amazing

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    Any freedom that comes at the expense of someone else's freedom is just a from of oppression

    I don't know if I agree with that

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    places that are less car dominated, like the Netherlands, have bike lanes. Mobility devices like electric wheelchairs and scooters can use those bike lanes.

    That doesn't seem safe. Do sidewalks not have curb cuts? Seems safer for both the wheelchair users and the cyclists if the wheelchair users are with pedestrian traffic

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)

    This alleged overproduction drove down the price of oil, which Iraq called “economic warfare.”

    Woah, didn't Hegseth use this term to describe Iran recently?

    I thought it was crazy, because it's literally describing the opposite of war: sanctions are not warfare. They're diplomacy.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Sanctions are war in the sense that war is killing people. And they’re certainly not diplomacy in the sense that diplomacy is a two way negotiation of relations. You might see a problematic power imbalance when discussing the U.S. sanctioning Cuba, for instance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    No. Sanctions are literally the opposite of war.

    Yes, sanctions can kill people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

    Sanctions are not peace. Or at least I certainly wouldn’t die on that hill

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    Nobody said Sanctions are peace.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    The opposite of war is peace, QED, thank you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes, peace is an opposite of war.

    The world is not a dichotomy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    That’s interesting conceptually! The word “right” has opposites in both “left” and “wrong”, but each one only applies to one meaning of the word. Do you have any examples of what you’re talking about aside from the one we’re currently disagreeing over?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    You don't need stop lights or signs at an bicycle intersection

    What?!?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    If it is bike traffic only, stops signs or signals are not needed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    Strong disagree.

    Cyclists going 40 are going to hit other cyclists unless there's a stop sign or traffic light.

    Not to mention that cyclists will hit pedestrians unless there's signage for them to slow down and stop for traffic at cross walks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 3 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Bicycles aren't just "fun"

    People use then to get places. Like to get to work, to make deliveries, to pickup kids from school, etc.

    You need to plan for people traveling on bicycles at traveling speeds. And that includes signage and traffic lights so that cyclists don't have to brake at every intersection.

    Accelerating with a cargo bicycle full of groceries every block is a huge decrease to efficiency

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Only a very small fraction of cyclists can sustain 40kph on a flat, certainly not your daily commuters. And in dense areas I doubt anyone can get up to 25.

    And like the other commenter says, people follow traffic rules despite the lack of signage and signals. It flows much better without having to stop and go for signals

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    I find it hilarious for a cyclist to be an anarchist. What do they think would happen without bike lanes and laws against hit-and-runs? Chaos and death.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Anarchy does not mean "no rules". It means "no rulers".

    Also, in your interpretation of anarchy, there'd be no car drivers, because the infrastructure necessary to keep a car running wouldn't survive in such an environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Also, I think they just described a normal day in the US. Cars can only exist because governments massively subsidize them. The highway system was a massive project that a lot of people didn't want. Chaos and death is the system. People don't have to run away when they hit a cyclist, because drivers are often not even held liable. There being no consequences for killing people on bicycles is exactly the system we have now.

    Edit: Cars kill at least 120 people every single day, and maim or permanently disable many more. HOW IS THAT NOT CHAOS AND DEATH?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    It does mean "no rules", because it means "no government". And you don't have to take my word for it. You can read it on wikipedia:

    Anarchy is a form of society without rulers. As a type of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy. While viewed positively by anarchists, the primary advocates of anarchy, it is viewed negatively by advocates of statism, who see it in terms of social disorder.

  • source
  • parent