this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
1102 points (97.8% liked)
Fuck Cars
9925 readers
509 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Congestion pricing is such a good idea everywhere there is rock solid public transit alternatives. Where there's not, it just becomes a tax on the poor.
bicycles are good too, though maybe not for the longer distances that you would put congestion taxes on
Can be good. I ride my bike when I can, but my area IS NOT built for it, so it actually pretty risky. Heck some normal routes for me would probably get me stopped by the cops for recklessness.
I've biked a lot in my life, and I'm very aware of my surroundings, and I know when to stop riding and start walking the bike.
For some reason...most bikers are NOT like me. I don't know why, they just aren't. They're dumb and clueless and, especially if they're men in athletic spandex, really entitled and do really dangerous shit. They get on bikes with their car-brain still loaded, and make decisions like they have a shell of metal and crumple zones and airbags around them. Even though they're just squishy flesh on a bunch of metal tubes.
Last summer, I was driving through a construction zone, and some 9-5 commuter guy on a bike decided to bike through the construction zone too, right along with all the cars. The road was narrow even just for cars, and the pavement had been ripped up and filled in as they did work to replace water mains underneath the road, and he was trying to bike through it, next to the cars. I was worried for him and kept looking in my rear view after I passed him. Good thing I did. Behind me, a truck pulling a small trailer clipped him accidentally (since the trailers swing back and forth a bit when navigating an uneven, narrow construction zone), and it clipped the front tire of his bike and he fell. It wasn't even purposeful, the guy who clipped him stopped too to make sure he was ok. It was just a dangerous area to bike in. I got to the guy first, so I stopped and called an ambulance for him.
Overall he got away lightly. He was shaken and bruised and had a small gouge on one finger, and was able to refuse the ambulance and have a relative drive him to an urgent care. But when we looked at his helmet, it was cracked, and if he hadn't been wearing a helmet even that light lovetap he got from the trailer might have been much worse. The helmet probably saved him from even more serious harm.
I didn't say it to his face, because I figured he'd learned his lesson, but it was REALLY fucking stupid to try to ride a bicycle through a construction zone like that, helmet or no. He was just a dumb 9-5 commuter guy in a dress shirt and tie trying to save on gas or the environment or whatever--and I guess he just never thought about what he was doing beyond that. He had car-brain, and was trying to ride his bike as if he were still in a car through a zone where it was really dangerous to NOT be in a car.
It doesn't matter if the laws say cars need to share the road with you or whatever--the laws of physics are much more concrete than the laws of mankind, and you need to pay attention to your physical surroundings and get off when you end up in a situation like that.
Anyway. My whole point is--yeah, some areas just aren't safely bike-able.
Dude should have taken the lane. Single lane roads are extremely safe for bicycles, as long as no one is recklessly passing each other.
In my city of origin, you would get robbed as soon as you jump on the bike or killed if you are from a dangerous area.
How long are those distances?
Here in Stockholm, the congestion tax zone is bordered by the inner ring highway (norra och södra länken), so a trip encountering the congestion tax would have to be between a suburb and downtown Stockholm.
It depends on where you're coming from and where you're going. In the closer suburbs, it's bikable. You could live in Hagastaden and only go to st eriksplan which would only be 1km which is easily walkable. But even if you live in Solna centrum and you're biking in, it's at least 3km to get into town, and could go up to 8-10km if you're going to the other side of town, so that's about the limit of bikability.
If you're in a more car focused area further out, like the end of the subway, it's 10-15 km just to get into town, so you'll need to take the train.
Thanks for that answer.
I think 10km is a great distance for biking, glad to hear my idea of it seems to match up.
If I were rich, I would support congestion pricing. I could sell my helicopter. Who needs to fly over traffic when there is no traffic?
Yeah but all this $9 add up to millions which you can funnel into heated massage chairs on the trolley, tram, boat, bus or train. I want Netflix and free WiFi.
They will never funnel that money into more comfortable transit.
Can you explain congestion pricing?
Think whole road tolls you can change based on a schedule, or based on current and expected traffic. All of it is meant to either disincentiveize driving to cut down total traffic, or at least shunt it to less congested times or roads.
Aside: I 1000% don't consider individual toll lanes to be a type of congestion pricing. Those are just convenience surcharges (looking at you too TSA Pre check) and are complete elitist bullshit that hurts everyone but the city that takes in the fees.
Thanks
It's so great I'm considering implementing it for my driveway and only enforcing it for people I don't like.
If you can afford a car, you can afford an e-bike, even a cargo e-bike. Cars are luxuries compared to bicycles. Never forget that.
I don't know where you live, but that's just not true in large swaths of America. The other options add multiple hours round trip anywhere and in many parts of the US it's not an option.
My work is currently a 20 minute drive down a freeway going 60 mph. There is no bus to take that route. There isn't even a connection, or a transfer, the only other option would be a cab.
Fortunately, places like this aren't likely to need congestion pricing
indeed
I'm just talking basic economics. A car costs 10x what an e-bike does. A car is, by any logical definition of the word, a luxury purchase compared to an e-bike. You just live in an area where you've decided that everyone needs to get around in luxury vehicles, and you've built that into your infrastructure. This would be like building all of our infrastructure to only accommodate stretch limos, and then trying to argue that limos are a necessity. It's comically absurd. It's a clown world.
I did not decide that. The cold hard reality is that my work and my home are 15 miles (24km) apart. That's a 1.5 hour bike ride, 3 hours round trip. You are absolutely right about costs, but I have NO option to bus, I cannot bike that daily, none of my coworkers live next to me.
I want more public transport. I would rather live with just a single car in my household that we use solely for large trips and moving large amounts of stuff. God knows it would be cheaper. I'd like that. I can't feasibly do it.
Maybe if you live somewhere it doesn’t snow
This is valid if your city doesn't have dedicated bike infrastructure that gets plowed. Snow can be hardly an inconvenience at all if bike infrastructure is treated with equal importance as car infrastructure.
Oh the Urbanity! on Youtube has a really realistic take on this in Montreal: https://youtu.be/sokHu9bhpn8
Linking w/o tracker here
https://youtu.be/sokHu9bhpn8
How does one avoid freezing their nuts off riding in the snow? I used to bike to school when I was a kid and even at less than a mile ride with gloves and shit on my hands and face were killing me by the time I got there.
So, caveat: I think the guys in thi sthread trying to put ideals of a no-car society over the reality of what it's like to be poor and commuting every day on bike are full of shit. That said, I have spent most of 20 years biking to work in the vicinity of a big city.
In winter, you have to dress like you're prepared to be lost outside overnight with no shelter. Like, you have to learn to ACTUALLY dress for the cold, for extended periods of time. (And you have to pay attention to the weather report--if it's going to be wet, you need something that can handle being wet.) Most kids who try to bike to school try to do it in the clothing that they'd wear to drive to school. They either do not physically own the winter layers they need to stay warm, or they were never taught to properly layer.
But basically, you need probably 3 layers minimum in Chicago-type weather. Probably more if you're further north. I would regularly wear jeans with two layers of some type of pants underneath, like fleece and some other base layer, and on top I'd have long-sleeve shirt, t-shirt, another long-sleeve shirt or sweatshirt or sweater, and over all of that a heavy duty winter jacket. For my head I'd have a full-face mask with a thick warm hat on top. Sometimes a scarf too. For my hands, I'd have multiple layers, and I'd usually wear mittens rather than gloves because mittens are warmer, and I'd have more than one pair of mittens. When biking, at least one layer of mittens needs to be wind-breakery because that wind is COLD. For shoes, I'd have wool socks, sometimes two pairs, and real heavy-duty winter boots on (not sneakers or whatever).
The thing is, a lot of people who never have had to actually spend significant time out doors won't even OWN sufficient layers to stay truly warm in the cold. Either due to poverty (it costs money to buy really, truly warm clothes of the right material), or lack of knowledge of how to dress for the cold. (I lacked both when I was young!) Or they'll have thin cotton fast fashion when they actually need wool or synthetic warm-weather gear. Or they'll be concerned about looking stupid (because if you dress properly, you look dumpy and not cool.)
But then you're left with all those layers when you arrive at your destination and are back indoors? Like I understand you can take off a coat and gloves but if you're wearing underclothes as well. Like if you're in a business environment and have to wear a professional attire you're limited by that in how you can layer up.
I was very lucky and worked at a place with a gym, so I just showered after my 18 mile commute, problem solved.
Surely even without a locker room, people can change out of the bottom layers for the workday though. You’d need a place to keep your clothing, but if you’re in an office with cubicles or something similar, that’s fine.
You assume people work inside the city and not in a factory outside of it.
For over a decade I went everywhere by bike in Sweden. They have bike lanes that get plowed and sanded in winter, the snow is not a problem, the problem is places with bad, car-centric infrastructure.
No, it's about having the infrastructure for it. And even car infrastructure is a huge luxury compared to bike infrastructure. It costs cities 10x to support one car commute as it does to support 1 bike commute.
Most people just live in areas that demand that luxury transportation be the only form of transportation. That doesn't mean cars suddenly are no longer luxuries, simply because your area chose to make practical transportation options impossible. You can pass a law making stretch limos the only road legal vehicle. That won't change the fact that stretch limos are ridiculous luxury vehicles.
Don't think that you understand the meaning of the term luxury and trying to rewrite the English language and correct all the people who do actually speak it isn't helping.
It snows in Copenhagen, people keep biking.
Not true.
I haven't owned a car for most of my adult life, and things start to get really difficult in winter with snow (insufficient bus routes in a given area, and sidewalks/bike lanes covered in snow and not able to be transversed).
When job-hunting I had to exclude a lot of places because of how impossible it'd be to do the commute in winter. Given how expensive rent is, plenty of people are forced to live with relatives or live in certain cheaper areas long past when they'd prefer to leave, which means if the roof over your head is in an area without sidewalks/bike lanes/public transit, you rely hardcore on a car to get to work and back. And if you don't have that car, you basically lose your job. Maybe you can sustain it over the summer, but once winter snow kicks in you're pretty fucked the first hard snow or ice that comes through. If you're lucky, it's close enough to walk--but not everyone is lucky like that. Also, if your job has mandatory overtime and you're doing 50-60 hour weeks, walking 2-3 hours one way to work is a no-go.
I say this as someone who regularly biked/used public transit in Chicago winters. Not having a car shaped my life in ways that effectively made me poorer/deeper in poverty.
Another way to say this is that designing an entire landscape around the car has shaped everybody's lives in ways that make millions of people poorer/deeper in poverty.
And if you are too poor to live near your employer?
A car can be used to move an entire family safely. You need 3-5 bikes to do the same far less safely including the very young, old, infirm.
Fatality rate for sedans is 2 per billion vehicle miles. Bikes are about 110.
Bear in mind that this is in the US which has bad drivers driving aggressively in environs ill suited.
Furthermore the average person commuting by car commutes 30 minutes by car the average bus rider an hour.
These are often distances too great to bike.
If you are moving a full car of people, it's probably the best way to get around. However the average occupancy of a car is 1.2 people. The vast majority of cars have just 1 person, often driving less than 5 miles which is an easy distance to cycle.
Having more people cycling means the roads are less congested for the people who really need to use them. And with less people driving and more cycling, it should hopefully get safer.
The danger comes from cars, and the reason the distances are so great is because the landscape was designed for cars. Those fatality numbers are biased to make it seem like bicycles are dangerous by framing it in terms of the mode of transportation the victim was using, instead of the agent causing the fatality, and by comparing the numbers to VMT.
But, spin it differently: Capitalist elites ~~bribed~~ lobbied politicians to force you to spend your money and time on a motor vehicle to schlep your family around like sacks of potatoes to all your destinations by locating them unreasonably far away, so that the huge amounts of space needed by motor vehicles fit in between, and they could enrich themselves by selling motor vehicles. Now it's become an arms race of bigger and bigger motor vehicles, further lining the pockets of the capitalist elites, at the expense of people's (especially children's, the disabled's, and elderly's) agency and freedom—because otherwise they'll die under the bumpers of the maniacs operating motor vehicles that you'll encounter in all of those extra miles you're forced to travel.
Different spin, different bias, but still 100% fact.
VMT is the only reasonable metric to compare relative safety. It is literally the only metric that tells you how safe your family will be traveling.
The fact that its cars that mostly make bikes dangerous is important but mostly irrelevant to any individual making decisions.
Same with America being spread out. Mostly it is because it was cheaper and therefore more profitablr for individual actors not some grand conspiracy.
The elderly, young kids, and especially the disabled don't need safer bike lanes they need better public transit
I strongly disagree with VMT as the proper measure, and here's a simple, constructed example of why:
There are two cities of about 200,000 people. One is compact, and easy to get around by transit, walking, or biking. The people drive around 2,000 miles per year each. The other is a low-density, mostly suburban area, and people drive around 15,000 miles per year. They have the same casualty rate per VMT of 3 per million miles.
Those two cities aren't equally as safe. Not even close! The one city would have 1,200 crashes, injuries, or deaths each year, and the other would have 9,000. That's a major difference which should be accounted for in policymaking and land-use decisions.
As far as the American landscape, it's spread out not because it was cheaper. How could that be, when it takes more infrastructure to spread out? It was more expensive, and that was actually the point of car-dependent suburbs. They were more expensive to build and maintain, which kept the undesirable people out. Then, the desirable people were subsidized, through the GI Bill, tax breaks, mortgage lending standards (e.g. redlining), and the like.
I don't claim it's a grand conspiracy, but it is verifiable history.
The metric you desire ought properly to be determined by what problem you are trying to address. We aren't building America like sim city we are deciding what to do with our existing situation. For a person deciding what to do they need to weigh the actual consequences of various choices. Deaths per billion not million vehicle miles captures the actual costs of doing so. 2 for sedans 110 for bikes.
Anyone who drives 15,000 miles isn't replacing their car with a bike. You would be asking them to bike 288 miles per week which is absolutely insane. Nobody is doing this. If they drive 5000 they might but at the cost of a drastic increase in risk. This leaves us where we are now where almost everyone either can't or won't.