Fuck Cars
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:
view the rest of the comments
You have to differenciate between sprawl and people living outside the city basically forever. Remember: cities are the new things, not the other way round.
Cities are centuries older than cars though. Cars are the new thing. And yet it's true that cars are an obvious QoL improvement for anyone in a rural area, and no reasonable person is suggesting that people in rural areas shouldn't drive cars.
The real issue is that Americans (among others) have decided they want all the convenience and amenities of living in a city (sewer, water, energy, convenient access to most goods and services, etc.), but they want to pretend they live in a rural area, with no density whatsoever. This has resulted in the suburban sprawl that is financially ruinous and requires cars to be able to go anywhere and do anything, which creates traffic, which we solve by building bigger roads and pushing things farther apart, creating more traffic.
Thus, the answer really is that if you want city amenities, you need to live in a city. It doesn't have to be as dense as New York. Not Just Bikes just posted a great video about the smallish town of Bergen in Norway that is not a super dense urban hellscape, it is medium density with human-centric development.
Y’all are missing the point. US had huge growth after wwii, most of it suburban and car oriented. This is how we got cities designed to sprawl, complete car dependency, and that’s all that too many people know. For all of them, too many cities, too much of the population, it’s new to want city amenities, new to think in terms other than cars and suburbs.
It’s still get odd looks talking about how much nicer things are. I still get people thinking cities are the crime ridden hellholes the 1970s told them they were
I'm pretty sure cities are like as old as history. They certainly go back a while https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities
Nobody is suggesting people in rural areas to live without a car.
Fuck cars is about eliminating car dependency in cities. Actually, forget eliminating car dependency. I'd be happy if we could stop this silly car size arms race and ban these huge pickup trucks and SUVs in cities