←back to thread

307 points MBCook | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
legitster ◴[] No.42150811[source]
In a big picture, this makes sense. You can load the cars with safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that these cars are very heavy, very fast, and loaded with features that reward distracted driving. In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
replies(9): >>42150846 #>>42151064 #>>42151101 #>>42151122 #>>42151123 #>>42151373 #>>42151792 #>>42152029 #>>42153004 #
ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.42150846[source]
In a bigger picture, cars are a bad solution to the problem of transportation at scale, and really always have been. As safety features go up, complacency goes up, and to be blunt that's combining with the fact that drivers are getting consistently worse overall at the skill anyway.

Between EV's that are much, much heavier than ICE cars and SUVs/Trucks that are much larger than they need to be, vehicles themselves, despite having more safety features than ever, are also better at killing that they've been at a long time too.

We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure.

replies(4): >>42150907 #>>42150969 #>>42151095 #>>42155357 #
randomdata ◴[] No.42150907[source]
> We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure.

Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all.

It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.

replies(4): >>42150975 #>>42150980 #>>42151034 #>>42151039 #
1. ghaff ◴[] No.42150980{3}[source]
Many of us simply don't want to live in expensive urbanized environments (especially in more desirable ones)--at least at many points in our lives, so yeah no.
replies(2): >>42151112 #>>42151380 #
2. ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.42151112[source]
I mean the problem isn't those who don't want to live in cities nor is it those who want to live in cities: the problem is the suburbs, which is where those two meet. People who aren't in and do not desire an actual rural lifestyle where one has a standalone home on a large plot of land in the middle of nowhere, but also don't want a condo. They want their own little plot of land, with a small yard, and a standalone home.

And like, same. That's also me.

But the problem is the actual costs of that style of home are incredibly, heavily subsidized by the cities they surround and indeed even the rural areas they border, because suburbs are just... a bad goddamn way to house people. They're incredibly inefficient, basically require your own personal car, require the most infrastructure build-out for the smallest population, require the largest footprint of services over the largest area to serve the smallest number of people, etc. etc.

And like, I don't think it's unreasonable to say if you want to live this way, that's fine, but then you need to actually pay for it. Your property taxes need to reflect how much it actually costs to serve your property, to build the huge number of roads needed to access it, to maintain those roads, to maintain the electrical grids, to maintain the water and sewage services, to bus kids to schools, etc. etc. etc.

And yeah that's going to make suburbs WAY less appealing because they're going to be fucking expensive but like, the alternative is, again, everyone wanting that, and not paying for it. The dense urban centers they surround absolutely hemorrhage money supporting the suburbs around them.

replies(2): >>42151268 #>>42152998 #
3. ghaff ◴[] No.42151268[source]
Around where I live (greater Boston metro) most of the tech jobs are actually out in the suburbs/exurbubs. There were basically no tech jobs in the city ~20 years ago any longer. (It's mostly only changed with the establishment of of satellite offices of some west coast companies.)
replies(1): >>42151310 #
4. ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.42151310{3}[source]
With respect, it doesn't matter. Suburbs cost far more than they bring in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
5. HeatrayEnjoyer ◴[] No.42151380[source]
Urbanization decreases costs.
replies(1): >>42152475 #
6. rufus_foreman ◴[] No.42152475[source]
How much does 160 acres of land cost in rural Kansas? Maybe $500,000? How much does 160 acres of land cost in Manhattan? Maybe $800,000,000?

Urbanization decreases some costs and increases others.

7. ghaff ◴[] No.42152998[source]
I don't know. My town has a budget. We argue over property taxes at town meetings. We argue over enterprise zones like distribution centers that certainly aren't going in the middle of large cities. We argue over school spending that tends to be lower than in large cities. No one is wiping out highways that connect large cities to other places.