←back to thread

307 points MBCook | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
p_j_w ◴[] No.42151039{3}[source]
Even with heavy urbanization you'll need some form of transit on top of walking. Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg. Tokyo)? Every time I'm in one, I get the impression they would grind to a standstill without their mass transit systems.
replies(2): >>42151086 #>>42151132 #
CalRobert ◴[] No.42151132{4}[source]
Even a decent town puts most things within a walk or bike ride. San Luis Obispo comes to mind as an example.
replies(1): >>42151251 #
oblio ◴[] No.42151251{5}[source]
I've never understood the argument about small towns being worse for urbanism.

Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything had to be close by.

You don't even have to sacrifice the backyard for that, you can have a city layout that puts the houses themselves fairly close to each other, and the yards can radiate outwards. Then you connect each cluster's main street with the other ones, but unlike suburbs, you make each "subdivision" mixed-use and you allow public transit , pedestrians and cyclists to cut across subdivisions for easy access everywhere.

If anything, small towns should be urbanism done right, because they don't (shouldn't?) have the money for sprawl and they don't have all the pressures for increasing density a lot, that big cities have.

replies(2): >>42152426 #>>42155555 #
rufus_foreman ◴[] No.42152426{6}[source]
>> Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything had to be close by.

My grandparents, and their parents and grandparents before them, all grew up on farms (as did the majority of Americans during that time).

No, everything did not have to be close by.

They certainly did appreciate cars when they became affordable though.

replies(1): >>42171884 #
1. oblio ◴[] No.42171884{7}[source]
You're most likely talking about homesteads, which are a minority of rural housing around the world in my experience.

In most of the world villages have at least a cluster of homes nearby, since having other humans close is super handy when shit hits the fan.