Jump to content

Cars suck ass, change my mind

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Ok first and foremost I'm not going to pretend I'm not biased in this discussion. I hate driving. I live in America where walking is basically defacto illegal, and I hate driving a massive piece of shit hunk of metal fast enough to turn me into red paste as a regular chore to get medicine and groceries. If you live in a nation that actually cares about pedestrians maybe you don't understand my ire, but in America I have to regularly stare at the road for 40 minutes or more to make sure some crackhead doesn't try to peel out on a red light just to go to a walmart, so I have to ask.
Why?
Why do we have cars?
I know a bit of the answer! A very good reason why we have cars is because its expensive and impractical to create multiple rail lines across every settlement in the united states to insure they are being supplied with food and other things they need to live, so cars act as a cheap way to get around and go from one place to another!
In theory

In practice its ludicrously expensive for everyone who has a car and is probably worse than just making rails everywhere because with rails you can control what goes where and when which means a lot less traffic fundamentally since karen wont be able to buy her own train car to drive to hobby lobby to pick up scented candle and nothing else because she NEED to smell cinnamon while watching days of our lives.
And heres another thing, Even with roads, personal vehicles are extremely inefficient considering things like buses exist that do the same thing as a car but with more people? Sure you dont get to pick where you park but if the roads were JUST cargo trucks and JUST buses I can guarantee traffic would drop.

And thats only for places that still need roads.
If we connect major settlements by rail that would cut down traffic even further because resource distribution and population transit would follow major arteries that can go as fast as they want because its highly scheduled, while minor towns could be supplied through highly controlled road traffic. And in my most radical of dreams this means city traffic could be brought down to near zero since emergency, transport and supply vehicles could just be turned into trams, subway cars, or forklift sized and slow moving single man cars, that are almost completely out of the way of civilian traffic
Now I'm not saying that for REALLY small towns or isolated farmsteads a personal car can't be bought for convenience sake, but thats not where the majority of car owners live now is it?

So why dont we do this? Why dont we, as a society, have our roads and transit structured around buses and trains instead of personal cars that are almost never at max capacity? Why do we have a multibillion dollar industry devoted to making the common person buy a car that will just end up congesting the road and causing problems, risking the lives of thousands every day by allowing a system that expects every idiot and geriatric to have a license to operate a massive piece of machinery that can punch a hole through a house? I find it absolutely absurd.

Edited by FoolOfWorms (see edit history)

HEHE HAHA HOHO

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/31/2021 at 11:41 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

So why dont we do this?

On 12/31/2021 at 11:41 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

we have a multibillion dollar industry

 

Enerjax (Enerjak) ((Dimitri)) (((Finitevus))) ((((Pir'Oth Ix)))) (((((Leprechauns)))))

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/31/2021 at 12:41 PM, FoolOfWorms said:

Now I'm not saying that for REALLY small towns or isolated farmsteads a personal car can't be bought for convenience sake, but thats not where the majority of car owners live now is it?

Nobody out there would be able to afford one if they were the only ones buying them. They'd essentially be Ferrari prices for 20 year old Honda Civics. Also, would have to get custom-made replacement parts since there would be no reason to mass produce them.

On 12/31/2021 at 12:41 PM, FoolOfWorms said:

So why dont we do this?

Because it's not feasible in the world today. It would either cost WAY too much, or would be done so poorly as to be worse than not doing it.

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2022 at 10:22 AM, BTGBullseye said:

Nobody out there would be able to afford one if they were the only ones buying them. They'd essentially be Ferrari prices for 20 year old Honda Civics. Also, would have to get custom-made replacement parts since there would be no reason to mass produce them.

If things are at a point where it gets too expensive to buy a car for the smaller communities that just means that communities on the fringes of societies will have to being moving closer to population centers which isn't the worst thing in the world IMO. I kind of want urban sprawl to die down as much as possible if I'm going to be frank, and people who have to work in remote areas like farmers can be given private cars and trucks as machine necessary for work, like how tractors and threshers are.
Thats all assuming your point is even correct, which is debatable in of itself considering the amount of people living in remote areas and how important cars would still be by necessity.
Like sure it'll probably go up a little because cars would no longer a disposable commodity which cars shouldn't be in the first place, but I kind of doubt the idea that a society not structured around motor vehicles would make any car so unaffordable as to cause problems. I think at most there would be fewer car models and less roads to go down, and that cars would be built to last a long time, not that cars would be rendered so impossibly expensive that people out in the sticks would be abandoned and left to fend for themselves. If anything the fact that you think that is the case and actually a genuine argument against my idea kind of proves how reliant we are on cars and how we desperately need to re-think how much we rely on them?

On 1/10/2022 at 10:22 AM, BTGBullseye said:

Because it's not feasible in the world today. It would either cost WAY too much, or would be done so poorly as to be worse than not doing it.

I'd like for you to prove that before saying it if you don't mind. I'm not asking for something as inane as the hyper loop here, trains and railroads have been supplying nations for centuries now, and the move to motor vehicles and asphalt roads haven't really made things any more efficient then we were then from what I can tell, but i'll concede to that fact if you can prove me wrong there.

HEHE HAHA HOHO

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2022 at 9:03 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

If things are at a point where it gets too expensive to buy a car for the smaller communities that just means that communities on the fringes of societies will have to being moving closer to population centers which isn't the worst thing in the world IMO.

Yeah, because who needs food anyways? Megacorps can do all that for us!

On 1/10/2022 at 9:03 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

I kind of want urban sprawl to die down as much as possible if I'm going to be frank, and people who have to work in remote areas like farmers can be given private cars and trucks as machine necessary for work, like how tractors and threshers are.

They aren't given those, they basically sell everything for several decades to pay off their leases, and then they still have to return that equipment. No on short of a megacorp is ever going to provide them to a farmer for free, and even they force terms akin to slavery.

On 1/10/2022 at 9:03 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

Thats all assuming your point is even correct, which is debatable in of itself considering the amount of people living in remote areas and how important cars would still be by necessity.

The amount of people in rural areas is high, but not high enough to warrant more than maybe 1 manufacturer, and they wouldn't be doing year-round production unless there were inbuilt features to prevent the vehicle from operating past a certain date. (planned obsolescence is the only way it could be profitable)

 

Just because it's debatable, doesn't mean that those debating it are correct. I could debate that time always moves forward for humans, since I'm well versed in quantum physics, but that won't change that it does only move forward for humans who perceive time changing.

On 1/10/2022 at 9:03 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

Like sure it'll probably go up a little because cars would no longer a disposable commodity

It already isn't disposable for any but the richest people in the world, and it wouldn't just be going up a little, it'd go up by A LOT! My statement about it being in Ferrari pricing wasn't exaggeration, that was a finding by one of the companies that did studies about the feasibility of mass transit between Colorado Springs and Denver.

On 1/10/2022 at 9:03 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

I'd like for you to prove that before saying it if you don't mind.

I kinda do mind. This is easily searchable information on Google, so I won't insult you with a LMGTFY link.

On 1/10/2022 at 9:03 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

trains and railroads have been supplying nations for centuries now

And they still do, but not nearly by enough to be able to replace the automotive transport systems. Versatility has a LOT to do with it. You get to chose where you want to go, and don't have to go 10 miles and 30 minutes out of your way to get there. You can also transport stuff like a 4x8 sheet of plywood without having to contract out for someone else to transport it. (which would be extremely expensive in comparison)

On 1/10/2022 at 9:03 AM, FoolOfWorms said:

and the move to motor vehicles and asphalt roads haven't really made things any more efficient then we were then from what I can tell

That's because you don't use them for all that they are capable of. There's a LOT more to them than just moving a person from point A to point B eventually.

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:

Yeah, because who needs food anyways? Megacorps can do all that for us!

You could just walk to the store you know.
or take a bus, like I said, or a taxi, or if you are close enough to a city maybe the subway or trolley.

On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:

They aren't given those, they basically sell everything for several decades to pay off their leases, and then they still have to return that equipment. No on short of a megacorp is ever going to provide them to a farmer for free, and even they force terms akin to slavery.

I understand they aren't given those, and I understand that megacorps are fucked up. The problem is that we already are ran nationally by megacorps anyways and nationalizing public transit and making it a standard isnt going to make them any more or less powerful. I honestly don't know how your point is an argument against the idea that cars should be one of the vehicles a farmer should be expected to work with and therefore should be funded by in part the hiring agent who provides them farming equipment as well. Your criticism is an argument of capitalism in general which I agree is fucked up, but the idea itself isnt bad and isnt argued against here.

On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:

The amount of people in rural areas is high, but not high enough to warrant more than maybe 1 manufacturer, and they wouldn't be doing year-round production unless there were inbuilt features to prevent the vehicle from operating past a certain date. (planned obsolescence is the only way it could be profitable)

Why would they be doing year round production? Why do they even need to do planned obsolescence? If the same manufacturer are selling parts for maintenance and such they theoretically wouldn't need to profit from their vehicle sales and could profit from the vehicle repairs and check ups they do regularly.
I know the answer and the answer is that it wouldn't be profitable enough for them to remain in business in spite of their products being quality and everyone needing them and, again, this is a problem with capitalism itself preventing products with long life spans being more regularly made because once an individual buys a product that lasts a long time they aren't a customer anymore.
The answer is not, however, to allow car manufacturers to implement planned obsolescence or to allow them to destroy the planet with their garbage and ruin our freeways with traffic. And that is either what you seem to be implying or you are stating that there is no way to fix it, and therefore no point in trying which is an idea I fuckin hate, as you personally already know.

On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:

It already isn't disposable for any but the richest people in the world, and it wouldn't just be going up a little, it'd go up by A LOT! My statement about it being in Ferrari pricing wasn't exaggeration, that was a finding by one of the companies that did studies about the feasibility of mass transit between Colorado Springs and Denver.

I'd like a link to that study if you don't mind because I'd like to read it myself [EDIT] Nevermind, ill do your arguing for you just this once since you gave an example, i'll read this article and come back to you, but besides that, I've met multiple people in my life who traded in their vehicles because they are old and they want a new model because it looks nice. Cars are disposable to a lot of regular middle class and upper middle class people. But thats not even my point. My point is that if you went looking for one, finding and buying a new car is absolutely not difficult whatsoever, and even less difficult to find a used one. If car's weren't on some level, disposable, they wouldn't advertise car's on TV all the time. Almost no one in America is going to buy a car as a brand new costumer, because you can't not own a car in America. The majority of people who car manufacturers advertise to are people who already own a car and can buy a new one by trading their old one in.

On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:

I kinda do mind. This is easily searchable information on Google, so I won't insult you with a LMGTFY link.

Then why are you here? You came to my thread and made an argument, the burden of proof is up to you to defend your claim. I'm not going to go out of my way to prove your point for you, no matter how mad you are that you disagree with me. My argument is based of clearly observed data like how cities are constantly clogged with traffic, especially major cities like Los Angeles and New York, and I don't care how you spin it, those traffic jams, massive parking lots and record levels of emissions can not, in any way be profitable or good for the nation they are suppose to be supplying. Its a massive problem, it needs a solution, adding more lanes and pretending it isnt a problem isnt going to cut it, so this is my answer, and you aren't providing a good counter argument so far.

On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:

And they still do, but not nearly by enough to be able to replace the automotive transport systems. Versatility has a LOT to do with it. You get to chose where you want to go, and don't have to go 10 miles and 30 minutes out of your way to get there. You can also transport stuff like a 4x8 sheet of plywood without having to contract out for someone else to transport it. (which would be extremely expensive in comparison)

Which is why I don't disagree with you! I think cars are still important and should be used, but we shouldn't be basing out entire transport structure around them and should try to limit how much it is used as much as possible, and in America this isnt happening whatsoever.

On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:

That's because you don't use them for all that they are capable of. There's a LOT more to them than just moving a person from point A to point B eventually.

And so are trains more than just for moving cargo around eventually.
I'm not even really sure what you mean here its kind of unclear to be honest

Edited by FoolOfWorms (see edit history)

HEHE HAHA HOHO

Share this post


Link to post

I'll admit I skimmed a bit, since I'm not writing a college paper, but from what I can tell from several different sources I can confirm that yes, a high speed rail line is in fact, expensive.

I knew that high speed rail lines were expensive, and not all locations need to be connected by high speed rails to begin with, first of all. Most trains that aren't even high speed go as fast as a car on a highway and carry several times the cargo any truck can, which includes human cargo.

But in spite of the costs the articles have illuminated a couple of interesting things for me.
A high speed rail would be able to reduce a massive traffic issue occurring in Colorado right now that is currently costing about $839 million annually in missed opportunities.

The cost isn't primarily in running, but in initial construction cost, and from what I can tell the train would be able to pay for itself if funded through federal grant.

Quote

If federal grants of at least 20 percent of the capital costs are available, the benefits of the
AGS to the State of Colorado will outweigh the costs. Increased federal grant levels increase
the benefit.
Full System scenarios will generate adequate farebox revenue to cover O&M costs, leading
to surplus revenues that could be used to finance the capital costs.

From another article

Quote

analysis indicates that investing in high-speed rail would generate an impressive $33 billion of benefits to Colorado.

The unviability of the rail is currently due to how unreliable the current methods of getting funds are, not inherently in it unprofitability.

It also helps to say that the Colorado department of transportation is still perusing this venture instead of abandoning it, which tells me even if it is unviable as of current due to funds its still a venture Colorado is willing to spend millions in seeing if it can work someday soon, which you can call foolish, but then you'd be saying you're smarter than the state of Colorado.

Additionally the majority of the department of transportation's budget goes towards primarily automobiles and highway services.

In fact, if I'm reading correctly more money is being spent on aviation than all federal transit and railroads.

This may sound like a non sequitur but it shows a national focus away from public transit and towards the maintenance of the current system of automobiles and highways, which could be diverted towards the construction of rails. The money for this is there if the federal government really cared, and several other nations have shown the benefit of high speed rail lines like Japan and France.

HEHE HAHA HOHO

Share this post


Link to post

Louis says it much better

plus, I've spent about 15 years in public transport before getting a car and caused me severe back pains from all the standing and sitting in a very badly dampned vehicle.
(Additionally when I took the train I usually felt like the air was imbued with some sort of stoning agent)

Additionally public transport will remain inefficient both in time and fuel because of all the starts and stops that make it burn more fuel and waste more time, the only system that maybe avoids this would be the one described in Assimov's "caves of steel" of conveyer belt roads that move in a constant speed (faster in the center and slower at the edges ) and it would be up to the traveler to switch lanes at the onset of his journey and near his destination. This system would have a high cost in human lives (from accidents and fatigue) so is not necessarily preferable to the busses and trains we have now.

Burn the World!

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.