http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/absurd-primacy-of-the-car-in-american-life/476346/
A buddy sent this to me. Its interesting. I know some are likely to be wildly against it, but it aligns rather closely with my views. Especially on finances.
Interesting article. I'm not wildly against it, but I thought if the author was going to be so anti-car, perhaps present some alternatives? We're so spread out as a country - even living somewhere with decent public transit, it's so difficult to get around using it (even when it's working properly), that it's just not a workable alternative for me.
I do think that things like Uber and ZipCar are changing the landscape on this a bit, it's just not as obvious in the less population dense areas that make up most of the country.
It sounds like the author is more anti oil than anti car. The article would be a lot shorter if cars were powered by hopes and dreams fuel but alas the energy density of oil is greater.
The future of transportation is looking to be electric and, at least partially, autonomous. This just seems like a fluffer article to teach the late/post millennial generation the evil of "the old ways" in hopes it won't be repeated and the author will live on remembered for his world changing wisdom and foresight.
Ask someone who lives in Wyoming or Montana about public transportation.
You mean like where the nearest mall is an 8 hour drive.
Live in Europe, then look at out public transportation. It's a mess. Amazing how many things we can't do right. Although, living near DC, driving is also a huge PITA!
I generally agree with the article, but potential fixes come with huge implications. Autonomous electric cars will help mitigate some of the negative effects, but not eliminate them. I think the article really is condemning the mass proliferation of personal transport machinery and is really about the culture, not the car.
The only real solution I see is moving most of the population into dense cities and eliminating the sprawl of suburbia. There are other aspects of the American Personal McMansion lifestyle I find distasteful and absurd, but I doubt that particular "American Dream" will fade in my lifetime. Most of my co-workers are choosing to buy "more house" 30 miles further away.
Most people that write stuff like that live in cities. My car does far more than a 14 hour work week and doesn't cost anywhere near what they are saying.
Rural life is way different, cars are invaluable
The shear number of non-scientific numbers and stistical lies the author uses is astounnding.
Try living in Norman, Oklahoma. Sure if you live downtown you can walk to some places but the grocery stores all require a car or bike (motorcycle).
This is an article about efficiencies...and progress of a systematic nature takes time, I mean you could say the same thing about any industry or government for that matter...think of the implications
WilD wrote: I generally agree with the article, but potential fixes come with huge implications. Autonomous electric cars will help mitigate some of the negative effects, but not eliminate them. I think the article really is condemning the mass proliferation of personal transport machinery and is really about the culture, not the car. The only real solution I see is moving most of the population into dense cities and eliminating the sprawl of suburbia. There are other aspects of the American Personal McMansion lifestyle I find distasteful and absurd, but I doubt that particular "American Dream" will fade in my lifetime. Most of my co-workers are choosing to buy "more house" 30 miles further away.
Agreed. Its interesting that as a culture we design/build everything to be car-centric, when it truly is an expensive & deadly appliance.
Obviously rural areas are going to require extensive use of a car. Just curious for those in rural areas... did you weigh the costs of car ownership as part of your decision vs. living in a densely populated area where owning one may not be as necessary?
I love cars. I don't love appliance cars. I treat my DD as an appliance and shoot for the lowest cost of ownership possible, and try to spend as little time as possible in the car. Luckily mine averages nowhere near the #s in the article (which are probably exaggerated quite a bit). I spend around 4 hours a week in the car, and have costs around $1000/year for everything, both of which are still way too much.
If I were to move, minimizing my use of a car would be one of my top priorities. Moving further out to buy "more house" is an absolutely silly idea to me, however to many its extremely logical.
Everyone has different priorities. Some people value time, and don't want to commute. Some value money and don't want to own a vehicle and it's related costs. Some value living space and don't want to be stacked up on top of one another in a densely populated area just to avoid driving.
For me, I value both money and personal space over time. The cost of living difference is great enough that it would cost more money for me to live in a small condo in the nearest city, without a car than it does to own a car, and a house with 3 acres outside of the city. I feel I get more for my money this way, and I'm much happier than I would be living in a more urban area. Other people may disagree of course, but there's no perfect solution for every situation.
I used to read the Atlantic when I was young and naive. In fact I was a subscriber for many years. Since I grew up, I now recognize their rag as the bunch of liberal rubbish that it is.
So, what is he proposing as an alternative that he views as saner? A massive resettlement program to put everyone in areas where the population density can support mass transit? Reducing energy consumption by having everyone switch to motorcycles? Teleportation?
Obviously rural areas are going to require extensive use of a car. Just curious for those in rural areas... did you weigh the costs of car ownership as part of your decision vs. living in a densely populated area where owning one may not be as necessary?
Answering this question may be a good way to get back to the central part of this argument. I usually don't give this too much thought, but if I do, the costs of trying to pick a location where no car is required get pretty staggering:
So the costs add up really quickly - well over a thousand a month.
1988RedT2 wrote: I used to read the Atlantic when I was young and naive. In fact I was a subscriber for many years. Since I grew up, I now recognize their rag as the bunch of liberal rubbish that it is.
Well folks, this was a great and honest discussion until the floundering began...
pointofdeparture wrote:1988RedT2 wrote: I used to read the Atlantic when I was young and naive. In fact I was a subscriber for many years. Since I grew up, I now recognize their rag as the bunch of liberal rubbish that it is.Well folks, this was a great and honest discussion until the floundering began...
Hey, what flounder? Simply dismissing a source with an editorial stance that is 180 degrees opposite that of most of the forum members here.
In reply to 1988RedT2:
Dismissing a discussion for no reason other than perceived political alignment without even commenting on the topic at hand? If it looks like a flounder and swims like one...
My own opinion is that driving isn't the problem as much as the sense of entitlement that comes along with it. In America, having a car is part of "making it" because of the freedom it represents. Subsequently, A LOT of people have cars that don't need them. And unfortunately a lot of people that do need them also have way more car than they need. Single empty-nesters driving massive Escalades, I'm looking at you. Driving itself isn't the issue as much as our over-reliance on it culturally.
pointofdeparture wrote: My own opinion is that driving isn't the problem as much as the sense of entitlement that comes along with it. In America, having a car is part of "making it" because of the freedom it represents. Subsequently, A LOT of people have cars that don't need them. And unfortunately a lot of people that do need them also have way more car than they need. Single empty-nesters driving massive Escalades, I'm looking at you. Driving itself isn't the issue as much as our over-reliance on it culturally.
While I agree that many people buy much larger, less efficient vehicles than they should based on need, it's tough for me to judge them from a motorsports forum, because all motorsports are essentially a giant misappropriation of time and money in the name of whatever makes the participants happy, just like those Escalade driving empty-nesters.
Some of us like land. And space. And not living on top of your neighbors. Some of us enjoy pastimes that might be easier to do with land, such as gardening, raising animals, riding dirt bikes/ ATVs, having a large garage, firearms, etc.
And some of us might not particularly enjoy a bunch of high-rise dwellers with worthless degrees from expensive private colleges telling us that our way of life is wrong.
It has occurred to me that those who want us all to live in tiny compartments in cities and ride public transit are simply disguising their disdain for personal freedom and property ownership as "environmentalism". It's not just about cars; most city dwellers don't own their own homes, either, and most don't bother with growing any significant portion of their own food, or really bothering with anything other than going to a white collar job, coming home, facebooking, watching some Hulu, and consuming some mass-produced food.
It's Communism (the actual meaning of the word) is what it basically is. Shared transportation. Shared housing. Shared food. Nothing done by the individual, all by and for the collective.
And that's fine. If that's how you want to live, by all means, have at it. But don't try to tell someone who doesn't share your aspirations that their way is wrong, or try to take it away.
volvoclearinghouse wrote: But don't try to tell someone who doesn't share your aspirations that their way is wrong, or try to take it away.
This is really what I was trying to say. We all invest some combination of time and money into things that make us happy. Some people find happiness in motorsports, so we pay to buy car parts, tools, fuel, and track time. The Escalade driving empty-nesters get joy from driving huge, flashy, inefficient vehicles and pay for it in fuel, insurance and maintenance/repair costs.
When we apply that line of thinking to the concept in the article, we find that some people enjoy personal space and privacy, so they pay the price to live more remotely with time and money invested in commuting. Others are willing to carry the burden of higher cost of living in order to maintain an urban lifestyle where most of the things they need are very close by.
I'm not going to pretend to understand why others make some of the choices they do in how they prioritize their lives, but I do think they deserve the right to decide for themselves what makes them happy, and then be free to pursue it (so long as it's legal).
Lots of people make poor decisions. If they choose to make them that is there fault alone.
To each there own, if I want to live close to work its me and my families prerogative. If I want to move far away its my decision to make. Don't blame the car and the freedom it offers, people after all are the ones making the decisions.
STM317 wrote:volvoclearinghouse wrote: But don't try to tell someone who doesn't share your aspirations that their way is wrong, or try to take it away.This is really what I was trying to say. We all invest some combination of time and money into things that make us happy. Some people find happiness in motorsports, so we pay to buy car parts, tools, fuel, and track time. The Escalade driving empty-nesters get joy from driving huge, flashy, inefficient vehicles and pay for it in fuel, insurance and maintenance/repair costs. When we apply that line of thinking to the concept in the article, we find that some people enjoy personal space and privacy, so they pay the price to live more remotely with time and money invested in commuting. Others are willing to carry the burden of higher cost of living in order to maintain an urban lifestyle where most of the things they need are very close by. I'm not going to pretend to understand why others make some of the choices they do in how they prioritize their lives, but I do think they deserve the right to decide for themselves what makes them happy, and then be free to pursue it (so long as it's legal).
What he said... I like being able to do what I want.
80c of every dollar in gas goes to waste? What engine is only 20% efficient, a turbo rotary? Most ICEs are in the 25-33% efficiency range, turning 66-75c of your gas dollars directly into waste heat. Which is still horrific, but let's be accurate.
Electric cars will take care of the pollution problems and make cars energy-source-agnostic. If cars were autonomous he wouldn't have death to complain about either. Would he be pleased, or is he really arguing against people living anywhere but in a big city? Without the death and pollution problems, the rest is an inescapable part of suburban or rural living.
Fundamentally, it's about individualism vs collectivism. Cars are a form of individually-owned transportation that is relatively free of dependency on external infrastructure, which is very empowering for individuals, so obviously individualists value that. Collectivists see them as an unnecessary waste of resources at best and in some cases actively dangerous to their cause of making everyone a part of their collective goal.
The author of the article appears to be a collectivist and has produced a poorly-written, slanted, misleading, and logically inconsistent article to try to advance his position.
You'll need to log in to post.
