Electric cars do not address any of the main issues cars bring to our society, which are:
Pollution – Cars are responsible for a significant amount of global and local pollution (microplastic waste, brake dust, embodiment emissions, tailpipe emissions, and noise pollution). Electric cars eliminate tailpipe emissions, but the other pollution-related problems largely remain.
Infrastructure (Costs. An Unsustainable Pattern of Development) – Cars create an unwanted economic burden on their communities. The infrastructure for cars is expensive to maintain and the maintenance burden for local communities is expected to increase with the adoption of more electric and (someday) fully self-driving cars. This is partly due to the increased weight of the vehicles and also the increased traffic of autonomous vehicles.
Infrastructure (Land Usage & Induced Demand) – Cities allocate a vast amount of space to cars. This is space that could be used more effectively for other things such as parks, schools, businesses, homes, and so on. We miss out on these things and are forced to pile on additional sprawl when we build vast parking lots and widen roads and highways. This creates part of what is called induced demand. This effect means that the more capacity for cars we add, the more cars we’ll get, and then the more capacity we’ll need to add.
Independence and Community Access – Cars are not accessible to everyone. Simply put, many people either can’t drive or don’t want to drive. Car-centric city planning is an obstacle for these groups, to name a few: children and teenagers, parents who must chauffeur children to and from all forms of childhood activities, people who can’t afford a car, and many other people who are unable to drive. Imagine the challenge of giving up your car in the late stages of your life. In car-centric areas, you face a great loss of independence.
Safety – Cars are dangerous to both occupants and non-occupants, but especially the non-occupants. As time goes on cars admittedly become better at protecting the people inside them, but they remain hazardous to the people not inside them. For people walking, riding, or otherwise trying to exercise some form of car-free liberty cars are a constant threat. In car-centric areas, streets and roads are optimized to move cars fast and efficiently rather than protect other road users and pedestrians.
Social Isolation – A combination of the issues above produces the additional effect of social isolation. There are fewer opportunities for serendipitous interactions with other members of the public. Although there may be many people sharing the road with you (a public space), there are some obvious limitations to the quality of interaction one can have through metal, glass, and plastic boxes.
(Batantly copypasted from the pinned thread on r/fuckcars)
(Batantly copypasted from the pinned thread on r/fuckcars)
Please don’t do that. I have no problem with this kind of content in that echo chamber, but presenting it as objective truth calls into question huge portions of this that are either purely subjective to blatantly wrong.
Which portions are wrong? They are all correct. EVs are still a major source of pollution, in particular microplastics and particles. The upkeep of car infrastructure is insanely expensive. For Germany it is expected that every public parking spot costs 8.000 € a year to the economy. The space battle in urban areas is blatantly clear…
Where do they say it represents a form of ‘objective truth’?
Well I don’t see any “/s” on it so I take it on face value that that poster is presenting it as being true. Are you saying I should assume they believe its fiction?
I’m not sure if you know what objective truth means, but why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility? It’s not their goal to be objective, but to push for change. Not saying the things they stated are wrong, but they are first and foremost moral statements.
why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility?
You and I are in full agreement on this. I have zero issue with this content in the anti car lobby sub, except that’s not where the poster is putting it anymore. They’re posting it in “worldnews”. This is why I have a problem with it here, but not there.
I mean we’re here in the comments to exchange perspectives primarily. Never saw anyone quoting research papers. There’s no rule about forbidding comments to be biased or opinionated. So I’d say our access to any form of potential objective truth, as fundamental basis for discussion, is fairly limited. World news is not only about scientifically validated facts. It’s rather a fast paced informational feed, where you have to balance speed and factual quality.
And we had context for the anticar lobby comment, so it’s not like the person said: look, here is the irrefutable truth from an independent source. They rather said: Look here are some reasons for why XYZ is bad.
I don’t have a problem with it, besides it being a lazy and hard to read solution.
So instead of thinking about anything that is written there and looking it up, it is all backed by scientific research, you just attack the messenger. Great work of anti intellectualism.
Electric cars do not address any of the main issues cars bring to our society, which are:
Pollution – Cars are responsible for a significant amount of global and local pollution (microplastic waste, brake dust, embodiment emissions, tailpipe emissions, and noise pollution). Electric cars eliminate tailpipe emissions, but the other pollution-related problems largely remain.
Infrastructure (Costs. An Unsustainable Pattern of Development) – Cars create an unwanted economic burden on their communities. The infrastructure for cars is expensive to maintain and the maintenance burden for local communities is expected to increase with the adoption of more electric and (someday) fully self-driving cars. This is partly due to the increased weight of the vehicles and also the increased traffic of autonomous vehicles.
Infrastructure (Land Usage & Induced Demand) – Cities allocate a vast amount of space to cars. This is space that could be used more effectively for other things such as parks, schools, businesses, homes, and so on. We miss out on these things and are forced to pile on additional sprawl when we build vast parking lots and widen roads and highways. This creates part of what is called induced demand. This effect means that the more capacity for cars we add, the more cars we’ll get, and then the more capacity we’ll need to add.
Independence and Community Access – Cars are not accessible to everyone. Simply put, many people either can’t drive or don’t want to drive. Car-centric city planning is an obstacle for these groups, to name a few: children and teenagers, parents who must chauffeur children to and from all forms of childhood activities, people who can’t afford a car, and many other people who are unable to drive. Imagine the challenge of giving up your car in the late stages of your life. In car-centric areas, you face a great loss of independence.
Safety – Cars are dangerous to both occupants and non-occupants, but especially the non-occupants. As time goes on cars admittedly become better at protecting the people inside them, but they remain hazardous to the people not inside them. For people walking, riding, or otherwise trying to exercise some form of car-free liberty cars are a constant threat. In car-centric areas, streets and roads are optimized to move cars fast and efficiently rather than protect other road users and pedestrians.
Social Isolation – A combination of the issues above produces the additional effect of social isolation. There are fewer opportunities for serendipitous interactions with other members of the public. Although there may be many people sharing the road with you (a public space), there are some obvious limitations to the quality of interaction one can have through metal, glass, and plastic boxes.
(Batantly copypasted from the pinned thread on r/fuckcars)
Please don’t do that. I have no problem with this kind of content in that echo chamber, but presenting it as objective truth calls into question huge portions of this that are either purely subjective to blatantly wrong.
Which portions are wrong? They are all correct. EVs are still a major source of pollution, in particular microplastics and particles. The upkeep of car infrastructure is insanely expensive. For Germany it is expected that every public parking spot costs 8.000 € a year to the economy. The space battle in urban areas is blatantly clear…
Where do they say it represents a form of ‘objective truth’?
But I agree walls of text are not nice, at least try to summarize it a bit to make it readable…
Well I don’t see any “/s” on it so I take it on face value that that poster is presenting it as being true. Are you saying I should assume they believe its fiction?
I’m not sure if you know what objective truth means, but why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility? It’s not their goal to be objective, but to push for change. Not saying the things they stated are wrong, but they are first and foremost moral statements.
You and I are in full agreement on this. I have zero issue with this content in the anti car lobby sub, except that’s not where the poster is putting it anymore. They’re posting it in “worldnews”. This is why I have a problem with it here, but not there.
I mean we’re here in the comments to exchange perspectives primarily. Never saw anyone quoting research papers. There’s no rule about forbidding comments to be biased or opinionated. So I’d say our access to any form of potential objective truth, as fundamental basis for discussion, is fairly limited. World news is not only about scientifically validated facts. It’s rather a fast paced informational feed, where you have to balance speed and factual quality.
And we had context for the anticar lobby comment, so it’s not like the person said: look, here is the irrefutable truth from an independent source. They rather said: Look here are some reasons for why XYZ is bad.
I don’t have a problem with it, besides it being a lazy and hard to read solution.
So instead of thinking about anything that is written there and looking it up, it is all backed by scientific research, you just attack the messenger. Great work of anti intellectualism.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Read every single one of my posts here in this thread. There are zero attacks on the messenger.
Being against electric cars because they are cars is certainly a view you can take.