this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
350 points (83.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

12956 readers
1524 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
350
Electric Cars (infosec.pub)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by DwZ@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.

This choice you've presented is extremely misleading. The build out of electrified public transportation and the shift from ICE to EV cars are not in any way related choices. If the government chooses to build more public transportation, that has no effect on whether or not EVs replace ICE cars.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The government building transit would effect the number of people who need to rely on a car.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Which is good, but still has nothing to do with what the remaining cars are powered by. There's no reason why it has to be "transit+ICE" instead of "transit+EV".

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

My point is that we should be making the most impactful changes we can to fight climate change and environmental destruction, which means subsidies, government investments, and tax breaks are better spent on transit, density, or active transport than on EV infrastructure/incentives

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago

And the most impactful change I can make is purchasing an EV.

Since I already vote for officials who support all of those issues there is no impactful change because the alignment is already there.

There are locally impactful actions that I can participate in but none that will have the same impact as my personal choices.

The most impactful choices I could make are all illegal. The majority of them being some form of demestic terrorism.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Even here in a walkable town with good transit, I still need a car so an EV is what I can do.