181
[image] People would probably hate cars a lot less if they were limited in size and speed to a golf cart
(lemmy.world)
Pros of golf carts and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) replacing all private cars within a city:
- Only goes as fast as a bicycle, so isn't a viable suburban commuter vehicle, meaning you'll probably only take it to the nearest transit station
- Only goes as fast as a bicycle, so isn't likely to kill people
- Excellent visibility, so less likely to run over children
- Much smaller and lighter, so building parking garages for park-and-rides would be a lot cheaper and less objectionable than with our current style of cars
- Electric
- Smaller batteries than jumbo EVs
- Compatible with dense, transit-oriented city development
- Could be installed with mandatory speed limiters
Cons:
- Less profit for GM and ExxonMobil
The reason cars became so popular in rural areas is that they're the thing that allows people who live there to be connected with their neighbors. They divide densely populated areas and connect low population areas. The relationship cars have to people's lives is incredibly complex and putting forth solutions like this will alienate people from joining the movement. Advocating for walkable cities makes sense because rural communities aren't going to be atomized by regulations like that, and thus it becomes easier to implement.
This post is talking exclusively about cities, I'm not sure why this argument about rural areas comes up so often when it's not relevant.
There are cities like New York, and then there are cities like Reading, PA. The places where you could swap cars with golf cart style cars are pretty limited. It would have a huge and beneficial impact in NYC, and it would be great if smaller cities also had better public transit. But that's why people bring up objections to this sort of idea.
Yes but that's a different argument again. The post said cities and the response was about rural areas
Rural people know their way of life is utterly unsustainable and feel very defensive because of that
Really? That is very naive of you. I don't see a lot of farming In city centers. Rural life is just as sustainable as city life. I have always driven much less when I have lived in the country. Being able to live where you work makes a commute unnecessary. So just the once a month drive to town for supplies.
Both cities and the country have its place. One is not better, the worst way to get people to listen to you is to insult one of the basic qualities of who they are.
One of the worst ways, absolutely worst ways, to get people to listen to you is for "rural can't survive without cars" people to wade into a post about cities and keep going on about them, as if they're the only ones that matter and city dwellers shouldn't solve their city problems without the permission of someone far away who doesn't live there.
It's just not about you. Please try and have the humility to not act like it is.
Weird enough I never said anything of that, but thank you for the reminder on the importance of reading comprehension.
They just shared their perspective with people in this thread, not agreeing with the person posting this comment. If it was according to your logic, I would've agreed that rural places require cars (even though I've been in rural areas that mostly move around with public transport) just because I disagreed with someone saying that rural living is unsustainable as compared to urban living.
Nah, I'd say that most city living is unsustainable, just without it being visible to most people. The huge amounts of people in a city benefit from unsustainable commercialised farming practices, for example. I mean in rural areas (the ones that aren't corpo-owned at least) you're likely to have people growing locally-adapted seeds that don't require lots of watering/fertilizer/pesticide. There's more cooperation, too.
Replace rural with suburban sprawl.
Why do you say that? Losing connection with community is the exact reason the Amish ban cars. You rested your whole argument on this, too, so you'll need to convince me a little harder that up is down.
You've just proven their point. Isolationists ban cars.
The Amish isolate themselves from others for religious reasons. Most people don't want to do that.
But they remain connected with each other.
Debatable
It's a cult is detached from society and it often ostracizes their own.
If your community is based on literally limiting everyone's freedom of movement and communication by banning technology it's pretty toxic.
People who choose to live in rural areas are always going to be more wasteful and require subsidization from urban people's taxes. Putting them all in golf carts was never going to solve that.
Are you doing a bit? If not, what do you mean by "are always going to be more wasteful"?
Urban taxes pay for suburban and rural services all across the continent. Suburbanite and rural residents cost more to support than they pay in taxes.
Do you believe that communities that are supported by tax dollars are inherently more wasteful than communities that aren't? There is a reason US farmers get so much tax money from the government. Do you know what that reason is?
I'm not even talking about the vast farm subsidies from lobbying and regulatory capture. We don't even need to consider that for the point to remain.
Your point is moot and your username is fitting.
And we will all be fed from the rolling fields of Manhattan.
So what you are saying is, I should subsidize the lifestyle of people who are living under conditions with greater externalities because they want to make money farming. Hey. How about they fucking pay for it themselves? They make more money per capita, they enjoy greater privilege, all I am saying is that they can pay their fair share. It's not like they are doing it out of altruism.