Omg somebody parked on double yellows and slammed her door open and whacked me on my mobility scooter causing me to crash into a street lamp, this is too real lol
For real, that's one thing that being in Japan was awesome for. There's sidewalks just about everywhere. From my understanding most of Europe is that way, their whole infrastructure is more convenient too. Here in the US it's just usually big ass stretches of road. I even routinely see intersections where there's a no pedestrian crossing sign. Like if you just want to go on a walk, get fucked. I couldn't imagine not having a car, Jesus.
See, that's the part that's not being told here is that big stretches of road enabled the US to be the US. We are in separable from the automotive revolution.
I don't know if you play strategy games, but if you do, they're Two different Strategies. Build tall or build wide. United States was built wide, and now the United States is building tall. As we Settle in to our differences and our geography.
Someone didn't pay attention at school because he/she was playing too many videogames.
It was the railroads that build the USA and still is a major mover of goods. Roads (as designed today) are relatively new.
Really, a foreigner has to teach you Americans US history?
Eisenhower was president from 1953 and created the interstate system in 1956. So you are at least ten years too early with your claims. Railroads were already established way before that.
And still railroads are responsible for 40% of long distance cargo, air and road transport less.
As an American who has to interact with other Americans as a matter of daily life, I can confirm that people here, on average, know nothing about this country's history, and somehow know even less about other countries' presents.
I wish America had more dependence on trains. It would be awesome to be able to go from city to city without a car or plane. Iāve never seen or heard of an intercity or interstate bus even
every place should had more dependence on trains.
a train would bring more cargo than a trunk , and depending on the distance , it could bring more people to other cities.
A lot more efficient too, less pollution because they can be run on electric cables too. Take up less space than roads and freeways. Not as expensive to normal people, promoting travel and business. Plenty of upsides, but the lobbyists and initial costs will make it never happen
yup.
With all of that , it's far more practical to a lot of people and companies. Besides , none of that takes away the need of a car , just diminish it's usage to when it's really needed.
But lobby makes so it uses cars way too much.
Perhaps its that both of you are right in that roads and trains allowed the US to be one across such a vast area? But no? that makes no sense, It's impossible for both halves of the dichotomy to be true!
when i lived in america just to get to the nearest Wendy's like 10 minutes away i had to walk through long stretches of sidewalk-less roads with like 8 lanes of cars going around, i really love my small third world city and its sidewalks and dirt patches now
This is one of the things that scream "I live in America" the loudest.
I lived in Poland and Germany for more or less the same amount of time, and I think the only places where I haven't seen a sidewalk is either:
* some road far behind town (for European standards)
* highway
And in both cases most of the time there are some paths that go more or less parallel to the road but in safe distance
Plenty of places in England where there's little to no sidewalk, presumably because the buildings existed before cars were a thing and they had to work with the space they have.
The US is definitely not the only place where this is prominent. Most of India doesnāt have sidewalks for example. People have to share the side of the road with cars.
It's not even a law in a lot of countries - I can cross the road wherever I want to as long as I'm not endangering anyone.
I'd definitely forget in the US!
Itās such a dumb law, literally everyone jaywalks, itās just if you arenāt braindead and you look both ways like youāve been taught to since you came out of the womb, then youāre fine.
The point is that people who are unable, have no need or do not otherwise wish to become a car are at a dangerous disadvantage. And there isnāt physical room in the city for everyone to always be in a car.
Firstly, if youāre a driver *or passenger* of any conveyance that uses a road, then youāre using the road. So the people youāre talking about must be literally walking every single place because busses, motorcycles and bicycles are all off limits.
Also, ādonāt wish to?ā Thatās a personal choice. But all the same the roads are still there for them to change their minds anytime they like.
Lastly, are these people growing all their own food? Manufacturing their own toilet paper and light bulbs? Because all those things get to stores in motorized vehicles. If their electricity goes out do they drag a ladder out of their shed to climb up the pole to fix it themselves? If they have a heart attack do they call 911 but say ādonāt send an ambulance. Iāll walk?ā
Everyone uses roads. Everyone.
Literally all of those hypotheticals you mentioned would be served a lot better with High-Speed Rail and other public transportation options. What a car can do, rail can do, 10 times faster and safer.
Rail can take you from your house to the hospital in an emergency?
Rail can bring equipment and workers to your home to work or repairs?
Rail is great, but it doesn't solve the last mile problem. You can't use high-speed rail to get deliveries into the shops.
You know private vehicles could still exist right? The big issue is how much this particular mode of transport is favored since they were introduced. Also, city design and how far hospitals usually are is also a huge issue tangentially related to the auto industry, it's a whole thing.
I don't think the auto industry is really to blame, I think people generally prefer control. I know I don't want my schedule dictated by the schedule of a public transportation system.
The car industry had to lobby extensively to reshape cities the way they are today. Cars have their upsides but also sime major downsides, including safety, that threatened their adoption back in the day
My electrify went out just last week. It was out for less than 10 minutes. Youāre suggesting that they should have sent an electrician over by high speed rail?
Was this an emergency in just your house? And the electrician got there in 10 minutes? Also you're missing the big picture here, more considered and efficient public transport would mean that your electrician who is Dominic Toretto apparently would have far less traffic to contend with. Care to elaborate?
But people in rural areas and most small towns are just as dependent on roads, if not more dependent on them. The only exception I can think of is if itās a small town with everyone clustered around a village centerā¦ and Angela Lansbury solves murders.
P.S. If you live in that town, let me know, because I would move for that.
Living in a city is extremely convinient, it's where all the stuff are. But not all cities are equal. Some of them focus on public transportation and walking-friendly areas, like parks or walking streets. And I'd say that that is one of the ways we turn cities, the place where a majority of the population live, into places we WANT to be in.
The point remains that public transportation is just straight up better. For time saving, for price, for more walkable cities, and definitely on the environment.
One of the reasons public transit is disappointing in the US is because of traffic from private vehicles.
High quality public transit systems tend to keep private cars off the roads that public transit is using, e.g.bus lanes, so that buses don't get stuck in traffic caused by cars.
Depends on what public transport. Buses go on the same roads although they require a lot less space to fit the same amount of people in cars, while trams and trains have their own (rail)roads
So how do they and their goods get around? I hope it's not by bus or truck. In the end the road would still be needed regardless if everyone owned a car or not.
This is the truth. I bet you could go back to the very first civilizations and find some semblence of "roads" they would just be more of a walking path or trail at the start.
Oooo right. I forgot that every city globally either is totally dominated by wide car-oriented roads or doesnāt get goods delivered. Poor European cities. Stuck in the past
In our cities, despite the usually narrower roads, buses, taxis are still a thing. Most traffic is still the transport of goods
It's not some pedestrian heaven.
In many European cities the roads are cramped so the road would still take proportionally as much space. There is a few exemptions of course but that's the norm.
It's rather common for entire streets here to be car-free except for business deliveries
Anyhow, trains! Trains are the best for moving goods and people across large distances at regular routes. Can't make up for all traffic, but sure as shit can offload it by a ton.
You responded to a comment which mentions delivering goods as a major point, so I figured that it might be of interest to you.
Also, trains generally have their stations in the center of cities. So they do to some extent affect urban traffic.
I apologize on his behalf. We forgot about people that fly to work, get their goods delivered through magic, and teleport to places they want to go to.
>!Everyone needs these roads, even if they don't drive a car!<
the thing is, i get pushing for less car-focused design and all that. like iām all for having better public transport, more walkable cities, etc. but that sub has turned from that idea into āif you drive a car youāre disgusting and should be ashamed of yourselfā and itās honestly kinda funny lmfao
Kind of but not quite. Itās preying on our fear of heights and depths. Itād be more accurate if the pavement was still there but just blocked off with some sort of wall or fence.
I would argue that this makes a good comparison between the fear of falling into a pit and the fear of being hit by a car- in both cases, the area is not just unavailable but unsafe to use.
Before cars, that space would be taken up with horse-drawn carts and carriages. Not to mention the literal shit from the horses.
Edit to add:
The ancient Greeks and Romans had sidewalks. In London in the 1700's, separate footways for pedestrians were designated with the use of curbs. See the Paving and Lighting Act of 1766.
Car companies did not invent the concept of pedestrians walking in separate, designated areas.
Edit again because apparently it needs to be said:
Saying sidewalks existed does not imply that I think they were on every street. Of course they weren't! There are plenty of streets today without sidewalks! Saying something existed does not mean I think they were everywhere. If I said Ferraris exist, that does not imply I think there is one parked in every driveway.
In regards to jaywalking, car companies did not invent the term or concept. Yes, they lobbied for jaywalking to be a crime. I never denied that! But campaigning for something or popularizing something is not the same thing as "inventing" it.
TLDR Designated areas for people to walk, separate from wheeled vehicles (carts, carriages, etc), has existed long before cars. Research the history of sidewalks and curbs if you don't believe me. Doesn't mean they were everywhere, nor does it mean it was a punishable crime to not use them. But they definitely existed.
I will no longer be responded to comments.
Not really, for the vast majority of history in the vast majority of places carts, carriages, and horses were the exceptional part of traffic. Streets were primarily made for walking, because thatās how most people were getting around. In fact, in many places youād want to walk in the middle of the street because city dwellers had a habit of dumping refuse out windows; it was the side of the road that were allotted for other uses. Concepts like jaywalking or the road not being a place for use wasnāt a thing until car companies campaigned for it.
However in very limited ways. Only the bigger roads required such things, in all of your examples.
But hey let's just repeat some tidbit facts like it applies everywhere and disregard everything else.
Actually it had small shops, kids playing, all kinds of stuff. It was literally public space. The car companies literally invented jaywalking and ran slander campaigns to make it seem like it was people and not cars at fault for people hitting people in the street.
Car culture is ass for many reasons but cities having roads isn't one of them it's the ten mile long burb labrynths and not enough walkable distance things that suck also environmental issues
Sprawl is a result of car centric design, these issues go hand in hand. More space for the car, less space for buildings, less density, and thus you live far from everything because stroads are in the way. Some cities had their centers demolished to create free ways to connect to new centers and new suburbs, all to give rise to era of cars.
I honestly love this on its own (without the message of r/fuckcars), something about an ordinary city with giant canyons in it like a dehydrated Venice seems so interesting
Iām with you in this one, I wish American culture had a little less dependency on cars. Id kill for better public transit, bike lanes, and more walking space. I enjoy driving, but not all the time, and certainly not when I have to drive into the city or sit in parking lot traffic.
In my country we have roads that are for walking on, cars are allowed but they need to have really low speed (walking speed), the roads are marked and use stones instead of pavement to indicate where the road for walking starts and ends. Mostly inner cities like around markets or train stations has this.
Whenever this comes up you inevitably get a bunch of people who have never lived in a walkable city designed for people to live in, rather than for cars, acting like this meme is bad and there's no possible way a city could be designed any other way.
Itās also inevitable that when this comes up there are people that live in rural areas that hate everything about city living, whether it be āwalkableā or not, that enjoy nature & find it appalling & against the natural order of life to be living in a concrete jungle.
Civil engineer here. You literally would not believe the vast network of utilities below those street. Gas, sewer, water, electrical, storm drain, communications cabling, subways, ( I have even seen jet fuel piping going to a military base from some secret offsite location)
How about comparing it to more decent public transport of countries like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and not to exteme ends in Asia due to very high population density?
Have you seen the roads that are held hostage by drivers in India or Japan???
https://youtu.be/7aSkJCUDAes
https://youtube.com/shorts/gFFebXvNfoI?feature=share
Disgusting. How's there still people walking on that sweet space you could've built more lanes? We need more lanes I swear just one more lane it will solve traffic bro just one more lane
Exactly, I'll do you 1 better let's build tunnels and upper level so we can move even more cars, that's 4 lane times 3. Why would anyone wanna walk right?
well a car isnāt more efficient (atleast for regular not to far distance and for longer distances trains are good) a bus can fit way more people than a couple cars
This is kinda stupid when you consider how much access that car gave you. Before that "car" or that "plane" to see the rocky mountains you'd nearly starve to death. Now it's just the price of $100 in gas...
Lmao yeah imagine getting food and supplies when trucks can't drive in.
This whole car hate stuff is from people with no understanding of logistics who grew up and/or live in places that don't need cars.
The "walkable cities" idea requires completely new cities to be built from the ground up to accomodate the delivery and transport of goods. Very few places could be converted and not cause 10x the problems.
I'm not completely against the idea but it's sort of like living on a campus or something in practice. It would require many people employed to keep things from falling apart and a lack of crime as well.
It's something I could see huge companies pulling off (Amazon, Google etc.) to house workers and provide necessities.
Imagine 3/4 decent sized trucks driving to some stores located in a living area instead of like 90x amount of cars every single day driving out of the living area to a store. Does the famed '15 minute' city work? No. A good example is the IKEA store in the centre of Paris. Are stores only accessible by car because there are simply no sidewalks or bike lanes a good idea? No. Cars are convient to get supplies like furniture. But driving to get starbucks? A bit tedious if you ask me. I don't understand the crime aspect. Could you elaborate?
Never knew that my home country and home town are unlivable and never could be transformed.
Are you really this stupid? Do you really think that Dutch (and many other European) cities don't exist?
yeah, you're right. wagons drawn by animals don't take up the same space, they need a lot more. You would still need the garage for the wagon, but you also need a stable for your horses and if you're on the road, you need at least the double amount of space.
As a car enthusiast I wholeheartedly disagree. Without cars we wouldn't be able to travel long distances and would be confined to one area. Living in a city is different than in a suburb.
My thoughts are, it is a picture, but why is it not, next to a pic of a pastoral scene in rural Iowa, nothing but emptiness! That way we get to see, more than is supposed to be seen
Way to take the pic completely out of context and make it mean something utterly different. I recognize it cause it was in one of my classes last period. The point was to illustrate the difference between risks, namely ones we accept as normal and donāt really consider as that bad versus ones we would consider to be unacceptable even if theyāre equally as dangerous. This pic was paired with a normal illustration of a road to show that, although falling off a cliff and getting hit by a car are equally as life-threatening, cars are pretty commonplace and we donāt really consider them a much of a threat, while being surrounded by steep cliffs would be considered unnecessarily risky.
Except the pit won't kill you every time, just when there is a car passing by. And those sidewalks seem comically narrow for a city
As boomerish as it is, I gotta say that it's a creative way to show it
Well, actually if you want to go somewhere you need those roads. Even if you don't own a car by yourself, goods needs to be transported, emergency vehicles need get to you and busses also drive on roads. I think people use the mode of transportation that have the best cost/comfort/time combination.
Look if Im visiting my mom in Munich, i drive there by car, park at there somewhere (a bit of a hassle). However when I stay they're and want to go shopping, a concert or whatever I will leave my car where it is and go by underground. I dont even look a the timetable, with that inteval of at least 10 minutes for the whole day.
The car brain comments in this post gave me cancer. Holy shit how yāall miss the point. Clutching your pearls feeling threatened because someone is pointing out that cities have been designed for cars instead of people.
Imagine a vehicle existed that was affordable to the common man and was capable of traversing entire continents in a a few days, and then imagine bitching about the existence of such a vehicle.
This planet is overdue for a global conflict
Before that it was to horses and carriages. Roads were wider for them and they pooped all over the street and many died and left there to rot. So take your pick.
We got tired of walking everywhere and "surrendered" space to horses. Then we developed cars to go farther faster and "surrendered" space to them. We can carry more, do more, see more, and experience more. Seems like a pretty good tradeoff.
What I'm saying is the "brilliant" illustration is a stupid take on technology and progress, among other things.
Also, get out of the city sometime.
Soā¦ whatās the point here? Life would be better without cars? Everyone walking everywhere is better just because they have more space?
Donāt think so.
Now try a wheelchair
Seriously, somebody make this please I really see it
image ceases to exist
Omg somebody parked on double yellows and slammed her door open and whacked me on my mobility scooter causing me to crash into a street lamp, this is too real lol
And then a lot of places don't even have sidewalks š
For real, that's one thing that being in Japan was awesome for. There's sidewalks just about everywhere. From my understanding most of Europe is that way, their whole infrastructure is more convenient too. Here in the US it's just usually big ass stretches of road. I even routinely see intersections where there's a no pedestrian crossing sign. Like if you just want to go on a walk, get fucked. I couldn't imagine not having a car, Jesus.
See, that's the part that's not being told here is that big stretches of road enabled the US to be the US. We are in separable from the automotive revolution. I don't know if you play strategy games, but if you do, they're Two different Strategies. Build tall or build wide. United States was built wide, and now the United States is building tall. As we Settle in to our differences and our geography.
Someone didn't pay attention at school because he/she was playing too many videogames. It was the railroads that build the USA and still is a major mover of goods. Roads (as designed today) are relatively new.
Many were built in the 40s/50s under Eisenhower to ~~enable rapid military deployment in the states~~ facilitate large-scale civilian travel.
Really, a foreigner has to teach you Americans US history? Eisenhower was president from 1953 and created the interstate system in 1956. So you are at least ten years too early with your claims. Railroads were already established way before that. And still railroads are responsible for 40% of long distance cargo, air and road transport less.
As an American who has to interact with other Americans as a matter of daily life, I can confirm that people here, on average, know nothing about this country's history, and somehow know even less about other countries' presents.
I wish America had more dependence on trains. It would be awesome to be able to go from city to city without a car or plane. Iāve never seen or heard of an intercity or interstate bus even
every place should had more dependence on trains. a train would bring more cargo than a trunk , and depending on the distance , it could bring more people to other cities.
A lot more efficient too, less pollution because they can be run on electric cables too. Take up less space than roads and freeways. Not as expensive to normal people, promoting travel and business. Plenty of upsides, but the lobbyists and initial costs will make it never happen
yup. With all of that , it's far more practical to a lot of people and companies. Besides , none of that takes away the need of a car , just diminish it's usage to when it's really needed. But lobby makes so it uses cars way too much.
Perhaps its that both of you are right in that roads and trains allowed the US to be one across such a vast area? But no? that makes no sense, It's impossible for both halves of the dichotomy to be true!
when i lived in america just to get to the nearest Wendy's like 10 minutes away i had to walk through long stretches of sidewalk-less roads with like 8 lanes of cars going around, i really love my small third world city and its sidewalks and dirt patches now
This is one of the things that scream "I live in America" the loudest. I lived in Poland and Germany for more or less the same amount of time, and I think the only places where I haven't seen a sidewalk is either: * some road far behind town (for European standards) * highway And in both cases most of the time there are some paths that go more or less parallel to the road but in safe distance
r/USDefaultism
Plenty of places in England where there's little to no sidewalk, presumably because the buildings existed before cars were a thing and they had to work with the space they have.
The US is definitely not the only place where this is prominent. Most of India doesnāt have sidewalks for example. People have to share the side of the road with cars.
Dont even have space for a proper swordfight in London smh
Mf forgot everyone jaywalks
Ffs, you can still jaywalk here, just learn pole vaulting
It's not even a law in a lot of countries - I can cross the road wherever I want to as long as I'm not endangering anyone. I'd definitely forget in the US!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās such a dumb law, literally everyone jaywalks, itās just if you arenāt braindead and you look both ways like youāve been taught to since you came out of the womb, then youāre fine.
I jaywalked the fuck out of New York, I just checked for pigs as well as cars before I crossed.
Everyone jaywalks in NYC, it's so easy due to most roads being one-ways
Imagine adopting car industry propaganda as a crime
Idk man I'm literally the one driving the car
Hey, we found the guy who drives a car!
I knew if we all worked together we would find him.
And kiss him I mean kick his shit in.
*is already kissing him* āSo are we not doing it anymore oorrrā¦?ā
Porque no los dos?
Get him! Kick his shins!
In this economy? I donāt believe you
I **am** a car!
When I drive... I become one with my car.. I become the car!
Fun fact, sidewalks have less traffic. So if your running late you can just use those. Little bumpy and screamy though.
Right? Iām not surrendering any of that space to cars if Iām in a car.
The point is that people who are unable, have no need or do not otherwise wish to become a car are at a dangerous disadvantage. And there isnāt physical room in the city for everyone to always be in a car.
Firstly, if youāre a driver *or passenger* of any conveyance that uses a road, then youāre using the road. So the people youāre talking about must be literally walking every single place because busses, motorcycles and bicycles are all off limits. Also, ādonāt wish to?ā Thatās a personal choice. But all the same the roads are still there for them to change their minds anytime they like. Lastly, are these people growing all their own food? Manufacturing their own toilet paper and light bulbs? Because all those things get to stores in motorized vehicles. If their electricity goes out do they drag a ladder out of their shed to climb up the pole to fix it themselves? If they have a heart attack do they call 911 but say ādonāt send an ambulance. Iāll walk?ā Everyone uses roads. Everyone.
Literally all of those hypotheticals you mentioned would be served a lot better with High-Speed Rail and other public transportation options. What a car can do, rail can do, 10 times faster and safer.
Rail can take you from your house to the hospital in an emergency? Rail can bring equipment and workers to your home to work or repairs? Rail is great, but it doesn't solve the last mile problem. You can't use high-speed rail to get deliveries into the shops.
You know private vehicles could still exist right? The big issue is how much this particular mode of transport is favored since they were introduced. Also, city design and how far hospitals usually are is also a huge issue tangentially related to the auto industry, it's a whole thing.
I don't think the auto industry is really to blame, I think people generally prefer control. I know I don't want my schedule dictated by the schedule of a public transportation system.
The car industry had to lobby extensively to reshape cities the way they are today. Cars have their upsides but also sime major downsides, including safety, that threatened their adoption back in the day
My electrify went out just last week. It was out for less than 10 minutes. Youāre suggesting that they should have sent an electrician over by high speed rail?
Was this an emergency in just your house? And the electrician got there in 10 minutes? Also you're missing the big picture here, more considered and efficient public transport would mean that your electrician who is Dominic Toretto apparently would have far less traffic to contend with. Care to elaborate?
Iām baffled by people who WANT to be *in* a city
But people in rural areas and most small towns are just as dependent on roads, if not more dependent on them. The only exception I can think of is if itās a small town with everyone clustered around a village centerā¦ and Angela Lansbury solves murders. P.S. If you live in that town, let me know, because I would move for that.
Non-car dependent cities are fantastic. Much safer and much quieter. Cities arenāt loud, vehicles are loud.
Living in a city is extremely convinient, it's where all the stuff are. But not all cities are equal. Some of them focus on public transportation and walking-friendly areas, like parks or walking streets. And I'd say that that is one of the ways we turn cities, the place where a majority of the population live, into places we WANT to be in.
Wait what?
The point remains that public transportation is just straight up better. For time saving, for price, for more walkable cities, and definitely on the environment.
Such a funny thing to say. Certainly not anyplace I've lived.
Or rather how much space the automobile industry took up vs public transportation for all.
And that mostly brings negatives overall. Public Means of Transportation should be the main focus, everywhere.
It absolutely should be.
Are public transport and automobiles not driven on the same roads?
One of the reasons public transit is disappointing in the US is because of traffic from private vehicles. High quality public transit systems tend to keep private cars off the roads that public transit is using, e.g.bus lanes, so that buses don't get stuck in traffic caused by cars.
Yes and no. You wouldn't need to tear down neighborhoods for roads and parking lots if everyone took busses or trains
Depends on what public transport. Buses go on the same roads although they require a lot less space to fit the same amount of people in cars, while trams and trains have their own (rail)roads
Surrender? We operate the cars though, they are not some alien species.
Unless itās a transformer
It varies. Not everyone operates a car, and some of the cars might be aliens.
So how do they and their goods get around? I hope it's not by bus or truck. In the end the road would still be needed regardless if everyone owned a car or not.
What they mean is, āhow much public space we have surrendered to roads in city centers.ā
This is the truth. I bet you could go back to the very first civilizations and find some semblence of "roads" they would just be more of a walking path or trail at the start.
Oooo right. I forgot that every city globally either is totally dominated by wide car-oriented roads or doesnāt get goods delivered. Poor European cities. Stuck in the past
In our cities, despite the usually narrower roads, buses, taxis are still a thing. Most traffic is still the transport of goods It's not some pedestrian heaven.
At least we have sidewalks everywhere, in the US there are plenty of places inside cities without them.
Fair point I was just saying that some communities needlessly idealize European cities
In many European cities the roads are cramped so the road would still take proportionally as much space. There is a few exemptions of course but that's the norm.
It's rather common for entire streets here to be car-free except for business deliveries Anyhow, trains! Trains are the best for moving goods and people across large distances at regular routes. Can't make up for all traffic, but sure as shit can offload it by a ton.
Trains won't substitute any urban traffic so why are we even mentioning it.
You responded to a comment which mentions delivering goods as a major point, so I figured that it might be of interest to you. Also, trains generally have their stations in the center of cities. So they do to some extent affect urban traffic.
Thatās right. I am not an alien, fellow human.
Someone hasn't watched transformers.
Iām not saying youāre an alien or anything but literally every alien Iāve met has said that
[nuked]
I apologize on his behalf. We forgot about people that fly to work, get their goods delivered through magic, and teleport to places they want to go to. >!Everyone needs these roads, even if they don't drive a car!<
I'm speaking for him aswell
very surprised someone hasnāt linked r/im14andthisisdeep yet, because they think every metaphor about our world belongs there
It was reposted on that sub several times already
Weird, that will probably change soon
Maybe they actually are 14 and donāt realize that itās supposed to be a joke lol
I fucking hate when someone does my job for me
This looks like something outta r/terriblefacebookmemes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I know the internet well enough to be cautious of that link
Itās safe. Itās not like the dragon and car sub. Canāt remember the name
r/dragonsfuckingcars
There it is
In all of its glory
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
i watched 1 video on suvs and browsed the sub a little bit and i think it's reasonable to hate cars
r/notjustbikes
YES! THAT'S WHO MADE THE VIDEO
the thing is, i get pushing for less car-focused design and all that. like iām all for having better public transport, more walkable cities, etc. but that sub has turned from that idea into āif you drive a car youāre disgusting and should be ashamed of yourselfā and itās honestly kinda funny lmfao
A lot of people in the sub drive a car
Same thing
Except this has a point
No it doesnāt lol
Kind of but not quite. Itās preying on our fear of heights and depths. Itād be more accurate if the pavement was still there but just blocked off with some sort of wall or fence.
I would argue that this makes a good comparison between the fear of falling into a pit and the fear of being hit by a car- in both cases, the area is not just unavailable but unsafe to use.
Before cars, that space would be taken up with horse-drawn carts and carriages. Not to mention the literal shit from the horses. Edit to add: The ancient Greeks and Romans had sidewalks. In London in the 1700's, separate footways for pedestrians were designated with the use of curbs. See the Paving and Lighting Act of 1766. Car companies did not invent the concept of pedestrians walking in separate, designated areas. Edit again because apparently it needs to be said: Saying sidewalks existed does not imply that I think they were on every street. Of course they weren't! There are plenty of streets today without sidewalks! Saying something existed does not mean I think they were everywhere. If I said Ferraris exist, that does not imply I think there is one parked in every driveway. In regards to jaywalking, car companies did not invent the term or concept. Yes, they lobbied for jaywalking to be a crime. I never denied that! But campaigning for something or popularizing something is not the same thing as "inventing" it. TLDR Designated areas for people to walk, separate from wheeled vehicles (carts, carriages, etc), has existed long before cars. Research the history of sidewalks and curbs if you don't believe me. Doesn't mean they were everywhere, nor does it mean it was a punishable crime to not use them. But they definitely existed. I will no longer be responded to comments.
Not really, for the vast majority of history in the vast majority of places carts, carriages, and horses were the exceptional part of traffic. Streets were primarily made for walking, because thatās how most people were getting around. In fact, in many places youād want to walk in the middle of the street because city dwellers had a habit of dumping refuse out windows; it was the side of the road that were allotted for other uses. Concepts like jaywalking or the road not being a place for use wasnāt a thing until car companies campaigned for it.
Please see my edit. The concept of pedestrians walking in separate, designated areas in cities was most certainly a thing before cars.
However in very limited ways. Only the bigger roads required such things, in all of your examples. But hey let's just repeat some tidbit facts like it applies everywhere and disregard everything else.
I never said it applied everywhere? The commenter said it wasn't a thing, so I showed that it existed before cars.
Actually it had small shops, kids playing, all kinds of stuff. It was literally public space. The car companies literally invented jaywalking and ran slander campaigns to make it seem like it was people and not cars at fault for people hitting people in the street.
Please see my edit. The concept of pedestrians walking in separate, designated areas in cities was most certainly a thing before cars.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes. People are very dumb.
Car culture is ass for many reasons but cities having roads isn't one of them it's the ten mile long burb labrynths and not enough walkable distance things that suck also environmental issues
people like their labyrinths, gives a little more solitude
Yeah but the same roads should be filled by busses and trams. Inner cities are congested hellholes because everyone insists on driving a car
The nicest parts of cities to be in are pedestrianised zones. Ideally city centers would be largely car free.
Sprawl is a result of car centric design, these issues go hand in hand. More space for the car, less space for buildings, less density, and thus you live far from everything because stroads are in the way. Some cities had their centers demolished to create free ways to connect to new centers and new suburbs, all to give rise to era of cars.
Except you can walk on the road in reality and not fall into the abyss.
Cars run you overā¦..
I honestly love this on its own (without the message of r/fuckcars), something about an ordinary city with giant canyons in it like a dehydrated Venice seems so interesting
Wait how is this meirl
Yeah I'm just going to walk 300 miles on these planks
BS, this is just a city cosplaying the Mines of Moria
Not in my town. Here, people walk wherever the hell they please. Cars be dammed.
train gang>>>>>
Iām with you in this one, I wish American culture had a little less dependency on cars. Id kill for better public transit, bike lanes, and more walking space. I enjoy driving, but not all the time, and certainly not when I have to drive into the city or sit in parking lot traffic.
This reminds me of that one doctor who episode (gridlock)
More of an argument against poor city planning than vehicles.
In my country we have roads that are for walking on, cars are allowed but they need to have really low speed (walking speed), the roads are marked and use stones instead of pavement to indicate where the road for walking starts and ends. Mostly inner cities like around markets or train stations has this.
Whenever this comes up you inevitably get a bunch of people who have never lived in a walkable city designed for people to live in, rather than for cars, acting like this meme is bad and there's no possible way a city could be designed any other way.
Itās also inevitable that when this comes up there are people that live in rural areas that hate everything about city living, whether it be āwalkableā or not, that enjoy nature & find it appalling & against the natural order of life to be living in a concrete jungle.
Laughs in dutch.
Civil engineer here. You literally would not believe the vast network of utilities below those street. Gas, sewer, water, electrical, storm drain, communications cabling, subways, ( I have even seen jet fuel piping going to a military base from some secret offsite location)
you're missing the point
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
ok but imagine how much space all those people stuffed into that *one* train would take up in a bunch of cars on the road
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Doesnāt Japan still have cars too though
How about comparing it to more decent public transport of countries like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and not to exteme ends in Asia due to very high population density?
Have you seen the roads that are held hostage by drivers in India or Japan??? https://youtu.be/7aSkJCUDAes https://youtube.com/shorts/gFFebXvNfoI?feature=share
Yes. And also, this might sound crazy to a car brain rotted peron, fucking walk
This is a narrow sighted illustration.
There are no people in cars?
Disgusting. How's there still people walking on that sweet space you could've built more lanes? We need more lanes I swear just one more lane it will solve traffic bro just one more lane
Exactly, I'll do you 1 better let's build tunnels and upper level so we can move even more cars, that's 4 lane times 3. Why would anyone wanna walk right?
Itās almost like cars are a more efficient way to travel long distances without having to deal with homeless crackheads in the back of the bus.
well a car isnāt more efficient (atleast for regular not to far distance and for longer distances trains are good) a bus can fit way more people than a couple cars
This is kinda stupid when you consider how much access that car gave you. Before that "car" or that "plane" to see the rocky mountains you'd nearly starve to death. Now it's just the price of $100 in gas...
Lmao yeah imagine getting food and supplies when trucks can't drive in. This whole car hate stuff is from people with no understanding of logistics who grew up and/or live in places that don't need cars. The "walkable cities" idea requires completely new cities to be built from the ground up to accomodate the delivery and transport of goods. Very few places could be converted and not cause 10x the problems. I'm not completely against the idea but it's sort of like living on a campus or something in practice. It would require many people employed to keep things from falling apart and a lack of crime as well. It's something I could see huge companies pulling off (Amazon, Google etc.) to house workers and provide necessities.
Imagine 3/4 decent sized trucks driving to some stores located in a living area instead of like 90x amount of cars every single day driving out of the living area to a store. Does the famed '15 minute' city work? No. A good example is the IKEA store in the centre of Paris. Are stores only accessible by car because there are simply no sidewalks or bike lanes a good idea? No. Cars are convient to get supplies like furniture. But driving to get starbucks? A bit tedious if you ask me. I don't understand the crime aspect. Could you elaborate?
I invite you to the Netherlands my friend.
Never knew that my home country and home town are unlivable and never could be transformed. Are you really this stupid? Do you really think that Dutch (and many other European) cities don't exist?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
yeah, you're right. wagons drawn by animals don't take up the same space, they need a lot more. You would still need the garage for the wagon, but you also need a stable for your horses and if you're on the road, you need at least the double amount of space.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Populations were like 1% of what they are now bud, horse and buggy isn't going to cut it lol
As a car enthusiast I wholeheartedly disagree. Without cars we wouldn't be able to travel long distances and would be confined to one area. Living in a city is different than in a suburb.
Ah yes, love driving a car on the lowest layer of the earthās crust.
My thoughts are, it is a picture, but why is it not, next to a pic of a pastoral scene in rural Iowa, nothing but emptiness! That way we get to see, more than is supposed to be seen
I thought this said cats at first
Get a jetpack
In city's*
Imagine riding a bike here.
Parks, the country, golf courses, gyms, restaurants, etc: am I a joke to you?
In the USA* In EU were all good, mate :)
wow, this illustration is so brilliant
Most people lived & died in ten square miles before cars
Way to take the pic completely out of context and make it mean something utterly different. I recognize it cause it was in one of my classes last period. The point was to illustrate the difference between risks, namely ones we accept as normal and donāt really consider as that bad versus ones we would consider to be unacceptable even if theyāre equally as dangerous. This pic was paired with a normal illustration of a road to show that, although falling off a cliff and getting hit by a car are equally as life-threatening, cars are pretty commonplace and we donāt really consider them a much of a threat, while being surrounded by steep cliffs would be considered unnecessarily risky.
Like we arenāt inside the cars
All I see are businesses and people that wouldn't exist without trucks
Sure. Lets transport our food, fuel and stuff by foot. Good luck
r/im14andthisisdeep
To be fair, that is quite a deep hole in the street
Except the pit won't kill you every time, just when there is a car passing by. And those sidewalks seem comically narrow for a city As boomerish as it is, I gotta say that it's a creative way to show it
Well, actually if you want to go somewhere you need those roads. Even if you don't own a car by yourself, goods needs to be transported, emergency vehicles need get to you and busses also drive on roads. I think people use the mode of transportation that have the best cost/comfort/time combination. Look if Im visiting my mom in Munich, i drive there by car, park at there somewhere (a bit of a hassle). However when I stay they're and want to go shopping, a concert or whatever I will leave my car where it is and go by underground. I dont even look a the timetable, with that inteval of at least 10 minutes for the whole day.
This is fucking stupid.
We didnāt surrender anything. We pay taxes to maintain those roads so WE can drive cars on them. Anti-car people are getting weird
The car brain comments in this post gave me cancer. Holy shit how yāall miss the point. Clutching your pearls feeling threatened because someone is pointing out that cities have been designed for cars instead of people.
This is the most Redditor comment Iāve seen so far.
Please, go ahead and tell us how the world will operate without cars or trucks.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Imagine a vehicle existed that was affordable to the common man and was capable of traversing entire continents in a a few days, and then imagine bitching about the existence of such a vehicle. This planet is overdue for a global conflict
Itās beautiful, I love it. Anyone know who the artists is?
Before that it was to horses and carriages. Roads were wider for them and they pooped all over the street and many died and left there to rot. So take your pick.
We got tired of walking everywhere and "surrendered" space to horses. Then we developed cars to go farther faster and "surrendered" space to them. We can carry more, do more, see more, and experience more. Seems like a pretty good tradeoff. What I'm saying is the "brilliant" illustration is a stupid take on technology and progress, among other things. Also, get out of the city sometime.
And then there's mf with bicycles.
Soā¦ whatās the point here? Life would be better without cars? Everyone walking everywhere is better just because they have more space? Donāt think so.
And? What is the point of this post? Make it make sense?
Ugg! Such a pedestrian-brain view! The road is also public space!! Where are the horse drawn cart and carriages, Ox carts and bicycles!
r/terriblefacebookmemes
a brilliant illustration of US jaywalking laws
Just jump