926
Murica (lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 42 points 13 hours ago

I dare you to travel on your own bicycle in the depths of winter across the USA in the same timeframe as a car.

[-] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 56 points 13 hours ago

Traveling across the entirety of the US by car in the middle of winter sounds fucking miserable. That's what trains are for.

[-] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 8 points 13 hours ago

Trains only travel along previously laid rails, at specific times. Plus, you'll need to rent a car at the other end to get anywhere. Better to take your own car and have personalized comfort the whole way. Also, yes, it does sound miserable. But if you're in a car, turn up the heater, turn on the radio or your favorite music, and just vibe while driving safely.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 19 points 13 hours ago

But if the cities were built for people rather than cars, you wouldn't need to rent a car at your destination. And trains run often if they haven't been critically underfunded for decades. And you can't really drive safely, even if you're a perfect driver, someone can run you off the road. Trains are orders of magnitude safer.

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 9 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Not everyone lives in cities in the US and even then they are really spread out. It's the one thing I think the world doesn't comprehend about the US; we're spread way out.

[-] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 16 points 12 hours ago

My brother in christ, the reason we got this spread out in the first place was a robust national network of passenger rail lines.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Not everyone lives in cities in the US

But 80% do, so what's your excuse for refusing to solve the problem for the vast majority? The "and even then they are really spread out" is not it, BTW.

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Money for the most part. It's cheaper to own, no HoA or Condo association. Not to mention it's quieter.

https://youtu.be/3kf_im01RC0

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago
  • "'Murica big" has fuck-all to do with anything
  • Owning a single-family house in the suburbs only seems cheaper than owning a condo because single-family houses are massively subsidized. You're a welfare queen and you don't even realize it.
  • Cars are the things that make cities loud in the first place.
[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 5 points 12 hours ago

It isnt like the rest of the world doesnt have rural areas, unless one lives in like singapore or something. Something like 80% of the US population lives in urban areas, and most trips arent trips between cities except perhaps for those that are close to one another anyways. So even if one accepts that rural areas are car centric by nature, that still leaves the vast majority of the population that isnt affected by that. The buildings within cities being spread out over a wide space making transit less efficient is a failure of city design rather than something fundamental and unchangeable about the US, we have a fairly serious housing shortage anyways, if we really wanted to decrease car dependence we could absolutely build up denser housing in urban cores to shift the population over time into areas that allow for more efficient transportation.

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

we could absolutely build up denser housing in urban cores to shift the population over time into areas that allow for more efficient transportation.

Sounds like prison

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 4 points 9 hours ago

No, it really doesn't, unless one simply does not know what "prison" means. Improving access to transportation is entirely counter to the point of a prison, given that the primary characteristic of a prison is being hard to leave.

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Having someone live below, above, and on either side within a couple of feet absolutely sounds like prison conditions. As far as hard to leave, unless you're walking or biking, you don't have that much freedom of movement, at least in comparison to a car or a motorcycle which becomes much more of a hassle of owning in cities. I'm also not saying cities should cater more to cars either.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 points 5 hours ago

I'm in an apartment in a city right now, I really do not notice the neighbors. Apartments are absolutely not as small as cells, unless you're living somewhere with an extreme land shortage like Hong Kong or something (and even then, the conditions will be more comfortable than a literal prison), or somewhere with some extremely progressive prisons.

For that matter, saying you don't have much freedom of movement unless you're walking or biking is a bit like saying you can't communicate with people unless you talk to them; being able to just leave your front door and walk to places you want to go, to include to stuff like train or bus stations for longer trips (which in turn can reach stuff like airports or car rentals for even longer ones), is freedom of movement.

If anything, having a car as the only good option is much less free, since one is required to acquire a license from the government to use it at all, which they can at any moment revoke and leave you with the choice of resorting to crime, relying on others to move you, or being stuck in one's own home.

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

I've lived in the city, mind you not a large one, but I noticed most everyone around me in my home at the time. From the guy 2 doors down that yelled at his dog to get off the couch anytime I had my window open, to sirens going off a few times a night, it was enough to notice how quiet the country is when the loudest thing at nights is the interstate 10 air miles from my home or the occasional owl that roosts in a tree in my back yard.

Buying a fare on plane, train, or metro is just essentially a one time license if you think about it. My point is that the traveling on time frames for departures and limited destinations for planes, trains, and metros is more restrictive over leave at anytime and go anywhere most anywhere on your continent of a personal vehicle. Each mode has their place and advocating for the elimination of any seems shortsighted.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 points 46 minutes ago

Very few advocate for the total elimination of cars, just that they are very, very overrepresented in terms of amount of infrastructure built and city design. The argument isn't to take cars off the table, but that they shouldn't be be the default option, and therefore that cities shouldn't be built assuming that most will have and use one. Because when you build assuming their use, you tend to create a place that requires them, and makes life very difficult for anyone that cannot or will not use one.

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 minutes ago

I'm also saying that cars are the only option in a vast majority of the land in the US. Park and ride spots (especially with EV charging) would be a great improvement for many of the cities for those of us coming from an area without a reasonable means to get there other than by car if buses and metros were available. The closest major city to me doesn't have a metro, nor a great bus schedule. I'm trying to no be a part of the problem, but cities have got to get it together.

Also you can't totally eliminate roads for cities mainly for deliveries via vans and trucks. The need for locksmiths, plumbers, electricians, and the like also need to be mobile to go to the problems as well.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago
[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

Or you know, just how cities work...

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 7 points 12 hours ago

Cars also travel along previously laid paths. I mean, technically there are off road ones that dont have to, but unless youre on your own land trying to get from one place to another without following the roads wont go so well.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago

If you happen to enjoy that kind of thing and aren't on a tight timeline it is fun as hell. Like a mechanical version of hiking.

Like hiking, most people don't enjoy it or aren't really up to the challenge.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

I think the guy above you was just talking about regular driving on the freeway, not overlanding in a 4x4.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Driving on the freeways, which are cleared quickly in the winter, isn't really any different than other seasons. There are plenty of cross country routes that use highways which aren't cleared as quickly, especially in hilly or mountainous areas, that can be fun to take for scenic routes.

Not everyone who travels across the country sticks to interstates.

[-] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Like a mechanical version of hiking

I can't wait to describe driving this way to a friend so that we can both share in the laughter I'm enjoying right now.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Seriously though, with the right kind of terrain and conditions driving is a real challenge. If you have never driven off road through fields in wet, snowy conditions where stopping is likely to mean being unable to start going again and needing to guage how fast to approach a slope to maintain momentum it might sound silly.

Anyone who has never driven on an unpaved road might find it funny. Like how anyone who has only ridden a bike on paved roads might not understand the fun of going mountain biking off a defined path might find that funny.

Offroading on a motorcycle is more fun than a four wheel car most of the time, but all of things can be fun.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 20 points 13 hours ago

Eh, I did that for a couple years in Utah and it was largely fine. When the snow got nasty, I took the bus.

That was back when my commute was 10 miles (16km) with a segregated bike path the whole way. My new commute is more than double that, so I drive. But if we weren't so car centric, things would be more compact and I wouldn't have this nasty commute.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 17 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

But demonstrate the incontrovertible need for a car during one's regular commute through an average modern city. And I'm even offering the main exception - busses and taxis/ride sharing/whatever the current nomenclature, as I consider public transportation to be its own independent thing, unrelated to Cars.

I think the people who would enjoy such a venture via bike have or are already doing it, the rest of us would just like to be able to ride the bike through the city without having to play Frogger with three lanes filled with enraged lumps of cortisol *wrapped in two tons of steel and various other such substances.

Edit: added * to further drive home the viscerality of my desire.

[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago

I live in a city of 60,000 people in Colorado. The closest train station is 15 minutes away, by car. There is a bus that will take me to the train station, but it's an hour to walk to the closest one and the bus comes once an hour, 6 am to 7 pm, M-F. I can't afford to spend 4 hours on a quick trip to the grocery store and never leave my house on the weekends.

There are bike lanes on the main roads (4-6 lanes 50+ mph traffic). More than half the vehicles around here are massive jacked up trucks and SUVs. I have a bike, but do not have a death wish. It regularly snows, making bike riding a no-go for most of 4 months of the year.

I am very much in favor of reducing car traffic. But it's not feasible for so many people with the way cities are designed and the lack of public transport.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 10 points 12 hours ago

I mean, that isnt really an argument against public transit and bike infrastructure, its just an argument that the way to do it isnt to just tell people to stop driving and expect it to happen, one has to redesign cities to make these options feel like the safe and natural choice.

[-] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

This was my thought as well, goes to show we need better long-range public transportation!

And bikes should be used for more granular destination points, once the bulk is covered via whatever works best as public transport in a given area.

Edit: bikes could also serve as a good first step toward a more rational approach toward public goods, as we could just stack public bikes at each node to be grabbed for free. It's self-limiting, it presents minimal waste as once you have one you don't really need a second, and it'd remove any entry barrier there may be to biking. Other than learning how to ride, of course. And this would be in addition to dedicated carry spaces for bikes on public transport - s'why I love the subway.

And I'm done hallucinating, I apologise.

[-] Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

we need better long-range public transportation!

That's what trains are for.

What you actually need is a different city design. Office and housing need to be within 2-3 miles not 20-30, then bikes, buses and stuff become reasonable alternative modes of transportation. Even buying groceries could be done without a car.

But the US of A chose to move housing out of the cities into suburbs dozens of miles away. As long as you don't change that you'll stay car-dependent. It's just too far.

It will also help to build more apartments that are cheap to rent. That increased concentration of people will make it possible for small local markets, restaurants, etc. to survive. Cost of living should also go down a bit because you'll reach more people with less infrastructure. That'll also increase tax revenue for the city. It's win-win for everyone.

[-] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

Fair enough, I'm all for trains! And I agree, they really do have the most potential out of pretty much everything else (to be fair, they each excel at different things) in terms of people over distance.

And I get what you mean about the structures, starting to see the same tendencies over here as well. Add to that the fact that our average is about 0.6 cars per person and growing, or something like that, plus an outdated infrastructure which is basically frozen due to being surrounded by historical buildings (and god forbid we do anything with those, ours is to wait and watch them slowly crumble!), and you have traffic jams in even the smaller cities and towns. It's fucking horrid, is what it is...

Plus every new neighborhood which is added around the city is either a new residential area filled with tumor-like arrangements of apartment buildings with, of course, insufficient infrastructure to support said 0.6 cars per capita, so the possibility of extending a public transport line of any sort to that area is basically nulliffied from the start. The main bus line for the residential area in which I lived in my old city used to run along the industrial traffic lanes - you'd frequently see lines of fully loaded semi trucks waiting for the bus to finish transfering passengers. Because they had nowhere else to put it, they just sold the area to developers without a sexond thought given to how they'd actually connect the area to the rest of the city.

And to get back to the trains, we actually have a decently extensive railway network, but all it's seen for the past few decades has been basic maintenance, and our trains are the same. I mean, most of our engines are from the Communist era and most of our train cars are hand-me-downs from Germany - and they're really nice train cars, honestly, the sleeping cars have wood paneling, in-cabin grooming sink, and actual mattresses, they're a splendid bit of engineering - and they start looking like hammered shit maybe half a year after being introduced. I had to make 12 900km trips by train throughout the country last year and I'd say I ended up with an immune response after at least eight or nine of them, felt flu-y for a couple of days. And, yeah, this is also a major problem with the education and level of wealth around here, but they really don't bother actually trying to maintain a semblance of cleanliness.

So of course everyone buys one and a half cars and lugs that hunk of metal all around the place.

[-] frank@sopuli.xyz 14 points 13 hours ago

The reason you can't is much more about infrastructure than weather, especially within cities

Source: I live in Scandinavia and everyone bikes even when it's cold

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

Just out of curiosity, do you have snow tires for bikes or are the paths cleared well enough not to worry about it?

Where I live we often get mixes of sleet and ice along with the snow and since it is sporadic throughout winter we do a pretty mediocre job of funding the removal. If we didn't have so many wide roads it probably wouldn't take as much effort.

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

I run studded tyres during winter, but the city also uses a clearing technique where they first clear off all of the snow from the bike lanes and then salt them to prevent ice. This kind of wreaks havoc on your components through corrosion, but leaves the lanes highly usable throughout winter.

I use the studded tyres as an insurance policy against any poorly cleared spots. They are usually pretty good about it, but sometimes the weather will just be bad.

I've been told that fat bikes do better on full snow, but I've never ridden one myself so I can't confirm it.

[-] htrayl@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago

Here not just bikes talks about winter cycling in Olou, Finland. The answer is yes, the city needs to manage the lanes during winter instead of letting it be acceptable to push snow in bike lanes or leave them uncleared. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MichaelScotch@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago

That’s impossible and no one is implying that bikes should replace other modes of transport for interstate travel. However, I bike commute in winter in Wisconsin and it takes less time than riding the bus. Driving a car is faster than my bike commute, but only marginally so.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 9 points 13 hours ago

Checkmate liberals-tier comment. Why did you even post this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 5 points 12 hours ago

I dare you to cross the Atlantic in a car.

load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
926 points (100.0% liked)

Greentext

5219 readers
1423 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS