SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The authors are calling on national and local governments to set targets for the proportion of trips made on foot, by bicycle and by public transport, including national targets of:
- Doubling the proportion of trips walked to 25 per cent by 2050.
- Doubling the proportion of cycling trips in each of the next decades, with the ultimate goal of 15 per cent of all trips being on bicycles by 2050.
- Increasing the proportion of all trips by public transport to 15 per cent by 2050.
The report's authors further recommend:
- The government develop a national promotion and education campaign to persuade people to walk or cycle to schools and work-places
- That investment is made in liveable cities and creating urban environments designed for people, rather than cars
- That new regulations are introduced to make walking and cycling safer
The report prominently cites health concerns as a key reason to not drive, because people need to exercise more. Is it a tacit acknowledgement of electric vehicles' (EVs) imminent takeover of global car fleets?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Urgent Action Needed to End Our Love Affair with Cars, Report Finds
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 103 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
You have a message from the operator.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Tuesday April 30 2019, @01:42AM (7 children)
Public transport to places I want to go. 2+ hours each way, for a 30 minute drive in rush hour, 15 minutes otherwise.
Ride my bike to my health club. 2.5 miles each way, 1.5 miles on 45 MPH roads with no bike lanes giving a life expectancy of 6 months before getting creamed by some dipshit eating a donut/applying makeup/texting/yawning.
There's a very good reason why I drive everywhere, and raising gas taxes and/or adding toll roads won't change me.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2, Troll) by SomeGuy on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:16AM
Yea it will. You won't be able to afford driving to your health club, so instead you stay home eating donuts that you ordered via Amazon Instant Eats, or whatever, that you didn't think twice about ordering because it had drone dropped "free shipping" while those buying even microscopic items from anyone else have to pay a bazillion dollars shipping in order to essentially subsidize the big companies low/free shipping.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:23AM (3 children)
I've been riding my bicycle every day to work for 12 years now. It is just not true that you will get killed by a car. And bike paths are not only not necessary they are dangerous, I avoid them and never ride on them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Tuesday April 30 2019, @10:35AM (1 child)
I rode my bike to work for about 10 years, there was only about 1/4 mile where I worried about getting hit. Speed limit was 25 though, and cars were usually going slower due to traffic lights.
Going to my health club is a whole nuther ball o' wax. It's not just me, I never see anyone on a bike on that stretch of road.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @11:03AM
There may be roads where traffic is so fast and intense that they might be scary to ride on. But the solution is not to make segregated bicycle facilities, when that happens we lose our right to use the road.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:01PM
I don't know where you live but I'm pretty sure it can't be the Netherlands. I've been using bicycle paths for at least 45 years now and I have no idea how they could be more dangerous than not having them. Perhaps the place where you live is doing something wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @10:27AM (1 child)
Sounds like where I live. A small village of 140,000 which thinks itself a "city." Public transport is a joke and they can't fix it, because race-protected politics. Places are just that bit too far apart to walk. Cycling is suicide, IF you don't have your bike stolen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @06:59PM
> IF you don't have your bike stolen.
I'll bet you have some trips that are a bit too far for comfortable walking, say a bit over a mile? You could consider a small wheel/folding bike for that length of trip, and keep it with you instead of leaving the bike outside with theft risk.
I've been using a small wheel bike since c.1980 and I take it right into the supermarket, it has racks front and rear and I use the bike as my shopping cart. Note, this is in suburbs, the store has wide aisles and I don't go at peak periods, so many things lined up for this to work in my situation. Small wheels may be key, this bike doesn't appear "aggressive" the way many large wheel bikes are styled.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @01:52AM (13 children)
There is always some power grab and or money making scheme behind stuff like this. Just look at how they needed to spy on everone's internet activity to "protect the children", but then drop cases against pedophiles rather than reveal their methods. There is always some BS excuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:06AM (1 child)
https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/yes-the-internet-was-always-intended-to-spy-on-us [surveillancevalley.com]
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:57AM
The person who wrote that is a moron. He is unable to distinguish between "spy on us" and "provide connectivity to relay intelligence data covertly to the USA".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:56AM (10 children)
OR we need to reduce atmospheric pollution and traffic congestion. More mass transit, fewer cars, and make the cars electric.
"The authors of a University of Otago report on active transport say urgent steps must be taken to encourage New Zealanders to walk, cycle or take public transport, with our use of cars harming both our health and our environment."
Hmm, hard to imagine how they are going to profit off of this report. Perhaps your skepticism of all scientists is a misplaced behavior.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:02AM (7 children)
Not for me... I can't even believe someone would say that so I won't bother providing all the obvious ways. I'll start you with one though: reliance on public transportation = less freedom of movement and more reliance on government.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:32AM (4 children)
Lololol ok then, just support anti-surveillance regulation. To get popular support you will have to convince people to care about camera surveillance though.
Cars wouldn't disappear in my ideal world, there would just be more convenient and cheaper alternatives. Also, even with a car you will be tracked by your phone or street cameras. The only solution there is the same I said above, get people to care about privacy / anti-surveillance laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:57AM (2 children)
What are you babbling about surveillance for?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @04:15PM (1 child)
You are correct, surveillance wasn't specifically mentioned I just assumed that was what was meant. There would be little to zero reduction in freedom of travel with public transit because it isn't like that would be the only option. Such a view was so ridiculous that in my haste I did not seriously consider the literally stated opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:18PM
Have you ever met someone with vs without a car? I mean, you live in a fantasy land if you think public transport is comparable.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @04:00AM
It's like you are laughing at some strawman your malfunctioning brain cooked up rather than comprehend the post you were responding to. Strange to see mental illness on such obvious display.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:36AM (1 child)
Relying on public roads = less freedom of movement and more reliance on government. Relying on gas powered vehicles = less freedom of movement and more reliance on government. So obviously, the best way to increase freedom of movement and stop relying on government is to WALK and BIKE.
I know, some people can't comprehend that roads, gas infrastructure (gas pipelines thanks to eminent domain) and standards (ie. no lead gasoline), traffic law enforcement, safety standards == all government!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @11:23AM
That is obviously false, cars can drive off road if need be, the gov roads are a convenience. Also, obviously you can travel much farther in a car so even if using the government road you have more freedom of movement than being stuck biking/walking. What is with the idiots responding to this post?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:01AM (1 child)
they own stock in shoe companies.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @11:26AM
Or Tesla... Which has a mysteriously levitating stock.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @01:54AM (21 children)
In the past couple decades, Arkansas has worked steadily to eliminate smaller school districts. Little villages that had their own schools and school districts have been closed down. Meaning, where almost every child in the school walked to school every morning, is now bused miles away to a more "acceptable" indoctrination mill. Of course, Arkansas is not alone. Many states consolidated school districts decades before.
Shopping malls, everywhere. The downtown districts, with their diversity of shopping choices have long been dead in most cities. Even the relatively small city I grew up in was near dead by the time I graduated high school. Westgate Mall, Eastgate Mall, both outside of town, and Town Mall, located right in the center of town, closed up nearly half of the downtown business. Town Mall could still be walked to by most city residents, but city cops and mall security looked at you funny for walking in.
Consolidation of medical services and facilities into a single huge hospital means that few people are in walking distance of emergency services. Today, I don't think anyone walks into a hospital or clinic.
That doesn't even begin to consider places of employment. Zoning laws place your work place miles from your residential areas in most cases.
We've built our infrastructure to require vehicles of some sort - and public transportation is still "vehicles". Walking and biking are near impossible in much of the country.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @01:59AM (17 children)
Not to mention parents dropping off and picking up their little snowflakes at school instead of letting them ride the bus.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Acabatag on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:41AM (15 children)
Here where I live, the cars line up to drop the little angels off at the front door of the Middle School. I don't get it. If I had one of those kids, I'd skip the wait in the line and drop junior off a block away and tell him to hike a block.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:56AM (9 children)
I used to be a lawyer for a school district. In my state, you have three options: kids can walk, kids take bus, or kids have designated driver. Now, if kids live within a certain distance of the school and are above a certain age, then they can either walk or have a designated driver. If they live beyond that distance, they can either take the bus or have a designated driver. Schools can also charge a reasonable fee for bussing, which leads, in part, to lots of drivers.
Now, for liability purposes, schools get a list of what every kid does for transportation. If your kid takes the bus, they will head count and send them on the bus. If your kid walks, then they will head count and release those kids in groups. If you have a designated driver, then they will release the kid to that driver and only that driver. If your kid is going to Jimmy's house instead of yours or there is some emergency, or whatever, then they need that (what my district called a "diversion") in writing or they will follow the written plan. Also, too many diversions and the school can charge the parents.
Which leads to why kids are picked up and dropped off at the door. The school is verifying that they are being picked up by the right people or going to the right bus. Parents literally cannot pick them up a block away from the school, because the moment even the slightest wrong thing happens that school gets sued. Hell, my school district now shuts the door to the vehicles when kids get in after verifying the child is in a proper restraint. We got sued because some kid was injured when mom shut the van door on his fingers when he was climbing in and we lost because he hadn't vacated our property according to his plan, so we still had a duty to prevent that injury.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:29AM (8 children)
Wow, what a bunch of snowflakes America has become. My first few years were in Poland. I *walked* to school starting 2nd day of the 1st grade. And I took public transit 1 stop (like 5 in America) if I didn't feel like walking that day (maybe raining?). And I walked when it was -30C outside in America too. And that was already time when snowflakes started getting driven to school.
Wow, talk about fucked up system. How about, when kids leave the school, it's their problem? Sign a release form if you need to. School doesn't have a duty to prevent any injury. School has a duty to provide a safe environment to teach. Providing a safe environment does not imply preventing injury.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @06:31PM (7 children)
Legally, the kid had not left the school yet. Therefore, our duty of care still applied. In addition, our state does not let a parent or guardian waive negligence claims in a release without consideration to the child directly, approval by a court of competent jurisdiction, or color of law, neither of which applied. Our statutory protection did not apply either. Duty to warn also did not work, because our disclaimer did not delineate that injury or class of injuries and the school could not include a general disclaimer (e.g. "all risks known or unknown") as a matter of public policy. Therefore, the only other avenue would have been to argue Assumption of Risk, which does not apply to the child but does allow us to be indemnified by mom for contribution under comparative fault. After a year and a half, complicated joinder, and third-party practice, that strategy was mostly successful but we were still on the hook for 10% (although the in trust structure was subject to a post-judgment settlement because they wanted cash now, to pay mom's share of the contingency fee). So now, like I said, the district makes sure kids are properly restrained and shuts the door themselves to prevent that in the future and make group insurance cheaper.
You can blame the schools all you want, but the schools wouldn't be covering their asses so much if next-friend suits didn't cause them to call their attorneys all the time. Suffice to say, something bad happens to the kid and the parents want blood; money is a good substitute, however, and the schools have deep pockets with big budgets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:07PM (6 children)
Can you back up enough from your legal training and experience to see how wastefull and frankly, silly, this has all become?
Can you suggest any way to get back to something more sane?
Or, is "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" the only way forward??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:29PM (5 children)
I totally get that. I'm just saying that the schools are doing the best they can given what they are working with. The problem isn't even the lawyers, it is the parents who sue at every minor bump. It is the news that over-sensationalizes every little thing that happens to a kid walking home so that parents think they are happening everywhere. The whole thing just breeds paranoia on all sides, because everyone is worried that the one time they are not, is the one time they get screwed.
Sure, there are multiple things that could be changed in either post I gave that would have made is so we won, but good luck getting any of those past the State General Assembly because no politician wants to get screwed because of negative ads run by the opponent or something egregious happens to a kid and the would-be tortfeasor is protected by the change in the law.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:40PM (4 children)
So you are saying that every parent is suing Pro Se? No? I thought so. The problem is the lawyers that promise a winning lottery ticket to parents and are suing on their behalf. As a officer of the court, lawyers should not be encouraging this behavior, but they gotta get paid, don't they?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @09:01PM (2 children)
Right, because people weren't going to third parties to mediate their disputes before lawyers came around. But even if that were true, I'd rather there be lawyers around than have angry and aggrieved people resort to self-help and vigilante "justice."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @11:36PM (1 child)
Because all those aggrieved parents after slamming their own kids' fingers in the door of their cars would be taking justice into their own hands against those poor school administrators.
I never get picked for jury duty because I refuse to assign blame for some idiot's own actions to another only because they have deeper pockets. It's a shame that others can be so easily persuaded. Most of the stupidity that parents must put up with from idiot school administrators is from fear of assholes who can easily convince shysters to let them play the lawsuit lottery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01 2019, @03:25AM
So, you don't like lawyers and lawsuits. Then tell me the solution to the following in your dream world without lawyers and lawsuits: if you are hit by a car that drives through your domicile's window because it was bumped on the road by a truck, what do you do when both drivers refuse to pay?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01 2019, @03:30AM
You do realize that small claims courts are full of cases where people represent themselves? Or watch daytime television, and see how many people there are suing another for a couple hundred dollars to thousand dollars. Lawyers aren't the problem, it is the people who want to shift the burden to someone else. There is a class of people who do destructive behaviors will do them whether there are those who are enablers for those actions or not.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @09:42AM (4 children)
Problem with that is the imported muzzies preying on vulnerable children. A few meters after being dropped off your little angel could be dragged into a car, have their intimate secrets pounded out of them, be threatened with rape torture and death of their family before being released to spend the day at school pissing their pants in terror. Once they have your child you could be arrested just for trying to rescue them [answeringmuslims.com].
So, yes, given the high number of imports locally I completely understand parents dropping their "snowflake" off at school at the gate. The alternative could be horrifying.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:04PM (2 children)
OK, muzzies are all well and good, if you just need to use them for an excuse. But, predators existed long before Muslims arrived here in any numbers. Predators, sex and other types, generally prey on their own demographics. Of course, you knew that already.
And, uhhhhh - how many predators are there? It's not like 20, or 30 children disappear in each of our major cities, every day. Do enough children go missing every year to justify imprisoning all the rest, as a preventive measure? Somehow, I think not.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01 2019, @01:44AM (1 child)
Yeah but we didn't have the chiefs of police going "you can't investigate these gangs that kidnapped and raped over a thousand girls in one city because that's against their religious rights"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 01 2019, @01:59AM
Over a thousand girls in one city? And, what is that local population doing about it? They haven't taken up arms?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:40PM
That's why your little angel should be carrying an AK-47.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:29AM
When I had to drop my little shits off at the elementary back in the day when they missed the bus I used to be totally stunned by parents that treated the kids like they were their personal chauffeurs. They would literally stop in front of the door and get out, walk around the SUV and open the door for their little entitled asshole kids, tying up the traffic flow. I would be shaking my head asking myself if they are fucking kidding. Do they think they're driving Miss Daisy? Junior is 8 years old and can't operate a door handle?
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday April 30 2019, @12:30PM (1 child)
Actually on the healthcare front, my town's the opposite. The three major regional hospitals (two in the neighboring towns, one in my town) have been putting down smaller scale "local branch offices" and clinics and other such things practically every couple of blocks in the fierce competition with each other. This means that for all the other failings of th region, there is probably healthcare within a 15 minute walk of most places most people live.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:11PM
Glad to hear that!
We have an odd situation in one of our closer towns. The city hospital has been there for half of forever, I guess. They've had financial problems, and have been unable to compete with other hospitals in the area since before I moved here. Some corporation made an offer to buy them out, and they took the offer. That corporation milked the hospital for everything it was worth, then finally stopped paying utility bills. Finally, the electric was shut off, and the hospital had to close. That has sparked the birth of three small clinics in and near the town. Of course, the town has still lost it's hospital, and it may never reopen.
Believe me, fifty miles is a long, LONG drive, to get to a hospital when you need one badly. It can take the rest of your life, literally.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 30 2019, @06:32PM
And what happened to Education spending in the great state of Arkansas during that time I wonder...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:10AM (2 children)
Down here in the tropics, you try walking under the 90% humidity 40 Celsius sun.
Public transport? Sure if you don't mind unreliable waiting times under the heat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:23AM
Who let the tropicalites in here? Next, we'll have squids, octopi, and cetaceans signing up here!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 30 2019, @11:02AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:22AM (11 children)
On a hot day, biking to work, you need to bring a change of clothes. That means you need a place to change, maybe even shower. If dress-code is slacks and shirt, you can't carry that in a bag, it gets wrinkled so now you need a locker at work (or you own private office). Finally, there is the image factor, do you really want to run into your boss in your bike clothes on the elevator?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:24AM
Don't ride your bike in the elevator, and you probably won't run into your boss on the elevator.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:27AM
I would prefer to run into my boss less when he is wearing his bike cloths in the elevator.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:45AM (1 child)
Why is your boss wearing your bike clothes?
In some parts of the world, the people you are most likely to meet parking their bikes and showering before work are the senior management, so it can be a great networking opportunity.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @04:55AM
And also a great cross-dressing opportunity, if you know what I mean. Little. Things. Matter.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday April 30 2019, @04:02AM (1 child)
Wherever I've worked over the last couple of decades there's been "end-of-trip" facilities. I.e. bike storage, showers, and personal lockers.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday April 30 2019, @04:37PM
Over the last 30 years among the dozen or so places I have worked at there was only one that had such facilities, it was at the other end of the campus from the building I worked in, and in the summer heat you would need another shower by the time you got from there to my office.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:17AM (1 child)
It depends. There might be more flexibility than you think. If you have a gym membership to a place with a lot of branches like Crunch, you can shower and change at a location near your office. If you have your own office at work, you can keep your work clothes in a drawer or garment bag and change with the door closed; if you don't have your own office, you can change in the bathroom.
I used to work at the Clinton Foundation and had to wear a suit everyday. The office in Harlem was about 15 miles from my place in Brooklyn, so it was a solid ride. I wore understated golf wear made out of breathable material for the ride, slacks and a polo shirt. I packed up my folding mountain bike, popped it into a bag, and took it up in the elevator to my office where I parked it in a corner. Then I changed into the suit. I sweat a lot, but I never needed to shower because I quickly realized I was commuting, not biking for exercise, so I took it slower. In the breathable material in the office, in the full AC, it never took long to dry out completely. Lastly, I skewed my work day slightly earlier than everyone else, such that I did 9-5 when the typical schedule for everyone else was 10-6. It was never a problem, and that was about the most formal a work place can get.
No solution works for everyone, but biking to work is quite feasible. Millions and millions of people commute to work that way everyday in Asia and Europe, in work clothes, and they cross respectable distances to do it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:43AM
That explains a lot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @09:44AM
Pack your work clothes into an A4 ziplock bag. Carry it in a backpack.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday April 30 2019, @09:56AM
I run into my boss on the stairs, in my cycling or running gear, all the time. If your boss gets upset by it, you have a very dysfunctional relationship with your boss.
You *should* have access to a shower and a locker (or equivalent storage) in your workplace. If this isn't the case then you should ask for one, if only to store your stuff (documents, books, coffee mug, spare inner tube, whatever). A shower and place to change on-site can facilitate early starts or working late, which happens sometimes, especially if your organisation needs shift work for any reason.
Remember, it is good for you *and* your organisation if you are comfortable, healthy and happy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @11:19AM
I wouldn't mind. But, seeing my boss in his "pro"-cycling clothes I could've gone without. Maybe you just got the wrong boss?
(Score: 3, Informative) by slap on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:45AM (2 children)
Replacing ICs with EVs does nothing to get people to exercise more.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:19AM (1 child)
No, but switching to EVs rather takes the "Save the Earth" reason out of the balance when arguing for cycling instead of driving. Usually climate change has been the whole of the argument for dropping cars and biking instead, so this article was unusual to mention "lack of exercise kills!"
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @09:50AM
As with lots of other things in the capitalist world, electric cars are simply a way to hide the problem. You get to keep part of the transmission and the engine in the car. But the power source is now miles away where you don't see it. Of course most of the electricity in the world is made by burning coal, so there you have it, electric cars are really coal powered cars. But you get to feel good about it.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by The Shire on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:01AM (29 children)
Make no mistake, this is about the government controlling your lives because "they know whats best". These are people who firmly believe everyone should behave the way they want, everyone who doesn't is a nazi, which is pretty damn ironic because that happens to have been the nazi party line - do as we say because we know what's best. These people are delusional, the product of actually listening to the ever present PC propaganda and actually believing it. This is where the AOC types get their alarmist "The World Will End In 12 Years If You Don't Vote Democratic!" crap.
Electric cars will trickle into the roadways just as they have been for the last few years wherever it's economical and practical. Older cars will disappear through attrition. Forced radical shifts are unnecessary, disruptive, and exceedingly costly. But I'm sure they'll just say we can tax the 1% a little bit more to pay for it right? These people are idiots.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:12AM (24 children)
TFA is not arguing for evs to replace ICE.. They want people to "Walk or ride... safely", in "livable cities"
They have a point, when some cities don't even have footpaths, safe pedestrian crossings, let alone dedicated, separated bicycle paths.
Obese people in vehicles, or fit people walking and riding safely?
"Forced radical shifts are unnecessary "
How else do you get missing infrastruture and changes to behaviour?
Likely many disliking this also dislike plain packaging for cigarettes and bans on tobaco sponsorship of sport..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:35AM (6 children)
There is apparently a very specific agenda being promoted here and voices of reason are just "the man" or "the enemy."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:10AM (5 children)
Fuck you! Just, well, Fuck you! Fuck you and the gas-guzzler you rode in on! Fuck your Republican Lifestyle! Fuck your trophy wife, and your trophy (soon to be wife) Mistress! And I am not talking to you, Newt Fiinckgrinch! How long does it take for these "Reagan Democrate members of the Conservative Citizens Council (see? CCC, just like KKK, since there is no K in Latin!) to try to get us all to support major Petrochemical Corporations like khallow and the Cock Bros, with their billions of dollars of life destroying monies. . . . So, Fuck you again, AC! Fuck you in the brain stem! Fuch you in your orifice! Fuck you in your wallet! And, most importantly, fuck you in your bitcoin. Ha. That really happened, didn't it? Want to talk about it? Soylentils can be an extremely supportive community, once you quit the shit for which you should be fucked. So Fuck you, again, most inappropriately.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:21AM (4 children)
Aristarchus, did you forget to take your pill again?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 30 2019, @06:33AM (3 children)
Wot? I would never post so much profanity, at least not under my username, which needs to be curated and cultivated to preserve a certain "gravitas". So, no, I don't take pills. What was your point again, oh Benefactor in my name?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @01:28PM (2 children)
It certainly sounded like you. If it wasn't then you've attracted imitators. There's your happy thought for the day: you have groupies!
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:15PM (1 child)
I see only one groupie, you.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 30 2019, @04:24PM
Well I grope only one AC, so there!
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Shire on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:44AM (15 children)
It's government over reach. Remember that this was part of the "Green New Deal" to take away everyone's cars and put them on public transportation. They're just looking for new ways to wrap that pig.
What we're talking about is the government mandating when and where you are allowed to drive along with how much exercise you should get. In a nutshell, the government wants to manage your life for you, because apparently they are better at it than you are.
The very title instantly conveys their own smug hubris: "Urgent action needed to end our love affair with cars" ? Give me a break. I can't speak for NZ but the US was built on the automobile and the freedom of movement it granted. It allowed people to work in places inaccessible by foot or bike, and it still does. Governments should focus on improving much neglected infrastructure not taking the lazy approach of legislating cars off the road so they don't have to repair them. Sure, go ahead and build the pedestrian walkways and the bicycle paths, we already have them in the US - I assumed they did in NZ as well. But that's not what they're saying here - they're looking for the government to restrict peoples right to use their own car "for the greater good".
The bottom line is we have a couple guys, not even tenured professors - the lead author is only an associate professor, deciding that the NZ government should mother their citizens and make them eat their vegetables and get outside and exercise. You think I'm going to walk 10 miles to get my groceries just so some SJW university snob can feel good about themselves? Yea, no. Screw that. The world works best when everyone takes personal responsibility for themselves. Sink or swim. If your lifestyle results in premature death then so be it. It's not the place of bureaucrats to tell you how to live or die.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @04:53AM
The government doesn't want to manage your life for you, they just want to have a loving conversation with you about it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:25AM (6 children)
The US was built on the railroad and its ability to haul people and freight great distances at speed. Before that it was partly built on waterways comprising coastal waters, lakes, rivers, and canals. It was not until after WWII when Eisenhower wanted to copy the autobahn he had seen in Germany that America built its interstate highway system, but America was quite completely industrialized, modern, and atomic powered by then.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:46AM
And like a typical American, he can't even copy something that is well designed already. In Germany, you don't have highways down middle of the city and no way to get through the city in some other way. In German cities, you can walk to a store. In a German city, you have access to bike paths... actually in Germany in general. In Germany, the roads are smaller and almost everyone rides a bike.. so drivers respect cyclists. In Germany, no one makes "suburbs" with no services or sidewalks.
America after WWII was designed for the car, not a human. Germany, seems mostly opposite.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:00PM (4 children)
The West was settled by rail, the industrial powerhouse of the US was built on the interstate highway system and the automobile. If you think the US was anywhere near the industrial giant it is today without roads you are sadly mistaken. The car allowed the people to move freely and easily to wherever their skills were needed. This was an enormous cultural shift that changed the country fundamentally.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 01 2019, @03:35PM (3 children)
The US was fully industrialized before the highways were built and Americans had a car culture. Rail and water transport carried most of the freight, and still do. The Interstate highway system and the car culture and the development of the American suburbs all came after WWII. That's not to say that trucking and cars aren't now a substantial part of the economy, because they are, but they were not necessary for industrialization. Given trends now in information technology and consumer buying habits (eg. Millenials are not buying cars) and additive manufacturing, it's possible that the car culture and trucking system will become a thing of the past.
It is understandable for people who drive to work everyday, whose main interaction with shipping is the semis that they have to maneuver around on the highway, to believe that's what makes America's economy run, but it isn't. It's like people who work in sales believing that the world would come crashing down without them, or how journalists scream that the sky will fall unless people give them more attention and money. That is, they can only see the world through their own lens.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Wednesday May 01 2019, @08:03PM (2 children)
You're a utopian dreamer. Car automation may be coming, but the layout of the US will always require personal transportation. You will never see a day in your lifetime where that is not the case.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 01 2019, @08:23PM (1 child)
It has already been reported that millennials and younger generations are not buying cars. It is already reported that cycling, e-bikes, and ride sharing are eating away at car ownership. In new york city 70% of residents already don't own cars. Is it utopian to base a scenario on empirical data?
It may remain necessary for some places and people to drive cars. Others may solve their transportation needs in other ways. But if current trends continue mass car ownership could well be a strange anachronism for kids well before we have passed from the earth.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Wednesday May 01 2019, @09:01PM
The funny thing about "ride sharing" is it requires a "ride", ie someone is doing the driving.
As for statistics about the large percentage of people in NYC not having a car, it's because they live in one of the most densly populated cities in the country. It's in no way representative of the nation as a whole which has to travel significantly farther to get food or go to work. Suburban and rural areas make for highly inefficient and impractical mass transit locations. The car makes such areas workable.
You have to stop thinking that this country only exists in densly populated cities, the REAL work of the nation never takes places at those locations - that's primarily paper pushers and the service industry to feed and entertain them. Actual industry doesn't take place there, it takes place in areas that need cars. Cars are a fixture. I'll say it again, they may become automated, but they will not go away in our lifetime.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:36AM (1 child)
The summary of the report made no mention of taking people's cars away.
"The Government" is well aware that people are not getting enough exercise and would like to reverse this trend. Now, are they going to be standing behind us with a whip whilst we run on a treadmill? No, don't be daft. There is absolutely personal responsibility involved, but Government still has a role, and that is...
... Governments need to make sure that people are able get about their daily lives without relying on a car. It's as simple as that.
"Urgent action needed to end our love affair with cars" is not smug hubris - it is the simple truth. Our addiction to cars has caused:
Worst of all, because it is either impossible or unsafe to travel without a car - due to everybody tearing around in their cars - now everybody needs to have a car. (To address your statement regarding the United States: yes, the car did do great things in the middle of the Twentieth Century - but in giving freedom it also took much freedom away - the golden handcuffs of becoming slaves to the automobile.)
Absolutely our love affair with the automobile needs to change. It needs to change to the point that people are able to make the choice to drive because they have other options available. Government most certainly has a role to play in this - not by taking away people's cars - but by designing infrastructure in a human-centric fashion and an understanding that people come before cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @10:35PM
Don't forget the other reason to keep getting in wars in the Middle East: to take out / reduce the threats to the Jewish State known as Israel.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday April 30 2019, @07:45AM (1 child)
How's that freedom?
https://xtown.la/2018/09/24/the-slowest-commute-in-la-just-got-slower/ [xtown.la]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:44PM
And yet California in general and LA in particular are heavily radical left when it comes to policy. They are the first to lay down bike paths and sidewalks and to tax people to death for infrastructure that never gets built. It's a shining example of what happens when a state is left under blue control for a lengthy period of time. Very poor business decisions get made about how to layout infrastructure, where to build communities, and how to plan transportation. California, LA, and SF are signature examples of how NOT to run state and city governments.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:04AM (1 child)
Funny how you see in this a conspiracy to take our cars away, but you don't see all the pro-car and pro-oil conspiracies. Things like automobile manufacturers and oil companies working to destroy public transportation, designing roads to make walking and biking extremely unsafe or impossible-- a favorite is the bridge that has no sidewalk and no shoulder-- getting the public on board with footing the massive bill for the public highway system, and even going to war to ensure a supply of oil.
In the early 1920s, most automobile roads were private, and the owners of these roads were not above milking and cheating travelers with such stunts as deliberately neglecting incorrect signage, and directing travelers on roundabout routes, to increase the profits of the businesses and towns along the roundabout route at the expense of the travelers. The AAA was formed to fight back against such shenanigans. Another thing the private roads did was simply charge massive tolls. But mostly, their funding came from the towns along their route. Towns that balked at paying got bypassed.
The main competition was passenger rail, and being private, they had similar issues with abusing their monopolies on travel. They went too far, and today, there is very little passenger rail in the US, really only Amtrak for intercity travel. And Amtrak is a notoriously bad way to travel. Extremely expensive, even more costly than flying, stunningly shabby at timeliness (an hour late? Ha! A day late is all too possible), slow (no TGV bullet trains), and lacking in routes. Amtrak is a political football, with special interests constantly working to make sure Amtrak continues to suck. They'd rather just kill it dead, but there continues to be enough support for passenger rail that they can't. For years there's been talk of making high speed passenger rail links between major cities, such as a San Francisco to Los Angeles connection, or Dallas to Houston, but somehow nothing ever comes of those schemes.
And so, there are only 2 practical ways to travel in much of the US: for longer distances for the well-to-do, flying, and driving for all else. Yes, those special interests absolutely do conspire to mess up all other forms of travel. Often, they don't have to work at it, the public unwittingly does the work for them.
So why aren't you up in arms about these very real and ongoing conspiracies to maintain the car as the only practical way for local travel?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Shire on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:38PM
Ok, let me address some of those points. First point - that roads used to be private. I spend a fair amount of time in Colorado and I can tell you that the 470 here is privately owned. This is a major highway loop around Denver, all of it privately owned and well maintained. So it's not like that setup isnt possible, it's simply not always practical. And more to the point - had the government not created the interstate highway system this country would probably not be nearly as prosperous as it has become. Maybe NZ has all the shenanigans you speak of, but as someone who has traveled coast to coast by car several times (and even up beyond the arctic circle), I have yet to encounter any deliberately incorrect signs and I can't even imagine how they could increase business traffic unless you're a gas station.
As for passenger rail... it sucks, it has always sucked. I had to take the Chicago Northwestern everyday into work for a year and I hated it. You had to drive to get to the station, you had to bus from the station to wherever you needed to get. It was always a case of "hurry up and wait" for the next link of your journey. It chewed up huge chunks of your day just standing and waiting. And then there are the parking fees at the station and the ever present risk of someone breaking into your car while you were gone. No, rail failed because it wasn't practical. As for taking rail cross country in lieu of flying, again you're talking about chewing up huge segments of your time. America is a working country, if you're moving around its because you need to get things done, and you can't waste your time taking slow rail to get where you need to be.
Time is money friend, and the US is in a big hurry to get things done. Of course, other countries are much more laid back and maybe they can be convinced to sit on their butts in a train for a day, but that doesn't wash here.
Cars drive the economy, the are the single most productive tool ever created by man.
As for your conspiracy theory that the auto and oil industry blocks the creation of sidewalks and bike paths let me point out that unless you're living in a heavily congested city that has stores at every corner, it's impractical to get groceries on foot and if you're buying for your family, it's impractical to haul it all on a bike. Additionally, most people work 10 or 20 miles away from where they live. Do you really expect anyone to walk that far every morning and evening, in rain or snow? Of course not.
The second factor is this - here in the US at least, we have sidewalks EVERYWHERE and bike lanes almost everywhere. Very few people use them because again, it's just not practical to cover that much distance that way. Your claim that the car and oil industry has conspired against sidewalks and bike lanes clearly falls flat in the face of the fact that all major cities have them.
As for the greenhouse gas emissions refered to in the article, cars in the US already have very strict polution controls and new cars are moving towards electric as the infrastructure permits. This paniced handwaving about "URGENT NEED" is like yelling fire in a theater when there isn't one. It's the same overblown rhetoric you hear from the far left every day - the end of the world is coming in 12 years! These people are better suited to street corners holding carboard signs. They can't be taken seriously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:59AM
Fine, just stop using public money to build roads, go ahead and build your own.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:32AM
bike paths are not safe. I ride a bicycle and much rather do it on the regular roads which by the way are designed for all types of vehicles not just motorized.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:36AM (3 children)
Somewhere between the polar extremes of political systems there are islands of stasis where individual freedom and collective action co-exist in a creative tension. The individual has no reason to pull on rubber boots and a slicker and answer a call to repair a burst sewer main in the middle of the night when he's dead tired and his kid is sick. Collective action has no reason to not steamroll the artist who paints upsetting pictures. But the tension between the two gets individuals to work together, even when they really don't want to, because the longer term benefit is greater than the short term discomfort, and constrains the collective from crushing the individual because the longer term benefit of multiple perspectives outweighs the immediate comfort of conformity.
Sustainable economy, too, lives somewhere in one of those islands of stability. The US spends $365 billion every year on oil; it would be incredibly economically beneficial to not spend that money on oil, but rather on, say, incentives for entrepreneurs and small businesses. But it would not be beneficial to take all the gas-powered cars and trucks away tomorrow, hand everybody a Schwinn, and tell them haughtily to 'figure it out.'
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:57PM
There has always been an understanding, at least in the US, that common infrastructure is necessary to make capitalism work at it's best. This is one of the valid reasons for governments to exist - to "grease the wheels" of industry. And it does that by maintaining roads and sewage and other infrastructure components we all need.
In a free capitalist society everyone is offered a CHANCE to improve their lot in life. No one is given a guarantee of success, only the chance to work your way up. It is a merit based system for the most part. If you have skills then you can succeed. It's not the purpose of government to tell you how to live or to attempt to improve the life of someone who is unwilling to try to improve their life themselves. This is already a massive burden on the rest of us that makes the $365 billion we pay for oil based energy look like a drop in the ocean.
That being said, in my opinion these alarmist articles are entirely useless. In the US we are already on the long road towards electric cars, solar, wind, and nuclear power generation. There is no need to try to immediately shift the entire country. The world will be fine while it waits for gas powered cars to slowly get replaced. But never again will it be practical to take your bike to work or to get groceries unless you live very close to your grocery store. Virtually all communities are spread far apart and the distances to local services are too great for manual transport. Walking and biking is relegated to recreation except in very rare situations.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Wednesday May 01 2019, @01:24PM (1 child)
Non sequitur. The fact that the US spends 365 billion dollars on oil means nothing in a vacuum. The impact of reallocating that money to another resource can only be determined when the change in GDP, unemployment, etc is considered. If that 365 billion creates 500 billion in wealth but would only create 200 billion were it reallocated, the answer is obvious.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 01 2019, @01:30PM
$365 billion on foreign oil, ie. Money paid to places like saudi arabia.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:31AM (3 children)
The system just has to get things in motion and then it becomes self-sustaining. They start a coordinated media campaign to do something and over time it brainwashes people into believing it. "it is on the television all the time, must be important" and "our government knows best because we chose 'our' politician/ragdoll this time, he won't screw us over" etc. The trick is a continuous, uninterrupted campaign especially attacking the young ones so that over time you only have brainwashed masses who will say yes to anything.
The bus will not solve your problems when the problem is khazar jewish rats infiltrating and controlling your governments covertly and overtly. They want control by any means. It is time we put an end to it.
"Urgent Action Needed... " No, the action urgently needed is to put the khazar jewish vermin back in their place.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:37AM (2 children)
Ah, there we have it. Nasty fucking neo Nazi shit being stirred.
How DARE people care about the environment??? Eeeebul jewish liberal plooooottttt.
Fucking incels having so little faith in themselves they turn down this dark path.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @04:00AM (1 child)
Personal attacks instead of replying to the message. Typical JIDF agent behavior.
These JIDF agents are coordinated, so we need to coordinate ourselves to defend against the khazar jewish rats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:34AM
There can be no personal attacks on ACs. If you attack one of us, you attack none of us. We are legion, we know nothing, and you should not expect us. We are kind of the opposite of Anonymous in that respect. AC on SoylentNews, seeking fellow feeling alt-right incel, countered by not-quite insane libertariantard AC, and totally rejected by SJWAC, or AntiFa AC. We are coming to take your AR-15, Cuck, and all the variants thereof. We are coming for your Bump-stocks, and your gay pron "bump-stock" collection! We are coming for you, so to speak. Freedom of speak, I always say, even if the speak is that I have to swallow somebody's something, like all "White Supremacy"!!! I don't think the earlier White Supremacists were referring to the color of the ejaculate. But I could be wrong. "The South Will Rise Again! And Take it up the Poopchute! For Great Justice and the Make America Grate Again!" Something like that. I saw it spraypainted in the NY subway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @05:47AM (1 child)
I have a vehicle that is capable of 50+ mpg, on diesel. Of course, some have denigrated this because of the NOx, but I put it to you, is not the reduction of CO2 worth the increased NOx? Let the sparkers die in their own effluent. But the real point is, I do not drive my miracle efficiency machine, I take public transportation. It also burns diesel, and I would say at lesser efficiency, but then, when you have 40-50 galuts, that would be driving their own vehicle, well, the law of larger numbers takes effect.
Of course, taking "public" transportation means the last mile may not be closed. Yes, I have to hoof it. Which, according to my doctor, is the reason for my remarkable good health, cardio-vascular pugnacity, and not having to ride one of those wheel-chair shopping carts at Walmart, where shoppers go to die, or just before they die.
So now, let us do the accounting: Planet, better off without my 50mpg emissions, not matter how you slice it. Me, better off for the exercise, despite having to occasionally share an adjacent seat with a fellow citizen whom Ronald Reagan decided to deny proper residential care to, so they could ride the bus, and tell me how great Donald Trump is and how he is truly making American
Great Again, for homeless racists who get a free bus pass. That's Socialism, y'all!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:50AM
So, a small reduction in AWG and a significant increase in heart attacks and strokes and other health issues?? hmmm....
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aim on Tuesday April 30 2019, @09:34AM (2 children)
Here in Europe, I see two main points:
- way too many people drive oversized cars. Keyword SUV craze. No, nobody needs to drive a tank. Some may need their offroad vehicles, most people in towns just don't. Especially "sporty" versions. Manly attributes won't be upgraded by having a big car. And moms don't need a big SUV to get their kids to school, though a van might make sense.
- bicycles could be a solution for much traffic, but... it's way too unsafe to drive in way too many places. I tried, but quit (for commuting anyway), as I'm definitely not suicidal.
So: make sure big gaz-guzzlers get dis-incentivized, and make it possible to ride a bicycle safely, and many of the issues are solved.
Meanwhile, I ride anyway - a rather light motorbike. I can participate in traffic rather than suffer it, I use way less resources, can find parking space etc. Perfect for commuting, except for winter conditions. Perception of motorbikers isn't very good, but bikes should be considered as part of the solution rather than a problem.
Oh, and for the US: start by raising prices on gas, get to the levels of Europe. You'll see how quickly fuel efficiency will improve (at least to the levels of Europe or Japan).
(Score: 1) by r_a_trip on Tuesday April 30 2019, @01:41PM (1 child)
***Perception of motorbikers isn't very good***
The understatement of the year. I am always in awe and wonder when I see a well behaved motor cyclist in traffic. Most of them seem to be hardwired for speeding, macho behaviour and recklessly weaving in and out of lanes. Most of the aforementioned, so I can catch up to them later when traffic lights in the next town put their "rally" to a stop.
(Score: 2) by aim on Tuesday April 30 2019, @02:15PM
Frankly, the reckless ones are those you'll notice... the well-behaved, not so much. It's them I notice too while biking... and then think, they'll sort themselves out of the gene pool, or at least off the bike, quickly.
I'll have to say though that around here at least, it's pretty tough getting the permit for the motorbike - they tend to weed out the "lesser drivers" pretty thoroughly, as they want to lower the number of casualties. Be too aggressive, you don't pass. Be too slow / don't handle your bike well enough, and you won't pass either.
As for "macho behavior" - us bikers also need to somewhat make our presence known, as we'll otherwise get flattened by those not minding their surroundings properly. I've often enough "not been seen" (yeah, sure!) and had to take evasive action.