this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
26 points (90.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

46888 readers
551 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know the demographics around here, so I know everyone's just going to put "nothing lol", but please understand what I'm asking first.

I'm physically incapable of driving a car. I stand to gain immeasurably from a world that didn't assume everyone owned one. Having loved-ones with respiratory issues aggravated by car exhaust has made me very aware of the health issues surrounding the burning of fossil fuels, and having to navigate sidewalkless suburban stroads on a regular basis and juggle poorly funded public transit has made it very clear to me that pedestrians are second class citizens. I could go on and on about the mess cars have made of urban planning, and the number of jobs I couldn't take because they required driving, but I digress.

In short, I hate cars just as much as the rest of you. But I'm also conscious that a lot of other people feel differently. What does widespread car ownership enable that would be difficult or impossible otherwise?

As an American I'm familiar with the cultural aura that surrounds the automobile. One of the early episodes of Mythbusters explained this pretty well while digging into the folklore surrounding a particular car-related urban legend. Cars represent freedom and self determination, two qualities highly prized in American society. You can go where you want when you want, without relying on schedules and routes mandated by public transit[^1].

Looking at more tangible things, I suppose hauling a bunch of stuff from point A to point B would be hard without a car.

But what else am I missing?

[^1]: Ignoring the fact you can only go where there are roads, and someone has to build and maintain those roads.

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 1 points 19 minutes ago

Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I'm pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.

My penultimate child was at university about 10 miles from the house. There was a bus that got within a couple blocks of the sprawling campus, so I told her take the bus, but a year in said she could use my car and I'd walk to work since my commute was so short. That gained her about 3 hours per school day and lost me about one hour. Car is a time machine.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 51 minutes ago* (last edited 44 minutes ago) (1 children)

Inb4 lemmy's famous misreadings, I think we need a shitton more public transportation. But I know it's not going to be a 100% replacement.

What we need is transportation, and cars are a very sucessful form of transportation. There are a lot of factors: 1) Location, where you can go, 2) Timing, when you can go. 3) Distance, how far you can go, 4) Speed, how qulckly you can get there. 5) Door to door, or not.

Let's compare them all:

Cars: 1) Location, you can go anywhere. 2) Timing, you can go any time. 3) Distance. This is a big one why cars are very successful, they are good for any distance whether it's a short trip, medium trip, long trip, or even multiple days long trip. 4) It's fast for any length trip. Excluding certain times into say downtown they are incredibly fast. 5) It's door to door transportation. Add it all up and you have a very succesful mode of transportation.

Public transportation 1) doesn't go everywhere, you have last mile problem on both ends. So add in walking. 2) limited timing especially at night. Schedule has to fit. Involves waiting. 3) Distance means time goes up dramatically. Add in transfers and time goes up even more. I regularly had to wait 25 minutes at transfer because they missed each other by 5 minutes. 4) Slow. It just is. 5) Not door to door. Usually a good bit of walking. Inb4 lemmy's famous misreading, yes I know there are exceptions. Yes more service means more passengers which means more service and more gaps are filled, etc.

Ebikes (pedal assist electric bikes). 1) Go everywhere. 2) Go anytime. 3) Good for short and medium trips. And occasional long trip 4) Can actually be fast, especially if the route avoids lights. But not as fast as a freeway for long distances. 5) Door to door transportation. This is why I'm a big fan of ebikes, they hit almost everything. They really are the game changer. But we need a lot more infrastructure. It might not be the best on long trips and in bad weather. Side note about normal bikses: The way I compare them, normal bikes are limited to physical exertion. Ebikes are limited to time, very similar to cars. Though at the long range cars are still more comfortable.

Walking. I'm just gonna wrap this one up as most people are not gonna walk that far every day. We should have walkable cities for short walks and health and neighborhoods, but walking to downtown ain't an option for the vast vast amount of the city, either physically or time wise.

This is where I love autonomous taxis. If you can do your daily commute on public transportation and then use autonommous taxis to fill in the gaps (which there will be), that can dramatically lower car ownership levels. Normal taxis are expensive when you have to pay for the driver. Uber is basically slave labor.

You said own cars, as in personal use. But I will add there is a ton more. You have business, commercial, and industrial. Getting large amounts of commercial and industrial goods around to stores quickly and efficiently adds a ton to societal efficiency.

So what does that transportation add? Maybe this was the crux of your question and I spent too much time on the others. It's basically a lubricant for society, business, and industry. Society depends in large part on transportation (yes I'm choosing that word intentionally). If you don't have easy transportation everything is like molasses on every level.

Jobs: You wouldn't be able to get workers because they wouldn't be able to commute. I remember a documentary that London (way back when) basically maxed out on population because transporation via horses and walking had maxed out. Then trains were invented and the city was able to grow.

Industry: Getting goods around is critical to grow industry. Trains are great for moving a large amount of cargo from A to B, think coal, fertilizer, etc. Trucks are much better for getting a small amount of cargo from A to B, C, D, etc and vice versa.

Commercial goods: Stores keep getting bigger for good reason, it's cheaper to ship and operate that way.

Each mode has its place. I agree we are too reliant on cars and haven't accounted for the externalities.

Hope that helps.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 21 minutes ago* (last edited 12 minutes ago) (1 children)

Side note about normal bikses: The way I compare them, normal bikes are limited to physical exertion. Ebikes are limited to time, very similar to cars. Though at the long range cars are still more comfortable

I started biking again 2 years ago, honestly partly pushed by various city planning/car rejection media when I realized I could start being the change I want to see in the world. I'd done some strength training during the pandemic but holy crap was I not in shape enough to be biking. It took me a full year of biking nearly every day to be able to bike my kids to school in a trailer (about 2 miles round trip)

Even now where I finished last summer biking over 22 very hilly miles, I struggled to bike to a haircut just a mile away after just 3 months of winter hibernation, and now that it's early spring I got up to 5 miles so far within a few bike rides.

Point is, for the average adult, biking is an option but it takes a ton of time and work to build up your strength. Ebikes completely change the game because anyone can ride 10-20 miles on those, and if you have balance issues or other health issues you can get an etrike! They're such incredible life changing machines!

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago (1 children)

Just because you are able to bike long distances on a normal bike doesn't mean everyone (or dare I say the average adult) can. Many people simply do not have this dormant physical athleticism.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 9 minutes ago

You should probably reread my comment because that was literally what I said

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 33 minutes ago

The freedom to come and go as you please, assuming you can afford insurance and proper maintenance.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 37 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

I live in a rural area over 30 miles from the nearest city in a town with a population in the low thousands. The nearest place I can get any goods is over 4 miles away. I’d be completely fucked without a car.

I know that’s not everyone’s situation, but just pointing out there are people living in remote places with no other transportation options.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 17 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's how it is out here too.

Especially in the winter when we can easily have a foot of snow on the ground.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

My property doesn’t even have paving, and trying to get the drive graveled was such a pain I just ended up slapping on all-terrain tires, both to deal with getting on and off the property slope in mud, and also because there’s country roads (dirt/sand) here and street tires suck on that in general and especially when it snows.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Especially since public transit is usually locally funded (at least in the US), in areas like this the tax base doesn't exist to be able to functionally fund public transit. We would need to completely rethink and re-organize how public transit is funded and rolled out for this to functionally work in remote areas.

Or, you know, we could continue lettings cars be a thing for remote populations kind of like how in some far northern territories people use snowmobiles to get around part of the year because there's simply too much snow to try to use another type of vehicle at all.

I think the latter, having specific types of transportation still be a thing in places where they're needed, makes a lot more sense, honestly.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I kind of agree, but I’ll admit, I wouldn’t give up my car. I moved out here because I wanted out of city life and into more nature and quiet life. I only drive into town every 6 weeks for groceries and necessities in bulk and there’s no way I could haul all that on public transit. I want to be in the city as little as possible.

Well, like I said, I honestly think public transit doesn't make very much sense for remote areas. I think it makes far more sense to give people the types of transportation that work best for their use case, and in remote areas: that's cars.

[–] tonyn@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

A horse would be even more expensive than a car, and would have way more emissions compared to my driving habits.

Plus, my car is already paid off, and a horse wouldn’t be able to carry a CUV’s worth of groceries and goods, let alone if I need to get tools or lumber.

Oh, and I probably can’t ride a horse down 35 miles of interstate highway without being arrested, let alone sheltered from the elements. Actually the more I think about this suggestion the worse it gets.

[–] tonyn@lemmy.ml 3 points 26 minutes ago (1 children)

Of course it's a terrible suggestion. It was meant sarcastically. People used horses before cars were invented and it's no surprise that once they were, cars became the dominant mode of transportation because they are far superior.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago* (last edited 7 minutes ago)

I suspected it wasn’t a serious suggestion, but wasn’t certain and couldn’t help thinking through the logistics anyway.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 50 minutes ago

I just want to say, I absolutely love this kind of question because it forces you to imagine realistically what a car-lite world would look like, and it completely changes the line of thinking from problem identification to problem solving, and in a way that truly will change the world for the better

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 53 minutes ago

This is one of those questions where you have to look to the past to really understand the possible future.

Rural America was built by railroads. You know why there's a town every 10-20 miles on a rough grid? It's because steam locomotives built during the 20th century would need to stop to refill on water every 10-20 miles. These old steam locomotives were slow usually only running up to 30-40mph. The train would need a spot to stop & refill with water so when the railroads didn't platte out towns to sell the land they just built through and increased the value of, towns would organically pop up near these stops anyways.

If we fast forward a little to the 1880s or so, electrification was going bonkers, and many electric companies would say "while we're building these power lines, what if we also ran electric trolley services too?" So the trolleys would advertise the versatility of this newfangled electricity thing while also providing a second revenue stream to electric companies. This is when electric interurban services really hit their peak. There were thousands of interurban lines across the US at this time, but many didn't survive out of the 20th century, and of those that did very few survived past the second world war, and of those, even fewer survived into being bought up by city transit agencies.

This pre-car period had most people either living in dense walkable cities or living on homesteads and walking/riding horses/carts multiple miles to go to the nearest town for the day. People didn't move around a lot during this time, and the world was much smaller and life much quieter. This is part of why circuses and fairs were so big is it was the most exciting thing happening all year.

The world has changed so much since the invention and proliferation of the automobile that it's really hard to imagine a car-lite world, but also there's aspects of modern society that simply can't exist without cars. I'm imagining a societal change pushed by something like legislation which doubles vehicle registration fees every year for a decade. Sure that $250 the first year will hurt a little, and the $500 the second will hurt a bit more, but you've got a good 3-5 years or so before it's really going to start hurting most families, and I'd imagine it would be the $4000 mark where most don't renew which is conveniently after 5 years of the registration fee doubling, and enough time for new bus services to be spun up and plenty of time for people to invest in bikes and manufacturing to adjust to the new demand patterns

The concept of road tripping becomes very different, and travel honestly gets more expensive. I was just looking at Amtrak tickets today chasing an idea of taking a couple day trip out of town during my kids spring break, and I'm immediately looking at $250 to go 200 miles, 5x the cost of just loading the family in the car and driving that distance

Without cars anyone living in rural areas is immediately stranded. Most of rural America has been rebuilt around cars because rural America was the first place cars were able to sell successfully (in fact car companies had to engage in conspiracies to force sales in cities once everyone who wanted a car had already bought one) there's many houses which are multiple miles from the nearest store of any kind, and many small towns lack any kind of grocery store. Many business and public schools in rural areas are located miles outside of any town and require people to drive or take the school bus just to get there. With about a century for rural America to rebuild into the car centric life that it is and most of the railroad tracks gone, it's pretty impossibls for rural America to de-car

Suburbs are similarly challenged to rural areas, but at least have the benefit of being close enough to their cities and hubs of commerce that biking and biking to/from public stops remains very viable. Exurbs where they aren't connected to the urban fabric but are entirely reliant on easy vehicle access to it are absolutely fucked though, and would probably spin up new Intercity bus services to compensate, but needing to transfer bus services to get to anything rapidly makes these already undesirable exurbs become far more undesirable

Small towns that never had the population growth to spawl are even better off. Many of these small towns are super walkable and bikable today with limited infrastructure changes that might be desired. Stroads built to serve big box stores or industries would be the only major challenge, but generally all that needs is a road diet and/or a dedicated parallel greenway

Shopping will definitely look different. For one thing single use plastic bags become completely nonviable since they carry so little per bag even compared to just paper bags, and it's difficult to carry more than about 3 plastic bags of groceries at once. We'd also definitely see a reversal from fewer larger stores which are further away back to many more smaller stores that are closer to people's homes. Parking lots will be quickly realized to be unneeded, likely to be torn up with new housing, stores and bus terminals built where those parking lots once stood.

The average road and street will also change dramatically. With people mostly walking, biking and taking public transit, suddenly the minimum acceptable street changes a lot, where right now it's relatively smooth pavement with relatively good drainage, in a world where people primarily walk, bike and take transit they will instead demand trees and narrower paved areas, bringing it down to human scale. A "narrow" 40 foot wide suburban street will rapidly become much too large and many will be rebuilt to be more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians (I'm imagining 10-15 foot wide medians with trees, benches, water fointains and a nice greenway in the center, maintaining a pair of 10-12 foot wide lanes on either side for deliveries, emergency services and buses, or the inverse, with the road space narrowed significantly to 16-20 feet to allow for careful passing potentially with a parrelel greenway depending on traffic, again with trees, benches and water fountains)

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 20 points 3 hours ago

You'll probably manage just fine in a city.

Living in rural areas mass transit quickly becomes madness. Schedules are infrequent and routes are weird, and if you make them frequent and direct you suddenly drive around an empty bus while still building the exact same road you would for the few cars.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'm less likely to get assaulted when my parents drive me somewhere vs having to take public transport.

I'm Asian American and I still have anxiety about the post-covid racism.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Car safety is a big thing. I'm damn glad I'm in my metal and glass cage when i drive through big cities. I sure as hell wouldn't be walking through one. I've had people jump out in the road to try to get me to stop so they can rob me. Swerve and floor it. Walking is not a solution in dangerous cities.

Big reason I'd never do public transport myself. Clean up the streets and maybe I'll try it. But being among a bunch of tweakers who may stab me with a needle for my 5 dollar bill, no thanks.

[–] early_riser@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Is that sort of thing relevant? I take the bus all the time and have never felt in danger (except for one time when the driver went off on another bus driver, but I just noped off the bus before it could escalate). Yes there are interesting characters, but if public transit were more common perhaps the crazies would become less predominant.

Around here there is a whole police department dedicated to monitoring public transit.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm sure it's very location specific. Chicago and Boston public transit seem safe to me. Minneapolis always seems real bad. Memphis or Portland, heeellll no

[–] Griffus@lemmy.zip 0 points 43 minutes ago

As a Norwegian I've lived in several parts of the country but never owned a car. I rent a big car for moving, a small car for shopping trips to Sweden, and take the buss one stop short or extra to stop by a store on my way home from work, and walk the 100-ish meters with the groceries for the next couple of days. With frequent enough public transport, a schedule is never an issue. And where I live now, it isn't even that frequent in evenings and weekends, but buses and trains are aligned to make transit rather seamless. And it is better to be able to read a book while commuting rather than sitting behind the wheel.

Note that I've never lived too rural or northern, as that would require a car to make life work. Rural frequent public transport is sadly not economically viable.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Saab 900 Turbo never exists and I'm sorry Mother Gaia but that's not a world I want to live in

[–] Lag@piefed.world 10 points 3 hours ago

Schedules matter less when you have more frequent transportation. Renting a truck, or ordering a taxi/uber xl would be lower in cost than paying for and maintaining a truck. Obviously there's a line somewhere in the middle when it makes sense to own and unfortunately it's pushed further because our Costcos are 50 miles away instead of having smaller corner shops.

[–] user_name@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I genuinely love vanity plates. I think they’re a really fun way to express youself and the plate goes with you regardless of context: you’ve got the same plate in the office parking lot and at the hobby group.

I’ve seen hobby and interest references, from LAXBRO to NCC1701. I’ve seen meta plates, from the VW Beetle with SCARAB to the Nissan Cube with RUBIKS. I’ve seen professional references, BONEMAN (a podiatrist) to CSHFLO (somebody I knew who worked in finance).

And I’ve once seen SQRTRGY which I can only imagine means “squirt orgy” but I’ll never know.

I know it’s a little thing, but I think it’s fun. (Doesn’t make up the pollution and danger of cars, tho.)

[–] early_riser@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

When I think of vanity plates I think of the guy who registered his as "NULL" in the hopes that he could avoid traffic tickets by looking like a database error. But he ended up showing up every time anyone's plate number was missing, so it showed him as having thousands of traffic violations.

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Without cars there would be A LOT more people on the sidewalk. In the past, before cars, there were so many more people on the street it's not even funny. The roads were full of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDMsHtCgnkc

[–] OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Well in Australia's context where I live, you need a car to get anywhere (depending on where you live). The way QLD was built where i grew up, everything is spaced out. 30 mins to the cafe, 45 mins to the shops etc. Our country has public transport but really only in major areas.

Where i grew up, which wasnt anywhere remote and was 1 hour away from a major CBD, i was fucked if i didnt have a car. Going anywhere meant walking for ages under the Aussie sun or wait for a bus that comes every 30 minutes to take you a quarter of the distance.

It wasnt really a sense of freedom (which i 100% agree with) but having a car meant i could go directly to places.

Without a car, it would have taken me ages to get anywhere.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)
[–] early_riser@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

That was the first thing that came to my mind, I saw all sorts of interesting stuff on our summer family trips.

[–] colourlessidea@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 hour ago

You could rent a car for those

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Whole sections of the country that are zoned for suburban single family housing would not exist as they are today. Not because they'd be illegal or anything, but they'd be incredibly unpopular if most people didn't own a car, which is needed to basically get to or from a suburban neighborhood.

I understand the question to be something like: what happens if a majority of people are absolutely dead-set unwilling/unable to own a private automobile. And I think the immediate answer is that suburban neighborhoods cease to exist, at least at the current density levels. Either a neighborhood must densify so that transit options make sense, or they must aim to become rural living. This also means that things like suburban schools either turn into walkable urban schools, or into small one-room rural schools.

I don't actually think rural living will go away, because the fact is that the grand majority of people -- USA and abroad -- do not prefer rural living. The 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st Century trends are that people tend towards urban areas, where services and jobs exist. That said, there will always be people that want to live in the hills on 20 acres, and therefore need an automobile. And it's certainly sounds appealing to some, myself included. But that has never been the majority, so if a majority of people refuse owning an automobile, they will also mostly refuse rural and suburban living.

There is no plausible situation where over 50% of people willingly decide to: 1) not own a car, and 2) live in a suburb or rural area. This is from the fact that all other modes of transport into a suburb or rural area are either: 1) nonexistent (eg metro rail), or 2) ludicrously expensive (eg Lyft, or transit with 15% fairbox recovery) if the cost was borne by the people living there (as opposed to being subsidized heavily by other taxpayers.... Ahem, America).

Edit: some more thoughts: standalone strip malls would also change character, because the smaller ones that aren't on a rail or bus corridor would be undesirable commercial real estate. If they still exist, they'll likely be integrated into housing, so as to become the #1 most convenient option for people living there. Captive audience, indeed.

But larger strip malls and shopping centers actually might florish: they usually have enough stores and services that transit already makes sense. Indeed, shopping malls are actually really good transit center locations. But instead of giant parking lots, there would be housing, because why not? People who reject cars have every reason to live next to, or on top of, a mall: fully pedestrianized, air conditioned, lots of stores and dining options. Some places even put schools and post offices in their shopping malls. I would also expect that dwelling soundproofing to get better, because the paper-thin walls of American homes and apartments are awful.

In this way, malls are no different than casinos, cruise ships, and downtowns: a small island of paradise to visit, and is distinct from home. Malls will still exist after cars, the same way that Las Vegas exists in the middle of a desert: it is a big enough anchor that draws people.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Business schedules would be a lot more flexible when people have to rely on infrequent routes between rural clusters. It would be kinda nice really.

Buildings and zoning would different, suburbs would just be where the people who own cars live. Places where most people live would have shops close by in walking distance instead of spread out with massive parking lots.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Just those two things alone: freedom to hit the road & moving things are more massive than you even realize.

I have a small car, a Civic. I routinely buy beers from all over. Vast majority cannot be sold & shipped. And I don't believe for a minute the laws would change for me to shop online as easily as other stuff. And, that also includes the freedom of the road trip.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Just a heads up, The USPS will not ship liquids, but UPS and FedEx will if you pack them in plenty of bubble wrap.

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Road trips. The ability to visit National Parks.

You included hauling cargo, which opens up a whole new can of worms. Moving would be impossible. As would stocking stores and businesses, as there would be no last mile options for freight. Unless we're including horse-drawn wagons.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 9 points 3 hours ago

I mean, they did say "most people didnt own a car" rather than "road vehicles don't exist". That removes the more serious of those concerns I think, because the existence of delivery vehicles, freight trucks, moving vans, or even vehicle rental services for the occasional road trip doesn't depend on a majority of people owning a car personally.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

This question is in the realm of not having electricity. Can we live without it ? Yes, but very few people would and it makes life very hard.

It sucks that places are too reliant on cars and I agree we need to do more to help those who can't drive. But we still need cars to live modern life. Especially in semi rural areas.

First thing I'd do is tax the hell out of or outright ban massive trucks and Suvs. If you can't prove its used for work, 150% or more tax on it that goes to public transport, and your insurance costs 10x the amount of a small car, because you're a danger on the road. That right there would get us a shit ton of public transport revenue from all the douches in the US driving massive trucks they don't need that endanger us all.

I'm also involved in Motorsport which is very fun, but I'm all for less cars on the road if we could. Most people are awful at driving and really need high performance driving education to improve. Most people stare at their damn phones while driving. I love honking my horn at them when i see it, they freak out. I've followed dangerous drivers (ie, them going 80 mph in a school zone in their bro truck) so I can pull up near them and tell them to cut it the fuck out and that I've reported their plates to authorities. I don't really report them, but it hopefully scares em!

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

It would be ridiculously expensive for every rural and suburban area to have frequent reliable public transport.