Comment by ChuckNorris89 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckNorris89 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This. A dealer's margins on the cars are razor thin these days. They make the money on financing and servicing.

Even if you buy the car in cash, the purchase is one time payment, but after that they have you as a recurring customer for the long run with service costs which is where the money comes in.

No wonder modern cars are designed to be as difficult to service as possible by the owner. In my older Fiat I could change the air and cabin filter without any tools in 2 minutes. On my latest one they're both bolted with custom screws. WHY?! On my older one the user manual would be full of instructions on how to perform small maintenance tasks yourself. On the new one all it says is contact your authorized dealer. It's as if the cars of the past were designed by engineers and cars of today are designed by MBAs to be disposable black boxes like laptops or phones where only the genius bar employees have repair access.

The whole auto industry today is a large scale scam where we trade the environment and our health for corporate profits and is being marketed to us as a desirable lifestyle we should all aspire to which I wish not take part of but I can't due to shitty public transport in my city and employers placing their offices in buttfuck middle of nowhere to save on rent.

Unfortunately, the auto industry comprised of manufacturers and dealers have too much power in some European countries, and, as they keep touting how our dependency on car ownership is creating more jobs, their influence on the future of urban planning ain't going nowhere.

>The whole auto industry today is a large scale scam where we trade the environment and our health for corporate profits

In theory, it should be easy to solve transport within a metro area with low-carbon solutions such as walking, bicycling and public transport.

I'm continually amazed by how good public transport and walkability are in some cities outside America. Bicycles also have amazing potential and a few successes in the world as mass transit.

It seems the issue is not with engineering a solution, but with the politics of what gets implemented through our politicians and bureaucrats.

Biking in a foot of snow, on roads with pot holes large enough to swallow a tire, or that flood, or turn to black ice, is dangerous and sucks. Add the lack of actual bike lanes on all but a few block long stretches and biking becomes a death wish. Sure I can get a studded fat tire bike, and bike down the middle of the lane with dozens of pissed off people behind me honking and screaming at me, but that still doesn't solve the other problem of rampant unprosecuted bike theft in my city. Nor do I have a place to shower once I get to work.

So I'd need two bikes, one with specialized winter tires, that I'm replacing frequently when they get stolen.

Another gym membership to shower at before I go to work.

Better health insurance to lessen the financial blow of the inevitable hit and run.

More time to account for the longer commute. In my case it's 4-6x longer to bike than drive. Time I'm not making any money and time I'm at substantially greater risk of getting seriously injured.

The politics of it certainly do suck. There's too much money pushing for the jobs that our car dependence create.

You only chose to live that far from work, in a place that gets a foot of snow, because you assumed you could make the journey in a petroleum car. It wouldn't have been possible 100 years in the past and it won't be possible 100 years in the future. Same for your employer choosing not to provide showers.

You are making wild general assumptions about this person's life. Most people in the USA can't really choose where to live, they are forced into a particular zone based on income or some other factor. You are also suggesting that they move from the place that gets snow. This is a ludicrous suggestion and very rude. We can't all live on the beach front property.

Let's be honest, people on HN aren't limited in where they live by poverty.

As I said, it was possible 100 years ago. We -as a society- have brought this rut on ourselves.

I certainly am. I don't understand why everyone here thinks this is a private club for rich investors in silicon valley.

Goodness gracious. You seem to be completely unaware of the lengths average people go to in order to survive.

Here's a thought.

Educated people can simultaneously be impoverished and current on world affairs.

Unfortunately, zoning laws in American cities segregate residential from commercial areas, resulting in transportation problems.

The choice is between living in a decrepit shoebox an hours bike from my job, or living in someone's closet to be within walking distance. I'm a contractor though. I could be sent an hours drive in any direction. How do you suggest I plan for this? Do I buy a house with my nonexistent wealth everywhere I could be asked to work? Do I quit my job and take a massive pay cut to flip burgers so I can bike to my job from the closet said burger flipping affords me?.

Your attribution of choice in this matter is absurd. Maybe you're so lucky and wealthy that you can choose for whom you will work, where/when that work occurs, and how you'll get to work. That's an exceptionally privileged position and you should check your privilege before making such inane assumptive, and accusatory comments as this one.

I read on HN that cars were a silly American thing that Europeans don't need.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com