Hacker News Reader

Comment by guerrilla | Hacker News Reader

> outside of large urban centers with good public transport

Maybe in Eastern Europe or something but most of Western Europe has no such problem, especially in the North.

> The netherlands is one of the few places where avoiding cars is an actual option, elsewhere it requires heavy compromission, and imposes significant restrictions on various life choices.

Not even close to true in Scandinavia, Belgium, Germany or even poor ass Portugal.

I'm not sure how you got to these conclusions. Maybe you're underestimating just how bad the US as a European is or maybe you've never lived in Europe.

View on HN

> Not even close to true in Scandinavia, Belgium, Germany or even poor ass Portugal.

It’s absolutely true in Belgium (and france), of which I have first-hand experience.

Despite the overall populations density, the public transport network outside of cities is patchy at best and tends towards low frequency: outside of school transport hours buses might only run every 2 or 3 hours, or not at all. Some lines don’t even run outside of school days.

The general assumption is that adults have a car and don’t rely — let alone depend — on public transports.

> I'm not sure how you got to these conclusions.

By having lived them? They’re not conclusions, they’re observations or having lived for years without a car (by choice).

> Maybe you're underestimating just how bad the US as a European is or maybe you've never lived in Europe.

Or maybe you’re way over-estimating how good Europe is? Just because the US is bottom barrel garbage-tier does not mean rural europe is any good.

> Or maybe you’re way over-estimating how good Europe is? Just because the US is bottom barrel garbage-tier does not mean rural europe is any good.

Definitely not. No, I think what we have here in these comments is, on the one hand, a bunch of spoiled people complaining about great service (which I find very typical in Europe) and differing definitions of what's efficient and expected. In 20 years, I've never had a problem, but I also don't expect to be able to get to every single cow-milking farm by foot. If you live in way out in the woods, then you need need a car, but not if you live in most villages. For rarer buses, plan ahead. It's all possible and comfortable. In the US, it's literally not possible under any circumstances for most places.

> Maybe in Eastern Europe or something but most of Western Europe has no such problem, especially in the North.

I'm in Norway. It's absolutely a car society, and unless you live in a dense population center living carless is unfeasible.

Agree. I also live in Norway and have done for years.

I can get

- to work (bike or bus + train + 1km walk),

- to the shop (walk or bike),

- to many of my friends (walk or bike),

- to the town center (bus or bike)

quite comfortably alone, and I think at least except winter most (by number) of my trips is car free.

But good look getting 5 kids somewhere where there isn't a bus line (soccer, ice hockey, activities, church, in-laws house, frinds across town, fishing).

I live in 2nd largest city, and 11 km drive from work. If I want to take public transport, I first have to take a bus going once per hour, switch to another bus going into opposite direction, and then take a third bus to work. Bus can be a bit late so am not making the connection, or sometimes a connecting bus not showing up. Then you stand another 20 minutes in the rain (it usually rains here) on the shoulder of a motorway.

I could also cycle in theory; however my home is 88 meters over sea level and my work in 100+ on another hill. Did I also mention it rains a lot? Some people like the challenge and do it anyway (but virtually none does that every day). I can't be arsed to sweat out on my way to the office though.

And yes that's before you get to having kids. Or living outside a city: then you have a bus on one route going maybe 2-4 times a day.

> I could also cycle in theory; however my home is 88 meters over sea level and my work in 100+ on another hill. Did I also mention it rains a lot? Some people like the challenge and do it anyway (but virtually none does that every day). I can't be arsed to sweat out on my way to the office though.

TBF electric bicycles help a lot with the latter, and the usual “there’s no bad weather only bad clothing” norwegian saying definitely applies.

But that’s assuming the infrastructure matches, cycling in the rain when well-equipped is one thing, cycling in the rain dodging cars and getting sprayed is quite an other.

The infrastructure is decent, only the last mile stretch (uphill of course) is shared with car traffic. Still it's not a relaxing ride, and would probably double my commute time even with an e-bike.

As I mentioned there are people doing that anyway, but even the hardcore cyclist types are doing it only a few days in a month.

I lived there too and I can vaguely remember getting from Fyllingsdalen to Sotra at night by bus while bringing my mopping gear :-\

Same for Germany and the UK, in my experience. Within or very close to major cities, it’s feasible albeit often slow and frustrating.

A bit further out, cars are close to vital, unless you specifically optimise for public transport when choosing your home and work locations, and accept major restrictions around social and hobby activities.

I live in germany and even in "structually weak" eastern regions you can get by ok without a car unless you live in a very tiny village or are physically impaired. Public transport could be way cheaper though.

Imo many people in germany have still to realize that it's not feasible to make big bucks in the city while hiding from the fruits of their labour in the countryside.

At least here in Finland public transportation absolutely does not work in most of the countryside. Maybe you count us as Eastern Europe, but I can tell that the situation is no different in Sweden for example.

The truth is that replacing private car ownership for people living in countryside in many countries would require large government spending to operate lines that are not commercially viable.

In practice, 'bus lines that are not commercially viable' actually means empty behemoths running at times where nobody needs them, wasting way more fossil fuels compared to just letting people own their own comparatively tiny cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com