Comment by goatsneez | Hacker News Reader

Comment by goatsneez | Hacker News Reader

While some points are valid I am compelled to comment on this quote:

"[Cars suck] They’re big, loud, smelly and basically the most inefficient form of transportation someone could imagine. They’re the most expensive thing a person owns after their home, but they don’t create value"

This is some hyperbolic ideological statement which is very lazy and contradicts the most basic reality of modern life.

1) Cars are the most efficient (cost and environment wise), and safest compare to all other personal modes of transportations for daily use, in any weather, with capability to have a cargo [materials, goods, groceries, kids, etc] as well (compared to horses, bikes, etc) [I am now aware of a single example to the contrary].

2) They are naturally second most expensive as they have such a high value as having a roof over your head (which is a priority number one)

3) A car creates value for the owner despite depreciating in value itself. I do not get the argument here. Personally without a car I could not function (I do not live in a metropolis to rely on public transport)

I ride a cargo bike with large tires in most types of weather, and take the train when I cannot ride my bike for whatever reason. When taking into account the infrastructure requirements for the bike though, the cost to operate and maintain, and health benefits of riding the bike, it is certainly more efficient than a car both economically and environmentally. It also only cost me roughly one month of the equivalent cost to own a car.

Cars and their required infrastructure are incredibly expensive and not environmentally friendly. The way we've designed our cities and suburbs in the US nearly make it a requirement for all transportation. If kids could walk or bike to school, if you could walk or bike to get groceries, or other destinations, then that would be more cost effective and environmentally friendly than having to drive.

It's not that cars are inherently better in every situation, it's that we've built our society to make it that way. We've made it a requirement to pay auto manufacturers and fossil fuel companies to function in daily life. It doesn't have to be that way, we can make our society more maintainable, economically sound, and environmentally friendly with less dependence on cars.

I'd recommend reading Strong Towns if you're curious about this at all. It was eye opening for me.

Edit: And regarding safety, cars are dangerous, and they make all other forms of transportation more dangerous. Riding a bike without cars around is safer than driving a car with no cars around. Same goes for walking. Cars make other forms of transportation dangerous, bikes and pedestrians don't make cars dangerous. Cars themselves are dangerous. So the solution for safety should not be "get a car" because that increases danger on a macro scale.

I appreciate the outlook, but it seems that there is mismatch of what we are each addressing in terms of scale. Sure there are situations where cars are not needed for most people (large cities, etc), there are options for changes to lifestyle where one organizes life around not having a car. However, those adjustments have costs which another may objectively not be able to bear, and evidence from around us suggests that is simply the reality. (If people could accomplish all they want/need within a day for personal or business purpose which they can with a car by other means which would be cheaper - they simply would, dont you agree? I most certainly would.]

However, that is not invalidating or negating the undeniably true statement, that all these cars we have today, out of all other possibilities, are the most economical (and by definition of the word "economics") in fact (as counter-intuitive as it sounds) most environmental friendly choice [as of today] - providing an entire cluster of benefits in terms of personal transport. In other words, if there was a different means of personal transportation that could be substituted and be as affordable/economical for people they would have switched. [E.g. remember the unsolvable problem of horse manure 150 yrs ago in medium scale cities, let alone in mega-cities]. Cars are just too flexible, multi-purposed, heavy duty, relatively-cheap, safe, and fast personal means of getting from A to B for an average person. And yes, environmentally friendly relative to any available substitute (I would genuinely like to hear a reasoned outline of a counter-argument for a substitute that can do all thing a car can do and is more environmentally friendly. It does not mean that cars do not pollute, they just pollute less than any other substitute I have been able to study).

I get what you're saying, and cars do provide tons of benefits. I was just trying to highlight that they are so beneficial because we've built our society to make it that way.

Future development of our infrastructure could allow for even better options than cars, and developing in that way to provide those options should be on our minds, even outside of major cities.

1. The author meant transportation generally, not personally. Think trains, buses, car pooling etc vs car. On a CO2 per person per mile basis, cars are inefficient. 2, 3. Financial value wise it's a depreciating asset since unlike land you can always make more cars and they break down over time (until very recently where supplies of new cars was disrupted). We can argue all days about opportunity cost but that's beside the point. Cars work for you, no cars work for others. What's the value of having one if you live in a metro area like NYC?

There's nothing wrong nor hyperbolic about the quote you mentioned. Can't say the same about your comments though.

Im not sure what provoked your last remark (just having opinion you disagree with?), however, you did not contradict in any way my point, and you failed to give an example of more efficient personal means of transportation. Im genuinely curious for as far as I studied the problem.

Also, as typical in these debates, you (un) intentionally shift the goal posts. The original article made a general hyperbolic statement which is simply wrong as generalized - and as a generalization, by the very fact that we have this situation logic of economics dictates that cars are the most efficient (economically in all aspects and implications). I would like to have a counter example if you can generate one.

I hate quoting Wikipedia but your carphelia bias is really showing.

"The automobile is an inefficient vehicle compared to other modes of transport. This is because the ratio between the mass of the vehicle and the mass of the passengers is much higher when compared to other modes of transport." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

Yup - the "cars suck" or "cars as a tax" arguments are the ultimate in weak sauce and totally discount the utter enablement of autonomous mobility that cars bring. Independent freedom of movement is beyond empowering and I can understand why cars pose a threat to the politics of many of their detractors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com