America’s obsession with big cars has fatal consequences
ft.com
ft.com
Now, the idea of constraining motor vehicles, that I'm all in favor of, as a sometime cyclist and pedestrian who hates needing to own a car at all. Carless CBDs. Streets bollarded off. Time-of-day restrictions. Mass transit that actually works - yes, yes, yes, and please-for-the-love-of-God.
Argue that motor vehicles should serve where they suit best and not be allowed to pose a hazard otherwise. Don't argue that motor vehicles should cease to exist entirely - they won't, but your audience will.
The argument is against individual motor vehicles at current sizes, because they are simply incompatible with this goal:
> Mass transit that actually works - yes, yes, yes, and please-for-the-love-of-God.
You simply cannot design an environment to where everyone can have their own F150 and still have things be within walking/cycling distance and still have public transit operating at sufficient frequency to make it “work”.
You're already well outside the received precepts of the culture you seek to improve, which means you are necessarily beginning under a cloud of suspicion and doubt. Take it from a gay man old enough to remember the 80s: You help yourself not at all by doing anything to further complicate your delivery of the message.
You've just summed up the entire American ethos, sadly.
> You've just summed up the entire American ethos, sadly.
That summation is just tendentious framing of the concept of tradeoffs. If the situation were changed so "pedestrian[s] or cyclist[s]" don't have to make "concessions" to cars, that could also be framed as and "expression of freedom[...]based in denying freedom to everyone else." And that framing would be less tendentious than the OP's, because in America the pedestrians and cyclists are a vocal minority.
Now electric scooters and eBikes will change the equation a bit, but there are plenty of purists who hate on them too. They seem to feel they're sort of like lite versions of cars.
A more reasonable criticism is the danger to bikes from neeedlessly massive cars and pickup trucks. Or the danger from bike lanes that are not cleared of snow.
It’s not even a safety issue, it’s simply uncomfortable and expensive to get outfitted with appropriate gear. Not everyone lives in San Diego.
That doesn’t mean that robust bicycle infrastructure shouldn’t exist.
The only gear I’ve bought specifically for winter cycling as opposed to the rest of the year are glasses and a headband. I’d probably recommend a balaclava for someone without a beard. I bought fancy biking glasses, but $5 safety glasses would be passable.
Other than that I just wear the clothes fit for wherever I’m going. (Ie jeans, maybe long underwear, a couple layers, and a puffy coat).
The comfort part is subjective and I can’t invalidate your experience of course, but I personally find it at worst comparable to the first five to ten minutes of being in a car on a cold day before the car warms up. And on anything but the coldest days I often find I’m a quite comfortable temperature. Though it’s possible to over/under dress and then be hot or cold during the commute.
Not that people can’t drive in the winter if they want, but it often feels where I am that people just can’t conceive of the idea that biking in winter is a thing anyone would do. But there’s plenty of evidence that some percentage of people will choose to bike in winter if it’s viable (ie there’s good bike infrastructure).
All the other stuff? Shrug
Face it: many people don't want to commute by bike because they have good reasons to believe the ride will be dangerous and maybe even deadly.
Next time you're bicycling down the sidewalk, remember that this is how pedestrians feel about _you_.
It's not. Bicyclists regularly terrorize pedestrians on sidewalks, even when there are excellent purpose-built bike paths mere meters away. At intersections, they regularly flip back and forth between being "like bicycles" and "like pedestrians", making them dangerously unpredictable. They pound on cars when they feel they should have the right of way (they don't). Even when they are in the bike lane, a quarter of the time they're riding against the flow of traffic. No lights, no reflectors, dressed in black at night. The most bicycle-sympathetic drivers struggle to avoid hitting these knuckleheads.
It's a sad situation.
Yes self centric view that staying alive is preferable to being dead. If only they were more altruistic and gave their lives, more people would like them. But no, their selfish desire to stay alive yet again destroyed everything.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXzObryNvxk
I've ridden thousands of miles, and the only bit of infrastructure that ever helped was wide shoulders, preferably with a bright white line demarcating.
But that's probably because my area has decent cycling infrastructure, so that means I have a place to cycle without fearing for my life besides the sidewalk.
Compared to the thousands required to buy into using the car based transportation system, not to mention the ever increasing price of gas, the expense of using a bicycle for transportation is practically nil.
Unfortunately, as this article shows, cars are so incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, that unless you're fortunate enough to live in a city where leaders have decided the the investment of safe protected cycling lanes is well worth it, cycling is rarely a safe and viable option.
It’s obviously the same people who are always in debt and never understand why, despite their incomes being 2-3x what’d they earn in any other country, they never seen to be saving any money.
When we planned a long trip we thought maybe a larger car would be useful so we test drove a bunch of SUV things. They don't even give you extra space. The room across the backseats is actually less, and the boot space is more vertical. I'd rather have the better drive.
When I had to commute more and the kids were little, I had a super efficient car. Now I have the SUV, and the delta is probably 100 gallons of gas annually.
Personally, I’d rather have a station wagon, but they don’t make them anymore. My next car in a few years will be an electric non-Tesla minivan/crossover vehicle.
Minivan is more spacious and fuel efficient and can easily sit 8 adults. The only answer I have received for why someone is buying an SUV rather than minivan is for vanity.
The flip side of increased interior room is exterior width, poor site lines, increased weight, increased energy waste, increased danger to pedestrians, increased road wear…
Sure, a truck might be the best vehicle for your use case. It's probably the best vehicle for farmers, for example. But you could do all that with a 1970'd Ford F-150 just fine. Why does the 2023 F-150 have to be so much bigger, while not even gaining a lot cargo space?
I agree that pickups have grown ridiculously large.
Never seen a pick-up in New York or San Francisco. They're everywhere in Wyoming. No, you don't need it around town. But if you're hauling a snowmobile or going off road, even only a few times a year, the trade-off can be worth it.
I don't drive a truck. But calling a subjective preference "objectively worse" is reductive.
1. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/27/1145589871/buffalo-winter-sto...
I'm not saying there's no culture involved here (the point about Republicans buying more big cars is interesting, but the survey is paywalled so I can't look into it more) but there's no need to go straight to culture when there's a wealth of more practical reasons for the state of the US vehicle market.
In an ideal system, getting a license would require extremely stringent road and written tests, re-administered on a regular basis. However, doing that in the US is a political nonstarter because how can anyone live without a car?
Edit: Here's more information on voter literacy tests that were once conducted. The outcome kept POC from being able to vote.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voi...
Driving tests are completely different. Right now some states basically give licenses away at age 14 for a dollar and a handshake. If you're going to let someone operate a 26.000 pound vehicle in public, shouldn't they at the very least demonstrate that they a) understand the traffic laws, and b) are able to operate the vehicle safely?
If you move to a European country, you'll be required to re-take your driver's test, and it isn't without reason. They simply don't trust the USA to do it properly and that's not entirely unfounded.
I'm not arguing that at all. I'm just pointing out that _tests_ can have unintended or intended outcomes. Testing and retesting doesn't seem like a viable scalable solution.
Or, that my voting constrains your freedom.
Says you.
Trucks are moneymakers and the big 3 automakers historically lobby hard to stop changes. Change = lost margin. Up until the 90s, full size pickups had saddle tanks that were likely to explode in a side collision, for example. Doors didn’t require crash safety reinforcement, etc.
A lot of that has been addressed by regulators, but the hood height thing has not. Car hoods are designed to catch and roll pedestrians. A low speed hit will hurt and probably result in injury. With a newer pickup truck, some of which require cameras to even see the road in front, you get knocked down, crack your head on the pavement, and likely get run over.
Citation? I know that's more likely with a car than with a big truck, but is that a conscious design choice, or just that a low driver position requires a low hood to see anything at all?
Or fast enough to have a nontrivial mass from pure kinetic energy (though I think the nuclear reactions would start happening well before then).
Once the vehicle::pedestrian mass is high enough, a higher ratio won't change the kinematics much. And how are you thinking that a driver of a big vehicle is more at risk than that of a small one?
And, Einstein has nothing to do with it.
Amen.