My previous car is a Yaris.
When I got the Yaris I heard people make snide comments like “Anyone see that big guy get out of that tiny car?” then gas prices went up and they became “Hey, what kind of MPG does that thing get?”
I like hatchbacks. Bigger is fine but nothing huge.
Americans need to embrace public transit. We need trains that don’t completely suck in both speed and schedule reliability.
We’re never going to convince a lot of folks to leave their lifted F-150 or massive Suburban behind for a small car. But quality, affordable public transit that is not only efficient but saves money over owning a car would actually make a difference. We’re more likely to be able to get people to just leave the F-150 in the driveway and eventually move away from it.
Much better for the environment, too, and reduces traffic / congestion, etc. I agree smaller cars would be good, but the goalpost should be getting away from the automobile.
americans will embrace small cars like they embrace gun control
We embraced the shit out of them during the oil crisis in the '70’s. Then when gasoline got cheap again we snapped right back.
“But my SUV makes me feel so ‘safe’ and gives me a commanding view of the road!!!”
I am of the opinion that everyone ought to just get a motorcycle.
Have you ever seen Americans drive? Or the ones that ride motorcycles?
Give everyone a motorcycle and half the country would be dead in a week
Well, that’ll keep 'em off my damn roads, won’t it?
Honestly, fuck motorcycle drivers. I know there’s plenty of them out there who operate your machines properly, but there SO MANY absolute asshats on motorcycles, always making the highway way more dangerous for everyone around them.
If I could remove one vehicle from the earth it would be motorcycles. Idgaf how fun they are for you, people can’t be trusted with them in general.
They’d all get those goddamn ear splitting harleys too. Like there isn’t enough noise already.
I think there should be a separate license to drive SUVs and Trucks over a certain size. And that maintaining that license should be a bit of a hassle - like a required in-person written and practical test every 2 years. If people want that commanding view of the road and “safe” feeling that comes from endangering everyone else on the road, then they should have to put in some extra effort - not enough extra effort that it’s unattainable for those who actually have a need for a vehicle of that size, but enough effort that it would discourage the widespread use we have currently.
I’d love to have a motorcycle that would replace my current vehicle, but it would need to be capable of keeping me warm while handling well in heavy snow. Afaik, there aren’t any enclosed bikes out there
I am of the opinion that everyone ought to just get a motorcycle.
But only if it’s a dual sport, right? ;)
Well I mean preferably.
When you need a fucking step ladder to get into your jacked up pickup just so you can commute or get groceries you might have lost your mind.
I am of the opinion that everyone ought to just get a motorcycle.
I’d rather not die tyvm.
The US EPA currently penalizes smaller cars thanks to a poorly thought out rule for fuel economy that scales by wheelbase size, making larger cars easier to meet requirements for. The EPA has made many embarrassingly backwards decisions, but this might be the worst.
I was taxed an extra $150 to register a 2002 Honda Insight last year. It was for a “Hybrid Tax” because hybrid owners buy less gas and therefore are paying less tax on gasoline. Like, that’s the whole point of driving a small car!
With their face?!?
They did for a while in the 70s-80s until giant SUVs got everyone hot and bothered
Normal sized cars* you mean.
Normal cars aren’t small. They’re just small if you compare them to the giant ridiculous trucks they have over that.
Bold idea here, but maybe if we stopped fucking subsidizing SUV’s, people wouldn’t buy so goddamn many of them. Just a thought.
Take a breath it’s ok
Whenever I’m in the States I hate the fact that everything is a 20 minute car ride away. I understand why road rage can be a thing if you spend so much time in the car.
deleted by creator
USA didn’t start building bullshit suburbs until 1950s. before that it was dense cities.
No it wasn’t. Like 80% of the population lived in rural areas before the 50s. Apparently this sub really doesn’t like facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
Europe is much more population dense than the US, a quick fact check easily confirms this.
deleted by creator
Indeed, prior to European settlement it was extremely rural.
And yet everything in a village was a walk away. If a man shagged his wife, he could hear his neighbor complain.
The government was literally giving away land under the homestead act 100 years before that. You could just go stick some stakes in the ground and that was your 100+ acres, so long as you produced something with the land.
If anything this means Europe’s cities just can’t accommodate cars, because they weren’t built for them. The weird thing is that American cities were built for cars and yet still can’t accommodate cars. Traffic, lack of parking, road rage… it’s a huge mess, and it seems like the more you commit to cars, the worse it all gets. That’s the trouble with cars. They just don’t work.
I don’t really understand this comment though. It doesn’t take thousands of years to achieve urban density. And what does America’s sprawl have to do with loving large cars? You don’t need a huge car to drive medium distances.
You need density to support a train system. You need a large number of riders to make it economical and you need them living within a reasonable distance of the stations. The US is very spread out. You can blame cars for that but that is the world we live in. The US is also very big with large rural areas, the western US didn’t even really develop until trains came out in the 1869. Europe was built around compact cities based on horses and walking long before cars.
I agree that we are too car focused and it has become a sort of arms race, build more roads, more cars, more roads, etc.
The focus on cars is emotionally driven. The car symbolizes freedom and independence. Besides this it’s a huge status symbol. And the industry is working hard to keep it this way. The lack of decent public transportation is by design.
You’re absolutely correct, but a bicycle tideuor bus trip or train journey is also a feeling of freedom, too. Reframing ‘freedom’ so people don’t feel they have to get a $70,000 crew cab pickup to drive to the bar or store is the thing.
A bus felt liberating before I got my driver’s license. And driving felt liberating before I got ahold of aircraft controls for the first time. One day I’ll get this jetpack to work and then forget about planes.
There is a continuum and its hard to go in the other direction without feeling the additional restrictions.
Quite literally, same here. There’s nothing wrong with bikes, but used cars became unreasonably expensive and younger people never tasted the freedom. Planes are like that with even smaller percentages of pilots and even more unreasonable prices (last affordable in the 1960s, while cars were affordable until the early 2000s or so). People hate what they don’t have or understand. Personal vehicles are incredibly liberating for those of us who get it. We’re being shamed for appreciating an independence everyone should experience, but can’t because there are too many people, too much demand, and all the ecological problems that come with it. Yes, human impact could be reduced if everyone lived in abject poverty, but guess what, poor people in developing countries want Western amenities too. Everyone should.
This is so true. Bikes are a wonderful feeling.
I actually spent 8 years going to Burning Man and while I was there I volunteered to fix people’s bikes. A bike is really the best way to get around there but many people borrow one that’s in dubious condition, get out there, and realize it doesn’t ride well, or has no air in the tires, whatever. We helped so many people get those shitty bikes into a rideable state. Lots of flat fixes. Many lube jobs. A lot of people just needed the seat adjusted but didn’t have a wrench. A lot of bad derailleurs we would just remove, turning the bike into a single speed.
My goal was to help people have a week of joy on a bike and remember how awesome they can be. Most Americans ride a bike when they are kids and then abandon them. It gave me a lot of satisfaction to bring all those adults a taste of that joy and freedom again. I hope some of them returned home with a renewed interest in bikes.
Adding to this, I think cars are also often a person’s only private space. Look at the YT videos that are people ranting from their car. It’s all they have. They’re very attached to it.
Further, a lot of Americans are in terrible physical shape. Obese and weak, injured, etc or all of these. But behind the wheel of a beefy car they can feel the joy of movement and power. It’s literally an extension of their body.
Freedom, independence, privacy, strength and power… yeah Americans have a lot invested in their cars. I was brought up into this culture and subscribed to it myself for a long time. Fortunately I just have other ways to feel good about myself now and caring about cars seems stupid and pathetic.
Public transportationdoesn’t have to be economical, it’s a service.
America exists because of the train, which it has since abandoned
Vancouver runs trains through SFH development. Montreal does too. Hell, so does London.
You’re an untravelled idiot and it shows.
Uncalled for antagonism. Boooo.
Don’t say stupid shit if you don’t want to be called out for it 🤷♀️
the western US didn’t even really develop until trains came out in the 1869
The western US didn’t really develop until the government started giving land that had already been ceded to indigenous peoples and couldn’t actually support dense settlement to white settlers, at the behest of railroad companies who needed an artificial reason to build railroads in the first place.
You don’t even need a huge car to travel huge distances.
Unfortunately it’s zoning that caused most of this issue. Not size. Dense residential was disallowed for not entirely un-racist reasons, so it spread out enormously instead. On top of car companies lobbying in various ways to make cars essential.
People also spread out because they could - most people would prefer to have a house with land rather than live in a tiny apt
Tiny apt? Why are you staying home all day? I live most of my day out of the flat, I’m home just to eat and sleep, watch something on TV and play some games
I stay home because I can, and it’s awesome. All my cool stuff and my family is here, but if I wanted to get out and do stuff it’s a short car trip to numerous options for cool stuff to do.
where do you spend your internet time? while at work or?
Suburbs are subsidized by urban areas. Zoning in North America means medium and high density can only be built in limited locations, meaning demand often outstrips supply, increasing the price. The decision of “house with land” vs “tiny apt” isn’t a direct comparison and price influences people’s decisions. If these perverse incentives weren’t in place, more people would consider living in higher density areas with more amenities vs having lots of land and being far away from everything.
Suburban sprawl is also an issue. It takes 20 minutes or more just to walk out of my massive subdivision. It takes 3 or 4 minutes to drive out of the subdivision. And we’re out of city limits, so no bus. It sucks. The only thing that I can say for it is that it’s very safe in terms of crime.
I totally get that fact. I also think that it would not be bad to copy some things from other countries to make the cities in the States more liveable without car dependency. There’s enough space to do that.
At the very least we could link cities with rail systems. Don’t put a million stops on them either though. Try taking Amtrack from DC to Boston and you’ll see what I mean.
just have more than one set of tracks and you can have a regional and express service train!
Passenger trains exist in the U.S. They used to be popular. Then planes and affordable automobiles put them out of business. If you don’t live in a dense urban area, you almost certainly have a car, meaning you aren’t beholden to train schedules and destinations. If you are in an area where you get by without a car, an Uber to the airport gets you to your destination much faster.
I agree and disagree with this. I don’t think the US inherently must be car centric because it’s big. But I do agree that Europe has superior pedestrian infrastructure because it developed for most of its history without cars. Auto and oil industry lobbying has instigated the situation in the US, but their agenda was only achievable because the technology existed to make large scale changes to the terrain, mass produce vehicles, etc. It’s very likely that there were people throughout Europe’s history who tried to monopolize bridges or horse wagons or other forms of transport, but the technology wasn’t sufficient for it to materialize. Warsaw was destroyed during WWII and rebuilt, and it’s developed to be very car-centric compared to other cities in Poland and Europe.
some reasons for the raise of vehicle size on the last decades are personal taste, but others are policy driven, we could look into that, as utility vehicles are treated differently in terms of emission requirements
Or an adequate mass transportation system.
Or walkable zoning, lack of which is the fundamental cause of the car dependency.
The lack of continuous sidewalks drives me nuts. A developer might put in a sidewalk but the one next to them doesn’t. Sometimes you are walking alongside a ditch or have to cross a busy road to continue on.
Almost like it’s designed to be annoying and pedestrian hostile
As much as I’m inclined to agree with @MaggiWuerze@feddit.de, the real reason is typically that all new developments are required to include sidewalks, but existing ones aren’t required to retrofit. So you get a patchwork of sidewalks installed over time as things get torn down and rebuilt.
The “annoying and pedestrian hostile” part is municipalities’ unwillingness to infill sidewalks in front of old developments at taxpayer expense.
Removed by mod
Bullshit. Adequate mass transportation is competitive with a car. You don’t even have to leave North America to see an “adequate” mass transportation system: just go to Montreal, Vancouver, or New York.
Most US cities have mass transportation that’s designed to move around poor people so rich people in cars can’t see them.
Buses aren’t horrible.
- they feel safer in terms of crime, which might not be an issue you deal with but for over half the population it matters
- they can often go around problems. One bus on the same line up ahead has an issue that has no real impact on the bus you are on
- lot easier for the disabled to go on and off compared to down into a subway
- you have a small degree of privacy
- Mechanical problems? Get off the bus. No biggy.
I do understand, I was a subway guy for the longest time, my wife would take the bus every day and she converted me.
Removed by mod
I never drove into Boston, I always took the train. I still needed a car though if I wanted to go anywhere away from the city. Boston also has an awful spoke and no rim train system. If you want to go from the end of one line to another you can’t go in a ring around the city, you’d have to go all the way in then all the way up the other spoke.
Forget small cars, we should be embracing non-motorized ways of transit. Make things human-sized again and allow us to walk and/or bike to destinations rather than having to have a motorized vehicle to get around.
Public transit is obviously a good thing to have, but I think it’s also important to have alternate forms of transit as well.
So much this. It’s infuriating to have to get in a car every time you want to go outside your neighborhood.
I recommend moving to a city
In the US, it’s really only NYC and Chicago that have functioning public transit. If you can’t go to one of those, you’re pretty much out of luck. It’s not like in Europe where every little small to mid-size town has light rail and train connections all over.
NYC (and presumably Chicago - I haven’t been) are the best, that’s true. I’ve also been to Philadelphia and Boston and both had good train systems. I currently live in a medium-sized city that is 90% bus transit, and that can suffice even though it’s not great. It’s an exaggeration to say NYC and Chicago are the only places you can go without a car.
I have managed Denver and San Francisco many times without a car.
The question isn’t about managing, but about convenience. In some cities, public transportation is more convenient than going out and getting a car and dealing with parking and all that noise. That should be the goal, not “it’s manageable.”
You left out Boston
Boston is a maybe. To me, NYC and Chicago are the only places in the US that even come close to letting you live without a car.
You’re funny.
I was just on Block Island, RI the other day. It’s a 10mi^2 island with ferry service and an airport square in the middle of it. Very seasonal economy and the residents are wealthy NIMBY-types.
No trams or trolleys or any mass transit on the island itself. Lots of mopeds and bikes and a surprising amount of cars. We were on foot to a restaurant and approached a 4-way stop and both myself (pedestrian) and the bicyclist next to me were amazed at how hard it was to cross the street with all the taxis and rental cars around.
What a shame. The island should be a model of an ideal “minimal car” community, and could easily become it.
That’s all fun and games until weather happens…and weather is going to happen a lot going forward.
I moved to Europe, grew up in New York near the City and decided to get a moped here to commute. It’s roughly equivalent to an Ebike but was actually cheaper than one and has a 100km range. It’s not highway legal as it has a top speed of 45km/h but can go on bike paths as long as I watch the speed.
After 3 months since I got the moped I am going to get a car because FUCK going to the office in the rain with that thing. The trains and/or busses go on strike about once a month, maybe a little less, and between delays and cancelations I can’t rely on them for my commute. I’ve literally been waiting for the bus and the driver just decides not to stop to pick me up too. Also packages don’t get reliably dropped off at my front door so I need to go into town or to the supermarket next to the highway to pick up my things which becomes untenable when they are bulky. Instead I’m taking taxis at a cost of €30 each way just to pick up shit that should be left at my door.
The dissonance is strong, I still need a car, and I still need one big enough to move bulky crap at least once a month if not more.
And before someone says rent a car, it’s €70+ a day to do so here and I have a preferred account through my employer. I need to book it in advance so it’s not a “same day” thing. Oh and the places they drop the packages off have weird fucking opening times and are often closed when they should be open so I’ve literally spent €60 on taxis to come home with nothing. That time the seller did me a solid and refunded me the €60 as an apology (it was a €350 item).
Give me a new El Camino EV with a 400 mile range and I’m in.
All my road trips are around 150 miles and there may or may not be a charger at the destination.
The article says range isn’t important…if you’ve ever looked at a map of the US, you’ll see why that’s a misguided statement.
To be fair, most people aren’t driving across the US on an even yearly basis, if ever in their lives.
400 miles doesn’t get you halfway across a single state in the western US.
I think you underestimate how many people never leave their home city
But it definitely gets you to the next fast charger to get an 80 percent charge in 10 minutes.
That’s only relevant if you have a mythical car that can charge to 80 in 10 minutes. My car does it in about 90, the Solterra I almost bought has something like a 60 minute 10-80% charge time, and the fastest charging car on the market right now is the EV6 which is (IIRC) still 18 minutes to 80%.
Nevermind that the estimated 350 mile range in an ICE car is pretty spot on, where as a 250 mile range in an EV is best case scenario.
I own an EV, I think EVs are the future, but they’re not there quite yet. Not completely, and not in a way that can compete with a RAV-4, CR-V, or Forester in terms of miles traveled and minutes spent filling up. And often, locations where you want to stop, aren’t the same locations that have a fast charger.
You’re right, the ten minute thing is a goal not a reality right now. But according to multiple sources 10-80 percent charging times range from 20-75 minutes. Unless you’re on some kind of mad dash across the country that is short enough for road trips. For reference that’s 225 miles before lunch; and 200 miles before and after dinner. At highway speeds of 70mph you’re looking at 2 hours and 48 minutes between breaks. If you slow down to the old 55 mph recommendation for conserving energy then it’s 3 hours and 40 minutes. Which neatly divides for two drivers avoiding highway hypnosis. (2 hour max shift)
Now I admit that this is theoretical, and more planning than most people do for road trips these days. But it is very doable to schedule meals during charging.
EV makers are doing what they did for mpg with gas cars: put out numbers for “ideal” charge times and range that are way off of reality.
To my knowledge the only one that’s been caught straight up lying is Tesla.
Yup, I’m OK with a Ranchero EV with a 150 mile range.
Just city to city is typically at least 150mi one way. Maybe on the southern coasts, if I was really a homebody, could I get away with something under 150mi range.
There’s no way anyone in Texas is going anywhere in a standard range EV for example.
I drove from Minnesota to Kansas in an EV. Wasn’t too bad, just a few stops to charge. I needed to eat and go for a walk, anyways
95% of trips are 30 miles or less. Of course everyone is the exception, we’re all above average drivers here.
A car is too big of an investment to fail to take you from point A to B 1 in every 20 trips.
That’s a terrible statistic…of course most of my travel happens around where I live.
If anything…that actually reveals long trips are more common than you think…For every 19 times you go to work or the store the 20th trip is significant…
In other words, if your number I right…Once to Twice a month the average person would likely require an extended range EV.
The number of people breaking through 150 miles in a single trip is significantly lower than 95%. 150 mile range is plenty for them.
I’ve driven more than 150 miles once in the last three years
I guess I’m in the 5 percent? But still small cars can take long trips. That’s a frustrating thing, people assuming you need a modern day Conestoga wagon to do a road trip.
Something like the Maverick hybrid might be best for you.
But then you have to deal with driving a ford.
My dream car is a Nash Metropolitan converted to an EV.
deleted by creator
I can’t be the only one who wants a 1990 Ford ranger sized pickup for moving materials around. The only options on the market are absolutely massive. The CAFE standards had the compete opposite effect from what was intended…
deleted by creator
Americans will embrace small cars when we don’t need to drive 1+hours every single day.
So I live in the cousin-fuckingly-deep south where 90% of what’s on the road is trying its best to be a monster truck… I drive what looks like a pregnant rollerskate by comparison cuz I don’t want to send half my paycheck into the gas tank.
It’s funny-sad how the folks in the giant trucks get offended just by seeing my tiny car. Every day there’s always at least one asshole in an F-350 or some shit that likes to ride up on my ass cuz I guess it makes them feel powerful? I just drop a mph every couple seconds until either they fuck off or get annoyed enough to pass.
Anyway, moral of the story is that stupid-big vehicles are here to stay in the US, at least in the regions occupied by Y’all Quaeda. Their trucks are one of their few sources of self esteem.
…I’m really tempted to find one of those rubber testicle things that the cowboys like to put between the rear wheels of their trucks, but like a comically tiny one, color it like the trans flag, and hang it on the back of my tiny car just to annoy the rednecks on the road. …although here, that’d probably get my car or myself shot.
I got the chevy spark right before it got discontinued and the amount of people who comment on my small car in the south is obsurd. It’s great being able to fit into a parking spot between 2 monster trucks and it only costs like 25 dollars for a tank of gas. People who see vehicles as more than just a means of transportation baffles me. I like the tiny truck nuts idea I might have to steal that.
It’s time for Americans to stop spending so much time in their cars. Emissions from burning hydrocarbons are destroying the planet.
Problem is that American cities were designed around cars. Getting anywhere on foot, especially for those who live in suburban areas, is basically impossible.
It’s not just the cities. Try living anywhere in the US that’s not a city.
Removed by mod
i no your no (ya know?)
I’m not saying you are wrong, because you are definitely right, but I just want to put some context/scale along side this.
28% of greenhouse gas emission comes from transportation. of that 28%, 58% of that is classified as light-medium duty vehicles (consumer vehicles). So ~16% (58% of 28%) of greenhouse emissions are from consumer daily life.
16% is pretty big. Id love to see a dent in that. However, another 48% of the overall greenhouse emissions is energy production (25%) and industry (23%), and I think that’s another area we can probably hammer on hard, and should probably start there since its a considerably larger percentage, and the targeted base actually has funds to make changes.
Hard to avoid spending so much time in our cars when rent and housing prices force us to live in them.
