this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
579 points (98.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

15339 readers
664 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] becausechemistry@piefed.social 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think it’s possible to accept that, while a city without cars obviously preferable, the electrification of vehicles is still a net positive given the enormous inertia of car culture.

[–] nuko147@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The only problem they will solve is air/noise pollution and maybe power efficiency. But for urban planning the space usage is the same, and traffic jams are the same. Also they move the same ammount of people.

They are a small upgrade in general (maybe more for cities with high air pollution).

[–] No_Maines_Land@lemmy.ca 9 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Not much noise reduction. After 50 kph, tires are louder than engines anyways.

Sure there are the occasional busted/"tuned" exhaust comes out very loud, but the majority of the din is just wheels on the road.

[–] spacesatan@leminal.space 1 points 10 hours ago

My experience living 1 block away from an interstate in Denver was that 95% of the time you barely notice the highway. The 5% of the time is exhaust noise and subwoofers.

[–] SpaceScotsman@startrek.website 5 points 18 hours ago

While this is true, cars of any kind shouldn't be going faster than 50k in a town/city anyway

[–] nuko147@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Yeah even the air they push makes more noise. Electric buses are another story though.

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 6 points 23 hours ago

It embeds the existing dominant individual, resource-wasting mode of transport even deeper into the culture (and urban planning). That makes it a negative for urban environments. Bit different story in very sparsely populated areas.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Is it? I think if you include opportunity cost and "well i switched to an electric car now i falsely believe the problem is solved", not so much.

It's just easier, in some ways, because it's a smaller change.

Net positives mean something, though. We want a 10/10 solution, but saying an achievable 6/10 is the same as no change at all is exactly what the people who oppose us want us to think. That if we can’t get rid of every car on the road, we might as well have done nothing. That’s terrible! Of course we can make things incrementally better!

We all want cars to generally go away from what should be walkable areas. Replace them with public transit and bikes and just walking. That kind of culture shift is going to take generations. Less smog and carbon dioxide being spewed into the air is a good thing. (Provided the trend towards solar and wind power continues.)

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

It’s easier because I can make the decision myself and I can do it without much planning or coordination. I replace my car periodically anyway, so there may be no real difference (in my case my ice car was nine years old and I needed something for my teens to use, so an EV was the logical choice)

Modifying a city for walkability takes many years, decades, even assuming everyone else agrees, politicians are supportive, and there is some sort of budget. We can’t afford to just wait for the ideal solution

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Assuming people get electric vehicles when their combustion cars reach end of life and not just trading in a four year old SUV for its electric variant, the I think it is.

Ignoring the ideal wherein privately owned vehicles decrease over time, of course. Continued development of EVs will be a benefit in terms of battery technology and motor efficiency, among other things.

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The efficiency of an EV SUV will never be anywhere near the efficiency of an (electric) bicycle. Motor and battery efficiency also improves for bicycles. The bicycle will always need only a fraction of the resources, in materials, electricity and occupied space.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

Yes I agree. I didn't imply an SUV is somehow better than a few bikes. My comment wasn't an argument for cars nor continuing car dependancy, only touching on a benefit from their manufacture - negatives often do have silver linings.

In a non car dependant future, I'd still expect the buses and ambulances and whatnot else to be electric.