this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
71 points (92.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

46917 readers
1134 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know the demographics around here, so I know everyone's just going to put "nothing lol", but please understand what I'm asking first.

I'm physically incapable of driving a car. I stand to gain immeasurably from a world that didn't assume everyone owned one. Having loved-ones with respiratory issues aggravated by car exhaust has made me very aware of the health issues surrounding the burning of fossil fuels, and having to navigate sidewalkless suburban stroads on a regular basis and juggle poorly funded public transit has made it very clear to me that pedestrians are second class citizens. I could go on and on about the mess cars have made of urban planning, and the number of jobs I couldn't take because they required driving, but I digress.

In short, I hate cars just as much as the rest of you. But I'm also conscious that a lot of other people feel differently. What does widespread car ownership enable that would be difficult or impossible otherwise?

As an American I'm familiar with the cultural aura that surrounds the automobile. One of the early episodes of Mythbusters explained this pretty well while digging into the folklore surrounding a particular car-related urban legend. Cars represent freedom and self determination, two qualities highly prized in American society. You can go where you want when you want, without relying on schedules and routes mandated by public transit[^1].

Looking at more tangible things, I suppose hauling a bunch of stuff from point A to point B would be hard without a car.

But what else am I missing?

[^1]: Ignoring the fact you can only go where there are roads, and someone has to build and maintain those roads.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

So for example, last night I went to see a play with my wife in the big city we live outside. 8pm show. Our location has better options than most in the US for public transit, but still not enough to fully rely upon and it’s hard to envision that changing.

We have a regional transit rail system we could have taken. It would drop us off close enough to the theater, perhaps 2 city blocks.

But the station is 6km from our house so the problem is on this end. We live in an area that’s not quite rural, more suburban, but it is out on the open countryside a bit and this natural beauty is what we love about living here.

We do have excellent bike lanes and even a network of bike trails that are separated from the roads. Our local station is about a 20 minute ride. We can do it but we’re in our 50s and it’s not our first choice when getting dressed up for a date night to begin with 20 minutes of vigorous exercise. And we would have had to repeat that ride at 11pm on the way home, tired, with a glass of wine in our bellies.

So the problem I guess is our home location. We live in a medium-to-small sized town that’s nestled up against a state park. The only public transit I can really imagine would be a bus system and it would have to cover a very wide area with many vehicles to serve this region. And even then I can’t imagine it would be quick.

I would still prefer a world without cars. I guess I’m just telling you why cars still fit into our needs and why our options are.

In the future I’m pretty optimistic that we can change the math on busses. Autonomous vehicles would allow us to move away from large busses piloted by a human driver to many smaller ones with more comprehensive coverage and better approximation of point-to-point transit.

The appeal of this path is that it’s something car-centric areas can transition to smoothly. We can get mass autonomous bus service going without banning cars and building rail lines or other large projects.

A small country that was laid out centuries ago, before cars, has a different layout and distribution of people that makes things like rail work better. The problem is that the US is huge and was built on cars, which are excellent for spreading individuals out with no regard for central planning.

Today’s generation of Americans are stuck with cars and not always in love with them. The way our population is distributed, it’s hard for mass transit to replace them, so it really doesn’t matter how great civic rail works in Lisbon.

We might address the topic of whether it’s responsible for people to be so spread out. I would certainly have a hard time saying goodbye to my beautiful natural surroundings.

[–] peepeepoopoo@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I'm going to assume that in such a world, every city including the bullshit ones have reliable transportation that's good enough to not be much more time consuming than driving. Because it would be too easy and lame to say "well taking the bus to work takes 4 hours and driving takes 45 minutes so I literally could not survive that".

You would be losing the ability to drive to the nearest legal state and smuggle back weed. 🤷 I mean, the Flock cameras basically were invented to catch people doing this anyway. So maybe we would lose nothing after all.

[–] Tinks@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

For me personally, the loss of a car means potentially the loss of certain hobbies. I like to go camping and backpacking, and that means taking a certain amount of gear out into remote areas. While I might be able to minimize the amount of gear needed, there's no getting around the remoteness of the hobby, and that necessitates a car for transportation.

The other hobby is dog related. I enjoy doing things, including sports, with my dog. Transporting the dog, at least as it currently stands in America, requires a car. Large dogs are not allowed on public transit pretty much anywhere here. When you also consider that I may be taking jumps or poles or other larger equipment with me to train in new places, losing access to a car makes that a near impossibility.

I'd go so far as to say many outdoor recreation hobbies either require or are made easier by having a car or larger personal transport. Kayaks, boats, skis and snowboards, fishing poles and the list goes on and on. Sure you could setup rental places, but if you do a hobby a lot you ultimately want to own your gear so you can get something that suits your preferences and needs.

I'm not opposed to a less car-centric society, but eliminating personal vehicles would make many hobbies problematic or impossible.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

This. I work from home so I barely use my car during weekdays but I spend most of the weekends climbing or hiking and it would be impossible without a car. Public transport is never going to take me to the middle of nowhere. Without cars we would be stuck in metropolitan areas and its surroundings. Visiting more remote places would be very time consuming.

[–] Tinks@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Yep same. Work from home, have my groceries delivered and most other things I can do online. As it currently stands my car is used to take my dogs to an enrichment program twice a week, and for recreation. Without my car my hobbies would essentially completely end. There may be some places where public transit would work for hiking and backpacking, but where I live options are limited and the closest place I can legally backpack is an hour away by car, and it's a small 4 mile loop. Anything more significant requires a multi-hour trip. Even IF public transit existed for it, I don't want to go and leave my dog at home, bored all weekend, because he's not allowed on a bus or train. Part of my joy in hiking and backpacking is sharing the experience with him. Right now his world is huge and full of adventures. Without a car his world becomes the size of my neighborhood, and that's just depressing.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are missing that a lot of people do not live in cities. In a city, access to public transport is basically anytime, anywhere. Outside of city centers, public transport is very, very limited, even in Europe. Without a car, you are basically lost.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

public transit for outer suburban and rural areas is also a major economic loser. the ridership is too low to basically fund the service and it must be run at massive losses.

this same problem is affecting rural healthcare and other community resources. most rural people are far better off commuting 2hrs+ to a urban hospital that is better staffed.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago

I hate cars. My wife loves them. Now I sometimes talk about my wifes medical issues and im generally talking about about her physical ones. Now I know you say most people but like it would not be impossible for her to ride public transit. Heck people in wheelchairs do it. But its a pain and additionally when she was healthier she could just not mentally handle it. If im with her she can but still does not like it. To use bike lanes they have to be completely protected and separated from the street (again she would also have to be back when she was in better health). She would walk but again with me. She needed that support. She did not need that support when driving. The car for her is safety and feedom. Its funny as its kinda opposite to me. A car means possibly being broken down at the side of the road with no way to get home whereas a transit pass makes me feel safe. When I drive I am engaging in an activity that is very disproportionally large in possibly injuring or killing someone compared to absolutely everything else I do. Now if society was filled with people like me the suburbs would disapear and we could hav a lot less cars, but for folks like my wife. So let me put it this way. I actually just got up and talked with her to really place her here. I honestly though she would choose having a car over indoor plumbing. But she draws the line at indoor plumbing. So she would exchange the internet, electricity, phones, tv, raido. She would rather live in a world with indoor plumbing and gas light/heat with a car. Than live with all our conveniences without a car. I will tell you to. She is waaaayyy moderated on this stuff having lived with me. So like I think if she was in great health and there was fantastic bike infrastructure and we could live in a safe dense urban area. I think she would go for it. But it would have to be so perfect relative to me as to be impossible for it to come to be.

[–] zlatiah@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think I'd be a good person to answer this. I've lived in Houston (needless to say, extremely car-friendly) without a car for almost 2 years; currently I'm living in a city that banned cars within its city center in 2015 which resulted in very visible changes, but the rest of the country is still very pro-car and quite car-friendly

A couple of things that cars benefit everyday life that would be difficult to do without a car. There's probably more but these are the ones I can think of:

  • Accessibility to places that have difficulty justifying being served by public transit. These include poorer neighborhoods that are far away from city center, semi-rural natural preserves, extreme geographical difficulties, ... Case in point, Houston has a lot of nature/green spaces that were 20-30 miles outside of the city center... good luck getting to these without a car (trust me, I tried once)
  • For certain physically disabled people, driving would be easier than walking/biking/public transit... Especially in particularly hilly cities, centuries-old cities where roads were paved no better than playgrounds, or sometimes both. This can be somewhat mitigated with good infrastructure projects, but cars are usually an easier solution
  • Car-free zones can get very crowded, very fast. This is usually a good thing in terms of urbanism... but some find it uncomfortable for various reasons. My current city is actually a rather extreme example: they are now considering banning bikes in the city center too, due to pedestrian injuries
  • I know cars are prone to needing repair, but with how the road network functions, personal vehicles can reduce a lot of dependencies on external factors such as public transit being functional. Case in point, two months ago NL's national rail company became essentially non-operational due to extreme weather, which would be rather devastating if your only way of commuting to work relies on the train

Also I think some positive points associated with cars are doable without cars:

  • Hauling stuff from point A to point B: delivery companies and car-rentals exist for a reason! This is surprisingly doable even without owning a car (you are technically using someone else's car in this case). Of course doing it without your own car will be more expensive... but we do have the logistics for it, especially if the entire society shifts to a car-free model
  • Not all rural areas need cars: some are actually quite doable by walking alone due to how small they are (I have a friend who lives in a rural American town like that: yes everyone drives, but everything is also 30-minutes on foot if you don't mind walking). And there are quite a few parts of the world where rural towns are served by trains frequently
  • Road trips: scenic railways exist for a reason... and unlike point 1 I made, sightseeing trains actually do make money, so there is pretty good justification for building them
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

NL’s national rail company became essentially non-operational

Don’t forget the Internet and ability for some of us to work from home, which is a relatively recent change. If I depended on rail service and there was an outage, it would be no big deal since I can work from home

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 71 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I live in a rural area over 30 miles from the nearest city in a town with a population in the low thousands. The nearest place I can get any goods is over 4 miles away. I’d be completely fucked without a car.

I know that’s not everyone’s situation, but just pointing out there are people living in remote places with no other transportation options.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's how it is out here too.

Especially in the winter when we can easily have a foot of snow on the ground.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

My property doesn’t even have paving, and trying to get the drive graveled was such a pain I just ended up slapping on all-terrain tires, both to deal with getting on and off the property slope in mud, and also because there’s country roads (dirt/sand) here and street tires suck on that in general and especially when it snows.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Especially since public transit is usually locally funded (at least in the US), in areas like this the tax base doesn't exist to be able to functionally fund public transit. We would need to completely rethink and re-organize how public transit is funded and rolled out for this to functionally work in remote areas.

Or, you know, we could continue lettings cars be a thing for remote populations kind of like how in some far northern territories people use snowmobiles to get around part of the year because there's simply too much snow to try to use another type of vehicle at all.

I think the latter, having specific types of transportation still be a thing in places where they're needed, makes a lot more sense, honestly.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I kind of agree, but I’ll admit, I wouldn’t give up my car. I moved out here because I wanted out of city life and into more nature and quiet life. I only drive into town every 6 weeks for groceries and necessities in bulk and there’s no way I could haul all that on public transit. I want to be in the city as little as possible.

Well, like I said, I honestly think public transit doesn't make very much sense for remote areas. I think it makes far more sense to give people the types of transportation that work best for their use case, and in remote areas: that's cars.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The late 19th century USAmerican colonization of Native American land shows that you don't need cars to make an industrial rural society. Trains will work just fine. This means you build towns to be walkable and centered around a train station, with agriculture surrounding each town. Modern heavily mechanized agriculture might make population densities so low that even this is not viable, but the products still need to be transported, so you can have trains that stop at each megafarm which can also carry passengers if necessary. When I was in Queensland a few years ago, I saw mechanized agriculture use a bespoke railway network to supply a factory, so clearly even now despite all the fossil fuel and car subsidies it's economically viable.

Though as you may know, industrial agriculture is dumb and unsustainable. Desertification due to requiring too much water, climate change due to fertilizer consumption, industrial pollution that kills millions of people per year and destroys ecosystems, lack of genetic diversity causing crop blights that risk famines or global shortages, insecticides that cause cancer and destroy ecosystems, most of it being wasted on the meat industry and on maintaining massive surpluses and exports to ensure western global domination, etc.

If we want to do agriculture right, we want to do food forests. It's more labor per calorie, but it's resilient, local, and it doesn't make the planet uninhabitable by the next century. Food forests are more compact too, which means that a rural population tending food forests can have a much higher population density, or can consist of large villages separated by rewilded natural landscape (and/or low density food forests for migratory communties). This makes trains even more convenient to get around because they can run more frequently.

Meanwhile if you want to live in the wilderness away from these towns, then an absence of car roads means you can live far away while only being a couple kilometers away. So you still don't need a car because you can just hike along a trail to get to town in under an hour. Need to carry a lot of stuff? Use a Chinese wheelbarrow. Maybe a battery-powered one with stability and steering assistance if you don't feel like getting exercise. They carry more than a modern American SUV and they don't murder children either.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

19th century rural life consisted of you and your family living on barely more than subsistence farming and not seeing or interacting with anyone outside your family or immediate neighbors for months at a time.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 points 12 hours ago

Glad we live in the 21st century then, where the rest of my comment applies.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Some of these responses are crazy. Just because it’s the rurals doesn’t mean I don’t have a full time job, responsibilities, and limited free time, particularly in daytime hours. I need a reasonable means to haul things and go places, and to do it within reasonable time frames.

I got people suggesting horse, bikes, and now Chinese wheelbarrows for getting groceries every few weeks going around 65 miles round trip, y’all are killing me. 🤣

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 0 points 22 hours ago

Please actually read my comment, thank you.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

4 miles is nothing on a bike, 30 isn't too crazy either. I think people misunderstand just how far you can travel on a bicycle. Having the infrastructure to do it is another matter though, there's some super dangerous country roads where it's 50+mph with no shoulders.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

As I noted to the person who recommended the horse, I can’t carry 6 weeks of groceries 30-odd miles on a bike. The local store has basics but is far from everything I’d need, and generally at a hefty mark-up for a lot of things not produced locally (it’s how they can stay in business, I’m not judging).

If I just needed to travel somewhere that would be fine, but when I leaves home it’s generally not for a joyride.

——

Edit - also, as with the horse, it’s illegal to ride a bike on interstate highways, and I wouldn’t want to with posted speed limits being 75 mph with the average speed being over 80 mph through most of the trip. There’s literally no other road leading into town, so otherwise the entire trip would involve off-roading through rolling hills and rough terrain.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm not saying it would be practical in your case, but you could definitely carry 6 weeks of groceries on a cargo bike (electric would be better given the load though).

Hell, you might even be able to do that on a regular bike. I can fit at least 60 liters of groceries into my Portola (a compact folding e-bike), and that isn't even including the top rear cargo rack. In an actual mid-sized cargo bike, you could probably fit like 2+ months of groceries.

If you don't have a safe path to get there though, it doesn't really matter how much you can fit onto any bike. In your case, you'd need a motorcycle.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago

You'll probably manage just fine in a city.

Living in rural areas mass transit quickly becomes madness. Schedules are infrequent and routes are weird, and if you make them frequent and direct you suddenly drive around an empty bus while still building the exact same road you would for the few cars.

Quite frankly the grand majority of things lost by a lack of car ownership could just as easily be made up by just building better infrastructure

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago

Highly depend on where you live. In the US especially, we had a lot of post-wwii growth designed around cars so a lot of places make anything else a challenge.

Cars may represent freedom and self determination, but can seem awfully limiting in a city with good walkability and transit, even in the US. When I lived in Boston, it was so much more freeing to walk out my front door and have the entire city accessible. More than that, since Acela and the airport were also accessible.

I never gave up my car though, between things like shopping and visiting people outside the city. But now that we have options like delivery, ride share, e-bikes, and hourly car rentals, those would be much easier.

But now I live in a suburb, and even here I walk a lot more than typical Americans. The key is older towns built out before cars. I live in the first ring of single family houses less than a mile from the town center. We have a “Main Street” shopping and restaurant area, a common, and train station. There’s also a trail Along the River and a rail trail through town that are easily accessible. Over pandemic my family started a tradition where every weekend we walked down to our favorite Pakistani restaurant, grabbed takeout, and ate dinner on benches on the town common.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago (11 children)

I'm less likely to get assaulted when my parents drive me somewhere vs having to take public transport.

I'm Asian American and I still have anxiety about the post-covid racism.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I'm pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.

My penultimate child was at university about 10 miles from the house. There was a bus that got within a couple blocks of the sprawling campus, so I told her take the bus, but a year in said she could use my car and I'd walk to work since my commute was so short. That gained her about 3 hours per school day and lost me about one hour. Car is a time machine.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Personally (city dweller) a car is a time machine. I can get where I need to go mostly on a bike or my feet, but if I’m pressed for time - and that happens plenty - a car can get me there faster.

If your city were designed properly, that wouldn't be true. Not that it was the most scientific thing in the world, but Top Gear famously demonstrated biking being faster than driving across London, for example.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Oh we have the worst, most starved public transportation, half the buses run only every hour, and on the bike to work - only to work - I do occasionally get there faster if there is traffic but there is no bike lane, I either use the sidewalk if no pedestrians, or the road if people are using the sidewalk. Traffic has to be pretty damn bad before I can move faster than the cars, I still have to stop at the same lights.

We have the most generous annual E bike voucher raffle in the nation, I believe, and the city is working on bike lanes, but really, the road between my house & work has no bike infrastructure at all. The public transportation problems are because that's funded by the county not the city, the suburbs don't want to pay for it. But inside the city we need it.

[–] Lag@piefed.world 12 points 2 days ago

Schedules matter less when you have more frequent transportation. Renting a truck, or ordering a taxi/uber xl would be lower in cost than paying for and maintaining a truck. Obviously there's a line somewhere in the middle when it makes sense to own and unfortunately it's pushed further because our Costcos are 50 miles away instead of having smaller corner shops.

load more comments
view more: next ›