7 ms·

Clearly you didn’t grow up rural.

by jophde 7y ago

lkbm 7y ago
I frew up just outside a town of under 10000 people, and I still agree. We need them some places, but they've infested everywhere.
- jophde 7y ago
  When people in places like that need to get to the city for a doctor do you recommend horse drawn wagon?
  - lkbm 7y ago
    > We need them some places
    - jophde 7y ago
      Missed that. Regardless you are agreeing with the OP that they are the worst things humans invented while acknowledging we need them some places is a bit contradictory.
      - lkbm 7y ago
        Yeah, it is to some extent. (Also, the OP actually said "personal vehicles", which is definitely way broader than I'm meaning to argue. Bicycles are personal vehicles.) A better formulation: Cars in their current form and predominance are terrible. Done right, we would still have pickups for moving heavy loads, and some speedy form of transport for moving around individuals, but would it be two tons of steel? Imagine a world with no cars where you make this proposal: each person gets a two-ton machine that can go up to 100 mph, its direction determined by a driver-controlled steering wheel. We're going to have people as young as 16, with maybe 30 hours of training drive it on a curvy 20-foot-wide road. Now the machine's only ~six feet wide, so we'll divide this road into two 10-foot lanes separated by a painted line down the middle. People will go 55 mph on one side while other people go 55 mph in the opposite direction just on the other side. It's safe, because people know to stay on their side of the line, except sometimes when they're expected to cross over briefly if they think someone else is going too slowly. As mentioned, the vehicle can go 100 mph. The only thing keeping it at 55 is that the driver is expected to press and hold a pedal at just the right pressure. This proposal would be shot down so hard. Someone would probably object that this crazy idea is likely to end up being the leading(?) cause of death for people under the age of 30. We're in a situation where it's the best we have in rural areas, but if we really thought about it, we could come up with something better. We need them in this world, because we built this world to need them.
        jophde 7y ago
        Dirtbikes, ATVs are better at traversing the terrain and we wouldn't need roads. If you want to get anywhere you need to go fast. The problem is speed kills. Even with all of the gear it's significantly safer to be a two ton steel cage. Personal helicopters would be ideal but that seems cost prohibitive and amateur flight isn't legal. The allure of the car is independent transportation. I suppose self driving cars would help the safety issue if they work but they still need roads.
PascLeRasc 7y ago
Correct, thanks for noticing!

Clearly you didn’t grow up rural.

by jophde 7y ago

Clearly you didn’t grow up rural.

lkbm 7y ago

I frew up just outside a town of under 10000 people, and I still agree. We need them some places, but they've infested everywhere.

jophde 7y ago
When people in places like that need to get to the city for a doctor do you recommend horse drawn wagon?
- lkbm 7y ago
  > We need them some places
  - jophde 7y ago
    Missed that. Regardless you are agreeing with the OP that they are the worst things humans invented while acknowledging we need them some places is a bit contradictory.
    - lkbm 7y ago
      Yeah, it is to some extent. (Also, the OP actually said "personal vehicles", which is definitely way broader than I'm meaning to argue. Bicycles are personal vehicles.) A better formulation: Cars in their current form and predominance are terrible. Done right, we would still have pickups for moving heavy loads, and some speedy form of transport for moving around individuals, but would it be two tons of steel? Imagine a world with no cars where you make this proposal: each person gets a two-ton machine that can go up to 100 mph, its direction determined by a driver-controlled steering wheel. We're going to have people as young as 16, with maybe 30 hours of training drive it on a curvy 20-foot-wide road. Now the machine's only ~six feet wide, so we'll divide this road into two 10-foot lanes separated by a painted line down the middle. People will go 55 mph on one side while other people go 55 mph in the opposite direction just on the other side. It's safe, because people know to stay on their side of the line, except sometimes when they're expected to cross over briefly if they think someone else is going too slowly. As mentioned, the vehicle can go 100 mph. The only thing keeping it at 55 is that the driver is expected to press and hold a pedal at just the right pressure. This proposal would be shot down so hard. Someone would probably object that this crazy idea is likely to end up being the leading(?) cause of death for people under the age of 30. We're in a situation where it's the best we have in rural areas, but if we really thought about it, we could come up with something better. We need them in this world, because we built this world to need them.
      - jophde 7y ago
        Dirtbikes, ATVs are better at traversing the terrain and we wouldn't need roads. If you want to get anywhere you need to go fast. The problem is speed kills. Even with all of the gear it's significantly safer to be a two ton steel cage. Personal helicopters would be ideal but that seems cost prohibitive and amateur flight isn't legal. The allure of the car is independent transportation. I suppose self driving cars would help the safety issue if they work but they still need roads.

PascLeRasc 7y ago

Correct, thanks for noticing!