Good video about the dangers and downsides of US SUVs.

[mindless1]

If you live in the rural area, a pickup truck could be a sensible choice. Not so much in the city. In the suburbs, unless you are using it for your work, large vehicles are just a waste.

Larger vehicles allow hauling more, including groceries from the store, more people, people with limited physical ability to cram into a small automobile, provide more collision protection, allow for more robust all wheel drive and ground clearance to counter things like snow, and I'm sure other benefits that don't come to mind at the moment.

Society is finding that SUVs are a useful, larger size. You can argue away one person's reasons for it but when society as a whole is doing it, that trend is not so easily dismissed as "not needed" as if something has to be a dire need rather than a convenience or even a little bit of luxury in their lives. Luxuries, whatever they may be, are an incentive for people to aspire to do more in life, and give back to society. The average person does not train and/or work harder to not end up with more.

I acknowledge that it is most probable that too many people choose a pickup truck as their primary daily driver, but also acknowledge that it's not my place to decide for them how they indulge in whatever luxuries they want in life. Where would that end? A free market where people get to make choices is a good thing.

 

[sdifox]

Larger vehicles allow hauling more, including groceries from the store, more people, people with limited physical ability to cram into a small automobile, provide more collision protection, allow for more robust all wheel drive and ground clearance to counter things like snow, and I'm sure other benefits that don't come to mind at the moment.

Society is finding that SUVs are a useful, larger size. You can argue away one person's reasons for it but when society as a whole is doing it, that trend is not so easily dismissed as "not needed" as if something has to be a dire need rather than a convenience or even a little bit of luxury in their lives. Luxuries, whatever they may be, are an incentive for people do aspire to do more in life, and give back to society.

I acknowledge that it is most probable that too many people choose a pickup truck as their primary daily driver, but also acknowledge that it's not my place to decide for them how they indulge in whatever luxuries they want in life. Where would that end? A free market where people get to make choices is a good thing.

A minivan or wagon would do the job. A larger mass just means you are going to transfer more momentum when you get into an accident. But the automakers pushed SUV cuz they make more so here we are. I am also worried about the mass of the EVs and what they are doing about pedestrian collision mitigation.

When we had to get a bigger car due to incoming twins (and with a older kid, the E350 4Matic wasn't big enough), I looked at Enclave and Odyssey. There was barely enough room for the twin loadout and my son. With the Odyssey I had plenty of room to carry 8 people including the two car seats and the stroller and bag. Very practical. You can carry your drywall/plywood/dimensional lumber in the Odyssey no problem, as long as you are not expecting to carry a whole skid of it. Rent a cubevan for those odd times.

I carried a (taken apart) dining table that can seat six in a Protege5 for crying out loud.


Wife wanted a big SUV but I managed to talk her down to a CUV.

 

[mindless1]

People are more important than Cars. If you don't live in an area, it is a Privilege for you to go there. The people who Live there have more Right to determine their environment than outsiders do.

People, as a modern society, are what they are because of cars.

It is not a privilege to go anywhere. It was and still is an advancement of our species to travel further, and faster, including eventual travel into space and colonization elsewhere if not space cities where unfortunately, people will be crammed together like sardines, or mice.

People who live somewhere certainly have a right to have their share of input and control over the environment. Most people want to be able to travel using personal motorized vehicles and want the pedestrians and cyclists to GTFO of their way.

 

[mindless1]

A minivan or wagon would do the job. A larger mass just means you are going to transfer more momentum when you get into an accident. But the automakers pushed suv cuz they make more so here we are. I am also worried about the mass of the EVs and what they are doing about pedestrian collision mitigation.

A minivan or wagon certainly could do a lot of the same jobs, but not all, and then it's still a larger vehicle than necessary if we exclude utility and only focus on transporting a small # of people in ideal circumstances, and either will still get worse fuel economy than a car. It's shades of gray before reaching some assumption that we'd have to get all the way to the extreme of a redneck brodozer as the arguing point, or as with the YT video, try to make SUVs seem like 30 year old trucks instead of what most are today.

A larger mass does not "just" mean you are going to transfer more momentum in an accident. It also means more mass for structure and crumple zone area to absorb impacts with other vehicles or massive and/or immovable objects. There is no debating that all else equal, a larger vehicle is safer to be in during a collision.

They don't need to do much about pedestrian collusion mitigation because being an SUV is not the primary problem. Distractions are, including distracted pedestrians, and MORE pedestrians are also a problem. Where pedestrian population is the most dense is where most automobile-pedestrian accidents occur, not on some 40MPH throughway in a city that spans a greater distance than most people are willing to walk.

I'm not dismissing the greater harm done to pedestrians during collisions, rather feel that we can find alternatives that are better than the idea of making vehicles that are safer to run into people with, lol !

It's been quite a few years that I've been a pedestrian as well as an automobile driver. I've not been collided with once as a pedestrian. Prevention seems far more important than damage mitigation, or else we should require all pedestrians to wear helmets and other body armor? A larger vehicle is more body armor too.

The larger problem I'm seeing is congestion, with people putting on what seems like a very high yearly mileage of 13K5 and that is only the average. For every person like myself that does not drive near 13K5 a year, there are the others equally exceeding that. It's another area where better city planning (and personal life choices) could be done but not to better facilitate pedestrians but rather, to make automobile travel more efficient in distance traveled without the redundancy of having multiple locations serving the same needs at distances so close that people can walk to them.

People shouldn't have to walk any further than necessary in public, to limit their exposure to vehicles, and thus, reduce the collision rate.

 

[sandorski]

People, as a modern society, are what they are because of cars.

It is not a privilege to go anywhere. It was and still is an advancement of our species to travel further, and faster, including eventual travel into space and colonization elsewhere if not space cities where unfortunately, people will be crammed together like sardines, or mice.

People who live somewhere certainly have a right to have their share of input and control over the environment. Most people want to be able to travel using personal motorized vehicles and want the pedestrians and cyclists to GTFO of their way.

OK, but that is changing. People are more interested in getting places than in the How to get places. Personal Vehicles may offer the greatest Travel freedom, but other forms of travel allow different freedoms, especially in regards to finances and variety of travel options. If everything you need is at most a 15 minute Walk, you no longer need a Personal vehicle for those tasks.

Do you see the advantage to that?

 

[Torn Mind]

I see the discussion continues to be vague about the particulars of which SUVs are the subject of the matter. Because, there is a difference in driving experience between a truck mod and the mid size derivative like a Venza. Or the smaller RAV4. They might as well be a station wagon...

Also, SUVs being "killing machine" may be an irrelevant point on the basis of where the accidents occur. Since the video's supposed premise is for making cities better, accident data and results like death from suburbs or rural schools or roads are...utterly irrelevant to that premise. The video's maker may have started with making cities better, but could not help himself lapsing into a full emotional evisceration of SUVs, rife with appeals to morality and painting the users as...murderers. Nor do small cars "protect cyclist". The option cities take like DC is to block access of any vehicles intruding on dedicated bike lanes.

Regarding the truck mods SUVs....they're still trucks and have all the issues of driving a truck...meaning less parking convenience and well...fear of scraping stuff. Thus, it is likely that for someone to deliberately pick such a more inconivinent vehicle, they do have something to do that justifies their selection.

 

[mindless1]

OK, but that is changing. People are more interested in getting places than in the How to get places. Personal Vehicles may offer the greatest Travel freedom, but other forms of travel allow different freedoms, especially in regards to finances and variety of travel options. If everything you need is at most a 15 minute Walk, you no longer need a Personal vehicle for those tasks.

Do you see the advantage to that?

Of course I see advantages but not as much as the detractions. Plus it is nearly impossible for everything you need to be at most a 15 minute walk away, unless people are crammed together like sardines and you don't really mean everything, just the most common things and even then, due to economy of scale, things like manufacturing and distribution of goods becomes far more expensive if not impossible.

The quality of life would necessarily go down. Take the local Amazon warehouse for example, people that live right next to the property, cannot walk from their home to a work station they'd have if employed there, within 15 minutes, nor could they walk to the local warehouse district and be at a work station in 15 minutes, nor even walk to and around a modern grocery store to gather enough food to hold a family over before having to go back for more food, since they are pedestrians and have limited hauling ability. Even this, is only considering people in their most fit years of life, good health and ideal weather, providing for themselves rather than raising a family. It can be done, but there are many trade offs to be made.

It's the economy of scale that is making businesses larger and it increases their property size, # of employees, # of employee properties distancing people further away from employment even if they made the decision to live as close to that employment as possible.. then what happens if they want to work elsewhere but it's not within 15 minutes walking time? They have to relocate, and how are they going to move all their possessions if not in a larger motor vehicle?

The whole concept seems very much like the lower standard of living that young, less financially well off people experience, and similarly in cities, as people age they tend to migrate away from higher density into the suburbs if not more urban than that. Through the knowledge and wisdom they gained with age, they changed their lifestyle to what they perceive to be better, same as most college students, no longer want to live in a dorm and college campus environment for long after graduating.

The idea simply does not allow for a modern society given the planning we have done so far. It is hypothetically possible if we start living in high-rise buildings so the elevator is part of the transportation, but this is merely a vertical means when we could have a horizontal automated means instead, until we run out of land aka real estate which is not happening any time soon in the US.

Increasing density does not improve quality of life. Increasing transportation accessibility and speed does, until that improvement is swamped by fatalities. Hence speed limits and other laws about motor vehicle operation, that ought to be enforced at a higher rate, as well as the collision avoidance AI being built into more and more new automobiles.

 

[sdifox]

Of course I see advantages but not as much as the detractions. Plus it is nearly impossible for everything you need to be at most a 15 minute walk away, unless people are crammed together like sardines and you don't really mean everything, just the most common things and even then, due to economy of scale, things like manufacturing and distribution of goods becomes far more expensive if not impossible.

The quality of life would necessarily go down. Take the local Amazon warehouse for example, people that live right next to the property, cannot walk from their home to a work station they'd have if employed there, within 15 minutes, nor could they walk to the local warehouse district and be at a work station in 15 minutes, nor even walk to and around a modern grocery store to gather enough food to hold a family over before having to go back for more food, since they are pedestrians and have limited hauling ability. Even this, is only considering people in their most fit years of life, good health and ideal weather.

The idea simply does not allow for a modern society given the planning we have done so far. It is hypothetically possible if we start living in high-rise buildings so the elevator is part of the transportation, but this is merely a vertical means when we could have a horizontal automated means instead, until we run out of land aka real estate which is not happening any time soon in the US.

Increasing density does not improve quality of life. Increasing transportation accessibility and speed does, until that improvement is swamped by fatalities. Hence speed limits and other laws about motor vehicle operation, that ought to be enforced at a higher rate, as well as the collision avoidance AI being built into more and more new automobiles.

15 min city doesn't mean everything is produced within that radius, rather, the consumer can access the most common needs within 15 min walk. The main goal is to cut down commuting. I imagine aquaponics to play a big part in the push to 15min cities.

David Olive: The ‘15-minute city’ could be life-changing for Torontonians. But we won’t talk about that

The concept should be prominent in the upcoming Toronto mayoral election. It probably won’t be, David Olive writes.

www.thestar.com

 

[mindless1]

^ I have no problem with designing cites to cut down on commuting. Even so, economy of scale makes it impossible to maintain the same average US citizen's quality of life by having to walk *most* places.

I can't even get from my residence, out of my neighborhood to only the first possible place I would want to go. I want it that way, do not want to live next to any businesses, do not want to be crammed into a tiny home. The population has to be dense enough to support businesses while many of these smaller businesses are going out of business because they can't compete.

Plus the article is drifting into unicorn land when it states things like "Our city would become a collection of self-sufficient neighbourhoods with quick and easy access to schools, medical services, daycare centres, a wide variety of shops, and abundant parks, paths and playgrounds." It is not possible to pack all that much into a 15 minute walk, unless it's all quite crude, and ineffective compared to modern standards. My local grocery store has something like 100 different kinds of cheese/other food variation options. I don't need that many but I sure as heck want a better selction than the 5 profit leaders a small store would necessitate. If my health was poor, I don't want to be stuck with whichever doctors have their offices nearby if they are not good at their job. If I am dining out, don't want to be stuck with poor restaurants. All the choices I have, are because of a greater than 15 minute walking radius.

Now let's suppose it were possible. 15 minute walk, round trip makes that 30 minutes, multiplied by 4 tasks daily, means 2 hours of your day taken up instead of potentially less than a half hour if similar planning was done to put a residence within automobile travel distance sufficient to meet more of the inhabitants needs, including fewer trips because they can haul much more using a vehicle. This assumes everyone is in good health which they are not, assumes they never get sick which they will, and further, regularly/daily walking 2 hours in poor weather can put a person in worse health if they weren't highly sedentary as the contrasting health state. Just lugging around food and water to make it through hot days would become a burden in warmer climates, and a much greater risk of slippage accidents in cold weather climates, then once injured or dehydrated, you still are expected to walk everywhere?

If nothing else, people have to eat. Pack them in densely and they then have no room for a vegetable garden sufficient to sustain their caloric needs. Such dense communities only work as dependents on outside sources of goods and services, are not self-sustainable.

If I was at the local hospital front door, or grocery store, it would take me close to 15 minutes just to walk around the perimeter of the property. It might be a nice sunny day or it might be 100F, or 10F, raining, snowing, etc.

In an urban area I might get mugged if it's the wrong time of night. I don't make workplace hours so there is no assurance I'm not out after dark. If there is more than one work shift, one shift or another has to be walking after dark in the shorter winter months. 15 minute walk is a concept for people that either don't actually do it, or want to sweep under the rug the lower standard of living that would result.

 

[sandorski]

^ I have no problem with designing cites to cut down on commuting. Even so, economy of scale makes it impossible to maintain the same average US citizen's quality of life by having to walk *most* places.

I can't even get from my residence, out of my neighborhood to only the first possible place I would want to go. I want it that way, do not want to live next to any businesses, do not want to be crammed into a tiny home. The population has to be dense enough to support businesses while many of these smaller businesses are going out of business because they can't compete.

Plus the article is drifting into unicorn land when it states things like "Our city would become a collection of self-sufficient neighbourhoods with quick and easy access to schools, medical services, daycare centres, a wide variety of shops, and abundant parks, paths and playgrounds." It is not possible to pack all that much into a 15 minute walk, unless it's all quite crude, and ineffective compared to modern standards. My local grocery store has something like 100 different kinds of cheese/other food variation options. I don't need that many but I sure as heck want a better selction than the 5 profit leaders a small store would necessitate. If my health was poor, I don't want to be stuck with whichever doctors have their offices nearby if they are not good at their job. If I am dining out, don't want to be stuck with poor restaurants. All the choices I have, are because of a greater than 15 minute walking radius.

Now let's suppose it were possible. 15 minute walk, round trip makes that 30 minutes, multiplied by 4 tasks daily, means 2 hours of your day taken up instead of potentially less than a half hour if similar planning was done to put a residence within automobile travel distance sufficient to meet more of the inhabitants needs, including fewer trips because they can haul much more using a vehicle. If nothing else, people have to eat. Pack them in densely and they then have no room for a vegetable garden sufficient to sustain their caloric needs. Such dense communities only work as dependents on outside sources of goods and services, are not self-sustainable.

If I was at the local hospital front door, or grocery store, it would take me close to 15 minutes just to walk around the perimeter of the property. It might be a nice sunny day or it might be 100F, or 10F, raining, snowing, etc.

In an urban area I might get mugged if it's the wrong time of night. I don't make workplace hours so there is no assurance I'm not out after dark. If there is more than one work shift, one shift or another has to be walking after dark in the shorter winter months. 15 minute walk is a concept for people that either don't actually do it, or want to sweep under the rug the lower standard of living that would result.

These places are being built in many cities right now. People living in them are not being impoverished, the opposite is happening. Owning/Operating a vehicle is a huge Cost. In fact, it impoverishes people.

 

[sdifox]

^ I have no problem with designing cites to cut down on commuting. Even so, economy of scale makes it impossible to maintain the same average US citizen's quality of life by having to walk *most* places.

I can't even get from my residence, out of my neighborhood to only the first possible place I would want to go. I want it that way, do not want to live next to any businesses, do not want to be crammed into a tiny home. The population has to be dense enough to support businesses while many of these smaller businesses are going out of business because they can't compete.

Plus the article is drifting into unicorn land when it states things like "Our city would become a collection of self-sufficient neighbourhoods with quick and easy access to schools, medical services, daycare centres, a wide variety of shops, and abundant parks, paths and playgrounds." It is not possible to pack all that much into a 15 minute walk, unless it's all quite crude, and ineffective compared to modern standards. My local grocery store has something like 100 different kinds of cheese/other food variation options. I don't need that many but I sure as heck want a better selction than the 5 profit leaders a small store would necessitate. If my health was poor, I don't want to be stuck with whichever doctors have their offices nearby if they are not good at their job. If I am dining out, don't want to be stuck with poor restaurants. All the choices I have, are because of a greater than 15 minute walking radius.

Now let's suppose it were possible. 15 minute walk, round trip makes that 30 minutes, multiplied by 4 tasks daily, means 2 hours of your day taken up instead of potentially less than a half hour if similar planning was done to put a residence within automobile travel distance sufficient to meet more of the inhabitants needs, including fewer trips because they can haul much more using a vehicle. This assumes everyone is in good health which they are not, assumes they never get sick which they will, and further, regularly/daily walking 2 hours in poor weather can put a person in worse health if they weren't highly sedentary as the contrasting health state. Just lugging around food and water to make it through hot days would become a burden in warmer climates, and a much greater risk of slippage accidents in cold weather climates, then once injured or dehydrated, you still are expected to walk everywhere?

If nothing else, people have to eat. Pack them in densely and they then have no room for a vegetable garden sufficient to sustain their caloric needs. Such dense communities only work as dependents on outside sources of goods and services, are not self-sustainable.

If I was at the local hospital front door, or grocery store, it would take me close to 15 minutes just to walk around the perimeter of the property. It might be a nice sunny day or it might be 100F, or 10F, raining, snowing, etc.

In an urban area I might get mugged if it's the wrong time of night. I don't make workplace hours so there is no assurance I'm not out after dark. If there is more than one work shift, one shift or another has to be walking after dark in the shorter winter months. 15 minute walk is a concept for people that either don't actually do it, or want to sweep under the rug the lower standard of living that would result.

Paris’ Vision for a ‘15-Minute City’ Sparks a Global Movement

Paris has reimagined urban life, while limiting air pollution, to ensure a more livable city with easier access to jobs, schools and essential services.

www.wri.org

It's a rethink on cities. Paris is probably the forefront on the 15 minute city transformation.

 

[mindless1]

These places are being built in many cities right now. People living in them are not being impoverished, the opposite is happening. Owning/Operating a vehicle is a huge Cost. In fact, it impoverishes people.

They are not self-sustaining, only seem to work if reality is ignored in favor of only the simplified concept of it, at a lower standard of living.

Owning and operating a vehicle at high cost is a luxury and people can choose how much of a luxury it becomes. Personally, I don't need to replace my primary use vehicles every single-digit # of years, and do most of my own repairs. I don't drive 13K5+ mi. per year, and don't have comp insurance on all vehicles. I haven't been hitting pedestrians or anything else so over the years my rates got lower than a younger wreckless driver would face.

It is not that expensive and in many cases allows for saving money or generating more income to mitigate the expense, like being able to travel to and transport bulk of food and realize the cost savings in doing so, or work at a place of employment offering a higher wage than the closest one does, that has openings because they don't pay well or the type of work or hours available, etc, a business that is large enough to stay competitive instead of going out of business. I remember living next to a corner grocery store in the city for a while. It was more expensive to eat lower quality food and less varied diet than I have now.

It only works if you deliberately ignore the reduction in quality of life. If you are talking about otherwise (if they had the expense of a vehicle) impoverished people, their quality of life was substandard to begin with. It is not a noble goal to try to achieve this by lowering society's standard of living. At the same time, I am not against having affordable housing and resources for the impoverished, but again it is not self-sustainable. The impoverished can even less afford higher priced goods and services due to lack of competition within a 15 minute walking distance. In the US there is much subsidization to support them, more than the economy gets back out so again not sustainable.

Some would state that society's use of automobiles isn't sustainable either, in the long term, and if looking far enough ahead this is true, until we come up with better tech which so far, mankind has done to get us to where we are now, instead of devolving into crude little villages where we are forced to have most of our needs met within 15 minutes walking to get them.

I think I have reached the end of my attention span on this topic, would have before now but had some idle time to kill. How did I achieve this, having idle time? Because I'm not off walking 15 minutes over and over every day just to meet my necessities.

 

[sandorski]

They are not self-sustaining, only seem to work if reality is ignored in favor of only the simplified concept of it, at a lower standard of living.

Owning and operating a vehicle at high cost is a luxury and people can choose how much of a luxury it becomes. Personally, I don't need to replace my primary use vehicles every single-digit # of years, and do most of my own repairs. I don't drive 13K5+ mi. per year, and don't have comp insurance on all vehicles. I haven't been hitting pedestrians or anything else so over the years my rates got lower than a younger wreckless driver would face.

It is not that expensive and in many cases allows for saving money or generating more income to mitigate the expense, like being able to travel to and transport bulk of food and realize the cost savings in doing so, or work at a place of employment offering a higher wage than the closest one does, that has openings because they don't pay well or the type of work or hours available, etc, a business that is large enough to stay competitive instead of going out of business. I remember living next to a corner grocery store in the city for a while. It was more expensive to eat lower quality food and less varied diet than I have now.

It only works if you deliberately ignore the reduction in quality of life. If you are talking about otherwise (if they had the expense of a vehicle) impoverished people, their quality of life was substandard to begin with. It is not a noble goal to try to achieve this by lowering society's standard of living. At the same time, I am not against having affordable housing and resources for the impoverished, but again it is not self-sustainable. The impoverished can even less afford higher priced goods and services due to lack of competition within a 15 minute walking distance. In the US there is much subsidization to support them, more than the economy gets back out so again not sustainable.

Some would state that society's use of automobiles isn't sustainable either, in the long term, and if looking far enough ahead this is true, until we come up with better tech which so far, mankind has done to get us to where we are now, instead of devolving into crude little villages where we are forced to have most of our needs met within 15 minutes walking to get them.

I think I have reached the end of my attention span on this topic, would have before now but had some idle time to kill. How did I achieve this, having idle time? Because I'm not off walking 15 minutes over and over every day just to meet my necessities.

Wait and see for yourself. Your scenario is just a scenario.

 

[Brainonska511]

On top of many points made already, one thing that is also missing from this thread: vehicles with higher centers of gravity are inherently less safe than sedans and station wagons. You can't escape that built-in rollover risk that exists when your vehicle sits higher.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Torn Mind and I share the same urban experience. About half the time, I used the DC Metro for my journey to work. My work was one block from a subway station, and my home was less than a mile from one -- at one time merely four blocks away. For the rest of it, I had a fleet of four 1979 Honda Civics that were souped up with Accord parts. 30 mpg; fun to drive (with a 40-year-old body).

When I retired, I had plans for "four-wheelin'" in wildlife refuges where it was allowed, backpacking trips in the North Cascades and similar excursions. I needed cargo space, having the previous experience of hauling my E-frame backpack on top of my Civic. I wanted a place to sleep or rest at highway rest stops. I forsook fuel economy for all of these other benefits.

So now, I have my '95 Isuzu Trooper, destined to go another 100,000 miles on an engine that just won't quit at 197,000 on the odometer. I only drive 2,500 miles per year, so at 13 mpg "city", there is still a decently low carbon footprint. My other vehicle is a '95 Nissan Pickup King Cab SE, and these are the same types of vehicles mentioned in the video. They are both restored, maintained and in excellent repair.

I'd rather have an EV or hybrid. I've been looking at the Prius and a hybrid Toyota Highlander. The Highlander is too damn big. The Prius is maybe a little bigger than the old Civics. I'm spoiled by the comfort ride of my Trooper, and the truck comes close to it as well.

I could die in ten years. I don't like having car payments: my lifelong history of vehicle strategy shows it. I don't buy the argument that SUVs are more hazardous in handling: they should be driven like trucks. I now drive like you'd expect people to drive who are 80 or 90 -- ver-r-ry carefully. So even a cash outlay for a new vehicle doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather see the money pile up in my savings.

But I'm going to need to do it sooner or later. I'll probably keep one of my vehicles and replace the other with an EV or hybrid.

One thing that I still remember is my sore left hip from working the Civics' clutches in traffic. It's still sore. I may confuse the confining space of the Civic with the sore hip, but I really like a roomy vehicle. Do I get that with a Prius? And -- can I have the cornering ability of the Trooper and maneuverability if it is replaced with another modern mid-sized SUV? Not so sure in either case. And I know the difference between a '79 CVCC hatchback cargo space and that of my Trooper.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

They are not self-sustaining, only seem to work if reality is ignored in favor of only the simplified concept of it, at a lower standard of living.

Owning and operating a vehicle at high cost is a luxury and people can choose how much of a luxury it becomes. Personally, I don't need to replace my primary use vehicles every single-digit # of years, and do most of my own repairs. I don't drive 13K5+ mi. per year, and don't have comp insurance on all vehicles. I haven't been hitting pedestrians or anything else so over the years my rates got lower than a younger wreckless driver would face.

It is not that expensive and in many cases allows for saving money or generating more income to mitigate the expense, like being able to travel to and transport bulk of food and realize the cost savings in doing so, or work at a place of employment offering a higher wage than the closest one does, that has openings because they don't pay well or the type of work or hours available, etc, a business that is large enough to stay competitive instead of going out of business. I remember living next to a corner grocery store in the city for a while. It was more expensive to eat lower quality food and less varied diet than I have now.

It only works if you deliberately ignore the reduction in quality of life. If you are talking about otherwise (if they had the expense of a vehicle) impoverished people, their quality of life was substandard to begin with. It is not a noble goal to try to achieve this by lowering society's standard of living. At the same time, I am not against having affordable housing and resources for the impoverished, but again it is not self-sustainable. The impoverished can even less afford higher priced goods and services due to lack of competition within a 15 minute walking distance. In the US there is much subsidization to support them, more than the economy gets back out so again not sustainable.

Some would state that society's use of automobiles isn't sustainable either, in the long term, and if looking far enough ahead this is true, until we come up with better tech which so far, mankind has done to get us to where we are now, instead of devolving into crude little villages where we are forced to have most of our needs met within 15 minutes walking to get them.

I think I have reached the end of my attention span on this topic, would have before now but had some idle time to kill. How did I achieve this, having idle time? Because I'm not off walking 15 minutes over and over every day just to meet my necessities.

. . . and ditto to all that . . . too . . .

 

[Heartbreaker]

Wow dude.

What he talks about are 15 minute cities, which are a great idea. We don't need cars everywhere or for everything.

Exactly. I've been following his channel for quite a while. It's all about putting people first, not cars. It's pretty clear that livable cities are MUCH better quality of life than car centric mess that makes walking or biking miserable.

Luckily this is starting to sink in around the world.

 

[Ken g6]

I think I have reached the end of my attention span on this topic, would have before now but had some idle time to kill. How did I achieve this, having idle time? Because I'm not off walking 15 minutes over and over every day just to meet my necessities.

Which could be as little as a two-minute e-bike ride.

It is not that expensive and in many cases allows for saving money or generating more income to mitigate the expense, like being able to travel to and transport bulk of food and realize the cost savings in doing so

A two-minute cargo e-bike ride. Rear cage, two pannier bags, a handlebar cage or bag, and a backpack can fit a lot. Or even get a trailer.

or work at a place of employment offering a higher wage than the closest one does, that has openings because they don't pay well or the type of work or hours available, etc, a business that is large enough to stay competitive instead of going out of business. I remember living next to a corner grocery store in the city for a while. It was more expensive to eat lower quality food and less varied diet than I have now.

OK, it's true there are likely to be situations where you need a car. But a hatchback and an e-bike, in a place where you can e-bike, is way better for the environment, and your wallet, than a giant SUV, or truck, or two. Maybe even enough to offset food prices.

 

[mindless1]

^ Only if you make the assumption that everything else remains similar, a heavy consumer.

I DIY my truck and SUV repairs, and don't put on a lot of miles every year, so it would be very hard to see any real savings to the environment or my wallet. On the contrary, probably a larger cost and penalty to the environment to manufacture and use the ebike, in addition to still having the similar environmental penalty of manufacturing the hatchback.

Which do you think causes more pollution, shipping your ebike components from China on a container ship, or the difference in emissions from a light duty truck or SUV, versus a hatckback? You might be surprised.

Instead, I can haul more at a time, and I do. The simple choice of DIY allows me to keep vehicles longer and that alone saves money and environmental damage, without even considering my lower food prices from not only being able to shop where prices are good but also the ability to buy/haul in larger quantities to save even more.

I can do all this, without any sacrifice in quality of life.

Also no, it's not a two minute, ebike ride. Even in an automobile, situated away from the commercial districts (as I WANT TO BE), it takes more than two minutes in an automobile that is allowed to travel at higher speeds, legally, than any ebike less than one registered as a motorcycle... and then that type of ebike, has all the more environmental penalty of needing a much larger battery pack.

"Rear cage, two pannier bags, a handlebar cage or bag, and a backpack can fit a lot. Or even get a trailer." ?? It can only fit what you call a lot, if you are only shopping for one and paying a premium for smaller portions of foods, and then also having to travel back and forth to the grocery store that much more often.

If you want to live like that, have fun with it. The majority of society has evolved past the idea of living in a little frontier town and traveling by ebike instead of ... get ready for it... a horse.

Why not a horse instead? If you're all in environmentally, that's more sustainable than an ebike. Get yourself a wagon for it, and you're all set.

I for one, don't want to live like it's the 19th century.

Lastly, do you know why there aren't a lot more ebike thefts? It's only because there aren't that many of them, except in cities that have the loaner/rental bikes, then that tanks the black market value because people can just rent them. There has been more and more backlash against those as well, citizens sick and tired of irresponsible ebikers trying to muscle out regular bikers and pedestrians.

Sometimes it's a good thing to require motorists to have a license, insurance, and penalties involved that seem standardized so operators know what to expect if they misbehave, don't have the misperception that they can ignore laws because it's an ebike.

Having stated all that, I do think that society will eventually gravitate towards a smaller enclosed EV, something more sustainable than driving around a 5000 lb contemporary version, and it could haul more than a bicycle with a trailer.

One vehicle just large enough, instead of both an ebike and an ICE hatchback. We only need a true breakthrough in battery tech and a few decades to build up the infrastructure to recharge them. Maybe we'll get there by 2050... but what it won't be, is the majority of society living in 15 minute self contained villages.

I haven't even scratched the surface of all the penalties for the average person who doesn't live 2 minutes from work, or has to travel when the weather isn't good, or has a family, let alone when they get older or the segment of society that due to health, whether mental or physical, isn't able to depend on an ebike to satisfy their needs.

That's the great thing about freedom and being able to afford the lifestyle you want. Nothing I wrote will keep you from living in a 15 minute village and using an ebike if that's what you want to do. If I had to pick one way or the other, I'd spend the extra time wasted on ebiking as transportation, to instead be working more hours or further from home, in able to afford a better lifestyle than that.

What about that environmental penalty? When people are crammed together like sardines, they are not carbon neutral. Me, I have a significant lawn, large trees, crops than don't use gas equipment to harvest. I always repair rather than replace things when possible. I very likely sink more carbon than I produce. Contrast that with people living like a sardine with a hatchback and an ebike? Not so much.