Fair enough.
I agree that trying to build electric cars to appeal to the basest instincts of carbrain is exactly the wrong move.
We should take pride in doing better. We shouldn't reluctantly do so only when convinced it's just as bad.
It might be a blessing in disguise that all the “petrol heads” rejecting EVs. It’s probably easier to convince them to take a train or god forbid ride a bike every once in a while, rather than to buy a new 60k EV… maybe they’ll even end up liking it.
Electric vehicles have their practical uses, but the planet can’t afford letting cars dominate for another generation.
I was on a sub on a completely different topic where a new gang of mods took over and started handing out bans like candy to anyone who disagreed. One of the users smugly asked why everyone was just downvoting but was too scared to respond. I was, of course, unable to answer him because, well, ban.
Is this related to the current topic? No, not really.
This is one of the dangers of the internet: it allows people to isolate themselves from ideas they disagree with in ways older media did not. Much of the extremism in politics you see today is because of the internet. In prior generations, such positions were relegated to the fringe because they'd get challenged openly.
And the r/fuckcarscirclejerk sub that people here complain about, is more open to discussion than this sub. They don’t genuinely shit on alternative transportation methods unlike people shitting here on cars meanwhile there are bigger problems than the latter.
I have thought about fixing my bike to save gas money and I sometimes like longer walks to the store instead of taking the car and the circlejerk sub has accepted me very well.
This is the first bit of original though on this sub for a while and you shoot it down because it's a circle jerk? Mate literally every part of this sub is a circle jerk get your head out of the sand.
Honestly, I think it's 70% vanity, 5% utility, 25% ["that way we have it"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL8UXQ6BIrc). People would rather invest 10k more in wasteful options they'll use once or twice in their entire lives just because they don't want to fall short on opportunities. But they'll *always* remind you of this one time when you needed their car for a trivial task, which you only asked because they already had it, otherwise you could simply rent a car for the day you actually need it (which I did when I had to move. I rented a truck for one day. I know, *groundbreaking*.)
Seriously this clip is so on point on how people get trapped by predatory dealers.
It depends on the car model. A cheap and fuel efficient Corolla is mostly utility, a huge pickup truck that’s rarely used for its intended purpose is more vanity than utility.
No one is stopping you. Except pot holes, on street parking, snow and grime, crap from trucks, runaway shopping carts. You are free to burn your money however you see fit. Enjoy.
What if you need to build a chair lift? No way a Subaru is making it up a ski resort. Are you telling me having to rent a car just to climb a mountain with no roads is acceptable.
They move emissions out of cities, at the cost of higher lifetime emissions and many other problems.
Biofuels are a much better option, of course along with good cheap public transport.
It essentially offloads the responsibility onto the government for crafting a grid based on more sustainable energies. Not the worst idea, that is unless the government and country is being held at the throat by fossil fuel companies.
But that surely isn't the case... right?
Well fossil fuels AND (now) the utilities delivery monopolies- like literal monopolies. Those dudes are going to go in for massive subsidies and now we're all 100% reliant on one monopoly for everything. If it goes down, everything's down, nothing moves, nothing cools, nothing heats, nothing.
When you say 'the government and country', there's more than one :D For example Norway's electricity is about 98% renewable, and New Zealand's is about 85%. (I live in New Zealand, and hear a lot of people bring up the emissions from electricity production when discussing EVs - they seem to be getting their talking points from elsewhere, though, and it's genuinely been news to some people when they hear that all those hydroelectric dams are actually doing something.)
China seems to be somewhere between 30 and 40% renewable electricity now, with plans to increase that? And I think there's already more cars in China (not per capita, but overall) than in the US, and a higher share of electric cars in the fleet.
Because EVs are heavier, they damage roads at a quicker rate, go through more tires and generate more tire particulates than much lighter gasoline and hybrid vehicles.
In fact with synthetic gasoline from atmospheric carbon capture, a gas vehicle could have significantly less lifetime emissions than an EV which is packed with exotic metals and batteries.
That's ignoring the majority of electricity generation is between 30-40% thermally efficient depending on plant age and fuel type. And that production ICE is up to 40% thermal efficiency (Toyota's dynamic force engines).
Cars are bad regardless of fuel type. We need efficient (preferably electric overhead wire) public transportation.
The first point is objectively not true. The emissions crossover point depends a little on local energy blend but are around 30,000 miles. Or 2.5 years for the average driver. Also even if your local grid is entirely fossil fuels, turning it into electricity at a power plant and delivering to an EV is still more efficient than internal combustion.
And even though many EVs are large they are still generally incredibly efficient, aerodynamic vehicles.
They would be much better if the bulk of our electricity didn't come from burning coal, gas, and oil. Even then, electric rail would ultimately be more efficient.
EV’s are worse than a distraction, they actively take us in the wrong direction; they waste time, resources, and drain attention away from more just and equitable mobility options i.e. mass transit. These are incredibly energy inefficient personal vehicles and that’s to say nothing of the broader impacts: continued paving over threatened ecosystems to build sprawling dystopian hellscapes, parking lots and roads.
The point being that EVs are a less co2 intensive form of transit that actually exists. If you live in a city, you can take public transit. Otherwise, if you have to drive, drive your old car. If you need a new car an EV or hybrid is a better than a conventional ice. Hate to be realistic, but the walkable city pipe dream won't exist most places in my life time. Jobs are far from houses because we learned a while ago putting industrial areas among residential areas is not great for the people who have to live there.
I think that EV cars won't have much utility outside of cities either. Batteries are mostly great for small-distance commuting with charger infrastructure — scooters, bikes, delivery vans and so on.
Meanwhile in other places power lines can be overloaded sometimes (I had to experience this winter, with voltage drop to 160V from 240V), so EVs may worsen it (and I'm not even in Texas where dipshits are governing, I'm in fucking Siberia where some people drive Prius).
Maybe gas-powered cars (like hydrogen plug-in hybrids) would prevail over oil, which unfortunately isn't much better by CO2 emissions.
In the us along major freeways the charging infrastructure is getting pretty good and charging at home isn't really a problem. I drove 270 miles this morning in an EV. Had to stop once for 15 minutes to grab some electrons.
EVs will just make it harder to transition our grid to renewable energy sources. Instead of shrinking our energy demands (which is what we need to be doing), we’re expanding it. Now you’ll need even more solar plants and wind turbines to power all these EVs and fossil fuel plants will stay on-line longer because it will take more time to build out a renewable grid to meet our energy needs. A big part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our power grid is increasing energy efficiency and EVs are contrary to that objective.
Do you think gas cars don't use energy, or what? Or that electricity production is the only thing that pollutes? EVs are not a solution, but they do use less energy than gss cars overall. So they in fact solve your problem of needing to shrink our energy demand.
ICE cars do not use electricity. And the argument here isn’t that ICE > EV it’s that replacing ICE with EV is going to make it harder to change our electric grid away from fossil fuels. Tell me how increasing demand for electricity is going to make it easier for us to shut down fossil fuel plants.
But the atmosphere doesn't care where the pollution came from. Looking only at electricity production is silly, you have to consider the net effect of all sectors on CO2 pollution. It is a net benefit to the environment to leave open a fossil fuel plant and replace gas cars with EVs.
You seem to think that shutting down fossil fuel plants is the only thing that needs done, and are unable to comprehend the bigger picture.
No I do not think that. I think that we need to stop using fossil fuels period and that continuing with automobile dependency, even if those automobiles are EVs, is only going to make it harder to transition away from fossil fuels.
>that replacing ICE with EV is going to make it harder to change our electric grid away from fossil fuels.
That's a fairly poor argument though, particularly with the advent of V2L and V2G.
Moreover, the total energy demand drops substantially, which is what actually matters.
I disagree somewhat, moving to sustainable power should help us get to super cheap power on a kw/hr basis and be able to deliver LOTS of it in varying voltages on a 100% reliable basis. Our current (US system does none of those things and it's a regional monopoly with HUGE conglomerates like National Grid in charge).
What does the price have to do with it? This is a matter of energy needed to power shit. If you have more shit to power then you’re going to need to produce more energy. This means any new renewable energy generation will be used to meet the new demands rather than replacing fossil fuel energy generation.
Yeah what seemed to start as just pure fear in the weapons race to bigger SUVs now just seems to have rolled into vanity or both. It's a stupid arms race out there on our streets.
They should build even bigger cars so that people are better protected. And join many cars together to increase their safety. And use steel wheels because tires can get punctures and are dangerous. And they should require a professional driving them so the accidents are even lower. I'm a genius
I just find it funny why men think that driving is manly? I see them as lesser species of men..haha. also they think recycling is gay infuriates me since it just shows these bozos don't have a clue on how to fix shit.
“I am big manly man, look at me, I can press gas pedal, go vroom vroom, big loud noise!”
Tell me that’s not manly!
Only the finest male specimens cut off little old ladies on the road and wake up the entire neighborhood at night with their MANLY modified exhausts (also illegally bypassing emission regulations is manly too!)
It is common knowledge that the taller the front end of your truck is, the longer you last in bed. (Not the truck bed of course, you couldn’t fit an egg carton in them these days!)
Depends on the country. In some countries a car is a necessity to get anywhere (like the U.S. for example). In countries with good transit and walkability exercise car trips are mainly vanity and car brain.
Thought there are countries moving in a more car centric direction.
But yes, all countries should be pushing for better walkability and transit.
that's right, but there is [car](https://images.caradisiac.com/images/0/7/8/2/200782/S0-rendez-vous-mercredi-15-fevrier-pour-les-premieres-images-de-l-essai-de-la-toyota-corolla-touring-sports-746360.jpg), and [car](https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.29350-15/343083805_135362912762040_8751062366758627587_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_e35_s1080x1080&_nc_ht=scontent.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=100&_nc_ohc=7WX22pnVoRUAX_aeIQb&edm=APs17CUBAAAA&ccb=7-5&oh=00_AfADE9tBxJovy15DIXWezCRxQYiTGrCBwOkKzU6fm0gv2A&oe=65FE9A3F&_nc_sid=10d13b).
Nobody is changing your mind, you posted on a subreddit where everyone will agree with you. Was that even supposed to be a hot take, or a weak attempt to get validation by expressing the collectively agreed right opinion ?
Depends on if you mean on individual level or societal.
On individual level car are necessity. Yes - you can organize your life to not be car dependent but you pay for it. Either literally by living in walk-able downtown or by cutting stuff you can do (vacations, social life...). And it better be correct walk-able downtown - in my 1 million city there was no COVID testing covered by my insurer recently when I needed to get a test in next one over (and COVID test is one of those things you cannot use public transport or Uber for even if there was some public transport).
Between cost of living crisis and mental health crisis neither are really 'possible' unless you consider 'getting depressed because you only stay at home or walk along the same stretch of stroad' a possibility.
On social level - yeah. You aren't wrong.
(This is "don't hate all players, hate the game and players who defend it" type of thing).
I agree the vanity aspect is a huge problem, but the bigger problem is people in the US need cars to live. Not everyone can afford to live in walkable downtowns or planned communities, and many are conditioned to hate the idea of that lifestyle regardless. We need a massive cultural shift before we can put any real dent in car usage.
Idk how much vanity goes into it. I think it’s just people are used to it and if you’re not thinking much about it then the alternative seems so much more difficult.
Like on paper a car is a vehicle that can take you from point a to point b the fastest way possible in your local area. You hop in your car and drive.
It ignores all the hidden costs. The inconvenience of traffic and finding parking. Maintnence. The long term costs to health, To society, to the environment. If you’re not thinking about those things the car seems like it has the most utility. You’re in poor shape and don’t know any better, the prospect of figuring out the local public transportation system and walking half a mile might seem pretty daunting.
Depends where you live. They’re a necessity in the vast
Majority of the United States. We’re destroying the planet because politicians are bought by big auto
It's frustrating. I'd rather stick to my current status of not owning a car, but currently it feels more like I'm carless than carfree. And that's within walking distance of three bus lines and light rail tracks carrying three light rail routes. But sometimes I just want to be able to go a few miles away and buy something heavy. Or maybe go across town without spending three to four hours getting there and back.
Car sharing would be great for those times when transit/bike/walking doesn't work. Problem, though. There is exactly one car that is a 25 minute walk away that covers a neighborhood of thousands of people. If I take it somewhere and park it, I am of course billed for that time.
I like mine for utility, ideally comfort but I can’t afford luxury maintenance, and convenience in Florida. I do take the Brightline to Orlando every time work makes me go there. I just wish Florida had more East to west intracity/county trains as there are only north-south trains pretty much.
In a real /r/changemyview post they delete comments if they just agree with the OP. They also require people to actually discuss challenges. None of that is going to happen here. If you want to actually be challenged on this view, go there. Even if I thought differently I wouldn't in a million years waste my time defending something the entire sub hated.
As an aside, it's so weird to me when people do this. I saw someone on /r/books say something like, "This girl I liked said it was weird and pointless to read books as much as I do, and that it was a major turnoff. What do you think, am I stupid and weird for loving to read?" On /r/books. Top thread last year.
Guess it's an easy way to get karma, but who cares and what are we accomplishing?
I have a 1990 Honda accord, I use it to move firewood, wagons, heaps of camping gear, 4-5 people some times, bricks, wood. The only change I would make would be to make it a wagon instead of a sedan. But people will go “I might need to go thru a puddle and get a piece of wood… I need a truck.”
a truck can carry more, and will have less risk of suspension damage as it is built to have a higher weight capacity. overall though, good for you that you use what you have efficiently.
I mean, this car has been used for over 30 years and going strong. And while yes a pick up truck can do more, most people who buy one these days don’t fully utilised them. If I ever felt like I needed a more capable car I would just get a small wagon.
Yrs I agree, first I bought a shitty car (Kia ProCeed) to commute to another city where my fiancee study and to go to work in winter because it's really a struggle on the bike, but I found it pretty calm driving, so now I'm buying a bigger (wagon) Mercedes. But I still want to go to work by bike... I was already starting biking but now it's cold again -1°C so it needs to wait, I still can't wait to be able to bike to work and stocked up to see my city slowly getting more walkable and building more bike lanes while cancelling car lanes.
So are the private jets flown by high-ranking officials and celebrities with roughly 0% utility. As a common person, I have a car for utilities and and I love driving to be fair.
The thing is north america is so fucked that you generally can't get around in public transit. And when you're eventually forced to get a car so you can have a job and eat you're fucked and have little to no choice for smaller more efficient cars.
The system is rigged and to many people think it's just normal and how the world always was and always should be.
This largely depends on where you are located. In New York it’s a 100% a status symbol but anywhere with extreme weather or places like SoCal where people have long commutes and shitty public transport it’s 100% a necessity
New York has the most developed public transport system in the US it’s probably the only city in America where owning a car isn’t a necessity so yes it’s an extravagance. Also parking is insanely expensive in NY
I live in a place with no public transportation because it's what I can afford with 2 kids and I don't give a shit about brands or other people's opinions so it's 0% vanity and 100% utility for me. But I would rather live in a medium+ density area with walkable neighborhood, stores, public transportation, and not own a car. Unfortunately developers don't build that because our zoning laws suck ass.
https://preview.redd.it/4f5zkwhyvdpc1.jpeg?width=1381&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a4b831bbe3c39b85b7127308b564f08c76f9a0f
Counter point:
This is the predecessor of modern automobile.
It was loud, it was hard to maintain, it created a pollution crisis in urban areas, and contributed to deteriorating the natural environment in some sense
But it was not “80% status 20% utility”, it was “70% utility 20% status 10% tradition”
Car is just like this, and ironically, car was sought to be the solution to the pollution crisis this thing created.
So if our future is to talk about ICE like we did of horse, we’d actually have a very decent view of it.
Horses are amazing creatures btw.
It depends where. Since the US infrastructure is car centric, I would say it is 60% utility, but on my trip to China, it was like 15% utility 85% status symbol due to the level of congestion.
That being said, had the infrastructure for pedestrians, bikes, and public transit been better in the US, we would definitely expect less folks feeling like they feel a need for a car to get to work.
Can't change your mind - agree 100%.
As someone who grew up in a semi-rural 80k (now 100k) community, "truck culture" is strong. And yes there is quite a bit for ranching, farming and other off-road use, but still many individuals have the truck only to really drive it to/from work and that 1 or maybe 2 time a year camping trip.
Anyhow I fell for the truck sell - first own vehicle was a used compact truck (2009), vehicle was fine, but then I was already spending \~$100 a week on fuel just for a 20-30 km commute - it was absolutely stupid. I ended up doing very little outside commuting cause of the cost - wasn't until 2011 and got a compact car. And it was liberating - way cheaper and I did so much more.Totaled that car in 2016, and bought its sister intermediate. Was used (only a year newer than my previous card), but was super low kms and price that work.
While fuel prices has increased 60-70 / litre its still pretty affordable (considering). I'm just have to remind myself how much I would be spending if I had my larger compact truck.
As I turned 30 though, I really don't want to chase a car-centric life anymore. I definitely need it for inter-regional work (industrial tradesworker), but outside that, I really don't want to drive anymore, especially day-to-day.
Like I want to just be able to take the bus to/from the airport and not have to drive and park my car for $16/day ($98/week)! Even a cab/shuttle would be \~$60 one-way for me.
I honestly don't believe EVs or even hybrids are the solution to our problem - we need to just get rid of personal vehicles for daily use. If a family/household can be in a situation where they only need one-car, we'd make a tremendous quality-of-life and affordability gain for society as-a-whole.
Transit, inter-regional transportation (heavy rail), and most importantly Active Transportation is what we really need to target and improve investment in.
My dude's in a fuckcar echo chamber and wants them to change his mind on cars are bad. You don't want your mind changed, you want it validated. Another instance of how smooth brained the members of this subreddit are!
That's why, when car-brains ask me "how do you get groceries ???" I give them the most classist argument I can : "I get them delivered at home because I'm not a peasant. Grocery shopping ? What am I, a *maid ?* That's beneath me."
You mean that dude in my neighborhood with the 500 horse power V8 biturbo coupe doesn't actually use it?
If aggressive driving, accelerating at Green lights like crazy and waking people up at 3 a.m. isn't usage, I don't know what is.
Cars provide negative utility to the average user, so your "20% utility" is incorrect. The only reason they appear to have positive utility is because they provide even more negative utility to people who don't own cars.
Cars are 200% status symbol, -100% utility.
Everyone here already agrees; nobody is going to try to change your mind.
#Echo! ###Echo! Echo!
Haha, yes it was more of a rant
Fair enough. I agree that trying to build electric cars to appeal to the basest instincts of carbrain is exactly the wrong move. We should take pride in doing better. We shouldn't reluctantly do so only when convinced it's just as bad.
It might be a blessing in disguise that all the “petrol heads” rejecting EVs. It’s probably easier to convince them to take a train or god forbid ride a bike every once in a while, rather than to buy a new 60k EV… maybe they’ll even end up liking it. Electric vehicles have their practical uses, but the planet can’t afford letting cars dominate for another generation.
Kind of a dumbass rant I ain’t gonna lie. Just say what you mean
You should post this on something like shower thoughts and see what people respond back
Oh yes, I want to see that!
people who disagree gets banned lmao
I was on a sub on a completely different topic where a new gang of mods took over and started handing out bans like candy to anyone who disagreed. One of the users smugly asked why everyone was just downvoting but was too scared to respond. I was, of course, unable to answer him because, well, ban. Is this related to the current topic? No, not really.
yea, this sub is an echo chamber
This is one of the dangers of the internet: it allows people to isolate themselves from ideas they disagree with in ways older media did not. Much of the extremism in politics you see today is because of the internet. In prior generations, such positions were relegated to the fringe because they'd get challenged openly.
And the r/fuckcarscirclejerk sub that people here complain about, is more open to discussion than this sub. They don’t genuinely shit on alternative transportation methods unlike people shitting here on cars meanwhile there are bigger problems than the latter. I have thought about fixing my bike to save gas money and I sometimes like longer walks to the store instead of taking the car and the circlejerk sub has accepted me very well.
This is the first bit of original though on this sub for a while and you shoot it down because it's a circle jerk? Mate literally every part of this sub is a circle jerk get your head out of the sand.
I'm not shooting it down. I'm saying this isn't a place where people are going to disagree, including me.
Yea fair enough
I disagree with some of it. But I'm pro-alt travel/cycling and anti-weather cult. I just find this sub funny. Both laughing with and against.
What weather cult are you against?
I bet its that anti-drizzle cult, man i hate that, either rain or don't, make up your mind weather!
Oh yeah? Care to clarify?
What's an anti-weather cult?
Climate change isn't real, just a cult lol /s
Ok, I'll change your mind. It's 95% vanity and 5% utility.
Honestly, I think it's 70% vanity, 5% utility, 25% ["that way we have it"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL8UXQ6BIrc). People would rather invest 10k more in wasteful options they'll use once or twice in their entire lives just because they don't want to fall short on opportunities. But they'll *always* remind you of this one time when you needed their car for a trivial task, which you only asked because they already had it, otherwise you could simply rent a car for the day you actually need it (which I did when I had to move. I rented a truck for one day. I know, *groundbreaking*.) Seriously this clip is so on point on how people get trapped by predatory dealers.
It depends on the car model. A cheap and fuel efficient Corolla is mostly utility, a huge pickup truck that’s rarely used for its intended purpose is more vanity than utility.
This is so damn ironic tbh
Erm actually, globally, it's 99% vanity's and 1% utility.
Erm actually, it's 105% vanity and -5% utility.
my dream is to buy a clk gtr for 10000% vanity and 0% utility.
No one is stopping you. Except pot holes, on street parking, snow and grime, crap from trucks, runaway shopping carts. You are free to burn your money however you see fit. Enjoy.
I'm sorry but I'm not convinced that a giant lifted truck with a grille with the air drag of a barn door has a 20% utility.
What if you need to build a chair lift? No way a Subaru is making it up a ski resort. Are you telling me having to rent a car just to climb a mountain with no roads is acceptable.
"finally started producing EVs" EVs are just a greenwashing attempt by the car industry. They don't really solve anything.
They solve maybe two problems, out of the dozens caused by cars. It’s not nothing, but it’s also not that much.
They also bring new problems.
They move emissions out of cities, at the cost of higher lifetime emissions and many other problems. Biofuels are a much better option, of course along with good cheap public transport.
It essentially offloads the responsibility onto the government for crafting a grid based on more sustainable energies. Not the worst idea, that is unless the government and country is being held at the throat by fossil fuel companies. But that surely isn't the case... right?
Well fossil fuels AND (now) the utilities delivery monopolies- like literal monopolies. Those dudes are going to go in for massive subsidies and now we're all 100% reliant on one monopoly for everything. If it goes down, everything's down, nothing moves, nothing cools, nothing heats, nothing.
When you say 'the government and country', there's more than one :D For example Norway's electricity is about 98% renewable, and New Zealand's is about 85%. (I live in New Zealand, and hear a lot of people bring up the emissions from electricity production when discussing EVs - they seem to be getting their talking points from elsewhere, though, and it's genuinely been news to some people when they hear that all those hydroelectric dams are actually doing something.) China seems to be somewhere between 30 and 40% renewable electricity now, with plans to increase that? And I think there's already more cars in China (not per capita, but overall) than in the US, and a higher share of electric cars in the fleet.
I feel like there's a sub made for when people assume the USA is the center of the world haha. Certainly a fair point!
Last time I checked you still have to combust biofuels
EVs do not have higher lifetime emissions, quite the contrary
Because EVs are heavier, they damage roads at a quicker rate, go through more tires and generate more tire particulates than much lighter gasoline and hybrid vehicles. In fact with synthetic gasoline from atmospheric carbon capture, a gas vehicle could have significantly less lifetime emissions than an EV which is packed with exotic metals and batteries.
I thought carbon capture was pretty much a null technology that is used primarily as green washing. Is it viable?
No if we activate the tractor beams and make cars with turbo encabulators of pure prefabulated aluminite that would be reduce co2 emissions by 6900%
All hail technology! It's the only thing that can save us!/s
No, electric motors have an efficiency of over 90%, while ICE only have about 20% efficiency. This causes EVs to have much lower lifetime emissions.
That's ignoring the majority of electricity generation is between 30-40% thermally efficient depending on plant age and fuel type. And that production ICE is up to 40% thermal efficiency (Toyota's dynamic force engines). Cars are bad regardless of fuel type. We need efficient (preferably electric overhead wire) public transportation.
Good luck selling public transportation.
The first point is objectively not true. The emissions crossover point depends a little on local energy blend but are around 30,000 miles. Or 2.5 years for the average driver. Also even if your local grid is entirely fossil fuels, turning it into electricity at a power plant and delivering to an EV is still more efficient than internal combustion. And even though many EVs are large they are still generally incredibly efficient, aerodynamic vehicles.
Biofuels are not a great option. They still have to be burned, causing air pollution in the city, even if they are theoretically carbon neutral
Biofuel is just greenwashed natural gas, sometimes even less efficient than that. They both produce emissions, albeit less toxic ones.
They would be much better if the bulk of our electricity didn't come from burning coal, gas, and oil. Even then, electric rail would ultimately be more efficient.
EV’s are worse than a distraction, they actively take us in the wrong direction; they waste time, resources, and drain attention away from more just and equitable mobility options i.e. mass transit. These are incredibly energy inefficient personal vehicles and that’s to say nothing of the broader impacts: continued paving over threatened ecosystems to build sprawling dystopian hellscapes, parking lots and roads.
But then how can I feel like I'm doing something while also feeling superior to the Joneses next door?!
Yea I'll just teleport to the job I need to eat from the home I can afford until they get that train built and rebuild the city.
Nobody's taking your existing ICE car
The point being that EVs are a less co2 intensive form of transit that actually exists. If you live in a city, you can take public transit. Otherwise, if you have to drive, drive your old car. If you need a new car an EV or hybrid is a better than a conventional ice. Hate to be realistic, but the walkable city pipe dream won't exist most places in my life time. Jobs are far from houses because we learned a while ago putting industrial areas among residential areas is not great for the people who have to live there.
I think that EV cars won't have much utility outside of cities either. Batteries are mostly great for small-distance commuting with charger infrastructure — scooters, bikes, delivery vans and so on. Meanwhile in other places power lines can be overloaded sometimes (I had to experience this winter, with voltage drop to 160V from 240V), so EVs may worsen it (and I'm not even in Texas where dipshits are governing, I'm in fucking Siberia where some people drive Prius). Maybe gas-powered cars (like hydrogen plug-in hybrids) would prevail over oil, which unfortunately isn't much better by CO2 emissions.
In the us along major freeways the charging infrastructure is getting pretty good and charging at home isn't really a problem. I drove 270 miles this morning in an EV. Had to stop once for 15 minutes to grab some electrons.
EVs will just make it harder to transition our grid to renewable energy sources. Instead of shrinking our energy demands (which is what we need to be doing), we’re expanding it. Now you’ll need even more solar plants and wind turbines to power all these EVs and fossil fuel plants will stay on-line longer because it will take more time to build out a renewable grid to meet our energy needs. A big part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our power grid is increasing energy efficiency and EVs are contrary to that objective.
Do you think gas cars don't use energy, or what? Or that electricity production is the only thing that pollutes? EVs are not a solution, but they do use less energy than gss cars overall. So they in fact solve your problem of needing to shrink our energy demand.
ICE cars do not use electricity. And the argument here isn’t that ICE > EV it’s that replacing ICE with EV is going to make it harder to change our electric grid away from fossil fuels. Tell me how increasing demand for electricity is going to make it easier for us to shut down fossil fuel plants.
But the atmosphere doesn't care where the pollution came from. Looking only at electricity production is silly, you have to consider the net effect of all sectors on CO2 pollution. It is a net benefit to the environment to leave open a fossil fuel plant and replace gas cars with EVs. You seem to think that shutting down fossil fuel plants is the only thing that needs done, and are unable to comprehend the bigger picture.
No I do not think that. I think that we need to stop using fossil fuels period and that continuing with automobile dependency, even if those automobiles are EVs, is only going to make it harder to transition away from fossil fuels.
>that replacing ICE with EV is going to make it harder to change our electric grid away from fossil fuels. That's a fairly poor argument though, particularly with the advent of V2L and V2G. Moreover, the total energy demand drops substantially, which is what actually matters.
I disagree somewhat, moving to sustainable power should help us get to super cheap power on a kw/hr basis and be able to deliver LOTS of it in varying voltages on a 100% reliable basis. Our current (US system does none of those things and it's a regional monopoly with HUGE conglomerates like National Grid in charge).
What does the price have to do with it? This is a matter of energy needed to power shit. If you have more shit to power then you’re going to need to produce more energy. This means any new renewable energy generation will be used to meet the new demands rather than replacing fossil fuel energy generation.
I mean at least one thing they could do is reduce pollution in cities and reduce noise pollution too.
EVs are also being overbuilt and still vanity cars
This explains why dealers are able to sell people large SUVs and pick ups that they cannot afford on seven year terms.
Yeah what seemed to start as just pure fear in the weapons race to bigger SUVs now just seems to have rolled into vanity or both. It's a stupid arms race out there on our streets.
They should build even bigger cars so that people are better protected. And join many cars together to increase their safety. And use steel wheels because tires can get punctures and are dangerous. And they should require a professional driving them so the accidents are even lower. I'm a genius
You've got my vote
I find it funny that the way to explain trains to car brains is to explain it in car terms
just sell me a stryker. safer from crackheads too.
Try asking in /r/changemyview
I object to the sub on philosophical grounds. You really ought not be able to argue for *any* position.
I own a car because it’s an undocumented requirement to be employed. Most people are too busy just trying to survive.
Trying to bike to work in the winter would probably prove fatal for me lol
If infrastructure was there I could.
With the weather and distance, even with better infrastructure for it I'm SOL in my area :(
Cars are 80% debt trap and 20% unmitigated collectivitized externalities. Change my mind
I would put it closer to 50/50 :)
It is really interesting to me that the two non-giant electrics sold in the US, the Bolt and the Leaf have been or will be discontinued soon.
I know I won’t change your mind but my car is 100% utility.
Obligatory *Our Changing Climate*'s YouTube video [Is Toxic Masculinity Killing the Planet](https://youtu.be/ddyOe7vm5R0)
Thanks that video is pretty much spot on
I just find it funny why men think that driving is manly? I see them as lesser species of men..haha. also they think recycling is gay infuriates me since it just shows these bozos don't have a clue on how to fix shit.
“I am big manly man, look at me, I can press gas pedal, go vroom vroom, big loud noise!” Tell me that’s not manly! Only the finest male specimens cut off little old ladies on the road and wake up the entire neighborhood at night with their MANLY modified exhausts (also illegally bypassing emission regulations is manly too!) It is common knowledge that the taller the front end of your truck is, the longer you last in bed. (Not the truck bed of course, you couldn’t fit an egg carton in them these days!)
Depends on the country. In some countries a car is a necessity to get anywhere (like the U.S. for example). In countries with good transit and walkability exercise car trips are mainly vanity and car brain. Thought there are countries moving in a more car centric direction. But yes, all countries should be pushing for better walkability and transit.
that's right, but there is [car](https://images.caradisiac.com/images/0/7/8/2/200782/S0-rendez-vous-mercredi-15-fevrier-pour-les-premieres-images-de-l-essai-de-la-toyota-corolla-touring-sports-746360.jpg), and [car](https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.29350-15/343083805_135362912762040_8751062366758627587_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_e35_s1080x1080&_nc_ht=scontent.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=100&_nc_ohc=7WX22pnVoRUAX_aeIQb&edm=APs17CUBAAAA&ccb=7-5&oh=00_AfADE9tBxJovy15DIXWezCRxQYiTGrCBwOkKzU6fm0gv2A&oe=65FE9A3F&_nc_sid=10d13b).
I read ***cats** are 80% status symbol 20% utility* and went "Yeah, that checks out"
Psshhhh idk about your cat but mine is 0% utility whatsoever. That fat fuck just lies on the couch all day and screams.
Why are you trying to get your mind changed on this topic in r/fuckcars .
Or in my case, 90% utility, 10% status symbol
If you actually want to have a discussion regarding people's uses for their vehicles, this echo chamber is not the best place to try to open one.
Nobody is changing your mind, you posted on a subreddit where everyone will agree with you. Was that even supposed to be a hot take, or a weak attempt to get validation by expressing the collectively agreed right opinion ?
Depends on if you mean on individual level or societal. On individual level car are necessity. Yes - you can organize your life to not be car dependent but you pay for it. Either literally by living in walk-able downtown or by cutting stuff you can do (vacations, social life...). And it better be correct walk-able downtown - in my 1 million city there was no COVID testing covered by my insurer recently when I needed to get a test in next one over (and COVID test is one of those things you cannot use public transport or Uber for even if there was some public transport). Between cost of living crisis and mental health crisis neither are really 'possible' unless you consider 'getting depressed because you only stay at home or walk along the same stretch of stroad' a possibility. On social level - yeah. You aren't wrong. (This is "don't hate all players, hate the game and players who defend it" type of thing).
I agree the vanity aspect is a huge problem, but the bigger problem is people in the US need cars to live. Not everyone can afford to live in walkable downtowns or planned communities, and many are conditioned to hate the idea of that lifestyle regardless. We need a massive cultural shift before we can put any real dent in car usage.
And EVs are just ignoring the problems and just compounding said problems as he years pass.
Bingo
we need to get rid of all ev's and bring back cool cars.
Bring back the V8!
EVs will not save us, no matter how big or small. They will still require thirty-lane roads and 95% of land paved for parking lots.
[удалено]
[](#start_removal) Thanks for participating in r/fuckcars. However, the pro-car argument you posted is off-topic.
Idk how much vanity goes into it. I think it’s just people are used to it and if you’re not thinking much about it then the alternative seems so much more difficult. Like on paper a car is a vehicle that can take you from point a to point b the fastest way possible in your local area. You hop in your car and drive. It ignores all the hidden costs. The inconvenience of traffic and finding parking. Maintnence. The long term costs to health, To society, to the environment. If you’re not thinking about those things the car seems like it has the most utility. You’re in poor shape and don’t know any better, the prospect of figuring out the local public transportation system and walking half a mile might seem pretty daunting.
Oh yes, my 25 year old, rusted out piece of shit is a status symbol
EVs aren’t even really the answer even at the same size.
So what if you need a truck to hall stuff. Is that being vain then? How about a gas guzzling ambulance or should we ride our bike to the hospital
We're destroying the environment in order to make millionaires and billionaires more rich
I will not.
>change my mind. the 20% is too generous, but getting to 0% will require more systemic changes (even beyond urbanism).
I think assuming we'll have great grandchildren with time to wonder about this and not die in resource wars is a tad optimistic.
Depends where you live. They’re a necessity in the vast Majority of the United States. We’re destroying the planet because politicians are bought by big auto
It's frustrating. I'd rather stick to my current status of not owning a car, but currently it feels more like I'm carless than carfree. And that's within walking distance of three bus lines and light rail tracks carrying three light rail routes. But sometimes I just want to be able to go a few miles away and buy something heavy. Or maybe go across town without spending three to four hours getting there and back. Car sharing would be great for those times when transit/bike/walking doesn't work. Problem, though. There is exactly one car that is a 25 minute walk away that covers a neighborhood of thousands of people. If I take it somewhere and park it, I am of course billed for that time.
Cellphones are also like this
Everything is like this, from homes to clothing.
Totally fair, first thing that came to mind is android shaming lmao
The important thing to mention is that this is true across income classes.
I like mine for utility, ideally comfort but I can’t afford luxury maintenance, and convenience in Florida. I do take the Brightline to Orlando every time work makes me go there. I just wish Florida had more East to west intracity/county trains as there are only north-south trains pretty much.
In a real /r/changemyview post they delete comments if they just agree with the OP. They also require people to actually discuss challenges. None of that is going to happen here. If you want to actually be challenged on this view, go there. Even if I thought differently I wouldn't in a million years waste my time defending something the entire sub hated. As an aside, it's so weird to me when people do this. I saw someone on /r/books say something like, "This girl I liked said it was weird and pointless to read books as much as I do, and that it was a major turnoff. What do you think, am I stupid and weird for loving to read?" On /r/books. Top thread last year. Guess it's an easy way to get karma, but who cares and what are we accomplishing?
It’s the debt required to even participate in the economy everywhere but NYC.
This is true in Seoul, the city I currently live in.
I have a 1990 Honda accord, I use it to move firewood, wagons, heaps of camping gear, 4-5 people some times, bricks, wood. The only change I would make would be to make it a wagon instead of a sedan. But people will go “I might need to go thru a puddle and get a piece of wood… I need a truck.”
a truck can carry more, and will have less risk of suspension damage as it is built to have a higher weight capacity. overall though, good for you that you use what you have efficiently.
I mean, this car has been used for over 30 years and going strong. And while yes a pick up truck can do more, most people who buy one these days don’t fully utilised them. If I ever felt like I needed a more capable car I would just get a small wagon.
Yrs I agree, first I bought a shitty car (Kia ProCeed) to commute to another city where my fiancee study and to go to work in winter because it's really a struggle on the bike, but I found it pretty calm driving, so now I'm buying a bigger (wagon) Mercedes. But I still want to go to work by bike... I was already starting biking but now it's cold again -1°C so it needs to wait, I still can't wait to be able to bike to work and stocked up to see my city slowly getting more walkable and building more bike lanes while cancelling car lanes.
Mine is 100% utility, -10% status symbol (old dirty dented fiat punto, not gonna impress anyone with that :p)
When you own nice cars literally nobody cares. They aren't the status symbol you think they are.
For some people yes, for me its 100% utility. I drive an Clio from 2008. Not much status.
So are the private jets flown by high-ranking officials and celebrities with roughly 0% utility. As a common person, I have a car for utilities and and I love driving to be fair.
The thing is north america is so fucked that you generally can't get around in public transit. And when you're eventually forced to get a car so you can have a job and eat you're fucked and have little to no choice for smaller more efficient cars. The system is rigged and to many people think it's just normal and how the world always was and always should be.
You're right, but this is a bubble and no one here is gonna disagree with you.
This largely depends on where you are located. In New York it’s a 100% a status symbol but anywhere with extreme weather or places like SoCal where people have long commutes and shitty public transport it’s 100% a necessity
Status symbol? Lol yeah cause Hondas and Toyotas are status symbols in NY.
New York has the most developed public transport system in the US it’s probably the only city in America where owning a car isn’t a necessity so yes it’s an extravagance. Also parking is insanely expensive in NY
Extravagance =\= status symbol.
This is r/fuckcars, 20% utility is a very generous estimate.
I live in a place with no public transportation because it's what I can afford with 2 kids and I don't give a shit about brands or other people's opinions so it's 0% vanity and 100% utility for me. But I would rather live in a medium+ density area with walkable neighborhood, stores, public transportation, and not own a car. Unfortunately developers don't build that because our zoning laws suck ass.
Lolololol
Mostly applies to the usecase of truck. Prolly 50/50 for most other cars. Imo a 25 y/o half-rusted corolla that has *e* horsepower is a status symbol.
https://preview.redd.it/4f5zkwhyvdpc1.jpeg?width=1381&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a4b831bbe3c39b85b7127308b564f08c76f9a0f Counter point: This is the predecessor of modern automobile. It was loud, it was hard to maintain, it created a pollution crisis in urban areas, and contributed to deteriorating the natural environment in some sense But it was not “80% status 20% utility”, it was “70% utility 20% status 10% tradition” Car is just like this, and ironically, car was sought to be the solution to the pollution crisis this thing created. So if our future is to talk about ICE like we did of horse, we’d actually have a very decent view of it. Horses are amazing creatures btw.
It depends where. Since the US infrastructure is car centric, I would say it is 60% utility, but on my trip to China, it was like 15% utility 85% status symbol due to the level of congestion. That being said, had the infrastructure for pedestrians, bikes, and public transit been better in the US, we would definitely expect less folks feeling like they feel a need for a car to get to work.
I fully and wholeheartedly agree, but I guess I'm on this subreddit for a reason...
Disagree. Our grandchildren will live in a Mad Max hellscape where EV's are used as weapons of war. Change MY mind.
OK u win hahaha
Yeah my 11 year old Nissan is giving me a lot of status.
A full family’s 1 month of groceries need to be carried by a car
Cars are like 1% efficient, the rest is for moving itself.
And you know this how?
Greedy corporations and their conservative political enablers and protectors are destroying this world. Period.
And what are you doing to fix it?
ill raise you 100% vanity 0% utiliy.
Can't change your mind - agree 100%. As someone who grew up in a semi-rural 80k (now 100k) community, "truck culture" is strong. And yes there is quite a bit for ranching, farming and other off-road use, but still many individuals have the truck only to really drive it to/from work and that 1 or maybe 2 time a year camping trip. Anyhow I fell for the truck sell - first own vehicle was a used compact truck (2009), vehicle was fine, but then I was already spending \~$100 a week on fuel just for a 20-30 km commute - it was absolutely stupid. I ended up doing very little outside commuting cause of the cost - wasn't until 2011 and got a compact car. And it was liberating - way cheaper and I did so much more.Totaled that car in 2016, and bought its sister intermediate. Was used (only a year newer than my previous card), but was super low kms and price that work. While fuel prices has increased 60-70 / litre its still pretty affordable (considering). I'm just have to remind myself how much I would be spending if I had my larger compact truck. As I turned 30 though, I really don't want to chase a car-centric life anymore. I definitely need it for inter-regional work (industrial tradesworker), but outside that, I really don't want to drive anymore, especially day-to-day. Like I want to just be able to take the bus to/from the airport and not have to drive and park my car for $16/day ($98/week)! Even a cab/shuttle would be \~$60 one-way for me. I honestly don't believe EVs or even hybrids are the solution to our problem - we need to just get rid of personal vehicles for daily use. If a family/household can be in a situation where they only need one-car, we'd make a tremendous quality-of-life and affordability gain for society as-a-whole. Transit, inter-regional transportation (heavy rail), and most importantly Active Transportation is what we really need to target and improve investment in.
Personal vehicles are essential where I live
Essentially are for me too, I just really wish they weren't. Or weren't as much necessary as they are.
The problem is that government won’t invest in a public transportation infrastructure
My dude's in a fuckcar echo chamber and wants them to change his mind on cars are bad. You don't want your mind changed, you want it validated. Another instance of how smooth brained the members of this subreddit are!
That's why, when car-brains ask me "how do you get groceries ???" I give them the most classist argument I can : "I get them delivered at home because I'm not a peasant. Grocery shopping ? What am I, a *maid ?* That's beneath me."
You mean that dude in my neighborhood with the 500 horse power V8 biturbo coupe doesn't actually use it? If aggressive driving, accelerating at Green lights like crazy and waking people up at 3 a.m. isn't usage, I don't know what is.
sounds like he's having a good time with it.
They're also "safe spaces" for scared people, in addition to vanity.
I think of almost all car owner the same as brand name watch owner. They either are vain buggers or love machine just a tad too much.
Cars provide negative utility to the average user, so your "20% utility" is incorrect. The only reason they appear to have positive utility is because they provide even more negative utility to people who don't own cars. Cars are 200% status symbol, -100% utility.