[overthemoon]

I'm an aging millennial, but on a purely personal level, when I lived in a city with good public transit, I was a lot happier, most of the time. I really like stepping off the train and the bus and being on my own two feet, the walking exercise, not being chained to this thing I have to worry about. I hate driving, I hate parking, I hate owning a car--the maintenance, the ongoing cost of fuel and insurance, all of it. I was happy to have it to leave the city, but overall, it was a last resort. I live somewhere that requires a car now, and it's fine, traffic isn't so bad, I like cranking my music and being able to haul shit around, but even then, I don't get the emotional association of freedom that previous generations did. I don't know what's different, although I have some guesses. Money, I'm sure, but there's something that's nagging me about it. Maybe it's the internet. Maybe it's that communication technology makes the world feel closer and more immediate than it used to. I'd be curious to hear about how/whether the experience of driving has changed over the decades, but freedom to my cohort means something else.

People get sanctimonious about not owning or using a car, and that's annoying. I just wish there were more options. I don't see us (in the US) removing car infrastructure. I could see additive changes, though, which include national public transit, with some political will and creative thinking, which means it'll never happen.

[usrusr]

It really is a "the grass is bleaker on the other side" situation. As a public transport person I feel weirdly constrained by the idea that a day's itinerary will inevitably have to see me return to wherever the car is parked, impossible to do spontaneous things like walk a few stops, ride with an acquaintance or something like that that would eventually take me home, but not return to some previous stage. With a car, everything that happens outside the car is inevitably out-and-back. A car person will never miss that little freedom because they don't know it and objectively it's truly not that big an issue. But if you are not used to the pattern of always returning to wherever you parked it can feel surprisingly limiting. Similar things apply in the reverse, to a public transport person it's just natural to mentally map out a city's topology in units of line changes required, but a car person will feel outrageously constrained.

[Insanity]

I used public transportation (and cycling) throughout most of my twenties and only got my own car in my thirties. Public transport only works when you live in an urban area with good connections. Where I used to live, public transport was often delayed, or on strike. During winter it was annoying to have to wait in the cold for a bus or train that had 30+ minutes delay. And during rush hour the train and bus were so packed you could not sit down for most of the ride.

Meanwhile, with the car, I don't have any of those frustrations. During rush hour I'll sit in my car rather than waiting in the cold or standing up in a train. Given, finding parking can sometimes be frustrating, but it's a minor frustration. Going grocery shopping (or anything larger and heavier) is way more convenient with the car as well.

That said, bicycling is still one of my favourite ways to commute when the weather permits. :-)

[yonaguska]

Yep, once I started cycling, public transportation became a painful exercise in constraint. I would even prefer to cycle through freezing temperatures on icy roads rather than cram myself into a train or on a bus. Luckily for me, the bike ride was a 20 minute commute for most of my 20s, while the bus/train would be 40 minutes, and a care would also be about 30-40 minutes with traffic. True freedom for me is the motorcycle. I have a car now, but once I got a motorcycle, I got all the benefit of being outside, and somewhat on my own two feet, with the range to take trips out of the city and neighboring states for day trips. Unfortunately, with the way that people drive today, I ride my motorcycle less and less.

[taylodl]

Motorcycling is also significantly cheaper than is owning a car. The average used car price in the US buys a top-of-the-line, brand-new motorcycle. Used (and even new) motorcycles can be had for significantly cheaper. The insurance and fuel costs are significantly less as well. A motorcyclist will have half the cost or even much less than that of a car owner.

I know people always respond that motorcycling is more dangerous than driving a car. I think you have to look through the statistics. For example, over 70% of motorcycle accidents are single-vehicle crashes - typically the motorcyclist failing to properly negotiate a curve or turn. Many of the remaining accidents are caused by high-speed riding. In my own experience, I've had normal encounters that were I driving a car would have resulted in an accident, but by riding a motorcycle I have the ability to easily maneuver to avoid the accident. A motorcycle is the most maneuverable vehicle on the road in terms of swerving, braking and accelerating. Despite those facts I have friends who act like riding down the street is a death-defying experience and are amazed I'm still alive.

I have an ulterior motive for advocating for motorcycles - electric motorcycles are becoming a thing. The Ryvid Anthem is under $9K and has a removable battery that can be easily removed and taken inside to charge using normal household current. It's going to be interesting to watch this market over the next few years.

[lesuorac]

> Many of the remaining accidents are caused by high-speed riding. In my own experience, I've had normal encounters that were I driving a car would have resulted in an accident, but by riding a motorcycle I have the ability to easily maneuver to avoid the accident.

To make sure this isn't downplayed. Having riden a motorcycle for years, many car drivers _do_ _not_ _see_ _you_. That car that just pulled out in front of you at a T stop would not have done so if you were a car. This is one of my biggest peeve that people who can't see a motorcycle are allowed to drive. You know whats smaller than a motorcycle? Pedestrians.

That said, parking a motorcycle is the best thing. Fits everywhere, just try to avoid backing up a slope.

[lp0_on_fire]

Many people think that "because I'm on a motorcycle" or "because I'm on a bike" or "because I'm a pedestrian" they're magically granted some special protection from morons on the road and the laws of physics. Sure, "the law" says you might have the "right of way" but does that really matter when some idiot in a 2 ton truck runs you over because he was looking at his phone?

I was a rider until I got in an accident (in the car) last year. Someone not paying attention blew a stop sign at nearly 50 mph and t-boned me. My car was totaled but luckily I walked away with only a bruised ego. Had I been on the motorcycle I'd be a smear on the road today. There are too many idiots and reckless people on the road to make it worth it to me any more.

[qup]

> A motorcycle is the most maneuverable vehicle on the road in terms of swerving, braking and accelerating.

Rider here. I score you one out of three.

Motorcycles turn worse and brake worse than four-wheeled vehicles.

[mgkimsal]

I would probably still use a car for many things, but am somewhat open to the idea of a motorcycle, but I HATE the noise. An electric seems like it would resolve that concern, no?

[taylodl]

Electric motorcycles are very quiet, so yes, electric motorcycles resolve that concern too. They're also twist-and-go - there's no clutch. Some people (like me) would miss that, but there are many others who would love not having to worry about it.

[Insanity]

Strong +1 on the motorcycle. I grew up around motorcycles (different country, and not urban neighborhood). But where I currently live I wouldn't trust other drivers enough to actually drive one.. :(

[Doctor_Fegg]

> Public transport only works when you live in an urban area with good connections.

It also works when you live in a rural area with good connections.

(I live in one such. I was going to say “I’m lucky enough to live in one such” but there’s no luck involved: I chose this place because of it.)

[AceyMan]

I am (well, was, pre-pandemic) the odd Los Angeles tech worker who used the bus & my bicycle for all my commuting, and many of my errand runs.

I always enjoyed reminding my car-enslaved colleagues, "I never have to park the bus."

People fail to notice for all the time (and distance) spent walking back to retrieve their car. It always felt like such a victory to hop on and off busses, taking care of four or five errands, and never once having to retrace my steps.

[oblio]

> I always enjoyed reminding my car-enslaved colleagues, "I never have to park the bus."

Clearly spoken as someone who's never played (defensive) football!

[tablespoon]

> As a public transport person I feel weirdly constrained by the idea that a day's itinerary will inevitably have to see me return to wherever the car is parked...

Do you feel the same way about your home? Your day's itinerary will inevitably have to see you return there, too.

Too see the other side, it may be useful to think of a personal car as home-like transportation infrastructure and always using public transit like living full-time in hostels.

[pavlov]

Driving is not like being at home because it requires active focus and continuous observation of an evolving social situation where other people’s decisions could cost lives.

If sitting on a train is like being in a hostel, then driving is like doing tedious office work in a cubicle. I’d rather hang out at the hostel.

[tablespoon]

> Driving is not like being at home because it requires active focus and continuous observation of an evolving social situation where other people’s decisions could cost lives.

You're unreasonably expecting the analogy to be a perfect map between the two situations, when no analogy ever is.

My car is more home-like than a bus, because the car is my space.

[mariosisters]

Right on. I have a van I built out for camping, I cart the kids around in it all the time exactly because it’s basically a second home! Everything we need all the time. A place to chill out / wait out a melt down, change a diaper, have a bite to eat.

Even a Honda Civic can accommodate these things far better than a bus.

As you say, it’s our space.

[lotsoweiners]

Maybe for you but not for everyone. I’ve been driving for almost 30 years, consistently speed well above the speed limit, text and drive, and probably all of the other no nos that some people preach. Still never been in an accident or been pulled over and I pretty much am zoned out whenever I drive.

[TchoBeer]

this is concerning. Please do not text and drive.

[pavlov]

Indeed, driving is a social situation where other people’s bad decisions can affect me very negatively. Even if I drive carefully, it’s not enough because someone else out there is texting, confident that their sample size of one means nothing can happen. This dynamic doesn’t exist on a train.

[ericmay]

It's probably not useful to think about car-only infrastructure here in this context as an "either or" scenario or something to empathize with "if only we saw how it felt to be a car owner" for a couple of reasons but primarily because there isn't anything to empathize with since the vast majority of Americans either commute via car now or have in the past, or use a car for all of their daily activities.

> Do you feel the same way about your home? Your day's itinerary will inevitably have to see you return there, too.

This doesn't make any sense and misses the point that was made.

[raydev]

> home-like transportation infrastructure

The only thing I can do in my car is sing as loudly as I like. Otherwise I am forced to focus on ensuring myself and others stay out of mortal danger, which requires a lot more energy than lounging in my home.

[usrusr]

No, because I'm very much used to having a permanent place of residence. But I'd expect a nomadizing homeless to feel exactly as you described about permanent homes (not necessarily as in "would prefer to do without" but as in "there would be some parts of not having one that I'd really miss"). This was my entire point.

People who spent their life in vim don't miss the tiniest bit of whatever Jetbrains products have that isn't in vim, and likewise people who spent their computing life in IntelliJ and the like don't miss anything of what the vim crowd considers essential.

[CalRobert]

True freedom is a folding bike! Ride to point a, take your Brompton with you on the train to point B, ride to point c, etc.

[eastbound]

True freedom is city bikes. Go anywhere worry-free, empty handed, come back using a simple card. 35€ per year in Lyon, France. Unplanned arrival at 1am in the wrong train station? A bike is still waiting for you.

Drawbacks: It’s only free for 30 minutes per trip; Sometimes you still get the bike stolen for 150€.

[thehappypm]

Sadly cold climate areas struggle with making this a reality. Boston has a big network of these bikes and ridership is huge in the warmer months, but drops off a cliff when it gets cold and icy. I know areas in Europe achieve this, but Copenhagen is warmer and less snowy than Boston.

[Xylakant]

Meet Oulu, the winter cycling capital of the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU - including the reasons why people do not cycle in winter (it's not primarily the cold)

[AmVess]

And you are at the mercy of the whims of politicians. One city I lived in, they simply ended public transport altogether. Another city, they rerouted the lines in the poor part of town which made life incredible difficult for the older residents there. Their trip to the grocery store went up by two hours.

[antisthenes]

Must be nice to live in a country where public transport exists and is reasonably functional to get you places without having to wait 25-30 minutes at every leg of your journey.

[fragmede]

I live in a city where that's the case for my day-to-day, but I certainly pay for it with increased rent, among other things. Still, life's too short to live somewhere you hate.

[tropicalbeach]

You still have that freedom to walk anywhere after parking you know. I have done this 100’s of times. Just park then from there go anywhere you want then just take a taxi or lyft back to your car. Public transport sucks, not sure why so many people people like it. Driving is much better unless you live in a large city like NY or LA. My own climate control, radio for music and podcasts, plus driving is therapeutic. I hate being around so many people packed in a train, airplane, bus.

[shortcake27]

> Public transport sucks, not sure why so many people people like it.

I think you may have forgotten that countries other than the US exist. Public transport in most European cities is absolutely phenomenal. And people like it because it’s cheaper and more convenient (when done right).

[TheCoelacanth]

Hire a car to drive to your car?

That sounds like a parody of car-centric living. I can hardly believe that this is a serious suggestion.

[flangola7]

> Just park then from there go anywhere you want then just take a taxi or lyft back to your car.

I thought I had heard it all but "take a lyft back to the parking lot your car is in" is a new low in car culture degeneracy.

[tropicalbeach]

Why it's very practical. Lets say you live in the suburbs 30 minutes from downtown. You find a parking lot park your car and just walk wherever from there. At end of the day if your tired and the car is to far just get a lyft back.

Sitting on a train or bus with screaming kids and breathing everyones air is not something that enjoyable. I prefer my own car it's more freedom.

[earthling8118]

Would you still agree if you had to deal with the externalities? Your suburban life is being subsidized heavily by that downtown area. At the end of the day if I'm tired the last thing I want is to get on the road-- I would rather arrive at my destination without putting the cognitive effort in to pay attention to the road

[tropicalbeach]

I would say downtown is also subsidized by rural areas that require cars. The food you eat is not grown downtown, factories where the products are made that you use are not made downtown. Downtowns are very artificial and consumer oriented. The entirety of downtown couldn’t even exist with the the people living outside it making the food and products you use. Yet the areas outside downtown could easily exist without downtown.

Cramming as many people tightly packed into small cube apartments in one area so you can build a train or have a bus is highly detrimental to peoples mental health and every study proves this.

Space is important and cars solve this.

[flangola7]

I know this is parody, but there are Americans out there that unironically think like this.

[mcdonje]

>I hate being around so many people packed in a train, airplane, bus

I hate being in traffic. On a bus, people are around but you usually don't have to think about them. You can read a book. In traffic, people aren't next to you, but you have to constantly pay attention to them.

[thedrbrian]

> In traffic, people aren't next to you, but you have to constantly pay attention to them.

Sounds like someone has never had to take a bus or public transport in a rough area.

[mcdonje]

That's a bad assumption.

[ldhough]

I recently moved from a Florida city (after growing up in Florida suburbs) to DC and left my car behind. Not sure if DC counts as a "large" city in this context as it certainly a lot smaller than NYC or LA but the public transit and walkability are excellent and were huge motivations for me to move here.

In Florida everything requires a car, even in the cities you still need one let alone the suburbs. From other places I've visited in the US it seems like Florida is far from unique in this regard. It can easily be a 20+ minute drive to get dinner, go to the grocery store, etc. Driving requires constant focus to be safe (and is still pretty dangerous) while I can read on my phone on the metro (plus most trips are shorter). Most of the time I can just walk and don't even need to take the metro which is good exercise and a good time to think. Sitting in traffic was a common occurrence and and I can't think of anything as annoying that happened as often.

If I do need to take a long trip I can rent a car or use Uber, ends up being far cheaper than frequently filling a gas tank and all the other maintenance involved in car ownership even though I had cheap insurance and no car payments.

To each their own but those are the reasons why I personally much prefer public transit to driving, although I wouldn't say I like either. Walking however I enjoy greatly.

[JohnFen]

> Public transport sucks, not sure why so many people people like it.

Public transport sucks in the US, but that's just because the US has a weird hostility towards it, so doesn't properly invest in it. There's nothing about it that makes it have to suck.

[lotsoweiners]

We’re not hostile to it and we have good or at least adequate public transit in a lot of major cities. We just don’t need it everywhere. I live in a very suburban town and can’t imagine that many people would really want to take it. My town skews heavily Mormon (large families) and elderly. That is not going to get much ridership yet some people still keep proposing light rail extension to my town.

[patmorgan23]

You don't think those elderly people who are having trouble driving would love the opportunity to hold on a light rail line so they can take a stroll downtown in with their grandkids?

There is no good transit system in north America. If you want to see good transit you have to go to Europe, Asia or Latin America, where even small towns can have robust transit with high ridership.

North America is comically car dependent because we build everything only focusing on how cars are going to get in and out, and require ludicrous amounts of parking onsite basically everywhere.

Our transit systems are almost always an after thought in the land use planning process. We surround places in seas of parking and put transit stops on the edge of them or put transit stops on highway access road with no sidewalks. The transit systems are often viewed and built as a charity service provided for the poor that no respectable person would use daily. The schedules rarely have sufficient frequency to make the service actually usable.

Our zoning codes make building walkable places that could support and be supported by transit illegal or restrict them to only small specific TOD projects.

Here's a great video essay on what north America gets wrong when building transit https://youtu.be/MnyeRlMsTgI

[JohnFen]

> we have good or at least adequate public transit in a lot of major cities.

I don't think this is actually true. I can think of two cities that have decent public transit: New York (so I hear, I haven't been there) and Chicago. I've been to a lot of the other cities, including many who have won awards for their public transit, and I would call the best of those "poor".

[Mezzie]

Public transit is also a germ factory and as somebody who's immuno-compromised I really like not being sick all the time.

[serpix]

When I used the metro for commuting I got sick all the time. This is of course anecdotal but it really felt that way at the time.

[MengerSponge]

Driving is a luxury, and should be priced accordingly

[bathtub365]

It’s quite expensive to buy and maintain a car

[MengerSponge]

Yes, and public roads should be an additional cost.

I'm not interested in banning cars, but I am interested in charging appropriately for sprawl and air pollution.

[plandis]

Car registration fees / gas taxes do pay for that?

[serpix]

It is ridiculously expensive but the freedom is unparalleled. It would takes two hours to go across town. It takes 30 minutes by car. This is in Helsinki. Public transport works only to and from city center, sideways travel is royally painful.

[earthling8118]

Cars are chains that bind us, nothing more. The "freedom" to pay for insurance, gasoline, tires, batteries, and whatever else happens to go wrong. Cities with a proper public transit story also tend to have better driving experiences too

[mcdonje]

>unless you live in a large city

Most people live in large cities

[areyousure]

In case anyone is curious, I downloaded US Census Bureau data on the population of all incorporated towns and cities in the United States, eg from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2...

It appears that the median resident of the United States lives in a town or city of population 18,290 (as of the census date April 1, 2020).

As a quick sanity check, the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... cuts off at population 100,000 and mentions that > The total 2020 enumerated population of all cities over 100,000 is 96,598,047, representing 29.14% of the United States population

[mcdonje]

Most of those are suburbs. 85% of the US population lives in metropolitan statistical areas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_are...

[lotsoweiners]

Sure but most large cities aren’t just urban areas. Dallas, Houston, Denver, Phoenix etc are all large cities that you could live in and never have any reason to be near a high rise building.

[fragmede]

Are those really cities though? A huge concentrated mass of suburban sprawl and strip malls doesn't count as a city in my book.

[ajmurmann]

I bought a brand new Kia Soul for $20k and am very happy with it. I greatly enjoy driving twisty rural roads, especially in Europe where speed limits don't change for every curve. However, I dislike driving in urban areas where it's all about avoiding an accident and looking out for other drivers doing stupid stuff. Even worse if I'm driving somewhere new and have to navigate at the same time. So stressful!

What I really dislike though is living in a place that's made for cars. I miss walking to a grocery store to pick up a few things, walking to a friend's to hang out or just walking to a bar or restaurant to meet up. I've lived in the American suburbs now (mostly due to affordability) and hasn't had that experience in a long time. However, I recently had to do a unusual trip to a city in Germany near where I grew up and stayed at a downtown hotel. I mentioned to a friend that I was there and he texted me that he and his girlfriend happened to be having dinner in a restaurant not far away. Just being able to walk over and sit outside on a street filled with other diners, playing children and some guy playing piano was incredible. I'm not sure if this is all due to car centricity or other circumstances like having childhood friends in that city, it was a beautiful summer day, I was going through a tough emergency and seeing friends is extra nice then. However, given all the caveats I don't think I'd headed over to meet them if I had needed to get into a car, find parking etc since it was very short notice and I didn't know if I had 10 minutes or 3 hours till I had to go back to the emergency situation.

What I do know is that I do badly want more of that all the time!

[thesuitonym]

>I don't get the emotional association of freedom that previous generations did.

Previous generations would just go out for a ride, take the car out on Sunday and and enjoy the scenery. We just don't do that anymore, either because we're more concerned about the environmental effects of driving, or that we just have more interesting things to do.

Not to mention, when this idea of "the freedom of a car" came about, even many smaller cities still had decent transit systems, and were denser. A car truly was freedom, because you could choose to walk downtown, or take the car, or go to the next city over because they have a really nice cafe that you like. Nowadays if you want to go anywhere, unless you're lucky enough to live in a dense city with good transit, there's no choice. It's not freedom anymore, it's a sentence.

[zip1234]

Cars are a classic "tragedy of the commons" due to how much space they take up and the infrastructure they take up. The places where it might've been 'nice to go for a drive' are not that way anymore because they have changed by everyone having a car. The windy country roads without anyone living on them are now filled with people that 'want to live in the country' but ironically do not because everyone wanted that.

[yamtaddle]

Yep. There was once an Ivan Illich (first I'd encountered him!) piece about cars linked on here some years back, which piece claimed that due to the effects of cars on infrastructure and cities they were only generally beneficial early on, when few had them, and later, if you can pay to have a driver (so, on average, they're now only net-beneficial to the rich). This is for city and suburb dwellers, mind you, not rural folks.

He claimed that the sweet spot for actually-liberating transit technology was bicycles.

I ran some conservative numbers and, sure enough, take out the time worked to pay for my car and make some reasonable (but, conservative) guesses about how much closer my house would be to where I need to go if you cut out all the stuff that's only there for cars (really wide margin-zones and medians for highway, huge interchanges, gigantic parking lots far bigger than the building they serve, front lawns generally, et c.) and, despite my living only a medium-distance from the city center and making way above median income for my city... I'm roughly at break-even versus that alternative bikes-mostly world where cars are just for emergencies, deliveries to businesses, and public transit buses & elderly assistance and such, and aren't owned by individuals near the city.

The numbers get worse fast if you live any farther out, or if you make closer to median income. Like, plainly-negative-value from cars being widespread.

[nayuki]

"Ivan's Car": https://www.deautovanivan.nl/eng.html

> We think that the car due to its speed saves time. But when you are traveling by car, you not only lose the time it takes to go from A to B. You also have to work many hours to pay your car tax, insurance, maintenance and fuel.

My addendum: Also the capital cost of the car, whether it was bought outright in cash or with a loan.

[yamtaddle]

Oh, yeah, I forgot to add that was with a paid-off car so I didn't even count that. Bike-world would still leave me with more money and the same commute time, worst-reasonable-case. Plus the commute would also be exercise. And that's with personally making well north of 2x median household income for my city. Car-world works out much worse for the vast majority of 'burb-dwellers in my city.

[EDIT] FWIW, I was skeptical, is why I ran the numbers. He's so right, for the average person in (I'd bet) most US cities, that it's not even a close call, it turns out.

[BeFlatXIII]

> The windy country roads without anyone living on them are now filled with people that 'want to live in the country' but ironically do not because everyone wanted that.

See also: national parks

[zip1234]

Yellowstone is essentially a loop. Have busses going each direction every 5 minutes and no more traffic jams.

[synthpop]

It's ironic that as a result of previous generations of the USA being so terminally car-pilled, the "scenery" of most American towns/destinations have slowly transformed into bland, ugly parking lots as far as the eye can see.

[noobermin]

Of course, the generations that did this will deny they had any hand in it, and suck it up to their children (you know, the ones they raised apparently) are lazy, sheltered (by who I wonder), etc etc.

[jtr1]

> Previous generations would just go out for a ride, take the car out on Sunday and and enjoy the scenery. We just don't do that anymore, either because we're more concerned about the environmental effects of driving, or that we just have more interesting things to do.

I'm also an older millennial and like GP have no emotional attachment to cars. I also mildly resent my dependence on them, having traveled in places with fantastic public transport. I find them lonely and isolating.

I agree about the enviromental cost and other forms of entertainment. I think most of the rest can be explained by the combination of novelty + nostalgia for previous generations. Older Boomers caught the upswing out the highway act when there were new roads everywhere and an explosion of innovation in car design. The country wasn't yet totally built to enforce car ownership via sprawl, so I imagine a nice afternoon drive in the country was a thing many people enjoyed and created fond memories around.

[yamtaddle]

Cars are mostly less fun to drive around in, now. They used to be bigger, with nice wide & deep seats, and they had way better visibility. Plus more were convertibles.

Now they're smaller, with thick heavy safety beams providing much worse visibility, and there aren't many convertibles around.

There are exceptions, but they're mostly fun for the driver, not passengers. And they're usually expensive.

Plus, at-home entertainment is far more engaging than it used to be.

[fragmede]

You missed the biggest problem of all - traffic. Driving can be quite fun, but sitting in traffic is not. Because "everyone" has a car now, there's traffic everywhere to make LA freeways jealous. Sitting as a passenger in a car that's barely moving isn't the worst - we have infinite distraction boxes to play with, but the driver has no such toy to play with, so they have to make do with podcasts. Which are often quite engaging, but the driver still has to drive.

[doubled112]

Driving IS fun. Sitting in a car sucks.

Save the manual transmissions!

I joke mostly, but I'm convinced it's the only thing keeping me engaged while stuck in traffic sometimes.

If it wasn't for that, I'd have been distracted by a squirrel and love tapped something by now. Traffic is boring.

[JeremyNT]

> Cars are mostly less fun to drive around in, now. They used to be bigger, with nice wide & deep seats, and they had way better visibility. Plus more were convertibles.

I am curious if you do not live in the US. The cars here have only gotten bigger... much bigger. Pickups and very large SUVs rule the roads now, with huge lifts and massive footprints.

Many of the most popular large SUVs, such as the Jeep Wrangler or the Ford Bronco, are in fact convertibles as well.

[yamtaddle]

I mean 50s and 60s (and, to some degree, 70s) cars. Modern cars are taller but there were some absolute boats back then, and they weren't uncommon. And they felt huge on the inside. All but the largest of big-ass SUVs don't feel as big as they did, when you're actually in them.

[EDIT] And even with the added height, the view from a truck or SUV sucks compared to those old cars. The only modern car I've been in the comes half-way close is some model or other of Tesla, and even that wasn't terribly close. Modern windows are shorter (they start higher up the door), windshields more-angled (for less actual viewing angle), and pillars have gone from a thin strip to big ol' things that are far thicker, both width and depth. One feels far less closed-in in most old cars than in most modern cars.

[saltcured]

I think you're partly talking about the side effects of safety changes. An older car could feel like a "green house" with lots of glass and small frames. The cabin was also less protected, so the volume of empty space inside was closer to the volume of the outer skin of that section of the car. Thin doors, not much between you and the engine compartment firewall, wheel wells, etc.

But I also wonder if you were a kid back then. Everything seemed larger when we were small. I can look at the garage in my parents 50 year old house and realize that cars back then fit in the same spaces as cars now, and were roughly the same footprint as far as worrying about the exact position so that you could still open the door to get in or out of the parked car.

[yamtaddle]

Oh, yeah, it's a combination of safety changes and shape-optimization for fuel efficiency. I didn't say it was bad, just that it's less-pleasant to go on a lazy Sunday drive in a modern car than it was in cars back when taking an aimless drive was a fairly common leisure activity.

I've been in some of those older cars more recently and yeah, they're just big and feel very open—and, anyway, these cars' being common pre-dates my childhood; though, even my sporty late-90s high school sedan felt more open than newer cars, because it was, due to all those safety changes—better visibility, less of a feeling of the car's interior trying to crush in toward you—and it wasn't a spacious-interior car for the time.

[vidarh]

I'm 47, and have never bothered getting a drivers license because I've always lived places where the combination of public transport with fallback to taxis has been good enough. Add on Uber and equivalent, and my need for cars is lower than ever.

If I'd lived somewhere a car was needed, I'd have learned. It's not an ideological opposition to cars by any means. Occasionally I consider getting a drivers license, and then forget about it, because it's just never felt worth the hassle.

Like you I've just never felt that emotional association with freedom from a car. I think an essential aspect of that was growing up somewhere where I felt I had the same options without one.

[NovemberWhiskey]

I found that not having a driver's license tremendously limited some of my opportunities for recreation and travel. I drive way more when I'm on vacation than I do when I'm home.

[vidarh]

If you're into things that requires you to be able to drive, sure. I prefer spending my times in cities, and I like walking. The combination means I've never felt constrained even when visiting the US. On the rare occasion where I want to go somewhere where it's a genuine challenge, I can justify blowing money on getting someone to drive me.

[kevinali1]

While I totally agree with this, I think you should still get a drivers license. There's always a very real possibility that you may need to drive a car in some sort of emergency.

[vidarh]

It's a risk that is so low that if I were to invest time in reducing the top risks in my life, it'd be far outside the top 10. Put another way: The odds of me finding myself somewhere where I can't easily find someone to drive me somewhere is near zero.

Note that this is how I evaluate my risk. I absolutely accept this will be an issue for people who live in places where getting transport might be a problem. If that's a problem here, civilisation has ended.

[nradov]

Public transit strikes and system breakdowns happen occasionally, nothing to do with the end of civilization. Not being able to drive really limits your options, especially if you want to travel to remote locations for business or leisure. Knowing how it drive is just a basic life skill for any adult. It's something everyone should know how to do like being able to cook a meal or rewire an electrical outlet or shoot a gun or splint a broken limb. You might not need those skills every day but you shouldn't be completely dependent on others. Having some generalist skills gives you freedom and independence, and opens up a lot of options.

[vidarh]

Public transit strikes doesn't take out the dozens of private hire car firms, minicab companies and app driven providers serving where I live.

So, yeah, it'd take pretty much the end of civilisation for it to be an issue. If I had no money, or lived somewhere rural, the considerations would be different.

And not being able to drive has never been a factor for me in deciding where I want to go.

If I had any desire to regularly go to anywhere so remote that I couldn't justify hiring someone to drive me there, I'd learn to drive, but in 47 years that has happened exactly zero times.

I live in a city in a functioning society, not in a rural location or third world country, and my interests don't include anything that will see me end up in the middle of nowhere. That this might not be true for you does not mean it isn't true for me.

[frosted-flakes]

> drive or cook a meal or rewire an electrical outlet or shoot a gun or splint a broken limb

None of those except cooking are in any way "basic life skills". Least of all shooting a gun.

[nradov]

It's sad if you really believe that. Too many people in the tech industry have led such sheltered lives that they lack perspective on what happens in the real world. At a bare minimum every adult should know how to unload and render safe a firearm.

[yesenadam]

> I think you should still get a drivers license

Or learn to drive, at least. I don't think lack of a licence would stop you driving in a real emergency.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Probably get a license though. A real emergency is when you're most likely to make mistakes behind the wheel and you're going to be in a lot of trouble if you get in an unlicensed accident.

[hunter2_]

This might depend on location. For me, maintaining a license works out to a few USD/yr so you might as well do it if only for emergencies, to avoid a citation in an emergency (though I'll admit it's far-fetched for that to occur). In a place where licensing is expensive, I'd agree with your take.

[asciimov]

As an aging millennial that grew up in West Texas, I have the exact opposite feelings.

To me cars, equal freedom. I grew up in a small neighborhood, I rode bikes to my friends houses there but my neighborhood was so far removed from other places and stores that there was no other place to go. Getting my license at 16 opened so many doors for me. Now I could go hang out at my other friends houses that lived 10-15 miles away from me. I could get a job, go to the store and movies, and just cruse around without having my parents question me. I didn't have a cell phone back then, so being able to leave and not be contacted was glorious.

For college I moved out to the Texas Panhandle. When gas was cheap I'd often go out for long drives into the country with friends, to talk, so explore and see what was out there, to visit family, and to make beer runs because our city was dry meaning you had to go out of town to buy a six pack.

When I have had extended periods of not having a vehicle I have get a visceral sense of foreboding and dread. I feel like a caged animal, unable to leave any situation, escape in case of danger. These feelings mildly lessen if public transit is available, but they are still there. Having any kind of vehicle feels like safety as I know I can flee if I need to, even if I don't.

[AlphaCharlie]

Do you live in a low density area?

I think your point of view aligns well with the idea that increased density and good alternative transit options lead to less need and want for cars.

But rural and isolated areas can’t live without a car (or a credible alternative).

As much as I’d like car to disappear, there’s a lot of use of it that we can’t replace without severely altering some of the population’s quality of life

[asciimov]

I'm sure many would consider where I grew up low density. It was just underdeveloped suburban section of a town of 110K people.

I'm sure when everything is in walking distance, that the costs to store a vehicle becomes unmaintainable, and largely unneeded. But for a large swath of American's living outside of the major metros in the north, having a car is just a way of life.

[ryukafalz]

>but my neighborhood was so far removed from other places and stores that there was no other place to go

This is probably why. It's less clear cut when there's an abundance of places to go and things to do within easy walking/biking/transit distance.

[asciimov]

Indeed.

I'm always fascinated by the idea of high density cities, because that kind of lifestyle is so foreign to me. While I would love to have stores and restaurants that stay open past 9 pm, I don't think I want to live in such close quarters to so many other people.

[ryukafalz]

Even in the suburbs here in the Northeast, things are physically close enough to each other that you could get to quite a lot without a car. We often don't build in such a way that it's comfortable to do so though.

I've just moved to a suburb of Philadelphia. I'm on a quiet residential street, but there's a train station to Philly about an 8 minute bike ride away (with trains every 7ish minutes at rush hour), and the route is reasonably comfortable. Likewise there's a main street about a 5 minute ride away with several restaurants and shops, and the neighboring towns are similar. (Riding on the main street itself is less comfortable, but there's at least a documented plan to add bike infrastructure.)

There's also a big-box shopping center that would be a 12 minute ride away, but there's currently no safe route there without a car. That's a policy choice though, there's nothing about the distances involved that would make it infeasible.

Despite all this, I would guess that my neighborhood doesn't fundamentally look much different than those you're familiar with. It's maybe slightly more compact, but unless you're really far out there my guess is it's just better-connected.

Not showing my actual house for obvious reasons but this is representative: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MidgjesXcKjgTFnt9

[mariojv]

Are you from El Paso? My husband is from there, and him and his younger sisters also love to drive. His parents have made a point of getting them all cars by the time they're in college at the latest. Part of it is that it's really hard to get around that city without a car, but they also take really good care of their cars and treasure them even after moving away to a city with slightly more transit options. It is interesting though that they seem to buck the trend of younger people not wanting to drive as much.

[ghaff]

I think a lot of younger people who choose to live in a city, especially new grads, are essentially continuing their college experience. A lot of friends probably live in the city too. They can often bum transportation/do joint activities from friends who do own cars and are mostly fine with minimizing out of city activities that require a car.

They also restrict themselves to jobs they can easily get to. Which in tech was basically impossible in, say, Boston 25 years ago.

A friend of mine made the observation that people mostly just don't do optional activities if they're hard or expensive to do. So if you live carless in a city with decent public transit, you mostly restrict your recreational activities and people you get together with to what's convenient and tend not to do things that require renting a car on a Friday night and returning it Sunday or Monday.

[sokoloff]

> jobs they can easily get to. Which in tech was basically impossible in, say, Boston 25 years ago.

Really? There was plenty of tech in Kendall Sq area within an easy walk from the T. I worked for three different companies in that area and regularly walked from a couple of different apartments (generally leaving my car in the company parking garage).

It might have been impossible to do that in tech in other cities, but Boston/Cambridge has been strong for 3+ decades.

[ghaff]

When Teradyne moved out of Boston, that was pretty much the last major tech company that was in Boston as I recall. The outposts of the west coast companies are much newer as is most of the pharma/biotech. All the big computer companies were out in Metrowest (one of which I worked for) and the defense companies were outside the city as well. In any case, I certainly didn't have any job offers in Boston/Cambridge when I graduated and Draper Labs and Polaroid are the only examples in that general area I can think of from the time.

Maybe it's more like 30 years than 25 at this point but there was very little in Kendall Square a few decades ago.

[sokoloff]

Akamai was founded there in 1995. Thinking Machines moved to that general area in 1984. Lotus Software was nearby since 1982. Infocom was there in the 1980s. Google opened Cambridge in 2003. Several other MIT-spinoff startups came and went, of course (Lisp Machines/Symbolics).

[ghaff]

Akamai was probably the first really significant tech company to populate Kendall. Lotus was up in Fresh Pond. Infocom was on Wheeler Street as I recall. As you, there were a number of AI Lab and other MIT spinoffs in the general MIT area. But, to my original point, the vast majority of computer industry employment was out in the suburbs.

[sokoloff]

Oh, I thought Lotus was over by the Cambridgeside Galleria area. Indeed there was a lot in the suburbs, but it didn't feel difficult to me to work in tech on the subway in the early 90s when I started my career.

[nradov]

Wow. That seems such a sad and limiting way to live your life. I love how I can use my cars to go anywhere at any time without depending on anyone else. And my family and I do a lot of optional activities. Different perspective, I guess.

[ghaff]

In all fairness, it works both ways. Increasingly with traffic and difficult parking, I think twice before driving into the nearest major city for events or just a casual dinner. So it works both ways. People, very reasonably, are biased towards activities that aren't routinely inconvenient.

[brmgb]

> Wow. That seems such a sad and limiting way to live your life.

Mostly true in my experience. I used to get away a lot more when I had a car and could just decide to hit the road whenever I wanted than I do now that I either have to rent or plan earlier and buy train tickets. It's purely friction linked by the way. I could still do all the things I did and it would actually cost me less money in the end. I just don't.

[hunter2_]

Friction for sure. In most cases (other than trying to find parking where that's difficult) having a car means most of the friction (cost, maintenance) is decoupled from each ride. With other options like train, Uber, etc. most of the friction (cost, waiting, planning) is coupled to each ride.

We tend to take more rides in the decoupled model, I'd think.

[ghaff]

I know a couple in SF who don't own a car and still seem pretty mobile between bike, walking, Uber, Zipcar, rentals, etc. But it takes a certain mental accounting disciple to go "I'm OK with spending $50 in transportation to meet a friend for dinner--and maybe a bit longer--because I'm still coming out ahead on an annual basis."

[Xylakant]

The thing that helped me most is looking up the costs for owning a car and building that into my budget. I know that as long as the sum of all rides in a month is below that figure, I'm coming out ahead. (plus the added comfort of not actually being the one to drive)

[BeFlatXIII]

Depends on the options available in your city. It's like the arguments against piracy based on the fear that no one will make books or movies ever again. Even if true, the existing stock has far more than anyone can enjoy in a single lifetime.

[readingnews]

Hrm, I guess I _am_ getting older. Now that I think about it, I have owned a car for about 35 years. When I got the first one, used, it was $500. Insurance was high, but not insane like today (my children do not drive, as I can not afford the insurance). I recall that back then (we had BBSs, FIDOnet and USENET groups) it was still an item that gave you freedom. You needed it to visit people or go to the cafe which was far away.

I think as time progresses, I have truly learned to dislike my car(s). Insurance where I am is out of control (one of the highest in the nation), a new car is so far out of reach it is not funny, and used ones cost far more than the last new car I purchased. I think as others have noted, there may be a number of factors leading to people not wanting them... A few young people I know do not have cars, when asked the reasons are typically money (biggest one) and pure need / desire. I think when we were young it was as symbol of freedom. I think now it is (rightfully so) either a status symbol to some, or a ball and chain that costs money just sitting in your driveway (maintenance, depreciation, insurance).

[lamontcg]

I'm from the same BBS/Usenet era and I used to be heavily into cars, now I can't imagine spending >$30k on a massively depreciating asset. I also hate how cars have become massive steel tanks on wheels.

[secretsatan]

I haven't owned a car for at least 15 years since I moved to Switzerland, don't miss it at all. I do occasionally need a car, so I'm a member of a car sharing scheme, they always have cars nearby, I pay a low yearly feee and a low rate per time and kms used, easy to book with an app, probably cost me the same for a year as a parking space for a month.

For an occasional weekend away I might get a car from a regular hire company as they workout cheaper for longer distance.

I suppose I never drove that much before in the UK, never really had to commute as I always try and live within walking distance to work, although I would sometimes drive if it was bad weather, but that was because public transport wasn't really an option for that, the buses were frequently backed up in the rush hour traffic and all would arrive at once instead of being evenly staggered, meaning long waits in the rain where it would have been quicker to walk anyway.

[detourdog]

I have an 8-unit apartment building in small New England town. I'm seriously considering getting a car as a building amenity. The car would be reserved and shared amongst the tenants.

[dublinben]

You might be able to just partner with one of the existing providers in this space, like Zipcar, and let them handle the logistics: https://www.zipcar.com/business/residential

[detourdog]

I have reached out to manufacturers that offer the ability to pay a fixed amount for access to cars. Last I checked they were all individual focused products. Zipcar could work but I find the more relationships I have the more paperwork. I would control all aspects and simply add it to the keycard for tracking. If I introduce a third party it removes human judgement from the individuals involved in the relationship. I have no interest outsourcing my relationships to corporations lawyers to the extent possible. It definitely will make sense for some people but I happen to be a lunatic.

They are addressing a large scale building. I will only have 8 people and can get as many cars as 8 people are willing to pay for.

[earthling8118]

You sound like the kind of fabled landlord that is a pleasure to work with. Keep it up.

[detourdog]

The biggest problem I see with the modern world is that too many relationships are working at the wrong scale, or are asymmetrical.

Anyone looking for a mixed-use studio apartment with a fiber line get in touch. If you like to walk in the woods and internet access this is a great building.

We are practically net-zero and survived that -15 F cold snap on heat pumps.

view.cogs.com

[ryukafalz]

>I do occasionally need a car, so I'm a member of a car sharing scheme, they always have cars nearby

This is something I wish were more common in the US. I'm in a relatively high-density suburb of one of the largest US cities and they're practically nonexistent here, and even in the city are hard to come by.

[Xylakant]

The economics don’t work out in places where almost everyone has a car. And in places where other options are scarce, everyone owns a car. (Works the same for public transit)

[LoveMortuus]

I'm also a millennial and while I don't like having to pay for maintenance and fuel, driving around the country side has been one of the best spent time. I love the views and the silence*, the feel of the road and the discovery of unknown views.

I don't have a lot of money, some might even say that I don't have money.

I drive a Citroen Saxo 1.0 year 2000 in the golden colour and the incredible sense of freedom it gives me is strong enough where I don't care how much a car costs ( It cost 350€), I don't care for luxury, I mean my radio stopped working about three years ago.

I still remember my father telling me many years ago, not being able to drive is like not being able to read or write, you're basically illiterate, and to some extent I have to agree.

Having a car gives me the same feeling of freedom that I've felt when I was able to walk again after getting my legs messed up.

[oweiler]

I detest my car. Not only is it generally more expensive than public transport, you always have to set aside money to replace or fix broken parts. Regularly driving to the oil station sucks. Traffic jams, which are more and more commonplace, sucks.

[nradov]

I love my car. Not only is it faster and more convenient than public transport, it is highly reliable and not subject to union strikes. All of the maintenance is quick and cheap. There are multiple fuel stations nearby. Traffic jams do suck, but adaptive cruise control makes them suck a lot less.

[sagarm]

> traffic jams do suck

Or put more succinctly, you agree cars suck. Some of us just go one car further.

[nradov]

I don't agree at all. Cars are awesome! Reliable, fast personal mobility is a huge step forward in quality of life.

[sagarm]

traffic is what we call it when cars get together to have a good time

[wkat4242]

Me too. I hate the stress of driving. The busy traffic, all the mistakes you can make and be fined for, the hurry of some people. Expensive everything.

I live in a city now with amazing public transport and I don't miss my car at all.

[SketchySeaBeast]

It's also utterly wasted time. You can't do anything with it and you can't even zone out because you're actively driving. While walking or on a bus you can read or devote your whole attention to an audio book. You're not home, but it's still your time.

[wkat4242]

Totally agree! It feels like I got part of my life back <3

[01100011]

I'm an aging gen x'er. I would feel the same way if American cities were safer, more polite, and more pleasant to live in. I visited Tokyo a few decades ago and was amazed at what life could be like. Unfortunately, the issues of modern American cities compel me to seek life in the suburbs or rural areas, necessitating a single passenger vehicle.

[codexb]

I can accept that people can find happiness in vastly different situations, but the "city life" is devoid of a lot of the things that people living in the suburbs and rural areas enjoy that require having a car.

People who collect things, or have a workshop in their garage, or go fishing, or hunting, or real hiking, or any outdoor activity really, or who have children (especially more than one).

If I lived in the city, I would probably get rid of my car and just rent one when I needed it. But I just don't really want to live in the city because none of the stuff I enjoy most is there.

[wing-_-nuts]

If I could shape the world to my liking, we'd look a lot more like the neatherlands with mixed-use development, great public transit and protected bike / ped infrastructure.

Even with all that goodness, roughly half the population in the neatherlands owns a car, despite how outrageously expensive it can be there. There are still great reasons to own a car, and frankly I think everyone's experience would be better if walking, biking, and public transit were safe and viable. That could get so much traffic off the road. It would make driving much more pleasant.

Owning a car should be a 'nice to have' and not a 'need'.

[fragmede]

A congestion charge would also help get cars off the road, while allowing people too continue owning cars.

[Earw0rm]

Yep.. something about setting out in to the unknown, a battered paper map as your guide, and the combination of surprise and lack of accountability (doesn't perfectly describe what I mean, but I can't find a better word) you'd get in return.

It was possible to do that before cars, but mass car ownership & a modern road network made it something the average consumer could do semi-routinely, instead of something that required more spare time & energy than people had day to day.

When you know not only what businesses, facilities etc. you'll find in the town 50km away, but have a fair idea of what they're like (google reviews..), the world is so much a smaller place than it was even up until the mid 1990s. And with social media, you're no more or less a stranger in your own town than anywhere else.

[foobarian]

Street view is the last nail in the coffin, why drive when you can just take a peek from your computer.

On the flip side, it's a fun activity to do with my kid. Pick a random country, "drive around" on SV to see what it's like there.

I'm sure we lose something from the watered down interaction though. Walking into a faraway bar or diner and chatting up the locals is much more enriching.

[earthling8118]

Yet now, to me, public transit is the way to venture out into that unknown. Finding out a cool new place along a route you use, or even trying out a new route and seeing what it gets you. That's been super enjoyable. With cars I only have time to go to things that I already know about. I can't look around well enough while paying attention to the road. If I'm on a bus I can see something cool and hop off and go check it out

[Earw0rm]

Same with bikes. You're present in the space in a way you just can't be in a car. Not as quick of course, but enough to cover a meaningful amount of ground across the city while still being able to interact as if you were on foot, more or less. Long distance trains too, for the serendipity of random conversation.

[stuckinhell]

I'm an aging millennial as well.

I love having a car! I can't imagine not having a car when you have KIDS! Driving them to their various sports games, with a car full of their equipment. Going camping with them. Getting groceries for a family of 5.

I can't imagine doing that on public transport.

[warner25]

I think we can recognize the tremendous utility of something without having an emotional connection like love for it. I agree that I can't imagine not having a car with my four little kids. I also can't imagine not having laundry machines with four little kids, but I don't love my laundry machines; I'm not passionate about them. If you swapped them out with different but reasonably equivalent machines, I wouldn't even blink. Edited to add: And when I don't have four little kids anymore, I'd be happy to live car-free in a walkable city or use a laundry service.

[stuckinhell]

I chose the word Love and I meant it. Humans are emotional beings first and thinking beings second (Though this maybe my day job of management leaking through). Every time I look at my car, I remember my children's "firsts", and honestly I know I'll be very sad when that car breaks down.

[warner25]

Fair point. My car has served me a lot longer than my laundry machines, and it indeed has many more memories connected to it. Now I'm wondering if that's unique to my car or any old object that been close to me for 15 years. I guess I have a simple backpack like that too.

[e63f67dd-065b]

As a kid who grew up in a dense city, I can’t imagine having to be driven by my parents to see a friend or to play some sports, instead of just walking there myself anytime I wanted. I can’t imagine it’s great for the parent either, you have to plan your schedule around your kids and the flexibility just seems miserable.

[stuckinhell]

You might also be discounting a generational change. My coworkers in the city don't let their kids under 13 walk around in the city by themselves either. We often coordinate when we all are planning on doing stuff with our kids, so slack coverage is always 100%

[Xorakios]

Agree with you on generational difference.

40 years ago I walked to school, played in parks, rode my bike with friends.

Now my grandchildren would be confiscated by Child Protective Services and their parents face prison if anyone under 13 isn't accompanied at all times, both inside and outside their homes, by an adult.

[t0bia_s]

Family of 5, no car, just bikes.

It is possible. It just depends on where do you live and how comfortable you are.

[dclowd9901]

I worked with a guy who had two kids and no car. They rode their bikes everywhere, always. He insisted on it. I think his wife was miserable lol. But his kids seemed to like it!

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

Bringing home groceries on a bike for a family of 4 in the rain sounds awful. Though today grocery delivery isn't too bad, I suppose.

[steelframe]

> Bringing home groceries on a bike for a family of 4 in the rain sounds awful.

It's 100% about the equipment. Gore-Tex. Neoprene. Fenders. Front and rear racks. Waterproof panniers. Lithium-ion batteries. Motor.

Park right in front of the market. Pop the panniers into a cart. Stow the groceries directly into them. No hauling bags out to your car, loading them into the trunk, and then unloading them at home. Instead, transfer straight from the panniers to the fridge and pantry.

I do it year-round in the hilly and rainy Pacific Northwest, and it's actually kind of fun.

[frosted-flakes]

I go grocery shopping by bike. Of course it's only for me, but I can easily fit a week's worth of food in a milk crate. I even get heavy stuff like cartons of canned drinks or gallon jugs of milk. I live about two kilometres from two grocery stores in an isolated northern town in Canada, and even though there is zero bike infrastructure here, it's so close that it doesn't really matter if I need to go multiple times per week.

Rain or snow doesn't really matter either; that's what fenders and a jacket are for, and in any case it rarely rains heavily non-stop, but comes in waves, so I can just wait until the rain pauses for a little while.

It's great fun, actually. I hate getting groceries by car now.

[frenchy]

It totally depends. I do half our shopping on a bike, but I was very intentional about buying a place that was only a km from a grocery store. I could walk if I really wanted.

The worst part is that the shopping carts aren't near the bike rack, so its quite a hastle to deal with toddlers trying to run away.

[JohnFen]

It's not bad at all if you have a decent trailer and raingear.

[rolenthedeep]

I'm an American but I lived in Europe for a while, and it hurts me every day that we don't have public transit.

When I was in Europe, my daily routine was get up, grab a donut from the corner shop connected to my flat, walk one block to the subway. If I was lucky, there would be a tram waiting at the other subway station and I could just jump on, or walk the 8 blocks to the office. When I stayed at the office late, the subway was closed but I could always take the night tram the long, long way around.

It sounds complicated, but it really isn't. You buy a ticket, then you can simply walk onto any form of public transit. Subway, tram, busses, even a ferry over the river. And it cost the equivalent of $1.50 to go all the way across one of the largest cities in Europe. It's easy and pleasant, and leaves you free to read a book or work on your laptop if you really want.

Meanwhile in the US, I have to maintain this car, I have to pay something like $30/week in gas and parking. I have to deal with our inadequately maintained roads that damage my car. I also have to deal daily with the incredibly high-stress situation of not letting other drivers fucking kill me. I have at minimum two close calls a week.

I could take the bus here, but it turns a 20 minute commute into 2 hours.

I'd take a subway and a sidewalk 100% of the time. Zero question, no hesitation. It's simply superior in all ways.

[rr808]

I think flying is so cheap and ubiquitous now it makes a big difference. 30-40 years ago if you wanted to go away for vacation you probably drove, where now people often fly several times a year.

[maxsilver]

> but even then, I don't get the emotional association of freedom that previous generations did. I don't know what's different, although I have some guesses. Money, I'm sure, but there's something that's nagging me about it.

I'd argue it's a combination of money and aging infrastructure. Money is the big one (cars used to be a lot cheaper, both to buy and to maintain. Incomes for most used to be much higher). Infrastructure is another, in a lot of places, they haven't meaningfully upgraded any of the public driving transportation infrastructure since the 1950s to 1970s, so a lot of infrastructure is handling car volumes 200% to 600% higher than they were ever engineered for.

In Michigan, there's still very much a lot of "fun/freedom" around cars. But our population has been pretty flat this entire time (+/-2% pop change YoY since the 1960s), so even though the infrastructure is old, it's usually appropriately sized for the population in all but the newest-growth places. If you live in, say Seattle, you very much don't get that experience, public vehicle transit infrastructure has not kept up at all, and so driving is artificially a lot more of a painful burden there.

[sokoloff]

> (cars used to be a lot cheaper, both to buy and to maintain. Incomes for most used to be much higher)

Cars have inflated at a rate significantly lower than general inflation (typically by about half as much), meaning they've gotten cheaper in real terms. They've also gotten much safer, more fuel efficient, reliable, lower-maintenance, and long-lived.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/New-cars/price-inflation/1980-...

[SketchySeaBeast]

In that case I wonder if it's a matter of the essentials costing so much more? Is it possible the cost of housing is taking up the price of a car?

[sokoloff]

Education, health care, and housing are the unholy trinity of faster-inflating categories.

[Dudeman112]

Wages have gone up with inflation where you live?

[sokoloff]

Yes. I live in the US, where real incomes have generally risen:

Median: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Lowest quintile: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXU900000LB0102M (before taxes) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUINCAFTTXLB0102M (after taxes [which is what is spendable])

[anovikov]

Well but this is simply not the case. Cars did not get more expensive in the last 30-40 years vs CPI and much more accessible vs median let alone average income. They also last a lot longer so used cars are much more of an option than they were 30 let alone 60 years ago.

[maxsilver]

> Cars did not get more expensive in the last 30-40 years vs CPI and much more accessible vs median let alone average income.

This is objectively false, cars absolutely did get more expensive in the last 30 years, they cost about double what they did in 1990, even after accounting for inflation. (see https://thesoundingline.com/since-1990-the-price-of-a-cheap-... as just one example of the math on that).

They may "last longer", sure, but that can itself also carry negative impacts (particularly on fuel economy, safety, and air pollution)

[crazygringo]

Your link shows an extremely outlier case, which is the absolute cheapest car available (not a representative or average car) compared to the median income (which is different from inflation).

It's easy to look up prices for something average though. A 1990 Toyota Camry was $11,588 MSRP [1]. A 2022 Toyta Camry is $25,395 MSRP [2]. That's a nominal increase of 119%. Meanwhile, the CPI increase from 1990 to 2022 was 124%.

So, a Toyota Camry has decreased slightly in price, in real terms. But it's also a better car, e.g. the 1990 one got you 24 MPG combined, while the 2022 gets you 32 MPG combined. Not to mention a host of other improvements over more than two decades.

So your assertion that cars cost double even after inflation doesn't seem to hold up, at least not for an average representative car, from the data I'm able to pull.

[1] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/1990/toyota/camry/4-door-sedan

[2] https://www.kbb.com/toyota/camry/2022/

[3] https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/infl...

[4] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/6763.shtml

[5] https://www.mariettatoyota.com/2022-toyota-camry-mpg/

[ianburrell]

Also, the 2022 Camry is a significantly bigger car. The 1990 was a compact, like the Corolla today. The 2022 is a midsize car. Comparing 1990 Camry to 2022 Corolla would make more sense.

[Mezzie]

> it's usually appropriately sized for the population in all but the newest-growth places.

Hell, a lot of our municipalities have transport infrastructure designed for larger populations. Driving around Flint or Lansing is easy for the most part (Detroit proper can also handle much bigger traffic numbers but the roads will kill your car so that's not easy).

I hated driving in the PNW though. Especially Vancouver, with its refusal to allow highways.

[jjav]

> Money is the big one (cars used to be a lot cheaper, both to buy and to maintain.

That's just not true. Maybe for some outlier car models.

For example my parents bought a base model Toyota Corolla in 1998 for 16K. A 2023 Corolla has MSRP $21,550.

16K in 1998 dollars is $29,366 today.

So, the Corolla has actually become substantially cheaper over the years!

[BizarreByte]

Cheaper, more reliable, more efficient, and they have way more features today.

It’s shocking how much cars have improved in only a few decades.

[jjav]

> Cheaper, more reliable, more efficient, and they have way more features today.

Everything else yes, but more reliable remains to be seen. Cars are way more complex today with tons of more fragile electronics.

That 1998 Corolla I mention above is still going strong, just drove it today. It's a very simple car, so it might well outlast the 2023 model, perhaps.

[Semaphor]

Another aging millennial. I don't, and never have owned a car. But luckily, I don't only live in a German city with good public transport, but also in the city center. I hate driving, during COVID, I rented a car 2 times to visit my parents for Christmas, but I far prefer being able to take the train. Just the ability to read during the trip makes all the difference for me. Or for a longer trip, to sleep ;)

[earthling8118]

I don't think we'll have a choice on whether or not to remove car dependence in our infrastructure. They are just outright not affordable on the scale that we are using them to. We were able to keep it up this long but I have no expectation that it will be able to continue how it has. And the result of that combined with the complete dependence on them are going to make things very ugly for quite some time.

[stcroixx]

You live somewhere that requires a car and you have a car, so yeah, there's no association of car=freedom for you. That is for people who live in the same place as you but don't have a car. When they get one, it's 'ah, freedom'. You could experience this too if you tried to live your normal life without your car.

[toss1]

I've lived in the city, in the suburbs, and in the country.

Absolutely no question, living in the city (in this case, Manhattan/NYC), a car is a liability. Parking was either insanely expensive or a game of musical chairs 2X per week as the no parking times for the streetsweepers come up (and that was decades ago).

But anywhere else, the car is basically a necessity. Doesn't have to be fancy, but it does have to be. I keep looking at electric motorcycles/scooters for a relatively short commute, but not keen on the hazards (and I'm not risk averse; I've had sportscar racing licenses & experience, rock climbing, etc., but when surgeons I know call motorcycles "donor-cycles", I take the hint).

What is sad is that only rarely is driving fun anymore. A long drive in the country on a nice day was a real joy, but there's just too much traffic now...

[fragmede]

We don't (and probably never will be able to) have to remove anything, we "just" have to densify downtown districts to have jobs, shops, and housing within convenient public transportation distance, so people can exist without cars.

[Salgat]

As a former chicago resident who lived near a station, that wasn't my experience. In the time it took to walk down to the station and wait to get onto a train, I could already be at most restaurants and stores if I used a car in the suburbs. Also groceries became a huge ordeal. There's a lot of time overhead with public transit and unfortunately subways attract a lot of sketchy beggars and rude folk.

[wizofaus]

If you're somebody who's happy to stay based in a low density suburban area for all your daily needs (i.e. no regular travel to a downtown/ inner urban area) then I'd agree, it's pretty hard to see the advantages of forms of transport other than a car, particularly if you don't find walking a meaningful/enjoyable form of exercise. But obviously not everyone fits into that category, yet still live in cities that are largely built on the assumption you'll travel everywhere by car despite the disadvantages.

[earthling8118]

I would pay any amount of money or spend any amount of time to not have to deal with a car in Chicago ever again. Traffic, parking, and inflexibility to just hop on a train or bus are killer.

[Salgat]

A car in Chicago is hell (at my first apartment it was first come first serve parking on the side of the road, the second required a valet which was also annoying), and mass transit was also a pain in the ass, and that's saying a lot since Chicago has an excellent mass transit system.

[warner25]

Excellent post. My car is a Prius, at the lowest trim model, that I bought when I graduated from college 15 years ago. I "love it" in the sense that I love how cheap and reliable it has been. I totally view it as an appliance to get me from A to B with minimal fuss. And for the past ten years, my wife and I have largely organized our life to minimize how much time we spend driving around. We've spent a good portion of our marriage sharing the Prius as our only car.

My Boomer parents, on the other hand, own five or six cars, including several Corvettes and still go on long drives just for fun. We just can't understand each other.

I also live in a place now that has a "car culture," like people come to visit for races and car shows, and to do scenic drives in their exotic Ferrari and Lamborghini sports cars. To a first approximation, it's all Boomers.

[xnx]

Wait until self driving cars become the norm. Driving to destinations 8 hours away will be commonplace.

[bamboozled]

the maintenance, the ongoing cost of fuel and insurance, all of it.

Not sure if rich people worry about this, which is what the article is about, rich people.

Agree wit everything else you said though.

[oftitogf]

It's not about rich people, it's about people at all levels of wealth in the developed world. Rich relative to the world's poorest, but not the 1% who don't worry about the costs of owning a car.

[mercutio2]

In the US, no one in the top 40% has to worry about the costs of car ownership.

The richest 1% of Americans are much richer than worrying about the costs of cars, certainly, but the median American income is just very high relative to the cost of car ownership.

[pookha]

I felt like I was going to get murdered by some guy wigging out in NYCs subways. And I'm attuned to sketchy situations thanks to my youth and there was a menacing vibe even without the nutter. And the bus? God no. I rode the city bus as a kid. Guy was dealing drugs in the back, gangs would abuse and bully a gay dude like every day...it was a show. Thank god for the freedom, safety and flexibility my personal vehicle provides.