[lngarner]

Completely dependent on driving is the key here. We're completely beholden to corporations and dangerous, dirty machines to conduct virtually every aspect of daily life -- if you're physically, financially, and legally able to do so. It doesn't have to be this way. Cars suck.

[falcolas]

Cars are awesome. I'm protected (from people, vehicles, and weather), I can go where I need to on demand and on my own schedule. My car is personalized to me, and my car is beholden to nobody else.

I can't imagine not having a car.

And yes, I've lived in big cities with good public transportation. Public transportation is a great bonus if and when it's appropriate for use, but it absolutely can't replace a car.

[blamazon]

Counterpoint: cars are unpleasant. They're expensive, complicated, require constant maintenance and consumable wear items and a lot of space to store, they pose a substantial personal liability risk, incur significant taxation and insurance fees, you have to pay for fuel and manage the logistics of frequent refueling/recharging, they rapidly depreciate in value, they can be damaged, catch on fire, strand you in the middle of nowhere, you have to pay attention constantly while using them, etc.

Yes, there are ways to defray these annoyances but those ways generally carry fractally nested annoyances of their own.

To me, living without a car is the true freedom, one that I miss, that I yearn for every day presently. To have the most expensive thing I own be a bicycle would be splendid. I can always rent a car, carry an umbrella, hail a taxi for the edge cases.

[falcolas]

> They're expensive,

Living is expensive. Housing is an order of magnitude more expensive on a monthly basis than cars are. Food is around the same as a car payment.

EDIT: And in a pinch, a car can be used as housing. Sucks that this is a real thing, but there are definitely folks who prioritize their car payments over house payments. Gives them shelter and transportation so they can find work again.

> complicated,

No more complicated than working around public transport, IME.

> require constant maintenance and consumable wear items

About once a year, yeah, drop it off at a mechanic for a few hours.

> and a lot of space to store,

The space is built into most origins and destinations, the cost built into the location regardless of whether you drove or not. To be cheeky, why not use what I'm already paying for?

> they pose a substantial personal liability risk,

Not really? Your liability is generally managed by insurance, which leads to:

> incur significant taxation and insurance fees, you have to pay for fuel

These exist for most other methods of transportation, just usually hidden from you. You'll pay for it in fares and taxes.

> manage the logistics of frequent refueling/recharging,

Once weekly (give or take) I stop and refuel. If I had to do it daily, I might be a bit more annoyed by it.

> they rapidly depreciate in value, they can be damaged, catch on fire, strand you in the middle of nowhere, you have to pay attention constantly while using them, etc.

Can be said about every method of transportation, sans walking, in existence. :) Though... a broken leg could definitely strand you places too.

> To have the most expensive thing I own be a bicycle would be splendid.

My personal computer is probably worth more than 99% of bikes on the market. FWIW, living an ascetic life is not something most people on the planet aspire to.

[throwaway22032]

> To have the most expensive thing I own be a bicycle would be splendid.

This is the reason why your opinion differs from the car drivers, I guess.

Owning my own home and significant items that I need for my lifestyle is a hard requirement for me. It's not a nice to have, I will compete with others until I have them, because otherwise I'll be competing for my entire life for rent, until someone inevitably outcompetes the older, less vivacious me.

[josephcsible]

Driving lets you be independent, especially if you can fix your own car. Public transit leaves you totally dependent on the government.

[lngarner]

You can only be independent if you are physically and mentally capable of driving a car, have the financial resources to do so. If you're sick or don't want to shell out hundreds of dollars per month for transportation, then you're not independent. And if your car breaks down, you're not independent. Affordable public transport and trains etc provide true freedom. For example, there's much more freedom to travel in Europe.

[josephcsible]

With driving, most people can be independent but some can't. With public transit, nobody can be independent. And what does being sick have to do with it?

[lngarner]

If you are handicapped you can't drive. If you have Alzheimers you shouldn't be driving. Any physical or mental reason -- i.e. sickness -- that makes it unsafe to drive removes your independence in the event you are solely dependent on cars to get from place to place.

[josephcsible]

Don't most people use the word "sick" to refer to things like the common cold, COVID, influenza, etc., not things like paralysis and Alzheimer's?

And if you can't drive, how do trains or buses make you any more independent than taxis and rideshares do?

[jgwil2]

> Public transit leaves you totally dependent on the government.

Who do you think maintains the roads you're driving on?

[vel0city]

Usually not one agency for all of them. Some are managed by federal agencies. Some are managed by state agencies. Others are managed by the rolling authorities. Others are managed by the city. And even others are then managed by the counties.

All those roads are practically open 24/7.

Meanwhile, for public transit there's just one real agency around me and it doesn't even go everywhere I might want to go. The lines operate at whatever schedule that agency wants to operate them at. Those lines stop at like 2AM so I better be home before that or it's potentially a long walk home.

[lngarner]

The government who built the roads without any means of non-car transportation makes you just as reliant on them -- AND the car companies. I'd rather be reliant on collective benefit rather than a corporation who doesn't care if my car is broken down or I'm old and can't drive or I'm physically incapable of driving. All they want is my money. With public/non-car transportation people have the actual freedom. Reliance on corporations is the opposite.

[josephcsible]

The government can just suddenly shut off public transportation at any time. They can't just suddenly destroy every road. Since plenty of used cars exist, you aren't reliant on the car companies to have a car. And isn't the only thing Amtrak wants your money?

[lngarner]

The government shuts down roads all the time. Amtrack is a federally-owned company. It belongs to you and me. Corporations don't -- and they only want your money. That's capitalism. I'd rather be using something I already pay for and belongs to me. In Europe, trains are affordable. And in many cases, the prices are offset by taxpayer (i.e. the collective/democracy)'s funding. So the trains belong to the people.

[josephcsible]

Doesn't everything you said about trains in the US apply equally to roads, though?

[joncrane]

Roads are less complicated and "break down" much less often than buses. They are inherently "better maintained."

The number and type of people who complain when roads are bad means the government pays more attention to that than buses.