• ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    Because our previous generation of 1% wealth leaders had a vision to make an entire economy built for, and dependant on, gasoline and oil. This new generation of wealth leaders don’t have as strong of a vision. They just see some weird techno-feudalism fantasies where they rule us all because of social media and AI or some shit.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      1 month ago

      I wonder how many cargo bicycles would be needed to move the contents of a truck, and how refrigeration would work. Or would we just not transport things that needed it?

      Maybe more local farms…

      …and what about building houses, large panels of wood. Perhaps specially bicycles would be developed? I’ve seen multi-person bicycles in weird arrangements - like that Beer bicycle… Or that seven person conference bicycle at google.

      EDIT people down voting this and making exceptions for other road vehicles, oh well, then you’d have roads. Roads to deliver cargo and stock to every major supermarket and green grocery.

  • earphone843@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    In my area, bikes are considered motor vehicles and have to adhere to the same rules and regulations as bikes.

    Which is stupid because there’s no infrastructure for bikes, and it’s illegal to ride them on the nearly completely unused sidewalks.

    My FIL got me an e-bike that I can’t use for anything other than riding around the neighborhood because I have to get on the highway to get to town.

    • Hawke@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      Uhhh…wow, bikes have to adhere to the same regulations as bikes?

      Very unusual.

  • Lux18@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    I mean, bikes are great for a lot of things and cities should definitely have the infrastructure to support their usage, but let’s not pretend that they can easily replace cars in every use case.
    Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities. Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system, but that’s exactly why cars are considered to be the symbol of freedom - not depending on the bus/train schedules, weather, distance etc.

    • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      That freedom is an illusion. You’re constantly subject to other people in cars doing things, and what they do is often stupid as shit. You only have that freedom when out on the open road with few other cars around, and you’re probably specifically going out of your way to do that.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    To create a pedestrian first world I think we need to legitimately understand what advantages a car has. A car is a true source of empowerment.

    Sure, I can ride a bike, but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination. I can take a bus but not at any moment, and not the middle of the night. I can take public transit, but not to the place I need to go.

    A car is a portable personal space. I can eat lunch in my car, I can take a nap.

    A car is a space protected from the elements - I’m not getting rained on. Protection from wind, snow, sun.

    Its locked doors are a barrier between me and potential (and sometimes imagined) threats.

    I don’t need to list out for this community all the negative things associated with cars. I just list these pros to highlight it’s a challenging task to displace cars. It’s a list of benefits to replicate.