• RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    My previous car is a Yaris.

    When I got the Yaris I heard people make snide comments like “Anyone see that big guy get out of that tiny car?” then gas prices went up and they became “Hey, what kind of MPG does that thing get?”

    I like hatchbacks. Bigger is fine but nothing huge.

    • OldFartPhil@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      10 months ago

      My current car is an '07 Yaris. It’s totally bare bones, but everyone who has been in it comments on how spacious the interior is.

      I’ve always driven small cars, because they’re economical and I’ve never needed anything larger. I hate that small hatchbacks are so scarce in the US and that our roads are overrun with ludicrously huge pickups and SUVs. We transitioned from land yachts to small cars in the late 1970’s and 1980’s, we could do it again with the right incentives.

      • mufasio
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        My current car is an ‘07 Yaris too. It’s also totally bare bones including manual windows and locks and no cruise control (the only feature I sometimes wish it had). It’s economical and much funner to try drive than most bigger cars, trucks, and SUVs. And on multiple occasions I have been able to parallel park it in tight spots that cars in front of me had to pass on.

      • RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I can’t even remember what year mine was. It was the first year it was in the US. Was a decent car. Good milage. But it chewed through water pumps so bad. It was either loud squealing belt or too tight causing it to killed the pump. Never could get it “just right”

        • OldFartPhil@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s too bad. I have 189,000 miles on mine (304,000 km) and it’s never let me down. I haven’t had to do anything but regular maintenance on it. I wanted to replace it with something a bit newer and nicer, but had to replace the car my wife and daughter share, instead. Fortuately, I don’t drive very much so it will probably hold out for a few more years.

          • RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Thats the way to be. I ignore the urge and ride whats paid off until it just doesn’t make sense any more. The “newer spiffy” car models will still be around when its time.

      • athlon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I drive an Auris station wagon Hybrid (aka, the US Corolla iM with bigger boot). I had a chance to drive multiple Yaris generations and honestly I am always surprised by how roomy it is inside. They made a perfect use of space - way better than VW did with Polo (smaller Golf), that’s for sure…

    • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      I have a Yaris and think it’s too big. It’s 20cm longer than my previous car (2005 Clio) but somehow has less interior space, it feels cramped.

    • Dmian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I have a 2017 Hybrid Yaris in blue like this one:

      That I affectionately call “Blue thunder” 🤣

      • Sinnz@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Got the same model in red but with the 1.5L engine from 2019. Love it. Already got 75k km and it’s still running like a charm.

        • Dmian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Mine has half that 37k. It had 31k when I bought it in 2020, and I don’t use it often. I hoper it lasts a few more years.

      • Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        The actual model is beautiful, and it has Apple Car/Android auto and also a HUD.

      • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The ease of driving and parking in a car that small is insane. I thought my little Outlander Sport was a big difference from my last car, then I saw my buddy’s Yaris easily make a U turn on a narrow 2 lane road.

    • dragoness@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I love that this has become the hatchback and Yaris love thread. As a GTI owner it makes me happy. I do not want nor need to go any bigger. It’s almost the perfect car.

    • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      My Yaris is actually older than me. so old in fact, that it was called “vitz” and/or “echo” in some countries. i am the 4th owner. had to replace the starter, all the fluids and the clutch (cuz old people). best car ever. it has around 100.000 km on it and runs like it rolled out of the factory just yesterday. considering we euros pay up to 7€ per gallon it’s good i still get around 40mpg out of it. love that thing.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      As a taller woman my wife was against us getting a subcompact until I took her to test drive it thinking I wouldn’t fit. Between seeing how comfortable and efficient it was she was entirely on board

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    Americans need to embrace public transit. We need trains that don’t completely suck in both speed and schedule reliability.

    We’re never going to convince a lot of folks to leave their lifted F-150 or massive Suburban behind for a small car. But quality, affordable public transit that is not only efficient but saves money over owning a car would actually make a difference. We’re more likely to be able to get people to just leave the F-150 in the driveway and eventually move away from it.

    Much better for the environment, too, and reduces traffic / congestion, etc. I agree smaller cars would be good, but the goalpost should be getting away from the automobile.

    • JDPoZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Americans need to embrace public transit.

      Bad framing.

      Instead of asking Americans to just embrace our absolutely shit public transit (which they won’t do and will become more angry and obstinate about in its current condition), we need to push representatives into office that are far more left-leaning and not fucking autocrats who will MANDATE massive increases in taxes on billionaires and legislate much more significant subsidization of public transit to the point that it is MASSIVELY expanded and improved to a degree that it starts to look like what we see in actual 1st world countries like Japan, Europe, and pretty much all the Nordic countries. See “Not Just Bikes” for countless great examples of how other countries do this to a degree that it should be embarrassing for the US.

      They didn’t get the public to “embrace public transit.” They made it good enough to the point that even the rich use it. It’s the same for anything. You have to show how good it can be. Then people will “embrace it” and guard it from dismantling by the rich looking to line their pockets. It’s why even ghoulish Republicans won’t touch Medicare. It was made GOOD by FDR’s administration, and now it is political suicide to do anything to water it down.

      We need some bold leftist president to yell from the bully pulpit about high-speed bullet trains and advocate for it like Kennedy did for the Moon race.

      Fixing things here means not only having lots of trains that stick to schedules, but regulating it very strongly and mandating adequate staffing, paying those staff well enough to live a dignified life, and providing proper training for every employee.

      But the real sad fact is, there are so many other problems stacked on top of each other that all need addressing that are not only not being addressed, but directly worsened year over year - things like mass homelessness, housing unavailability, rising cost of living, zoning making nothing everyone needs to access (like grocery stores) within a public transit-friendly distance, that this will probably not happen ever…

      • dubba@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I mean, I think this is what they’re saying, but yeah.

        • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah. I probably should have been more detailed in my comment, but I did not mean embrace it as it is. I mean investing in it and making it competitive. I don’t think it’s embraceable in its current form.

      • grue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        we need to push representatives into office that are far more left-leaning and not fucking autocrats who will MANDATE massive increases in taxes on billionaires and legislate much more significant subsidization of public transit

        You’re framing it wrong. We don’t need to elect scary commies to massively increase taxes in order to subsidize icky collective things; we simply need to elect Fiscal Conservatives™ who will cease massively subsidizing car dependency. In particular, it’s time to repeal Big Government® intrusive regulations that try to tell Red Blooded Americans© they can’t build a multifamily building on their own damn property or that dictate minimum parking requirements.

        This is America, damn it! It’s high time we put the invisible hand of the Free Market back in control!

        [insert screaming eagle noises]

      • JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s more complex than that.

        The way the US is spread out makes public transit prohibitively expensive and difficult to achieve proper coverage. To make it effective, you would have to shift the entire way we live. Our entire society is built off the concept that everyone has a car.

        Add to the fact that building transit is extra expensive in the US and you arrive at the reality that we will NEVER have a working transit system. That’s why the shift to small cars is needed. We don’t have any more room for roads, so we need more cars to fit in the roads we have

        • JDPoZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s not that it’s impossible. It’s just that we’ve been so indoctrinated to depend on cars that we can’t even comprehend the idea that real robust transit would work.

          We aren’t the most spread out country in the world. Just because we are not a tiny country or have difficult geography is not a sufficient reason as to why we have basically no public transit.

          We just lack the leadership needed to implement massive programs like high speed interstate rail.

          We did it with the interstate highway system half a century ago.

          It’s past time we had a real rail system. I agree with you it seems impossible. But it is not.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            We just lack the leadership needed to implement massive programs like high speed interstate rail.

            In fairness the Interstate system was more about air defense than transit.

            • JDPoZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              …and the moon landing was more about “beating the Soviets” than the pursuit of lofty science and exploration goals.

              Regardless, I don’t care what we decide to “make it about.”

              I just want us to get it done.

              • mwguy@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Politically you have to get several different groups of people to buy in to make it work. Unfortunately “what it’s about” is the deciding factor in accomplishment.

    • FoxBJK@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Americans have absolutely embraced public transit. It’s just that not a lot of cities have robust systems in place, but go somewhere like NYC or Chicago and you’ll see a transit system that millions rely on daily.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Public transit needs to do what it says on the tin. People won’t choose public transit if it’s the choice between an hour commute each way and a 3 hour each way bus ride.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Normal sized cars* you mean.

    Normal cars aren’t small. They’re just small if you compare them to the giant ridiculous trucks they have over that.

  • expatriado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    10 months ago

    some reasons for the raise of vehicle size on the last decades are personal taste, but others are policy driven, we could look into that, as utility vehicles are treated differently in terms of emission requirements

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yup - in the US, pick-ups and SUVs are categorized as “light trucks,” which have different fuel efficiency and emission standards and are therefore more profitable to produce.

      Add to that some clever marketing to the effect of “big car = more manly/safe” and boom, now you see these big, stupid, fuel-ineffecient, dangerous vehicles everywhere.

      Good job 👍

      • TrustedTyrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Not just that but the standards are also more lenient if the car is larger for its class which is part of why even small cars are bigger now.

    • electrogamerman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I have heard also that a big car is better because a big car crashing with other bigger cars will increase the probability of surviving, but then it’s a war of having the biggest car. It’s basically the same as weapons.

  • Nisciunu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Whenever I’m in the States I hate the fact that everything is a 20 minute car ride away. I understand why road rage can be a thing if you spend so much time in the car.

      • adrian783@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        USA didn’t start building bullshit suburbs until 1950s. before that it was dense cities.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        If anything this means Europe’s cities just can’t accommodate cars, because they weren’t built for them. The weird thing is that American cities were built for cars and yet still can’t accommodate cars. Traffic, lack of parking, road rage… it’s a huge mess, and it seems like the more you commit to cars, the worse it all gets. That’s the trouble with cars. They just don’t work.

        I don’t really understand this comment though. It doesn’t take thousands of years to achieve urban density. And what does America’s sprawl have to do with loving large cars? You don’t need a huge car to drive medium distances.

        • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          You need density to support a train system. You need a large number of riders to make it economical and you need them living within a reasonable distance of the stations. The US is very spread out. You can blame cars for that but that is the world we live in. The US is also very big with large rural areas, the western US didn’t even really develop until trains came out in the 1869. Europe was built around compact cities based on horses and walking long before cars.

          I agree that we are too car focused and it has become a sort of arms race, build more roads, more cars, more roads, etc.

          • coffeebiscuit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The focus on cars is emotionally driven. The car symbolizes freedom and independence. Besides this it’s a huge status symbol. And the industry is working hard to keep it this way. The lack of decent public transportation is by design.

            • scarabic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Adding to this, I think cars are also often a person’s only private space. Look at the YT videos that are people ranting from their car. It’s all they have. They’re very attached to it.

              Further, a lot of Americans are in terrible physical shape. Obese and weak, injured, etc or all of these. But behind the wheel of a beefy car they can feel the joy of movement and power. It’s literally an extension of their body.

              Freedom, independence, privacy, strength and power… yeah Americans have a lot invested in their cars. I was brought up into this culture and subscribed to it myself for a long time. Fortunately I just have other ways to feel good about myself now and caring about cars seems stupid and pathetic.

            • krush_groove@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              You’re absolutely correct, but a bicycle tideuor bus trip or train journey is also a feeling of freedom, too. Reframing ‘freedom’ so people don’t feel they have to get a $70,000 crew cab pickup to drive to the bar or store is the thing.

              • Sax_Offender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                A bus felt liberating before I got my driver’s license. And driving felt liberating before I got ahold of aircraft controls for the first time. One day I’ll get this jetpack to work and then forget about planes.

                There is a continuum and its hard to go in the other direction without feeling the additional restrictions.

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Quite literally, same here. There’s nothing wrong with bikes, but used cars became unreasonably expensive and younger people never tasted the freedom. Planes are like that with even smaller percentages of pilots and even more unreasonable prices (last affordable in the 1960s, while cars were affordable until the early 2000s or so). People hate what they don’t have or understand. Personal vehicles are incredibly liberating for those of us who get it. We’re being shamed for appreciating an independence everyone should experience, but can’t because there are too many people, too much demand, and all the ecological problems that come with it. Yes, human impact could be reduced if everyone lived in abject poverty, but guess what, poor people in developing countries want Western amenities too. Everyone should.

              • scarabic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                This is so true. Bikes are a wonderful feeling.

                I actually spent 8 years going to Burning Man and while I was there I volunteered to fix people’s bikes. A bike is really the best way to get around there but many people borrow one that’s in dubious condition, get out there, and realize it doesn’t ride well, or has no air in the tires, whatever. We helped so many people get those shitty bikes into a rideable state. Lots of flat fixes. Many lube jobs. A lot of people just needed the seat adjusted but didn’t have a wrench. A lot of bad derailleurs we would just remove, turning the bike into a single speed.

                My goal was to help people have a week of joy on a bike and remember how awesome they can be. Most Americans ride a bike when they are kids and then abandon them. It gave me a lot of satisfaction to bring all those adults a taste of that joy and freedom again. I hope some of them returned home with a renewed interest in bikes.

          • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            the western US didn’t even really develop until trains came out in the 1869

            The western US didn’t really develop until the government started giving land that had already been ceded to indigenous peoples and couldn’t actually support dense settlement to white settlers, at the behest of railroad companies who needed an artificial reason to build railroads in the first place.

          • zephyreks@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            10 months ago

            Vancouver runs trains through SFH development. Montreal does too. Hell, so does London.

            You’re an untravelled idiot and it shows.

      • Nisciunu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I totally get that fact. I also think that it would not be bad to copy some things from other countries to make the cities in the States more liveable without car dependency. There’s enough space to do that.

        • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          At the very least we could link cities with rail systems. Don’t put a million stops on them either though. Try taking Amtrack from DC to Boston and you’ll see what I mean.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            just have more than one set of tracks and you can have a regional and express service train!

          • Sax_Offender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Passenger trains exist in the U.S. They used to be popular. Then planes and affordable automobiles put them out of business. If you don’t live in a dense urban area, you almost certainly have a car, meaning you aren’t beholden to train schedules and destinations. If you are in an area where you get by without a car, an Uber to the airport gets you to your destination much faster.

      • NuanceDemon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Unfortunately it’s zoning that caused most of this issue. Not size. Dense residential was disallowed for not entirely un-racist reasons, so it spread out enormously instead. On top of car companies lobbying in various ways to make cars essential.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          People also spread out because they could - most people would prefer to have a house with land rather than live in a tiny apt

            • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I stay home because I can, and it’s awesome. All my cool stuff and my family is here, but if I wanted to get out and do stuff it’s a short car trip to numerous options for cool stuff to do.

          • n2burns@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Suburbs are subsidized by urban areas. Zoning in North America means medium and high density can only be built in limited locations, meaning demand often outstrips supply, increasing the price. The decision of “house with land” vs “tiny apt” isn’t a direct comparison and price influences people’s decisions. If these perverse incentives weren’t in place, more people would consider living in higher density areas with more amenities vs having lots of land and being far away from everything.

      • BilboBallbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I agree and disagree with this. I don’t think the US inherently must be car centric because it’s big. But I do agree that Europe has superior pedestrian infrastructure because it developed for most of its history without cars. Auto and oil industry lobbying has instigated the situation in the US, but their agenda was only achievable because the technology existed to make large scale changes to the terrain, mass produce vehicles, etc. It’s very likely that there were people throughout Europe’s history who tried to monopolize bridges or horse wagons or other forms of transport, but the technology wasn’t sufficient for it to materialize. Warsaw was destroyed during WWII and rebuilt, and it’s developed to be very car-centric compared to other cities in Poland and Europe.

    • grue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      Or walkable zoning, lack of which is the fundamental cause of the car dependency.

      • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        The lack of continuous sidewalks drives me nuts. A developer might put in a sidewalk but the one next to them doesn’t. Sometimes you are walking alongside a ditch or have to cross a busy road to continue on.

        • grue@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          As much as I’m inclined to agree with @MaggiWuerze@feddit.de, the real reason is typically that all new developments are required to include sidewalks, but existing ones aren’t required to retrofit. So you get a patchwork of sidewalks installed over time as things get torn down and rebuilt.

          The “annoying and pedestrian hostile” part is municipalities’ unwillingness to infill sidewalks in front of old developments at taxpayer expense.

    • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I would wager (small amounts of) money that the majority of “urban areas” have “adequate” mass transportation. The US prefers buses (which are horrible) but it is there and you can usually get around cities out to the surrounding suburbs.

      The problem is actually the same that even the gold standard countries like Japan have. Rural areas and remote villages/towns do not have good coverage. If you are lucky, there are two buses per day and you best catch those or you are stuck sleeping in the terminal until tomorrow. And we have a lot of those. Like, the works of Makoto Shinkai are well worth watching for this reason alone (aside from them being magnificent) because he LOVES the imagery of two lovers trying to connect with each other over a day or two of transferring between trains and buses and the emotional devastation of possibly missing your next connection.

      That said: Americans still tend to love to drive even when there is public transportation. Some of that is routing. Some of that is that buses are horrible. And some is just that it is people from one “megacity” on a day trip to a different “megacity”.

      • zephyreks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Bullshit. Adequate mass transportation is competitive with a car. You don’t even have to leave North America to see an “adequate” mass transportation system: just go to Montreal, Vancouver, or New York.

        Most US cities have mass transportation that’s designed to move around poor people so rich people in cars can’t see them.

      • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I never drove into Boston, I always took the train. I still needed a car though if I wanted to go anywhere away from the city. Boston also has an awful spoke and no rim train system. If you want to go from the end of one line to another you can’t go in a ring around the city, you’d have to go all the way in then all the way up the other spoke.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Buses aren’t horrible.

        • they feel safer in terms of crime, which might not be an issue you deal with but for over half the population it matters
        • they can often go around problems. One bus on the same line up ahead has an issue that has no real impact on the bus you are on
        • lot easier for the disabled to go on and off compared to down into a subway
        • you have a small degree of privacy
        • Mechanical problems? Get off the bus. No biggy.

        I do understand, I was a subway guy for the longest time, my wife would take the bus every day and she converted me.

        • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yeah, I will never acknowledge buses as a good alternative to a subway or even an el train. If you can’t do something good you go with what you have but:

          • “Crime”: A lot of that is people being generally afraid of black folk and homeless people. If you think the driver is going to do anything because a Poor sat next to you then I got a bridge to sell you. Aside from that, the vast majority of “crime” is resolved by staring out a window or not making eye contact. And the people who ARE going to actually rob you? it is a lot easier to flee onto city streets than into a crowded subway. Watch your shit when the vehicle comes to a stop. And guards/cops tend to hang out at train stations which helps in the event that something does happen.
          • Going around problems: Yeah. Unless you need to get off on the stop they are now skipping. If you know the area well enough you can adjust. Otherwise you are now very confused that the stop google maps told you to take is not next and you need to figure out if it makes sense to get out at the next stop or two stops from here when you are closer to the original route. Been there, done that, made the wrong judgement call and walked an extra eight blocks in the pouring rain to get to my hotel*. Also, if you are AT the stop they are bypassing because of an accident or whatever… good luck.
          • Differently abled folk: Any decent subway is handicap accessible. And rolling/crutching/caning onto a subway is a LOT easier than needing to wait for the entire bus to deflate its tires, the driver to help clip you in, the angry passenger being pissed off that they are now behind schedule, etc.
          • Privacy: You have zero privacy in any situation. You have not LIVED until you have had no choice but to make eye contact with someone defecating on a subway train or having an episode on a bus.
          • Mechanical Problems: I will definitely give you that.

          *: God, this would have been five or six years ago? Was heading out to a European City for a holiday and to visit a few friends. Got more than a bit flabbergasted trying to find the train station at the airport but ended up finding a bus station eventually and just went with it. Got on, knew my route to my hotel, waited. Like two accidents and the bus was shifting between two of the main routes with the driver rambling in the local language and me understanding one word in ten. Eventually just started comparing the GPS coordinates versus the route and saw we were “somewhat still on it” and hopped off and walked eight blocks in the rain. That evening, when my brain was a bit more functional, I figured out which other route we were migrating between and realized the bus would have actually let me out right by the train station outside my hotel. Still grumpy about that one.

        • nexas_XIII@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m usually not a hatch fan but that little car looked awesome. I got my last new gas powered manual transmission car before EVs are the main thing. Since I work from home and don’t drive a bunch my plan is to keep it as long as I can and get an EV in 4-5 years when hopefully infrastructure catches up a bit and more manufacturers have an option and work out small kinks.

    • Jesus_666@feddit.de
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Same with a 1959 Panhard PL 17. Some of those little old cars are just beautiful.

    • Dmian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Lovely car! Btw: how do you put a picture in a comment? What sorcery is this?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m on desktop, so how I do it is right-click, copy image, then just paste into the post. Not sure how to do it on mobile.

  • 30mag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Unfuck the CAFE standards and manufacturers will quit killing off car models and producing so many “light trucks”.

    • potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      I can’t be the only one who wants a 1990 Ford ranger sized pickup for moving materials around. The only options on the market are absolutely massive. The CAFE standards had the compete opposite effect from what was intended…

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Give me a new El Camino EV with a 400 mile range and I’m in.

    All my road trips are around 150 miles and there may or may not be a charger at the destination.

    The article says range isn’t important…if you’ve ever looked at a map of the US, you’ll see why that’s a misguided statement.

    • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      To be fair, most people aren’t driving across the US on an even yearly basis, if ever in their lives.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          But it definitely gets you to the next fast charger to get an 80 percent charge in 10 minutes.

          • time_lord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s only relevant if you have a mythical car that can charge to 80 in 10 minutes. My car does it in about 90, the Solterra I almost bought has something like a 60 minute 10-80% charge time, and the fastest charging car on the market right now is the EV6 which is (IIRC) still 18 minutes to 80%.

            Nevermind that the estimated 350 mile range in an ICE car is pretty spot on, where as a 250 mile range in an EV is best case scenario.

            I own an EV, I think EVs are the future, but they’re not there quite yet. Not completely, and not in a way that can compete with a RAV-4, CR-V, or Forester in terms of miles traveled and minutes spent filling up. And often, locations where you want to stop, aren’t the same locations that have a fast charger.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              You’re right, the ten minute thing is a goal not a reality right now. But according to multiple sources 10-80 percent charging times range from 20-75 minutes. Unless you’re on some kind of mad dash across the country that is short enough for road trips. For reference that’s 225 miles before lunch; and 200 miles before and after dinner. At highway speeds of 70mph you’re looking at 2 hours and 48 minutes between breaks. If you slow down to the old 55 mph recommendation for conserving energy then it’s 3 hours and 40 minutes. Which neatly divides for two drivers avoiding highway hypnosis. (2 hour max shift)

              Now I admit that this is theoretical, and more planning than most people do for road trips these days. But it is very doable to schedule meals during charging.

          • oatscoop@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            EV makers are doing what they did for mpg with gas cars: put out numbers for “ideal” charge times and range that are way off of reality.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Just city to city is typically at least 150mi one way. Maybe on the southern coasts, if I was really a homebody, could I get away with something under 150mi range.

        There’s no way anyone in Texas is going anywhere in a standard range EV for example.

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I drove from Minnesota to Kansas in an EV. Wasn’t too bad, just a few stops to charge. I needed to eat and go for a walk, anyways

    • Johnny5@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      95% of trips are 30 miles or less. Of course everyone is the exception, we’re all above average drivers here.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        A car is too big of an investment to fail to take you from point A to B 1 in every 20 trips.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I guess I’m in the 5 percent? But still small cars can take long trips. That’s a frustrating thing, people assuming you need a modern day Conestoga wagon to do a road trip.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s a terrible statistic…of course most of my travel happens around where I live.

        If anything…that actually reveals long trips are more common than you think…For every 19 times you go to work or the store the 20th trip is significant…

        In other words, if your number I right…Once to Twice a month the average person would likely require an extended range EV.

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The number of people breaking through 150 miles in a single trip is significantly lower than 95%. 150 mile range is plenty for them.

          I’ve driven more than 150 miles once in the last three years

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    So I live in the cousin-fuckingly-deep south where 90% of what’s on the road is trying its best to be a monster truck… I drive what looks like a pregnant rollerskate by comparison cuz I don’t want to send half my paycheck into the gas tank.

    It’s funny-sad how the folks in the giant trucks get offended just by seeing my tiny car. Every day there’s always at least one asshole in an F-350 or some shit that likes to ride up on my ass cuz I guess it makes them feel powerful? I just drop a mph every couple seconds until either they fuck off or get annoyed enough to pass.

    Anyway, moral of the story is that stupid-big vehicles are here to stay in the US, at least in the regions occupied by Y’all Quaeda. Their trucks are one of their few sources of self esteem.

    …I’m really tempted to find one of those rubber testicle things that the cowboys like to put between the rear wheels of their trucks, but like a comically tiny one, color it like the trans flag, and hang it on the back of my tiny car just to annoy the rednecks on the road. …although here, that’d probably get my car or myself shot.

  • Poggervania@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    Forget small cars, we should be embracing non-motorized ways of transit. Make things human-sized again and allow us to walk and/or bike to destinations rather than having to have a motorized vehicle to get around.

    Public transit is obviously a good thing to have, but I think it’s also important to have alternate forms of transit as well.

    • jasondj@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      I was just on Block Island, RI the other day. It’s a 10mi^2 island with ferry service and an airport square in the middle of it. Very seasonal economy and the residents are wealthy NIMBY-types.

      No trams or trolleys or any mass transit on the island itself. Lots of mopeds and bikes and a surprising amount of cars. We were on foot to a restaurant and approached a 4-way stop and both myself (pedestrian) and the bicyclist next to me were amazed at how hard it was to cross the street with all the taxis and rental cars around.

      What a shame. The island should be a model of an ideal “minimal car” community, and could easily become it.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      So much this. It’s infuriating to have to get in a car every time you want to go outside your neighborhood.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          In the US, it’s really only NYC and Chicago that have functioning public transit. If you can’t go to one of those, you’re pretty much out of luck. It’s not like in Europe where every little small to mid-size town has light rail and train connections all over.

          • Bloops
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            NYC (and presumably Chicago - I haven’t been) are the best, that’s true. I’ve also been to Philadelphia and Boston and both had good train systems. I currently live in a medium-sized city that is 90% bus transit, and that can suffice even though it’s not great. It’s an exaggeration to say NYC and Chicago are the only places you can go without a car.

            • zephyreks@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              The question isn’t about managing, but about convenience. In some cities, public transportation is more convenient than going out and getting a car and dealing with parking and all that noise. That should be the goal, not “it’s manageable.”

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s all fun and games until weather happens…and weather is going to happen a lot going forward.

      • LaLiLuLuCo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I moved to Europe, grew up in New York near the City and decided to get a moped here to commute. It’s roughly equivalent to an Ebike but was actually cheaper than one and has a 100km range. It’s not highway legal as it has a top speed of 45km/h but can go on bike paths as long as I watch the speed.

        After 3 months since I got the moped I am going to get a car because FUCK going to the office in the rain with that thing. The trains and/or busses go on strike about once a month, maybe a little less, and between delays and cancelations I can’t rely on them for my commute. I’ve literally been waiting for the bus and the driver just decides not to stop to pick me up too. Also packages don’t get reliably dropped off at my front door so I need to go into town or to the supermarket next to the highway to pick up my things which becomes untenable when they are bulky. Instead I’m taking taxis at a cost of €30 each way just to pick up shit that should be left at my door.

        The dissonance is strong, I still need a car, and I still need one big enough to move bulky crap at least once a month if not more.

        And before someone says rent a car, it’s €70+ a day to do so here and I have a preferred account through my employer. I need to book it in advance so it’s not a “same day” thing. Oh and the places they drop the packages off have weird fucking opening times and are often closed when they should be open so I’ve literally spent €60 on taxis to come home with nothing. That time the seller did me a solid and refunded me the €60 as an apology (it was a €350 item).

  • orangebussycat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s time for Americans to stop spending so much time in their cars. Emissions from burning hydrocarbons are destroying the planet.

  • sndrtj@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    10 months ago

    Cars have gotten bigger externally, but internally it seems storage space is actually going down. My 2014 Nissan Note has a 10% larger storage capacity than a 2023 Renault Espace, even tho the latter is 50cm larger in all three dimensions and is literally called ‘spatious’.

  • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I have a Volt, and I resent how few compact hybrid options there will be when I get a replacement. When I drive around, I literally struggle to see around the giant land boats cruising around. They hold up parking lots trying to stuff themselves into spaces, and if I get hit by one I’m much more likely to be injured. Average car size is kind of a tragedy of the commons. Everyone suffers when the cars get bigger, but the individuals with the dumb land boats suffer little of the cost.

    • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      tragedy of the commons

      TILAW (today I learned a word):

      The tragedy of the commons is a metaphoric label for a concept that is widely discussed in economics, ecology and other sciences. According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up destroying its value altogether. To exercise voluntary restraint is not a rational choice for individuals – if they did, the other users would merely supplant them – yet the predictable result is a tragedy for all.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

      • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, the metaphor has fallen out of fashion for a lot of reasons, including that the guy who coined the expression turned out to be a real piece of shit, but the core concept is still a valid one.

        • Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          No, there are really tangential analogies about how self-interested behavior can have negative consequences, but it is and has always been based around a bunch of numerous myths. Externalities is a better description of this.

          Elinor Ostrom investigated management of the commons and the original description of tragedy of the commons was a complete lie. The commons were enclosed so that in this transitional stage of feudal lords could become businessmen that could profit off of using the land rather than taxing a peasant community living off of it. The enclosed commons is an asset to generate profit, where if enough of an increase in profit could be achieved, that could be reinvested, meant that exhausting the land would be an economically rational strategy. Where, if a peasant community is using it to sustain themselves, they have to carefully manage and steward that land so it is still producing for themselves years later, their children, and their grandchildren. The complete opposite of what the “tragedy of the commons” describes.

          • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The idea of a commons as a shared resource that must be maintained through collective action is still a useful metaphor for our global environment. Just because Hardin’s scholarship about medieval commons was bad doesn’t mean our global world is not in itself a commons as the metaphor described it, and a useful thought experiment based on all the scholarship and debate that followed. And everyday people in a comment section who aren’t environmental professionals aren’t going to know the word “externality”. So not that useful outside of a limited audience

    • NotSoCoolWhip@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Gen1 Honda insight here to corroborate. Trucks seem to intentionally pull in front of me, even when driving reasonably above the limit, just to prove a point. It’s dumb.

    • space_frog@lemmyfly.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I love my 2017 Volt! I much prefer driving it to my in-law’s enormous Dodge Ram and Audi Q7.

      Long live the Volt!