Roody

I think this is an excellent post, although I don't agree with the main point. I do agree that cars were vitally important for getting us where we are today--for better and for worse. They were, as you say, one of the most important technologies for the 20th century. I am proud to have lived most of my life in the two cities (Highland Park and Lansing) where they were first mass-produced 109 years ago.

However, I think private automobiles ("cars") have become inappropriate technology for most of the world in the 21st century. Why?

• The population has quadrupled in 109 years. There will be nine or ten billion people well before the end of this century. There is simply not enough room or resources to provide cars for all those people to have cars. This fact alone will cause a decline in the importance of cars as private transportation.
• Most (52 %) of the people now live in cities rather than rural areas. Cars (with their massive highway and parking systems) are an expensive and impractical form of transportation in urban areas.
• We have a greater awareness of pollution than we did 109 years ago. For example, we know that about 25 percent of global carbon emissions is caused by private cars, and this is undeniably a major factor in global warming. Some form of green car technology may arise, but there is no indication that this will happen soon.
• They f---ing stink. And two billion of them stink worse than one billion.

Roody

Sandy.

Artkansas 

This is a very important point, that I had really not thought about. We have to see ourselves as people in changing times. What was right for when we were born, may not be right for today or tomorrow.

no1mad 

The statement as a whole is spot on, but especially so for the highlighted parts.

Dahon.Steve

It's always interesting when someone on the forum puts alot of thought into a response. I suspect SmallWheels spent 30 minutes or more on her post!

However, she seems to forget the railroad and electric trolley was providing the same service decades before the automobile was created. Transportation was inexpensive and prices were falling if it were not for the combustion engine who put them out of business. We had a transportation system that did not require foreign oil and ran on American coal providing jobs for millions. In fact, the coal based locomotive was about to be replaced with electric powered engines before the fall of the railroad. We had a system in place that could last 1,000 years before we ran out of energy.

Our cities and entire economy will be upside down 100 years from now. The only positive thing that can be said is that we won't be alive when the fun starts.

Mobile 155

They are tool just like jet planes, Trains, Busses, and even Bicycles are tools. What is being complained about is the success of that tool. A passenger jet is every bit as damaging as a personal car from everything I have read. It demands its own space, is massively subsidized and regulated. Many more affluent people almost use them as Taxis to pop from LA to New York several times a week. But we aren't close to that group so we don't tend to notice. And when we use that particular tool all we do is shrug our shoulders and say, " I only do it because I only have a limited amount of time.

The real truth is we are not all alike and not everyone sees transportation and living choices the same. The car allows us to pull away from the constant contact we have with strangers when we want to get away. To some here it is living in a cage to others it is a safe room. Roody said without cars stores wouldn't be as far away. That might be true but without trucks or tractors the stores wouldn't be stocked very well and when that happens the cost of what they do have goes up. So there are effects on society without them as well. Busses use fuel so they wouldn't exist if the ICE was never invented. Make a wish and poof ICE away and mass transit wouldn't exist either. But I digress. The tool in itself doesn't become evil because it is successful. But society can misuse almost any tool. So if cars are a problem who made them the problem?

If we are talking about a moral obligation can we do so posting on a machine that is considered a Bio Hazard? One that many ship the obsolete, less than 5 years in many cases, to places like China where women and children have to did through and scavenge parts from without gloves. I think we all hope that a better use can be found for all of our tools but we should also realize without the choice to use those tools we would not have to lifestyle we enjoy to day.

Roody

I agree that there are problems with every type of technology that people invent. However, IMO, saying that buses, planes, and computers are bad begs the question. We were talking about cars, not buses, planes, and computers. Also, I think people here understand the difference between cars (private automobiles) versus trucks, tractors, and emergency vehicles. After all, this is the carfree forum, not the truckfree or enginefree forum.

I think the crux of your argument is your sentence, "The tool in itself doesn't become evil because it is successful. But society can misuse almost any tool. So if cars are a problem who made them the problem?"

I think this is a very important question. IMO, a related question is, "What (if anything) are appropriate uses for this tool, the car?"

I think the answer to this question is changing rapidly. In our modern world, which is urbanized, overcrowded and overheated, the right answer, IMO, is that cars are less and less appropriate as tools, and need to be phased out sooner rather than later. Suitable tools exist to replace it. No, these replacements are not perfect, as you point out. But they might be good enough, that is, sustainable in a world that is changing rapidly. Cars are clearly not sustainable. That means they can't last... so they won't last.

prathmann

I agree with the title that primarily cars are just tools. But they seem like highly inefficient tools. Using a 3000 or 4000 lb. tool when it's usually only carrying around a single 150 lb. person doesn't seem efficient. And neither does all the real estate consumed by these tools even when they're not being used for anything most of the day.

I'm hoping that the self-driving cars being trialed by Google and others will eventually lead to substantial improvements. If I can use an ap on my phone or PC to call a vehicle to my location on demand I'd no longer have a need to keep my own personal one parked nearby. And I could request just the size and type of vehicle needed for a particular trip. For a solo hop across town a little electric should suffice and I'd only ask for a van if I needed to shuttle the kid's team somewhere, i.e. the right tool for the job instead of having to invest in a tool that can do all jobs even though it'll be sitting idle most of the time and underutilized almost all the time.

Mobile 155

Maybe but you can't separate ICE. If ICE is available for any other use those with the funds will buy that tool for themselves. What made cars a popular tool is simply that they are easier to use. Yes they may have become a fascination much like jewelry but what if they weren't ICE? What if they were Hydrogen powered? It is they same as it is with our mega cities. As they stand today they aren't sustainable and I know you will say they can be made to be sustainable. In reality so could cars and we have to pull for technology because if they don't find something to replace the tool ICE as become then we will lose mass transit and air travel as well.

But I still say cars are a tool and people simply have adopted that tool based on how well it worked when invented. Is it always the most practical tool? Maybe not but think about it, If you consider 50+ percent is a significant number for urban dwellers how do you discount the influence 90+ percent of our fellow citizens reporting there is at least one car in their household? Every one of those households picked that tool even when other tools are available.

Alekhine

Generally I agree with the 'complaining about success' bit, but I think "success" is a high abstraction and indeterminate word, and it unfortunately begs the question of whether widespread means successful and whether successful means good. Lots of things are horrible blights on society that could be called "successful." Hell, look at mosquitoes, Donald Trump, the Mongol Horde, venereal diseases, telemarketing, etc. All wildly successful, and depending on who you talk to, all suck. America is having comparatively great success in turning out public spree shooters right now. "Success" is by itself a poor substitute for what people are more specifically criticizing: Pollution, noise/smell, presence everywhere at every moment, effects on lifestyle, effects on society, effects on public engineering and architecture, effects on aesthetics, public deaths, contribution to displacement from a more 'natural' or local existence, etc.

As for the airplane bit, it's frankly a weird tangent for the discussion and probably not supported enough for you to use "we" in the argument here. Just because nobody openly complains about it here in this thread doesn't mean they don't have negative opinions about it - including opinions much more virulent than cars inspire. Besides, it falls into the tu quoque logical fallacy territory anyway: In appealing to hypocrisy about planes (if it exists as you say it does), the arguments against cars are in no way diminished. It is also not a 1:1 argument. We don't see, hear, and smell airplanes every single moment of every day, nor are our public spaces very much influenced by them (or are they?), nor any number of other things people are talking about with regard to cars in particular. Dunno. Suggest letting that one go.

Otherwise I'd say you finished your argument in a measured enough way. Cars and other motor transport are indeed great achievements (so are airplanes). They also have horrible side effects that are worth questioning or criticizing. As much as anyone would try to sell me on the idea that I'm ipso facto going to be more happy in the world we have now with all its global convenience, I don't really buy it and don't feel like I'm the one being talked to, because I've read plenty of works by people who were writing when cars didn't exist, and some of them were happy as clams and some were horrible depressives - and conversely, so many now are so miserable even with their cars and other stuff and so many are so very happy with it. I can only speak for myself, but a less industrial world is definitely up my alley and the sales pitch about the superiority of modern life only goes so far. I certainly love my computer and my Steinway and my bicycles, I love the availability of German beer, and all are relatively modern things, but none are absolute guarantors of superiority over a world I can imagine as "happiest for me."

Smallwheels

First of all, she is a guy.

I know about trains and trollies. They weren't ubiquitous, not by a long shot. I can't imagine railroads being routed to every working farm in America or to every medium to small factory, let alone small businesses. I live near farms. There is no way they could harvest as much grain as they do without a big azz motor powered combine. Steam engines do work well but the scale and efficiency of them is much different.

Roody

Excellent post, although I don't agree with much of it.

I don't know if cities will ever be sustainable, but I think they're our best shot at getting over the big hump of overpopulation that's predicted for the next 50 to 100 years. I'm pretty sure that sustainability of cities is more probable without cars than with them.

I also don't know if sustainable cars will ever be developed, but I don't see much hope of it at this time. Of course the history of technology is full of much bigger surprises than clean cars, so who knows? Personally, I don't think it's good policy to continue using cars as we do now, just on the off chance that something better will come along at the last minute.

I don't think it's totally correct to say that people freely "picked that tool." Historically, choices were made at a policy level to favor highways over railroads. Auto and oil companies did a better job of convincing politicians and the public than the railroad industry did. On a personal level, many individuals "pick" a car because they don't have much awareness of the alternatives. In some places, practical alternatives to the car barely even exist.

Machka 

My first thought on this topic (while sitting in our van, waiting to board the ferry) ...

People want personal, independent, and convenient modes of transportation ... and they've wanted that for centuries. People want to travel where they want to go, when they want to go.

People walked. People rode elephants, camels, and horses, which were faster and more convenient than walking. People hooked up carts and carriages to horses and oxen, and although perhaps slower than a horse by itself, you could carry a lot more. Over time choices like the bicycle and car came along.

People will continue to want personal, independent, and convenient methods of transportation into the future. If not the car, then something else. So to my mind, the question is ...what can "replace" the car ... in the way that the car replaced the horse and carriage?

Public transportation is not the answer. Sure, the idea is nice, and personally, I like public transportation (I'd hate to have to row a boat rather than take this ferry), but it isn't convenient enough. It only takes you where it wants to go, and only goes when it wants to go, and it is not very convenient if you've got a van-load of stuff to transport.

Bicycles are not the answer (shock, horror!!). Sure, the idea is nice, and personally, I like bicycles, but they aren't convenient enough. You can ride them when and where you want, but they require effort, and little things like weather and hills can be daunting for many.

Returning to livestock is not the answer because livestock requires land and livestock also makes quite a mess.

So ... if not cars, what then? We need something. Right now, the car seems to be the answer. Maybe one day someone will perfect transporting, like on Star Trek, and Rowan and I with all our stuff, would be transported to our new state in a matter of seconds.

wolfchild

It's comfort and convenience at the expense of personal health/fitness...Human bodies evolved to be used not sit still all the time and have some machine transport them and do all the work for them. It seems most people have become terrified of physical exertion.

plustax

A dead earth.

Ekdog

I think public transport can be a large part of the solution, but it needs to be improved and subsidised, much the way car travel is. Bicycles are part of the answer, too, especially for shorter trips and for getting to and from bus mass transit depots and railway stations. If we only look at one option, you're right, we're not going to solve the car problem; we need to look at multimodal options.

Regarding your moving house, my family moved recently, too. We had a moving company carry the heavy stuff, while I moved a lot of smaller items on my bike. We also hired a bike messenger service to move a large armchair. I realise you're moving much farther away, but I hardly think each and every family needs to own a van for house moves. You simply hire a van or lorry or have it done by professionals.

Roody

I know this is by far the most common attitude in Australia and America, but I just don't understand it. I basically see three possible reasons that people hold this point of view:

1. You believe there is nothing negative about the car.
2. And/or you think people should do whatever is convenient for them in the short term, with no concern for the delayed consequences such as climate change, sprawl, and so forth.
3. Or you are totally unaware of negative consequences of the car, which is the impression I get from this post.
4. Or you think people cannot survive without cars, so you are willing to accept many negatives in order to continue their use.

Smallwheels

Segways on buses. That would be a multimodal method for individuals to travel longer distances without needing to drive a car to work.

Segways have a twenty-five mile range but who wants to stand for two hours at a time. Their top speed is 12.5 MPH. Segways are probably comfortable for a three or four mile glide (that's the term they use for riding one). If people could ride their Segways to their local convenient bus depot or stop, and then take a bus for the next few miles, they could travel faster over long distances without physical exertion. If the buses were equipped with spots for Segways to take the place of one seat then the gliders could use their Segways in town to take them to their final destination. Segways can be equipped with seats that the gliders could use during the bus portion of their ride. The machines could be clamped into place while the bus rolls down the road.

Nightshade

Any automobile, or other self powered vehicle, is nothing more than a transportation ,or work, appliance just like the range or refrigerator in your kitchen are food appliances.

Artkansas 

I'm guessing that you're not a "Car Guy".

350htrr

Really? I can probably think of a dozen different makes/type of cars that are sold and bought for reasons other than transportation... That it the last thing that is was designed for...

I-Like-To-Bike

So what?
Some people use their refrigerators and cooking appliances for preserving/preparing what is described by the pure of heart PC gentry as junk food. And some people complain on BF about not being able to purchase fast food (AKA junk food) from the drive-in window. Again, so what?

What is being advocated here to anyone not already a card carrying eco-warrior, who also can get by comfortably without a personally owned motor vehicle? Become an urban dweller with no small, aged, or handicapped dependents and no serious health problem?

Machka 

None of those options express my personal thoughts on the issue.

However, I do believe that people need/want personal, independent, and convenient transportation. Right now, that's a car. If you and others think that a car should not be the solution ... come up with something else. Produce a better solution.

350htrr

Well I don't really understand what you are saying ILTB. What I was trying to point out, what the thread it about, that people own cars for different reasons, not just for transportation, which all cars can do... Some people own a certain kind of car for self esteem, showing off how rich they are, how good a driver they are, racing on weekends, so cars can be and are, more than a tool for transporting oneself around...

EDIT; They can be toys, they can be a status statement, they can be a serious racing machine they can be a transportation device... Now I realize 90+%use it as a transportation device, but even they, when they can afford it use it as a status symbol. Why else do you think there is/are so many models of the same car...?

Ekdog

Segways might be a way to go, but how would they be better than bikes or ebikes?