| ▲ | boredatoms 4 hours ago |
| Be serious. Its not a class marker, its a nessesity. Even the poor have cars People clearly chooses the convenience and predictability of cars, and pay significantly to do so In places where there is greater convenience/predictability from pubilc transit, they choose it. See london/ny |
|
| ▲ | elmomle 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It is also a class marker. I intentionally lived without a car in West Coast city as a younger man, and I learned to be very selective about whom I told. The vast majority of people would assume that the only reason for not having a car is not being able to afford one, and would judge me accordingly. |
| |
| ▲ | cik 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have the same situation here. We live intentionally without a car, and our quality of life is fantastic. People assume poverty, given the lack of car, as opposed to I just don't see the value, and value controlling my time (the walks are force exercise, a win for me). I learned along time ago to not play other peoples games. | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I only recent got my driver's license again, at 40, after it expired a decade ago. Having a car just didn't make financial sense to me (and still doesn't, I just want the option to be able to drive one sometimes). I had to learn pretty quick that, if this trivia topic came up, I'd need to mention "I lived in NYC so long that I just never used it and didn't realize it expired" because otherwise people would assume that I lost it because of too many DUIs. | | |
| ▲ | hecanjog 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I chose not to drive as a teenager (public transit even in my smallish city seemed fine, I wanted to spend my money on a computer not a car) and it was interesting to watch the assumptions go from "you are incapable / afraid" to "you must be too poor or have a DUI" over the last 30 years. It's inconceivable to most people that it could be a choice. |
| |
| ▲ | socalgal2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | West Coast cities (or pretty much all cities in the USA except maybe NYC and Chicago and sometimes SF) suck without car. Yes, you can do it. It will be a chore. That attitude and class marker disappears in big cities in much of Asia and Europe |
|
|
| ▲ | hamdingers 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Are cars convenient? Drivers are constantly complaining about inconveniences. Parking, storage, maintenance, repairs, citations, congestion, construction, registration, insurance, the toil of driving itself, negative interactions with other drivers, etc. Are cars predictable? According to google maps, my route to downtown Los Angeles could be 30 to 150 minutes depending on the time of day, the train is always 50. It seems you would have to be unaware of alternatives to make those claims. |
| |
| ▲ | nradov 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is very much location dependant. Cars are convenient, predictable, and affordable in most of the USA. People just drive to their destination and park in one of the abundant free spaces without worrying about it. There are only a handful of dense cities where traffic and parking are a huge hassle. Public transit can sometimes be a great option and we should build more of it, but realistically most people will continue to rely on cars (possibly autonomous) in our lifetimes. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Cars are convenient, predictable, and affordable in most of the USA. People just drive to their destination and park in one of the abundant free spaces without worrying about it. This. I don't know what places people have in mind when they say that driving is inconvenient. Even in NYC driving isn't as bad as people claim, except perhaps in Lower Manhattan where there just aren't any parking spots. In most other places, a car takes you from door to door cheaper and faster than any alternative. |
|
|