
The Absurd Primacy of the Car in American Life - acjohnson55
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/absurd-primacy-of-the-car-in-american-life/476346/?single_page=true
======
Rezo
More US cities should try at least creating _some_ car-free zones.

It's crazy how in a city of New York's caliber, with great public transport,
so much space is taken up by cars for so little gain. The total lack of
"walking streets" (streets entirely for pedestrian use for Americans
unfamiliar with the concept!) is baffling to me. I think it would be perfectly
fine to for example close something like Broadway or even 5th Avenue to cars,
the businesses on these streets derive almost no traffic since it's all pass-
through. Can you imagine how much better that would be for almost everyone,
businesses included, what a destination that would create with a whole avenue
packed with people? Close of the streets around squares, instead of creating
islands in the middle of traffic you'd get street cafes. Just one, pretty
please?

~~~
travmatt
I'm currently finishing reading Robert Caro's "The Power Broker", which is
about the man who is mostly responsible for New York's choice to embrace the
automobile over people, Robert Moses. In short, this choice was extremely
conscious and in large part driven by racial and class based segregation.

~~~
mountaineer22
Excellent book. I highly recommend this, as well.

------
ideonexus
I agree with the author, and am cognizant of the problem and outraged for the
same inefficiencies, deleterious health effects, and fatalities he outlines.
But I wish he could have spent an equal amount of time exploring how we solve
this problem rather than just inciting futile anger over it.

One solution is telecommuting; get people of the road by having them work from
home. Another is mandating fuel efficiency and reducing the pollution cars
produce. It's outrageous that children getting leukemia and respiratory
illnesses are considered acceptable loses so that people can drive enormous
SUVs purely as status symbols instead of for their utility. You want to drive
a vehicle that gets less than 20 MPG? Fine, you're also going to pay a
gasoline consumption tax to support the social programs that take care of the
families your pollution is giving cancer.

Most importantly to me, and the point the author leaves out, is that cars are
highly subsidized. The irony of American car ownership is that we consider
public transportation socialist, while spending trillions of tax dollars on
public roads. I would love to take the train to work, where I can read a book,
write, or program instead of sitting in traffic for an hour... but for some
reason we consider sitting in traffic for an hour on a publicly-funded road
"freedom."

~~~
zzalpha
IMO, if you wanted to change things, you'd have to penalize driving by
eliminating subsidies and/or introduce taxes on non-commercial vehicles and
fuel. Then pair that with policies that discourage urban sprawl and encourage
investment in public transportation.

We know this can work because the run up on crude caused miles driven to
decline.

But that requires some serious political will, and that ain't gonna happen.

~~~
lagadu
The problem is that it's too late. Urban sprawl already grew so much that it's
out of hand, it looks next to impossible to make a public transportation
network that would rival the ones we have on our side of the pond. It's not
just lack of political (and voter) will, it's simply the sheer impracticality
of implementing it.

~~~
Agustus
Then why are there discussions on gentrification. There are reasons why
individuals are moving back into the city, especially the up and coming class
of individuals. The new comers to the city are fighting urban sprawl by making
the move.

~~~
lagadu
It's a small minority. Even more interesting, while gentrification is arguably
the solution/balancing phenomena to this problem, it's generally speaking a
term with a negative connotation associated with it.

~~~
zzalpha
Only because most US cities do a piss poor job of providing housing support
for the poor. That's a failure of policy, not gentrification itself.

------
cubano
I no longer drive for a variety of reasons, and here in Florida at least where
everyone has, it often seems, 2 cars, and there is very little good public
transportation, it's not really very fun.

I get things thrown at me by random drivers at least once a month. I have to
be constantly aware of drivers chatting on cells not seeing me and literally
hitting me head on at intersections.

Trying to date, at my age, with no car is almost impossible.

Pretty much the only other people I see riding bikes are the homeless. And
then there is the stigma that if your riding a bike, it means you obviously
have DUI and/or other issues.

But I love riding my bike. I've been a constant bike rider since I was 6yo and
it has and always will be a source of joy and freedom to me.

Like I enjoy saying "drive a car, burn money and get fat...ride a bike, burn
fat and save money."

~~~
yitchelle
> And then there is the stigma that if your riding a bike, it means you
> obviously have DUI and/or other issues.

How deep is this stigma in Florida? I guess that this stigma is regional. I
definitely don't feel this stigma living in Western Europe.

~~~
bobbyadamson
It's a consistent stigma across most of America

~~~
67726e
That's really gonna depend on where you live. If you live in the affluent
suburbs, you're definitely going to encounter that mentality. I was raised in
what is possibly the most bicycle friendly town/island in the state of South
Carolina and that mentality is still very much a thing. In cities that
mentality is less present, but there is the hatred of bicyclists from drivers.

~~~
michael_h
> If you live in the affluent suburbs, you're definitely going to encounter
> that mentality.

Counterpoint: many affluent suburbs are adding multiuse paths all over the
place.

~~~
cptskippy
The trend around Atlanta is for the affluent to just build further from the
city, not to revitalize or rebuild. The middle and upper middle class seem to
be the ones doing the revitalization efforts as they try to move back into the
cities away from the suburbs. It's leaving this ring suburban homes form the
60s-80s around the perimeter of Atlanta that are falling into disrepair.

------
zzalpha
The comments, here, are almost as fascinating as the article.

The data cited are irrefutable. The points made are perfectly logical.

And yet many of the comments make it seem like the author insulted their
mother.

It's that car culture, the almost religious emotional attachment to the
automobile, that makes the US so unique. I don't believe there's an equivalent
anywhere else. It's really quite fascinating.

~~~
surge
Individually though we have little choice, fact of the matter is I live 30
miles from where I work. I can't afford to live close enough to walk, they
demand I be in the office almost every day. I would love to reduce my
dependence on a vehicle, if nothing else to get rid of the risk to my own life
I take every morning getting behind the wheel while half awake.

The article fails to point out the US is spread out, people live far apart,
and there are few if any viable alternatives for transportation, even in areas
with high population density.

~~~
zzalpha
Agreed, it's a hard problem to solve.

Question though: did you consider alternate forms of transportation when you
decided where to live and work? Or did you just (even subconsciously) presume
a car was necessarily part of the picture?

That's one of the cultural issues at play, here. For many, not only is single
car commuting just assumed, anything else is virtually unthinkable, affecting
any number of decisions people make.

~~~
thedaemon
Unlike many European countries we do not have bus routes to the rural towns.
It forces us to rely on our own cars, or a family member's good will. Until we
can build the bus infrastructure, cars are here to stay.

~~~
zzalpha
But why are you in a rural town? That, itself, is a choice based on the
assumption you'll be driving.

Edit: not sure why the downvote. That's a genuine question.

Living in a rural area is a lifestyle choice that typically necessitates a
car.

If not owning a car is a priority, you'd make a different lifestyle choice.

Which is really my point. For most people, owning a car isn't seen as a
lifestyle choice. It's seen as a default. Automatic. Not even part of the
equation. And that's cultural.

~~~
vollmond
Living in a rural area isn't a lifestyle choice when the cities are so far
apart. If the cities were every 40-60 miles, it might be. I live 2 hours from
the nearest city that has any significant public transport (central
Pennsylvania). Getting rid of a car isn't worth introducing a 2 hour drive to
visit family that lives here -- they're why we live here in the first place.

We used to live in southwest Missouri. Losing the car would probably have put
us anywhere from 3 to 8 (driving) hours away from anyone we knew, depending on
how the public transit is in Kansas City or Tulsa or St. Louis. I wouldn't be
surprised if Chicago was the closest city where you could really be fine
without a car.

~~~
zzalpha
_Living in a rural area isn 't a lifestyle choice when the cities are so far
apart._

I live in Canada... I live three hours from my own mom. And we live in the two
largest cities in my province, separated by vast swathes of cattle pasture and
wheat fields.

 _I live 2 hours from the nearest city that has any significant public
transport (central Pennsylvania). Getting rid of a car isn 't worth
introducing a 2 hour drive to visit family that lives here -- they're why we
live here in the first place._

Right.

That's a lifestyle choice.

The choice you're making is choosing to optimize access to family at the
expense of requiring a car.

You could choose to live in or nearer to a city, making public transit an
option, and renting for those times when you want to visit family. But that
would, of course, introduce a barrier to visiting family, and you've decided
that's not acceptable.

That's fine! You're obviously free to make that choice!

But don't claim you had no choice, and that it isn't because you've chosen to
optimize for a certain lifestyle.

------
err4nt
I'm engaged to an American and they seem to view a car as a right of passage
into adulthood. They feel like the expense of a car, whatever it may be, is
essential. If five people go to a restaurant, it's probably in 4+ vehicles.

The craziest thing to me was recently a twenty year old borrowed money to
purchase a stick-drive car when she doesn't drive stick and already had a
recent, usable car. Why? Now she's going to have no money for years to come!

~~~
phillc73
> If five people go to a restaurant, it's probably in 4+ vehicles

That's just crazy! It means five people can't drink. All that's needed is
maximum one car for five people, maybe two if traveling from dispersed
locations. Keep designated drivers to a minimum.

~~~
SerLava
>maybe two if traveling from dispersed locations.

Remember this is America we're talking about. Locations are really, really
dispersed. Carpooling 5 people could mean the driver is dropping people off
for an hour and a half.

~~~
wolfgke
Or if the driver drives a pickup truck one could go by bicycle to a point that
is along the way that the driver takes and just put the bicycle on the truck
bed when meeting. For the other direction it's the same. This should reduce
the problem.

~~~
mikeash
Drunk bicycling is still a bad idea, and illegal.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
It is a bad idea, and it is illegal in some countries, but nonetheless if you
cycle drunk you're more likely to injure/kill yourself; if you drive drunk
you're more likely to injure/kill someone else.

~~~
mikeash
I agree that it's better, but it's still a bad idea and shouldn't be presented
as any sort of solution.

------
pkorzeniewski
The author is missing some crucial facts that a) not everyone lives in a big
city with public transport, so they've no alternative; b) even if you live in
a big city, it's often much faster or more convenient to take a car; c)
without a car you can't get to 99% places outside the city, so say goodbye to
weekend road-trips. No, that's not absurd at all - that's the invaluable
freedom of movement.

~~~
fulafel
Renting a car works well for weekend road-trips.

In small cities it's often feasible to live within walking/biking distance
from town center even if the public transport is poorer than big cities.

~~~
exhilaration
My friends in NYC just book a Zipcar when they need to travel to New Jersey or
Long Island. That seems to be a perfect solution (if you've got the money) for
people in big cities.

------
reedlaw
I wouldn't call dependence on cars "absurd" or "insane" as the article puts
it. Certainly there's room for improvement. Self-driving cars may reduce
underutilization as well as fatalities. Cities could be planned better for
walking, biking, and public transportation. But without car transportation I
doubt the US economy, standard of living, and general sense of unlimited
possibility would be what they are today.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
The current state of affairs did not happen by accident.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

~~~
Agustus
This is a conspiracy theory. The other part of the story is that if the
streetcars were a better investment, General Motors would not have done this.
Streetcars are slow, inefficient, and require rail lines to move about. So, if
these companies realized the assets they were holding, then they have the
opportunity to get rid of them.

If you were an investor, the up and coming item was streetcars, as the article
mentions they were better than horse-drawn carriages, so taking a stake in
these would have been a good idea. The article mentions that the transit
systems are expensive to maintain; as publicly held companies, they need to
make money. The current day transit systems with rail lines are heavily
underwater and have a difficult time making any money, let alone addressing
maintenance issues: BART, Metro, and Max. Knowing the return on investment
from existing data, would you as a private investor purchase any of those
lines.

So, the conspiracy can be developed in retrospect, but an over arching plot
fails to account for some of the opportunities that fit more into an investor
trying to make monies.

~~~
mountaineer22
It is not a theory. It is an actual conspiracy.

From the link:

"On April 9, 1947, nine corporations and seven individuals (officers and
directors of certain of the corporate defendants) were indicted in the Federal
District Court of Southern California on counts of "conspiring to acquire
control of a number of transit companies, forming a transportation monopoly"
and "conspiring to monopolize sales of buses and supplies to companies owned
by National City Lines"[35] which had been made illegal by the 1890 Sherman
Antitrust Act. In 1948, the venue was changed from the Federal District Court
of Southern California to the Federal District Court in Northern Illinois
following an appeal to the United States Supreme Court (in United States v.
National City Lines Inc.)[36] which felt that there was evidence of conspiracy
to monopolize the supply of buses and supplies.[37]

In 1949, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, GM
and Mack Trucks were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses
and related products to local transit companies controlled by NCL; they were
acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies. The
verdicts were upheld on appeal in 1951."

Then you have President Eisenhower appointing the president of GM as the
secretary of defense:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Erwin_Wilson#Secretary...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Erwin_Wilson#Secretary_of_Defense)

..and Francis DuPont appointed as chief administrator of highways, whose
family, coincidentally owned the largest share of GM stock:

[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/administrators/fdupont.cfm](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/administrators/fdupont.cfm)

------
autokad
"More than 80 cents of every dollar spent on gasoline is squandered by the
inherent inefficiencies of the modern internal combustion engine"

actually the inefficiencies are spent on taxes rather than the engine itself.

its really hard to read through the extremely biased article. it literally
admits airplanes are more inefficient but cars are worse because they are used
more. That's a special kind of logic there.

I myself live in Philly which is one of few places you can exist in america
without a car. I also give up a lot of freedom. it means not being able to go
hiking in the woods, or pretty much anything outside the maybe 5 or 6 places
in america with enough population density to warent a good mass transit
system.

cars in many situations also save copius amounts of time. A trip to north east
philly is about an hour and a half by mass transit, 25 minutes by car. time
savings that would eclipse any theoretical 10 years of life expectancy loss
from cars.

cars have done wonder's for economy as well.

~~~
mikeash
Gas taxes in the US are around 50 cents/gallon, so at the current national
average price of gas of a bit over $2/gallon, that's about a 33% tax.

Airplanes are actually more efficient than cars the way they're used. Cars are
usually single-person affairs. The average occupancy is well under two.
Passenger airplanes usually fly close to full, and typical fuel efficiency is
in the neighborhood of 70-120 seat-miles per gallon.

~~~
Grishnakh
On top of that, airplanes fly in a direct route, whereas cars are stuck
following road layouts, which aren't always direct, especially if there's any
waterways in the way.

On the flip side, planes usually take off and land at airports that aren't
that close to your destination.

------
colllectorof
_" Annual U.S. highway fatalities outnumber the yearly war dead during each
Vietnam, Iraq, the War of 1812, and the American Revolution."_ This kind of
nonsense is why all population statistics should be reported per person per
year.

1\. Public transportation is a huge vector for viral diseases. 2\. You can
drive to a place any time of the day. Public transport doesn't always work
24/7\. 3\. If you live in a shitty neighborhood, you most likely would not
want to walk or take a bicycle everywhere. So in some ways cars can make you
safer. 4\. Car efficiency and safety is something that is getting improved all
the time. 5\. If something bad happens (think hurricane), relying on public
transportation will get you stranded with much higher probability.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
1\. You won't be getting on a plane then?

2\. You fit your life to the schedule, just as you fit existing journeys
around the fact your car can't do 300 mph or drive over water. It isn't worse,
just different.

3\. Perhaps the neighbourhood wouldn't be so shitty if everybody wasn't in a
car isolated from their surroundings.

4\. Cars have been getting bigger all the time, those efficiency gains have
been squandered on SUVs.

5\. Maybe, although basing your transport policy around freak events isn't
that sensible.

~~~
Grishnakh
You sound like a European who's never been to the US.

>You won't be getting on a plane then?

Most people don't ride planes very often. If you rely on public transit, you
have to use it multiple times per day. People can go months or years before
boarding a plane.

>Perhaps the neighbourhood [sic] wouldn't be so shitty if everybody wasn't in
a car isolated from their surroundings.

No, the neighborhood is shitty for various other reasons which have nothing to
do with cars. America has long had a problem with race relations.

>Maybe, although basing your transport policy around freak events isn't that
sensible.

What "freak events"? Hurricanes happen here quite frequently, as do lesser
storms.

------
chrisbennet
It might as well be called "The Absurd Primacy of Not Living In Cities"

~~~
Kristine1975
Where I live public transport extends well into the countryside.

~~~
pionar
May I ask where you live? The countryside can mean any amount of distance. In
many parts of the US the "countryside" between cities could stretch hundreds
of miles.

I live outside of Detroit, but I'm originally from Indianapolis. That's ~300
miles, a 4.5 hour drive by car. I drive that stretch about once every other
month to visit family, do work functions (I work from home; my company is in
Indianapolis) and other things.

As I make this drive, through what is almost exclusively small towns and
farms, there's no way public transportation could be made affordable enough to
cover the vast distances required so that the reliance of cars in this area
would be diminished.

And that's in the Midwest, where the cities aren't that far apart (every major
city is 2-5 hours away from the others)! Imagine Texas, where you can drive in
a straight line for >10 hours and still be inside that state.

~~~
Kristine1975
_> May I ask where you live?_

In Germany. In Baden-Württemberg to be exact. And by "countryside" I mean
10-30km.

But why on earth would you live hundreds of miles away from where you work?
First thing I did when I started going to university in Baden-Württemberg was
move there.

As for when I visit my parents or siblings (about 600km away), I take the
train.

~~~
pionar
>But why on earth would you live hundreds of miles away from where you work?

I work remotely, but occasionally it's nice to get face time with the team.

I moved for my wife, who got a job (in an industry where there's not a lot of
jobs) in the area.

------
iamthepieman
I hate owning a car. I do not like thinking about repairs, i do not like how
much it cost, i do not like how much it pollutes, i do not like how dangerous
driving is.

I can't afford to live in a good neighborhood of a city with good public
transit either though so I'm damned if I do and also... if I don't

------
sphildreth
The author seems really angry, maybe a good Sunday drive would cheer him up.

------
gm-conspiracy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

..and relevant documentary:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4)

------
imgabe
Cars are fine if you use them appropriately. They're great for trips from one
city to another (> 10 miles or so) or if you need to carry something really
heavy. Otherwise walking, biking, or public transportation are preferable.

If your life is arranged such that all the places you commonly need to go are
> 10 miles apart from each other, consider changing that.

------
altotrees
The whole notion of a car being a "rite of passage" in America has always
seemed odd to me, even as an American. In many cases, I have friends with
loads of college debt taking on an equal amount of debt for a new car upon
graduation.

It seems to me to be a throwback idea that has lived on. I don't think a new
car can really be seen as a rite of passage in the current culture of tuition
inflation/stagnating wages. It is more like a luxury you are lucky to be able
to truly afford (I'm not talking a 72 month payment plan, no down payment
afford here) a year or less out of college.

------
kailuowang
In U.S. culture is being shaped by business more than other countries. Car
culture, gun culture are two great examples of commercial cultures in U.S.

~~~
chiph
Car culture, as another poster said, is a rite-of-passage in the US.

When you turn 8 years old or so, you typically get your first bicycle. And
this lets you exert some independence from your parents - you're able to ride
faster than they can run and catch you for the first time. Later, you might
get a better bike and be able to ride even faster and further. You can spend
an entire day away from home on the weekends, visiting friends that you'd
otherwise have to ask mom for a ride to go see.

But the downside to a bicycle is that when it rains, you're probably going to
be stuck wherever you are. And then you turn 16 and get your learner's permit.
Now you're able to go faster and farther, and travel when it's raining.

So it's part of the process of the little bird leaving the nest and becoming
an independent person.

~~~
SerLava
>And then you turn 16 and get your learner's permit. Now you're able to go
faster and farther,

For many people, that's the first time you can do anything at all. When I was
growing up, my bike could get me absolutely nowhere - there wasn't even
passable terrain on the side of the highway. You could maybe push and carry a
bike for an hour then ride for another 20 minutes to get into town or to where
other people lived.

~~~
kuschku
The issue is probably just infrastructure.

"Germany builds another new bike highway in the European bike highway grid
allowing anyone to bike from any point in the EU to any other point in the EU
easily".

"Average age for kids to get a bike goes down even more to below 3"

Infrastructure and culture over here in Europe are very different – you can
easily bike to another country and back, without ever having to worry about
finding somewhere to bike. You can literally bike or walk _anywhere_.

A lot of that obviously because walking and biking infrastructure in Europe
has existed for millenia on these scales.

------
imgabe
I wonder how things would change if commuting time was considered "working"
and employers had to compensate for it at the employee's hourly rate. This
probably isn't realistically feasible but...

It seems like most individuals would rather not have horrendous commutes, but
they work where the jobs are and they live where housing is cheap and those
two things are often far apart. These same individuals have little political
pull in terms of zoning laws and urban improvements to make the necessary
changes to the infrastructure to allow them to live close to work.

If suddenly, say GE, or any major employer in a town had a financial incentive
to lobby the local government to make it easier for employees to live close to
where they work, things would probably change a lot faster.

~~~
lagadu
Or even just cut the middle-man (the employer). Here in Denmark if you live
more than a set distance from your place of work (IIRC it's 20km) you get tax
deductions based on the distance of your commute. This way it's the government
directly that gets an incentive to make things better because they literally
get less tax money and there's no added complexity by involving employers.

~~~
imgabe
That probably works well in Denmark, but I think it would be confusing with
the morass of federal/state/local governments in the US.

A deduction on your Federal taxes wouldn't necessarily affect the tax money
collected by the local or state government, which is usually the one
responsible for building various roads. State and local governments may or may
not even collect income taxes (some do, some don't).

------
yodsanklai
One advantage of having a car that I don't see mentioned in the comments is
safety. There are a lot of places where I don't feel safe taking public
transportations at night. Besides, bikes are more likely to get stolen or
vandalized.

~~~
gedy
I also am assuming most of the no-car commenters in the US have no spouse or
small children. There's a lot more to life than commuting back and forth to
the office.

~~~
sevensor
I have a foot in both camps -- I have a wife and small children, and we own a
car, but I use bicycle and public transit to get to work. There's really no
safe way to get the kids to preschool without a car. I had to do this last
week, due to some car issues. The cars whooshing by my tiny children as we
walked to the bus stop on the narrow shoulder were utterly terrifying. I won't
be doing that again soon.

There were no economical alternatives to our current housing situation, so
like many other commenters, we have to use a personal vehicle even though we'd
prefer to avoid it.

~~~
yodsanklai
Quite often, I see people carrying very young kids on their bike, either on a
back seat, or in a special carriage. We have bike lanes pretty much everywhere
in my city, but they are not always separated from the car roads. I don't know
if I would take such a risk myself.

------
blondie9x
The best thing we can do now without government involvement is focus on
carpooling. In private sector that is something we can control and influence
independently. Public transportation can be demanded and new options added,
however we have delegated that to our government and representatives. We would
need to uniformly demand more of it over time.

During interim if we find carpools and try that, in theory we could reduce
much of the climate, health, traffic, and deprecation concerns.

------
mariojv
I agree that it's absurd that a lot of Americans have to rely on their cars,
but I sympathize with the commenters here who don't have cars in places where
they would be really convenient.

It would be good if the author of the article went more in-depth about the
causes of car culture and potential policy solutions. The car is a status
symbol of independence in American culture, but I don't think the prevalence
of that culture can be separated from how our infrastructure is heavily biased
towards utilizing public space for parking spaces, roads, etc. I personally
dislike driving and would much rather walk or take a train to where I'm going,
even if it took a bit longer.

In my city, there is no public transit at all that would allow me to get to
where my doctor is, and it would take almost 2 hours for me to bike there
across very dangerous roads not designed for bikers. My city also banned ride
sharing services for a time, so the only options would have been "bumming" a
ride from someone or taking an expensive cab - both car-based modes of
transit. Taking public transit to another place I could have biked from more
easily would have taken just as long as biking the whole route. Towards the
end of the route, I would have had to somehow bike on a highway with cards
speeding along at 60+mph, too.

Even in another city designed with bike lanes when I had very obvious flashing
lights attached to my bike, I got hit by a driver who wasn't paying attention
when he turned right onto the road in front of me. Drivers in my current city
are much less aware of bikers than there, and I've seen Uber drivers in
another city with a similar lack of public transit yelling and harassing
bikers sharing the road quite unobtrusively.

Another factor here is that the elderly get heat strokes during the summer
when temperatures exceed 100 degrees. I'm not sure how well walking to their
bus stop would work.

There need to be better solutions here than the gas guzzling monstrosities
that people drive everyday. I try to reduce my carbon footprint and gas bill
by driving an efficient car. The infrastructure for electric cars, which would
help the dependence on fossil fuels but not entirely solve deaths from vehicle
accidents (though it might prevent _some_ , because of large crumple zones),
simply isn't there yet. Until better public transit gets more funding, the
increasing availability of affordable electric cars may be a good stopgap
solution, at least.

~~~
frabbit
Having lived and worked in France, the UK, the USA and Canada (mostly in large
cities) I have heard people's excuses for why they do not cycle ad nauseam.
All in places where I do cycle. Usually there is a way. Usually people are
looking for an excuse not to find it.

That's not to deny that your particular situation is indeed impossible, but
the idea that you need bike lanes and your mantra of being in danger strikes
me as not reflecting the actual safety, convenience and abve all _enjoyment_.

Cycling has overall better life expectancy outcomes than driving and is pretty
safe.

You may want to consider a pedelec/electric-assist bicycle (I recommend recent
models using the bottom bracket motors from either Bosch or Shimano) if your
trip is too long.

------
cm2187
The article shows the problems related to using car, but not why this primacy
is "absurd". What is the alternative? (it's only absurd if there is a better
alternative).

------
amelius
I wonder how Apple will do with their Apple car, once people realize they
don't have to own a car. The Apple brand is about possession, and this doesn't
go well with using a car as a service.

------
mgarfias
Clearly written by someone in the city.

------
pigpaws
...apparently written by an apartment dweller who wants to 'nerf' the entire
world.

The market or job isn't always 2 blocks or even 2 miles away.

...The Absurdity of an Atlantic Article.

