My original question was “How do we disincentivize the purchase of pickup trucks/SUVs” but then I thought it would be better to approach the larger problem of car dependency and car ownership. One option is, of course, to create public transit infrastructure and improve it where it already exist. This, however, doesn’t change the fact that some will still choose to drive. What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?

  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    no, you really, absolutely don’t.

    more importantly, you missed the part where being anti-car is just a tax on poor people. It’s also ableist. We still need cars, and punishing people who need them isn’t helpful.

    “poor people, like people on disability payments, shouldn’t be able to afford to drive, but rich people can do whatever they want” is a horrible dystopia.

    • Evotech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I agree with you, it’s not fair, but afaik the research and data shows that in order to get people to use their cars less there has to be more downsides to using it as well as easier alternative transportation.

      Otherwise people will just keep driving

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        You can own your car and drive it from time to time, ideally not in the city. Those aren’t what we want to discourage. Discourage driving daily, driving in the city. Make those things simply easier, faster, and cheaper to do than using a car, and, while it won’t KILL cars completely, it’ll reduce them enough to make a noticeable difference.

        After that’s successful, and the working class hasn’t completely shit themselves, we can start with making cars less desirable than they are right now. Once only the enthusiasts and most stubborn own a car, we can add some kinds of taxes, so that at the end, we’re left with only the enthusiasts, which I think is a perfectly reasonable goal.

        • Evotech@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Yes, but you must also do things like add tolls, rush surcharges, etc to actually get the car usage down.

          Simply making the alternative better alone won’t make the majority drop the comfort of their own car because it will never be as good as driving yourself.

          • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            no, you don’t. that’s all a poor tax, again.

            and remember: most of the people who need cars (for mobility reasons) are among the poorest.

            So taxing people through tolls and such is just punishing the disabled. ie ableist.

            • Evotech@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              You do if you actually want the traffic to go down and you want to afford the public transportation infrastructure that will be required.

              • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                in short, you’re not good at math and have no idea the cost of public works if you think they’re on the same scale.

                (also, it doesn’t address the ableism)

          • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Pretty sure my second paragraph, starting with the word “after” (that word does a LOT of lifting) addresses that aspect.

            • Evotech@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              It usually happens at the same time, you increase cost. Then you use that cost directly to build and maintain the public infrastructure required.

              • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’m aware of that being how it usually happens. The problem is, relying on that leaves a lot of people out to dry. Spend a bit now, so that we can make the transition smoother and more likely to happen at all.

                • Evotech@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I agree, I’m also colored by living in Norway where we are way ahead of America in this process. It’s been very gradual indeed.

                  But it is fair that people using the roads pay for them

                  • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Sure, I can agree with the people using them paying for the roads. I just don’t want to see it go from what we have currently to something much MUCH worse for your average individual, which if we do these things without setting up safety nets first, they will be.