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
    67
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    don’t discourage people from owning personal cars. most of the time this mentality is just a tax on the poor.

    Flip the idea. Encourage people to not use cars instead.

    • not just bike lanes, but bike storage & lockers
    • not just public transport, but better connections between transport modes (buses with bike carriers, train stations with better car parking and bike lockers and bus connections)
    • more small car parking bays with all large truck bays further away from the stores
    • more motorcycle parking bays
    • cheaper motorcycle registration, etc.

    it’s all about spending money and effort in the areas you want it. Not about being restrictive.

    it’s a slower method of conversion, but more effective.

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

              • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months 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
                  ·
                  4 months 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
                    ·
                    4 months 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.

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

        The solution seems to be, build those public transit options first. Let people get used to them, know they exist, etc. even if they’re not massively used, their presence makes implementing some kind of penalty for driving WAY more likely to work - there’s already an alternative in place, we don’t have to worry about what we’re gonna do now, were just gonna take the bus.

        • br3d@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I totally understand why you say this. But at the same time:

          1. Be a politician

          2. Do the right thing and invest billions in an amazing public transport system knowing it won’t be used properly until much later

          3. Lose your job for wasting billions on a system nobody uses. Ensure that every other politician in the world cannot henceforth invest in public transport because “Look what happened when that other guy tried it”.

          4. There is no Step 4

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

            This is why I propose moving in sloooooow steps. One or two small changes at a time, and eventually we’ve “snuck” some stuff by and moved in the right direction.

            The way I look at it, it’s as likely to happen if we do it right as if we do it wrong. Either we’re going to get rid of cars, or we’re not. I’d rather make steps towards doing it right.

    • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Anti-tobacco campaigns proved to be very useful. Anti-car campaigns could be equally useful. Won’t happen in the EU sadly because Germany relies too much on automotive industry.

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        well, sure, because that’s just because vaping didn’t exist then. Once vaping became a thing, soooo many people switched over from smoking to vaping.

        • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I wasn’t being sarcastic, anti-tobacco campaigns and regulations were very effective