284
  • lawful good -- grassy trams
  • neutral good -- bicycles
  • chaotic good -- rail bicycles
  • lawful neutral -- diesel trains
  • true neutral -- walking
  • chaotic neutral -- parkour
  • lawful evil -- airplanes
  • neutral evil -- Las Vegas Loop
  • chaotic evil -- rolling coal
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Techranger@infosec.pub 28 points 1 year ago

l'll speak up for airplanes, or at least airliners in particular. I concede the point they mostly burn non-renewable fuels, but they make excellent use of the resources. Rhetorically speaking, one can cross half the planet in half a day, for not much money, in a mode of transport that is the safest on the planet (typically an order of magnitude safer than cars as I recall).

[-] br3d@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Although don't forget that "for not much money" is partly because air travel is so subsidised. Fuel tends to be largely untaxed, even though fuel taxes on other modes don't really cover the externalities

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

In terms of fuel per passenger unit of distance, air travel is very efficient, the reason why there are so many emissions is the amount of distance you can travel.

Fuel makes up a significant amount of the aircraft's weight at takeoff on long haul flights.

[-] zoe@infosec.pub 8 points 1 year ago

aerial transport is justified for intercontinental transport, but shouldnt be adopted when land travel is possible

[-] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Especially on middle-distance routes where land transport would be faster (considering that airports can't be downtown like train stations can be, the delays associated with airport security, etc.) if the rail infrastructure were decent.

[-] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, that's why I put them in lawful. If we can get them to be more sustainable (maybe green hydrogen fuel), then they'd basically just be super fast and super safe sky buses, whereas they're currently extremely polluting sky buses.

[-] someguy7734206@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

If I recall correctly, aren't high speed trains the safest? At the very least, I recall that the Shinkansen has never had a single safety incident in its entire history, and as for the TGV, there have been a few derailments and a terrorist attack.

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but there's a lot more airports around.

[-] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

We should switch to more coscentious standards. Air travel is a commodity. We must avoid it as much as possible.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

After figuring in all the time it takes to earn enough to pay for a car, time spent maintaining it and gasing up, as well as the actual time spent driving, you still only get about 4 miles per man hour.

True neutral is the truth.

[-] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I wonder if there's data out there on life expectancy for people who walk a lot vs those who drive everywhere. I bet the miles per man hour would go down even further if you factor in years of life lost from being sedentary behind the wheel instead of walking.

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

The running cost of a vehicle is less than a dollar per KM, if you buy second hand you're not losing much money to depreciation, and it takes me an hour to do an oil change, which I do every ten thousand KM.

Where the hell did these figures come from?

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I saw them around here somewhere. I haven't bothered to run them personally, but after ditching my car and WFH, suddenly I can afford to support my wife and child while they both go to school - by way of explaining why I haven't put the assertion under a microscope.

Couldn't conjure up the source I got it from though. After some random figures looked up and shitty napkin math, I would only be able to argue for about 22 miles per Mhour for the average American.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wow, that's interesting! Do you have a source (or if you calculated it yourself, can you share the calculations)?

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It was around here somewhere.

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

He does not have a source.

[-] zoe@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the problem isn't the car, but the salary, which is basically straight theft, and that is eating on the Mh (man-hour). if one were paid twice as much, that would translate to 8 mile per Mh, also imagine there were one seat cars, instead of paying for a 5 seat car, u would save at least on half as much of the car cost ( also a 1L for 100km engine locked at 90km/h for speed is also logical), which translates to 16 miles per Mh, so on and so forth..also taxing the rich and subsidizing public facilities will extend Mhours way more..

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You're right. For cars to make sense in financial terms, all we need is a mulligan on the last several decades of economic policy.

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Do you not have friends? Or luggage? Or a dog?

[-] zoe@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

if u want to transport friends and whatnot, then dont come complaining about car cost..i was just trying to optimize car use cases. sure u wanna go camping ? might as well buy a AWD car for a trip per year and pay for the fuel of daily work commute. might as well buy two cars in this regard..if only public transport was that reliable, and also wages were fair..

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The difference in fuel use between a two wheel drive and AWD vehicle is negligible, you might as well have an AWD. Especially if you don't commute in your own car.

[-] zoe@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

u would think a 1L gasoline engine with 86Nm of torque would serve awd in rugged terrain ? unless u live in the us, where even front wheel's are run by 2 liter diesel, at 360Nm

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, AWD would give you more traction, regardless of how much power is in front of the drive train.

[-] zoe@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago
[-] Album@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fun facts:

  • The GO Train pictured in your lawful neutral served 35,234,400 passengers in 2022 and covers 526km connecting 27 cities (rough count).
  • The old diesel-electric fleet was replaced for higher efficiency/lower emission units about a decade ago and these models are now being converted into even lower emission units.
  • In the next decade a large portion of tracks will be electrified.
  • Gatekeeping mass transit is weird
[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I want a GO train. (I'm in the California Central Valley)

[-] rmd6502@mastodon.social 4 points 1 year ago

@uriel238 @Album yeah! Let's vote for a high speed rail, give the contract to a racist antisemitic jerk who will dig a few feet of test tunnel then throw a party with flamethrowers.

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

That's really rather specific.

[-] rmd6502@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago

@uriel238 based on a True Story lol

[-] VonReposti@feddit.dk 2 points 1 year ago

*Elon entered the room*

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Go is amazing. I can get on a train in Toronto West, like 5 minutes from my house and that train takes me straight to Niagara falls in comfort. I can't wait till we get faster trains

[-] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I heard the GO trains are undergoing some massive upgrades to provide better frequency and through-running lines. I wish they would do something to modernize the sorely lacking Exo trains here in Montreal. At least we got the REM now, though.

[-] zoe@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

yea man, i was wondnering too. trains are the least harmful, even the most polluting ones, the amount of torque they deliver for the amound of fuel consumed ratio is just beyond consideration

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Torque doesn't move things, power does.

[-] glibg10b@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago
[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago
[-] glibg10b@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

It's a website that you can use to edit images (e.g. memes). It adds a watermark to the bottom right of images when saving them

[-] ericbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Okay but I want chaotic good as an option because cars wouldn't hit me there and my bike lane wouldn't just turn into a turn lane randomly.

[-] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Can't pass anybody though.

[-] LimitedWard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

No buses in this post? I'd place them under chaotic neutral

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
284 points (92.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9379 readers
1573 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS