Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
It's a completely different story. For cars, it happened because of relentless pressure from the auto lobby. It took years of propaganda from oil companies, car makers etc. to make us think the road is for cars [1]. We demolished and rebuilt entire cities to accommodate cars, partly because they gutted the public transport sector [2]. This made our infrastructure so hostile to our own bodies that we have no choice but to use cars now. We bought their products because they forced them down our throats. There is nowhere near that kind of pressure behind the adoption of... oh dear lord.

[1] https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2022/06/how-lobbyis...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

I don't think the pressure of the auto lobby is really the reason.

People feel cars are more convenient and more prestigious than riding on a bus. Car lobby certainly accelerated the process, but car users were the main driving force.

The auto lobby invented the word jaywalking to shift the liability for dead pedestrians from the people doing the killing to the people doing the walking.

The US also had protests when drivers killed kids, but they were ultimately unsuccessful, except for the odd traffic light installation. https://medium.com/vision-zero-cities-journal/the-baby-carri...

Even in Amsterdam the original "stop the child murder" protests only barely succeeded, and it took a massive oil crisis and a population that could still (if only just) remember what life was like before cars took over their city to get there.

Uses change and laws need to keep up. Lobby or not, jaywalking is a reasonable thing to be illegal because when cars became common enough, walkers in their way caused an overall loss for everyone. People also used to be allowed to walk on the train tracks freely when trains were slower and more obvious - did the train lobby invent the word "foamer"? Should we make rail corridors train-free? Computer hacking became illegal during my lifetime to shift liability for faulty software and incompetence from the operators to the users. Before that, it didn't really matter because nobody was using the internet for anything important. Friends used to hack each other for fun. Bitcoin used to be a wild west where people would openly steal from or fool each other for sport - I don't think people really saw it as money or property when you could just generate it with your computer.
> Car lobby certainly accelerated the process, but car users were the main driving force.

Not really. We know it’s not as much of a natural force as some would like it to be because there are places where the lobbies lost, and while cars are common and widespread they’re nowhere near as dominant as they are in, say, the USA.

NJB’s next video (currently available on nebula) is about exactly that, Amsterdam’s (/ De Pijp’s) resistance to cars and car lobbying.

Subsidies played a huge role, including the eminent domain bulldozing of cities for free-at-use highways. If people had to pay upfront for those costs, the urban landscape would look much different (probably closer to Japanese cities, which do have massive suburbs, but centred around train stations).

Yet Japan does still have cars (and a car culture even), they're just not necessarily the default or dominant mode of transport.

Sure, nobody is saying cars are useless or unfun, I'm just pushing back against the idea that everything car everywhere is a natural and intrinsic outcome from cars existing. As I noted, even in the netherlands cars are common, the dutch have a very dense road network, and a fair amount of cars.
loading story #48506265
Isn't Not Just Bikes some US expat/biking maximalist?

I'm not sure I'd take him as some neutral authority on the history of cars and driving in Europe.

> Isn't Not Just Bikes some US expat/biking maximalist?

According to their videos, they prefer trams within cities; generally take trains between cities; and acknowledge that cars are very useful for places which aren't so well connected (e.g. places that are far apart which aren't on a train line). They think encouraging the use of cars within cities is a bad idea (dangerous, scales poorly, makes those areas less pleasant to be, etc.).

Not what I'd think of as a "biking maximalist".

They do show themselves cycling to places that are nearby. Does that make Youtubers who record videos in their car "driving maximalists"?

loading story #48503610
> Isn't Not Just Bikes some US expat/biking maximalist?

You should really ponder the sanity of asking if a channel called “not just bikes” is a bike maximalist.

Surely people feeling that way can be attributed to the industry?
For hopefully most people, it should be attributed to the "Wait, now I have such a freedom and power?".

Opposite to "before the invention of bicycle, people married within a radius in the order of the mile" (can't remember the exact stat right now).

It's like that feeling of power you get from owning a gun that you only bought because you feared all the other people who owned guns.
No its much more straightforward, but I get it - there is no warm fuzzy feeling of discovering yet another global evil conspiracy out there set to get all of us.

We are family of 4 with 2 small kids. Whenever we travel, its a series of backpacks, other bags, other stuff, and then some more. Heck, even if I travel alone its almost never just me - there are heaps of garbage to dispose, big shopping bags to bring back, big backpack with camping or climbing or skiing gear etc.

It would have been absolute, utter nightmare to do this over public transport. This comes from European who has generally very good public transport (given rural area) and world's best train network specifically (Switzerland). Yet roads are choke full of cars and every year there is more.

Public transport simply ain't cutting it for anything but the simplest use cases, ie just me and nothing or small backpack. Some routes I take would take 3-5x longer with public transport, or are just not possible at all. No industry massage required here, ever. Not everybody lives in some dense city and never leaves outside for evenings or weekends.

Switzerland does have roads choked full of cars. It also has pretty mediocre bike infrastructure.

But this is kind of besides the point - even in the Netherlands I also would use a car if I were taking camping and skiing gear with the kids, and that's fine. But I can also take them in the bakfiets to the grocery store when I want, and that's also fine. Cars have their purpose, but you shouldn't _have_ to use one for basic trips.

loading story #48503602
It’s privacy vs not. It doesn’t really need special lobbying
I’m sure that isn’t the full answer. Otherwise car ads wouldn’t be necessary and more affordable cars would outcompete the expensive ones.

There’s the utility component, the prestige factor and other things.

loading story #48503969
loading story #48501857
Are there real acknowledgments cases of multiple companies coming together to bribe some state level people to increase their profit and splitting the bribe across the companies? Like GM, BNW and Honda coming together bribing and splitting the bill. Seems unlikely thou there was a RAM price fixing agreement caught but then again they were caught cause of the number of people aware
Whether public or individual transportation makes more sense really depends on a country’s geography and people’s housing preferences. Public transportation is not always the best option.
There was surely also a lot of political will coming from car users. Motorists are a large and vocal constituency.
I think it might be because people like to own and drive cars.
I mean that kind of seems like exactly what's happening for AI to me.
Typical comment that probably comes from a healthy, childless, young person with no disabilities that can’t understand why people not in that situation might have different requirements from transportation.