The Car Is Not the Future: on the Myth of Motorized Freedom
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
blog.scaramuzza.meOtherstory
controversialmixed
Debate
85/100
TransportationUrban PlanningSustainability
Key topics
Transportation
Urban Planning
Sustainability
The article argues that cars are not the future of transportation, sparking a heated debate among commenters about the role of cars in different environments and the feasibility of alternative transportation methods.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
18m
Peak period
61
0-3h
Avg / period
9
Comment distribution108 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 108 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 1, 2025 at 12:51 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 1, 2025 at 1:09 PM EDT
18m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
61 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 3, 2025 at 11:07 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45094351Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 6:12:35 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Civic and national pride makes citizens (which includes politicians and the wealthy) more likely to care about the actual state of their country. That's what national pride means, as opposed to nationalism, where they are proud without reason. Is public transit guaranteed to be one of those reasons they feel pride or shame? Not at all, but support for it is certainly more likely to come from that than a bunch of nationalists who don't actually feel any shame at failings of the country, of which public transit is currently.
The current Mayor, whilst still a proponent, likely does not use it. A quick glance at the social media that he recieves will tell you why - it would not be safe. He needs to travel with close protection officers.
The reason? He is Muslim, and Britain has become a very racist country indeed. Well, maybe always was, but the likes of Farage and Musk have so emboldened them that there is no longer a stigma.
But anyway, I'm purposely staying away from discussing politics here since it's pointless, so I'll just share my experience as a public transport end-user, and the rest can fill in the gaps with their perspectives.
Conversely, “public” transportation always needs flawless perfect politicians to continue to fund it
Also it it me or are "just have walkable/bikeable cities people" more obnoxious than vegan speed cyclists
Sure, cars can also be stolen. But modern cars are now fairly theft resistant and police at least take it seriously as a crime.
In other words, I could not use the service in any honest sense.
Perhaps a nice future is a hybrid model of public transportation plus personal transport via bicycles and scooters, especially with battery powered options becoming so robust.
My ideal city of the future is a small walkable town with everything within a 15-20 minute walk, possibly a part of a conglomerate of towns that run trains or buses between them.
I currently live in one such historical town in Southern Europe that's protected by Unesco. The streets are so narrow that not only there's no public transport, all non-resident and non-delivery traffic is prohibited and there's no Uber even. And yet you have everything you need for life and work within a 15-20 minute walk max. More for remote work, obviously.
An ideal city of the future doesn't need to be medieval but maybe we should go back to a city planning concept that is made for humans and not cars. And you know, narrow pedestrian streets are totally fine, they are cute!
I always sort of assume people who are into de-urbanization are also de-dev, because I don't see how or why the large-scale industrial base would be needed or could be sustained with only smaller, distributed cities, but it's interesting to hear another perspective.
Very many people, including me, want to live in a glorious walkable bijou old-town stone apartment, except they can't afford to because they stopped building them like that in about 1756 and the only jobs within walking distance of the old town are in hospitality and those do not pay the salaries to buy one of the treasured old town apartments from under an AirBnB host.
And if it's a really small, non-tourist town in the middle of nowhere, it may not even have the hospitality sector. So, yes, that bijou property may indeed only cost 50,000 euros, and yes, you can walk to the boulangerie or the confitería or whatever but you're probably going to need a car to get out of your tiny town and go to work or basically anywhere else.
There's lots of solutions.
That doesn't make sense to me. Medieval towns existed for centuries before industrial civilization and without it we might see a drastic increase in medieval style living...
In any case the poster is talking about their own ideal future scenario, maybe leaving out the details like the robots working in underground manufacturing facilities or fusion-powered hydroponic vertical farms etc.
...or just any kind of remote work. Still limited, not available to everyone obviously but can't be omitted.
Ah yeah sure I'll just find work in a place and then buy a house there. It's not like 3+ decades of mismanagement on migration and internal policies left even places 30+ minutes by car from work unafforable by mere mortals.
Is that because many people find even first tier city public transit inadequate for much of their normal in-city transport, or are there a lot of people living in the first tier cities who need to visit the smaller cities or rural areas often enough that it is worth keeping a car just for those occasions?
Categorically this isn't true, I easily found good and affordable public transport in smaller towns. It's definitely less common, but to bluntly say that only first and second tier cities have gold and affordable public transport is inaccurate and dismissive.
That's probably why they have so much ridership.
mode share even in tokyo is only 51% - they have a lot of work they can do. That 51% is likely just going to work, cities rarely collect data for other trips but those matter and are places to work on.
most people do everything via public transport and/or bicycle.
https://stats-japan.com/t/kiji/10786
i mean none of the supermarkets close to my home have parkings... (they have a bunch of bike racks though).
there is 1 combini with a small ~6 spots parking that sits mostly empty. my building has more units than parking spots, there are a lot of bikes though.
in tokyo, having a car is not the default, you need a good reason.
now if you get out of tokyo (like gunma), it's another story, in japan they talk about "car society" (kuruma shakai). you'll see lots of cars, and big parkings.
Even somewhere which is lauded as having "good" public transport such as London and its actually not good in real life situations. Yes its great and all to visit London or Amsterdam or Berlin or whatever on vacation when you don't have Real Life (TM) responsibilities to worry about and you're only ever shuffling around the most central tourist areas and attractions with no real time pressures etc.
But realistically unless you put train lines literally everywhere there are roads now, and have non-stop trains shuttling around all day every day that turn up every 3 minutes, public transport is going to be terrible for day to day living for most people simply because it doesn't go where you need it to go, when you need it.
I think the 15 minute city proponents are deluding themselves. Yes it is a nice dream that everything is a 15 minute walk away (...presumably on a warm sunny day when you have no time pressures), but really when it comes down to actual day to day living its kinda ridiculous - so you're going to have offices, nurseries, primary schools, secondary schools, universities, doctors, dentists, hospitals, grocery stores, vets, hardware stores, gyms, libraries, churches, synagogues, mosques, cinemas, restaurants, bars, art galleries etc etc - all the things we need for day to day living and life in general - repeated every mile or two so that people can walk to them within 15 mins?
That is absurd.
You just cant have that density of things like major hospitals or universities for example. Ah but then we add public transport links they say! But then you're back to where we are currently with a "good" public transport system actually being expensive and a pain in the ass to use because it can't be a direct link to every single possible place in the urban graph so it ends up meaning in reality you walk 5-10 minutes to reach a stop, wait 5-10 minutes for something to turn up, pay £3.50 to ride for 10-15 minutes, potentially change buses or train/metro/tram lines (including the 5-10 minute wait for that to arrive), get out, walk another 5-10 minutes etc, when if you had just driven it would have taken 5 minutes and you don't need to carry back 18kg of groceries on the return journey that also costs you £3.50 as well and also takes just as long except now everyone else on the bus/train/tram hates you because you're taking up the space of 4 passengers with your shopping bags and you're banging into them. And let's not even start with the weather.
Tokyo with it's huge sprawl seems like the absolute antithesis of a 15 minute city.
plus. it is often faster to use public transport than using a car, and cheaper...
supermarkets, grocery stores, hospitals, offices, appartments have generally no or little parking spots.
you will have to find dedicated parking spots which are pretty expensive, and will in fine have you walk around as if you were going to the station...
oh and yes, as i mentioned before lots of apartments don't have parking spots, so you will have to walk some to get to your car, and you will have to pay a hefty sum to rent the parking spot.
there are dentists/hairdressers/grocery stores/restaurants pretty much everywhere in tokyo. use google maps and try by yourself you will see.
people haul their stuff by hand or with their bikes.
people who don't have a very specific reason to own cars simply don't... there is no point. the building where i live has way less car parking spots than units (and it is illegal to own a car without a dedicated parking spot in japan).
people who have cars are generally one of: - do not actually live in tokyo - go in and out of tokyo often - need for work (cargo) - hobby / family need (haul a lot of stuff regularly or enjoy driving)
i'm specifically talking of tokyo, outside of tokyo you will find lots of parking spots and cars.
Instead you are just saying: OK, I have the resources to fix the problem for myself, so I don't give a F.
Every generation complains about how the world is going to shit and the yougins ain't got no respect and whatever particular segment of brown people at that time don't belong in their country.
I would have some sympathy if this wasn't, like, the millionth time this has happened.
On top of that, what's your proposal? Whether I use it (and be miserable) or not doesn't move the needle either way, so I choose not to be miserable.
If there were actually a way to make it better, I'd maybe get involved. But since I see zero options, I just stay away from it. Virtue signaling doesn't work for me.
One way to reduce the chance of meeting "unpleasant" people (are they really unpleasant or has your perception just changed as you age?), is to just have more of public transportation! Besides pure statistics, it also makes people's lives better and will reduce poverty.
when looking at the above, most people live in a couple situation so think of it as selling one car and keeping the other - it still saves money and you get the best of both worlds. This only works though if transit is getting that money from everyone already though since you need that much before it is useful to those who would pay.
Thus: more resources go towards those places with insane house prices, leaving everyone and everything else behind. The problem isn't public transit, it's the wealthy.
That's an interesting way to look at compressed horse shit with streams of human waste running over the top of it.
Bear in mind the invention of sidewalks predates the automobile by thousands of years.
The car is clearly not the best way to navigate a dense city. It is impractical to have, say, tower block apartments and also have a car for each resident. It is unreasonable to build enough parking for peak time around every destination that anyone might want to go to.
On the flip side - not everyone wants to live in a dense city, and people's opinions on this change throughout their lives. It was profit maximising and also a lot of fun for me to live in the inner city in my early to mid 20's. Now that I can afford to not maximally push my career I prefer the outer parts of the city / more rural areas, and that's where the car shines.
If you look at the cost of living in an urban area it’s clear there is a lot of demand. Rural is cheaper because most people don’t want a long commute.
There is more money available to chase housing in urban areas because it's where most of the jobs are due to network effects, so if you are a labourer you gravitate towards that (as you say, it's a commute thing).
It's not necessarily intrinsically more desirable. If you gave the average person 5 million quid I don't think they would choose to live in Central London.
When I lived in a major city, I went 10 years without owning a car. Should I for whatever reason need a car, I could rent one. But other than that, public transportation, walking, and biking for me. Hell, I often preferred public transportation over a car.
But as soon as I moved back home, a rural area, a car has more or less become a life necessity. I simply can't imagine living out in rural nowhere without a car, it would be such a hassle. Where I live a bus goes 3 times a day to the neighboring towns, that's it.
It really depends on where you live, and what your logistical situation looks like.
But the transport infrastructure isn't an immutable property of the land, it's collectively-planned-and-built infrastructure. So the most convenient mode of transportation will settle into an equilibrium as the initial investment begets convenience, begetting more people choosing that method, begetting more investment and planning of towns and cities to accommodate that transportation method.
Then there are two to four months in a year when there is no transport except a single emergency services hoverboat while the ice settles or melts. Depending if it didn't break down, there isn't any emergency elsewhere, and a host of lesser things, like hovercraft travel isn't exactly cheap or fuel-efficient.
And then snowmobiles in winter. But also cars, if you're not afraid enough to test the ice thickness by driving on it.
That is an immutable property of the land.
But most of the US this is impossible by design. Where I grew up you might live right next to a grocery store- but it is a mile walk because of the wall and road design. Nuts.
And there is a bus shows up about once every four hours.
While cities can do a lot to improve the non-car experience, there’s a whole world outside those cities which would become inaccessible without a car. These are generally the “affordable” places to live in order to work in the city.
Focus on improving where you live, I do, but when you live in a city, recognize that improvements need to take into account those who don’t live there. The city is where they work, go to school, shop, and often interact with government functions.
Getting rid of dumb laws I can totally get behind as someone who walks daily.
It's a bedroom community, there are approximately 1000 jobs in total most of which reside within the school district. The purpose of the town as it stands is to raise kids and retire. Commuting to work is a requirement.
Times change, requirements change, and needs change. This isn't the 1880s, but the physical layout of the town is largely the same with the same roads. There was no "planning" for the Model T [cars] as you're attempting to argue -- it was already laid out like it is for the horse, cart, and carriage.
It's also possible to have rural areas accessible by transit. If you ever visit Japan or Switzerland, you'll find a robust and convenient bus and train network that will take you all the way into very small towns.
The world outside cities is inaccessible without a car only because we've built it that way. It doesn't have to be built that way! It's not a law of nature. There are other ways to build it!
If the cars weren't there, gangs of bandits would be. Bandits were a common threat to people living outside cities. If you didn't carry a gun or a sword out in the country, you were practically on your own against a possibly large number of criminals.
In a lower trust country, cars are the preferred target of bandit attack. Check out Russian dashcam videos to see how it's done.
And when push comes to shove, a good bandit worth their salt will disable cars in the wilderness by using spike strips.
The fact you claim that opportunity does not matter shows that you don't understand the issue. No state on the planet is able to 100% guarantee your safety. Choosing to make yourself more vulnerable by traveling on foot is asking for trouble.
>In a lower trust country, cars are the preferred target of bandit attack. Check out Russian dashcam videos to see how it's done.
Cars are prevalent in Russia. The Russians live in a harsh environment and live more or less distributed, rather than packed like sardines. If you live in a city, motorcycles are the preferred vehicle for bandits. Two guys on a beat up motorcycle should make you take notice.
>And when push comes to shove, a good bandit worth their salt will disable cars in the wilderness by using spike strips.
If you live in such a place, you'll travel in a convoy and arm yourself to the teeth. This is not common anywhere in the West (thankfully). Bandits tend to not be well-equipped, especially in Western countries where that kind of advanced tier organized crime is not tolerated. If you live in a place where such crime is common, your home will also have to be built like a fortress and constantly monitored.
What I'm saying is that travelling by bicycle or on foot exposes you to even the least capable bandits. Have you never had to walk through a bad neighborhood? Wouldn't driving through it be more appealing and obviously safer? For some reason you've chosen to ignore this obvious reality, throwing out weird contingencies to muddle the issue.
>The vehicle itself is also expensive, so your threat window grows; you need to protect the car itself, so you can be threatened with a mere key held in the hand.
If you're on a bicycle or on foot, you can be threatened with literally any object. You have to protect your own body and the bicycle. Medical bills cost way more than a scratch on even an expensive car.
>But for the most part, people in bad neighbourhoods will never hassle you on a bicycle because they see you as one of their own.
It depends on what you look like overall, and how expensive your bike is. There are lots of people who would rob you in a place like that to steal your bike, or anything else you might be carrying. And you know, riding a bicycle through a ghetto does not make you a thug. You aren't fooling anyone.
I forgot to mention that on foot or on a bike you are also subject to getting stuff thrown at you (general abuse), the elements, and dog attacks. Are YOU prepared to get in a fight over someone throwing a drink (or bottle of piss, or whatever) at you? If you were in a car, then you'd leave unscathed.
Public transport is great in theory only. With actual human societies - maybe the western ones, that is, except China/Japan - it just doesn't work. Corruption, laziness, bureaucracy, lack of proper planning and security makes the creation and maintenance of these projects unsustainable and so much worse compared to personal transport. This only isn't true for million+ metropolises due to physical constrains.
You may frown at the traffic jams with SUVs having a single driver, but building additional highways is easily doable around the world, while any sort of mass transit infrastructure projects seem to take decades, billions, while still end up underwhelming - if not instantly, then after the machinery ages or maintainers change.
I never felt the need to have a car in most of Europe, so didn’t even bother to get a driving license. Urban population is 75% on average, so reaching rural or uninhabited areas is almost an edge case (at least for me). So it is not theoretical, it works great, even if it is not reaching the perfection of Japan. Looking at two of my favorite cities, Berlin and Moscow, I find that they are spending reasonably on expanding networks (and the most recent highway project in Berlin — extension of A100 — was very expensive and stupid, looking at the traffic jams there).
Just one more lane, bro.
Public transport ist great to connect cities, and perhaps districts. Beyound that, it quickly hits diminishing returns. It's prohibitly expensive to connect at a city block level, and even more expensive to connect rural towns. And Austria recently started doing very odd things. We are now building train stations in the middle of nowhere, not connected to any town. They are not meant to become new city centers, they are meant to be accessed via cars. They are useless for car-free people, and people with cars almost exclusively continue to commute the entire way by car.
In any case, the Netherlands is where I really got a sense of true mobility-freedom. You can get absolutely everywhere cheaply, safely and comfortably by bicycle. I've never before experienced such relaxing commutes as cycling along rivers and through meadows to work, then taking a detour through woods and parks on the way back home.
Bicycling is a great solution for some people in some cities, but it's not going to work as well everywhere or for everyone. Public transit, cars, walking, etc. will all have to continue being part of the mix.
Air pollution is the same in a car or outside, no? Most cars don't have HEPA filters. At least on a bike you're getting exercise
The risks of damage from an unexpected fall go up with age (my mum with osteoporosis broke her wrist falling of her bicycle in her 70s - we were lucky it healed well).
I investigated buying a three wheel electric trike for her. But she couldn't have used it (for 3 different important reasons).
Huh, that's interesting; those sorts of park-and-ride facilities tend to be quite popular in many places (though, sometimes too popular, of course; they fill up).
They're a slightly awkward form of infrastructure, in that they have a very specific usership at which they work; if no-one uses them, they're pointless and expensive, but if too many people use them, they're a bit of a disaster, and can cause local congestion.
I also noticed that the gen z is less interested in having a car, but as far as I can see it's more a shift of attitude about independence and a lot also because it's more expensive now to have a car.
It depends. My favorite destinations on German Baltic coast have enough bus and local train coverage to get in nearly every interesting location. You only need to know the schedule and plan accordingly, and it’s not bad experience traveling like that.
My wife has a handicapped tag. Freedom for her doesn't look like walking.
My mother in law is over 80, and she had polio. One leg is not fully functional. Freedom for her doesn't look like walking.
My son-in-law has something that looks a lot like long covid (not diagnosed, so I can't say with certainty). Freedom for him doesn't look like walking.
Yeah, I know, everyone I mentioned is an exception. But the point is, there are a lot of exceptions. Not just rural people (who have too far to go), but also the old, the temporarily or permanently ill, the handicapped. If you live long enough, you will probably become one.
So, it's fine to want a car-less future, but recognize that it's just less cars, not no cars. Some of us legitimately need them for our freedom.
One could certainly argue "but it's not convenient in my area; the train doesn't have level boarding, the bus comes too infrequently and gets stuck in the same traffic jams, the stations don't have bathrooms". That's a symptom of low investment, which is a symptom of low ridership, which is a symptom of car dependency, and so on.
But I guess to directly answer your question: ideally you get to the train by taking your electric wheelchair along a nice shady pedestrian area, amply separated from any cars so that it's quiet, and conveniently crossing at most two lanes of traffic at a time. But it depends on what your area is like.
I feel like this is a naive take, and making some assumptions that may not be true.
I feel like this has less to do with preferring other modes of transportation over driving, as much as it has to do with not wanting/needing to go anywhere, particularly outside of the city. You can do most things without even needing to leave home, especially when you’re young.
You don’t need to meet in person with your friends to socialize. You can text, use social media, play only games, etc.
My young adult children both have licenses, but they have found it hard to get their friends to want to hang out. They’d rather stay home and stay on their devices.
For millions of people, a car isn’t a trap or a luxur. It’s survival, opportunity, and dignity. Cities may be able to rethink their dependence on cars, but for everyone else, the car is still the bridge to basic participation in life.
6 more comments available on Hacker News