• Z27F@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    It has nothing to do with the size of the US. You don’t drive from NYC to LA to pick up a fridge. You drive to the nearest city. So why should they not be able to deliver it to you?

    And if you live so rural that that’s not feasible – well that’s your issue then, nobody’s forcing you to live in bumfucknowhere.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      And if you live so rural that that’s not feasible – well that’s your issue then, nobody’s forcing you to live in bumfucknowhere.

      Sure, no individual is like to force you to live in the middle of nowhere, but circumstances might.

      I’m not saying that cars should be a thing, but rather talking about (some) reasons they are. The biggest determining factor really is just car culture. The car and oil industry has done a great job at manufacturing demand for cars, and I’d wager that’s the main determining factor.

      If you want to see a reduction in cars on the roads, the best way to do so is simply to make other means of transport more feasible. You don’t fix traffic by widening roads, that just induces further demand. Instead, set up bus lines, mark certain lanes as bus only. Heck, convert some lanes to bicycle only lanes.

      It’s been easy for me to take that kind of infrastructure for granted. Where I live for example, there’s a pedestrian/bicycle path all the way from my town, to the nearby larger town ~35km away. It’s fully possible to bike over there if you’re prepared for a 1-1½ hour ish ride.

    • biddy@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Because US “cities” are sparsely populated suburban wastelands that take hours to drive across. The model of exclusively cars and suburbs just doesn’t scale.