Society’s got priorities wrong.

  • most car travels are 1 person or sometimes 2 person

  • the majority of car travels are quite short, less than 40km.

  • many car travels are just to get some groceries or drop of a little package or just say “hi” to someone, carrying nothing but themselves.

  • cars are fucking expensive, to buy and to maintain

  • accidents become way worse with heavier vehicles

Microcar is a valid answer to all of these, while still being sheltered from weather.

How are urban places (i’m in Belgium) with almost permanent super heavy road traffic congestion, bad climate statistics, high polution values, very limited available space left, no self-sustaining energy production and high traffic accident statistics still pooring in billions and billions in subsidies year after year into “regular” big heavy SUV-like vehicles instead of these? It’s beyond my comprehension. The only real valid reason i somewhat get is the collective scare of being in a crash and not wanting to be in the smaller vehicle. We could save the climate, we choose not to.

  • MICROLINO: 17.990 €
  • OPEL ROCKS: 8.699 €
  • CITROEN AMI: 7.790 €
  • RENAULT TWIZY: 13.000 €
  • FIAT TOPOLINO: 9.890 €

A lot of people here casually spend more on a sunday racing bike every few years for fucks sake.

  • freebee@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Metro unfortunately isn’t a solution in urban sprawled, urban planning disaster Flanders. It’s dense yet too spread out. Metro is good for very dense urban cores like Brussels. But it’s not the one big end all problems solution. Metro is part of what cities need, but not the only thing.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      i mean that just sounds like stockholm lol, also if you can’t quite justify a metro then you just build a baby metro, otherwise called light rail (or fuck it, actual tramlines)

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Metro unfortunately isn’t a solution in urban sprawled, urban planning disaster

      It is, because it creates the nodes of transit around which higher density building can be built.

      Urban sprawl is a consequence of poor mass transit, not a cause of it.

      • freebee@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Here among other reasons it’s a historic consequence of few building regulations for 150 years combined with a dominant Christian party 150y actively trying to keep as many people as possible sprawled out in villages around cities because they thought masses moving to the cities would turn them into revolutionary heretic communists.

        • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          would turn them into revolutionary heretic communists

          I mean, that’s just another advantage of having a metro