Objective Advantages Of Cars

[A spoof on HowCanSomethingBeSuperGreatWithoutProducingExternalEvidence]

The AutoMobile? is often asserted to be better than most (or all) other forms of transport, especially the train and other forms of public transport. However, partisans of these modes of transport often argue that the claims of car partisans lack objective support. This page is set up so that car partisans can assert any objective and preferably quantitative reasons why cars are superior, either in a specific problem domain or in general, as well as for any counterarguments by car detractors.

This is car of objective advantage:

 (car '(objective advantage))
 objective

See also: ObjectiveAdvantagesOfCdrs?

This has got to be CategoryWhimsy, right? I think I know the heritage, and I think it's funny as hell. As long as we're at it, why don't we start ObjectiveAdvantagesOfWoodenPencils and ObjectiveAdvantagesOfClothHandkerchiefs?? :)

This page might be more useful if it were linked to an ongoing discussion of the comparative benefits of cars and other modes of transportation. Is there such a discussion on this wiki to link to?

Try CarAddiction and CarFree.

I don't see how this question can be answered "objectively". IMO, cars are better because they permit greater freedom of movement than centralized transportation systems, and I value my freedom of movement. AFAIC, that trumps any statistical figures or mathematical study you care to name. -- MikeSmith

I think you're right, there is definitely a subjective side to this issue. Where you have cited freedom of movement as the deciding factor in your opinion, others (myself included) might cite the very high cost, in terms of public dollars spent on roads, pollution, destruction of social fabric, highway fatalities, etc. Like many people, I currently use a car every day because it is the only real option. If there were a better public transportation system, I would take it.

The one place where I think the car will always prevail is in low population density settings. If there aren't enough people to support a rail or bus line, then the choice is between cars, horses, and walking, right?

... and bicycles.

[Sounds to me like you're just re-inventing the Bus. I understand that it may start out simple - you just need to get food at the beginning. But what happens later when there is an unforseen need for other groceries? What if you have to navigate to work eventually? Clearly, you will have thousands of different drivers each doing things their own way. Why re-invent the Bus? The Bus is already capable of providing a systematic transportation system, and is provably more efficient.]

[I suppose you could argue that a Bus is overkill for your purposes, or that your needs don't justify the costs associated with a Bus. But eventually, the needs will grow. Today, it's just a small amount of groceries, but tomorrow you'll have to re-invent all kinds of capabilities of the Bus. The Bus provides cargo areas specifically designed for that task. If each individual provides his own transportation, you'll have all kinds of incompatible stowage mechanisms. Maybe one guy uses a trunk, while another uses the passenger floorboard. What happens if these guys need to carpool one day? It would be utter chaos.]

And talk about overkill... All these car users brag about their 0-to-60 mph performance. Pure PrematureOptimization. Almost all transit applications are bound by speed limits or rush hour congestion, anyway. You should DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork and start with walking or biking, only going with heavier weight solutions if your transit is measurably too slow.

Good

Cars objectively beat horses and bicycles in the vast majority of speed races.
Safer (for its occupants) than bicycles for a given speed
Can carry a week's shopping
Some people cannot ride a bike
Make it worthwhile to build all-weather roads

Bad

Pollute more and take up more space than bicycles
More dangerous (to non-occupants) than bicycles or walking
Inhibit people from taking the shortest route across the street
Some people cannot drive a car
All-weather roads cause higher temperatures (because they absorb solar radiation)
All-weather roads cause flooding (because they do not absorb precipitation)

The biggest problem of cars is the smugness of car drivers. When they cruise by my rickshaw, I can sense their palpable feelings of superiority. One even gave me the finger while hurtling past, just because I was having my rickshaw boy try pulling it with a stud in his tongue, like I saw on TV the week before. See SocialProblemsOfAutomobiles?. -- TayssirJohnGabbour

Does your rickshaw have a HigherOrderEngine?? -- SmugCarWeenie?

Do you have scientific proof of the superiority of EngineOrientedTransportation?? On ThingsWeCanAllAgreeOn?, we know that being able to beat some animal to make it work harder is good. (e.g., horses, flying reindeer, rickshaw boys.) For millennia it's been proven to make things go faster. How do you do this with an engine? You can fake it with beating someone who's pushing your automobile, but that's just incidental. -- RickShaw?

Don't you mean "See SocialProblemsOfRickshaws?"? -- KingMixer

Oh I see, us rickshaw drivers are the ones with the problem. Well I guess I'll have to make a new page, AreAutomobilesTakingOverThisRoad?. I'm not afraid to make new pages! -- RickShaw?

[You're all wrong, and none of you know the first thing about driving! Get a horse!]

I've never seen a proper study proving that cars are objectively better than horses, please stop all this handwaving about how superior cars are, cars are not a GoldenHammer, in my domain (I'm Amish), horses work best, so all you car heads are full of it. Let's just AgreeToDisagree, HorseOrientedTransportation? is a more natural way of thinking for me and I just don't grok this car stuff.

In otherwords, HorsesForCourses, right?

[If y'all aren't careful, you're in danger of being silly here...]

Oh, that's just another classical example of CarHorsePsychologicalMismatch?
- I tried attaching a horse to my car once... when I tethered it to a) the hood ornament and b) the grill; the damn horse just pulled those things off. Then I had to sit on the roof in order to hold the reins--it was either that or kick out the windshield. And unlike buggies, whose narrow metal wheels don't mind being pulled around corners while always pointing straight, rubber tires don't like that sort of abuse.
- And then there was the time I tried tying the horse behind the car. I'm still surprised (and somewhat relieved) that the cop let me off with just a warning...

HenryFord? and every other automotive thought leader that has ever published a well-received work is a FALSE AUTHORITY, and he and you are all stupid and idiotic and you all ought to go back to school and read The Third Great Manifesto of Equine Science and Buggy Whips. Oh and by the way, I've never driven a car, but I know better than all of you and I don't care that this is the forum of the car-driving community.

"I invented automobiles, and I can tell you I did not have the rickshaw in mind." -- H. Ford

Why can't CarWeenies ever show an objective example of a car beating other transportation at some specific task? All they ever offer is feel-good subjective evaluations. Don't just tell me that cars are fast -- motorcycles are fast too. At best, cars might be just marginally better for driving.

[There isn't any agreement about what a car really is. Motorcycles are just two-wheeled cars. Rickshaws are cars. Horses are cars. See ManyDefinitionsOfAutomobiles?.]

Oh no, IS-A versus HAS-A again. EverythingIsRelative. Cars can be viewed as motorcycles with 2 extra wheels and a roof. You are just thinking car-centric and are going to piss off MotorcycleWeenies?. Just because cars are currently more popular than motorcylces does not mean everything should be seen from their perspective. That is QwertySyndrome. Your thinking is locked into cars such that there is a whole industry around thinking in terms of cars to protect themselves from change. Khrushchev is a motorcycle buff and he will crush you CarWeenies? with the heel of his shoe!

Don't you see that HorsesAreCars? and CarsAreHorses?? HorsesAndCarsAreEquivalent?.

I put hey in my car's gas tank to test that theory, and then fed gasoline to my horse. Now they are both sputtering and choking in a very similar way, so I guess they ARE equivalent after all.

RailroadCars?

What's called a railcar in the US is called a "truck" in the UK; what's called a "truck" in the US is called a "lorry" in the UK. See? CarWeenies can't get even that straight!

But in the US, "truck" also refers to the wheeled structures that the railcar rides on - AIUI, these are called "bogies" in the UK/Europe...

[but don't get me started on the RelationalWeenies misuse of the word "tuple"...]

I'm sorry, but that's an invalid argumentation technique. Everybody except for me must refrain from personal attacks, misplaced logic, appeal to authority (unless it's one I approve of), strawmen, red herrings and purple sardines, and other such infractions. Maybe someday when I'm done making up the rules of engagement I'll share them with you, but don't hold your breath. Meanwhile, you may only walk the path I have for you in my mind, which ends in a clear demonstration of my intellectual superiority.

This is stupid. Did it ever occur to one that there might be objective disadvantages to car-oriented transportation systems, and it is worth seeing if there are any countering benefits? No, of course not. Everything is the way it should be, and any other suggestion deserves ridicule. There's nothing more to see here; go take your hour-long drive home, and try not to get hit too much on the way.

Seriously, I think bicycles would often make more sense in "fair weather" states if there were decent roads/paths for them.

http://www.skywebexpress.com is the real answer to transporation.

See the CarsLackMathArgument

CategoryWikiSatire?, CategoryRidiculeAsBluntInstrumentToStopNonsense?