•  GBU_28   ( @GBU_28@lemm.ee ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sounds great if you don’t have to commute many miles 2 times per day in an area with no public transit.

      All just to keep the roof over your head

      • Seems to me like having to drive many miles to maintain a job that can pay enough to maintain your fairly far afield home (assuming the home costs less because it’s not in the same geography as the office) is a failure of the system as a whole and the company for not making their office work better for their workers.

        I mean, unless you have a storefront or regularly have to go to specific places as part of your job, like lawyers going to the court house, then why tf does the company pay for very expensive offices in the middle of a metro area? Put the offices where the workers can actually live near it.

        I work in IT, I go to the office to stare at a PC for 8 hours. Something I can literally do anywhere, but instead of IDK, working from home or having distributed offices spaces so people don’t have to drive as far, my companies only office is in the middle of a major Metro’s downtown in a high rise office for a massive amount of money. So now I have to pay, out of my pocket and time, to drive through downtown traffic, to a parking spot that costs me far too much monthly, so I can simply be physically there to do a job that only requires a PC and an internet connection.

        It’s all fucking stupid… And every company seems to do this. Nobody ever comes to our offices and there’s literally no reason for them to be where they are, or for me to be there.

      • … or walk?

        Both have their role. Walking is appropriate for local short trips, while bicycles allow you to cover more distance, and is in turn superseded by transit in potential distance covered, while still being a low emissions mode of transportation.

        Fewer CO2 emissions is a good goal if you are going to buy a car. Keeping it as long as possible is a better goal.

        If the infrastructure allows for it where you live, going car-free is an even better goal for reducing CO2-emissions, and is only one of a long list of benefits of not traveling by car.

        Barring that, voting and influencing politicians that can build infrastructure enabling more car-free lives is a good step in the right direction.

    • Hard to carry a TV on a bicycle, or transport loads to the recycling centre, or drop my kids off at school or any one of a thousand things that occur day to day.

      Our world redesigned itself with the invention of cars. Trying to exist without them is very hard for your average family, especially those who live outside cities.

        • It’s a town of 90k people. The kind of town that the vast majority of people in the UK live in.

          Just out of curiosity how can you transport something large and bulky, that isn’t allowed on public transport, let’s say furniture, or the remains of a shed you dismantled or any one of a hundred inconvenient loads that occur during your life without a car?

            • Someone needs to own a car still.

              And that someone can’t be available every day when I need to do two school runs and an office trip.

              That someone can’t always be available when the sink springs a leak and I need to go buy some new washers and plumber’s mait.

              I really question your life experience at this point. If you’re single, childless and living in a big city, sure, cars are very unnecessary. For most people this isn’t the case