Connect with us

Technologies

How I Learned to Hate Cars, and What I’m Doing About It

Commentary: My journey down the anti-car rabbit hole.

I hit a moving car the other day. Not with my own car – with my hand. More of a reproachful slap, really. 

I was on my bike, squeezed perilously among traffic-stalled cars. A zombie driver, briefly reanimated by the thrill of a green light, nearly drove me off the road. I swerved into a parked car, wondering as I caught my balance and my breath – did anyone in this rush hour hellscape even care if I was, ya know, fatally injured? 

At the next red light, I caught up with the car and, in a decisive moment of self-righteous rage, enacted a bit of corporal punishment on its right bumper. It felt amazing. 

Read more: High Gas Prices Are Revving Up This Online Anti-Car Movement

This feels like an opportune time for a record scratch freeze-frame and an «I bet you’re wondering how I got into this situation» voiceover.

This wasn’t the first time a car had given me a life-flashing-before-my-eyes moment of panic, and it certainly won’t be the last. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for Americans ages 5 to 24, making cars a menace not just to cyclists but also pedestrians and even other drivers. 

When you combine the grim safety stats with the motor vehicle’s myriad other sins –one-third of US greenhouse gas emissions, the utter depravity of paving paradise to put up a parking lot and so on –a portrait emerges of the car as not an achievement of human ingenuity, but a pretty good scapegoat for… just about everything. And, as I learned by going down a vibrant and inspiring online anti-car rabbit hole, it turns out I’m not the only one coming to this particular conclusion.

Two wheels good, four wheels bad

About a year ago, I moved to a very bike-friendly neighborhood in bike-friendly(ish) Sacramento –decent infrastructure, flat roads, temperate climate, good building density –and almost overnight became a smug cycling evangelist. «We are within biking distance of three grocery stores,» I tell everyone back home, «and Target.» I notice things now like well-placed bollards and accessible bike parking, and I often indulge in delicious indignation when someone blocks a bike lane with their trash can. My local farmer’s market has a free bike valet. I’ve even realized a latent yet lifelong dream of biking my son to school every day. 

Speaking of my son, my little sponge-brained 3-year-old now regularly asks why people are driving when they ought to be biking, and I couldn’t be more proud. The two of us stumbled upon a vintage car show one morning and he turned to me and said, in his earnest toddler lilt, «We don’t like cars, right, Mama? We like bikes and walking.» And I was just like, yes, child, yeeeeessss.

But it wasn’t just my new two-wheeled lifestyle that stoked my dormant disgust for car dependence. The story of my radicalization really begins, as these stories often do, on Twitter.

Back when my Twitter feed actually showed tweets from people I have elected to follow, I noticed that two of my IRL acquaintances from past lives had begun to post often about their own bike commutes, advocating for better infrastructure and occasionally complaining about entitled drivers. I was intrigued by their car-free existences and fancy e-bikes with endless permutations of cargo racks and child seats.

img-4823

Over time, I began seeing their posts more frequently, alongside similar tweets from accounts like American Fietser and Cars Destroyed Our Cities and even the World Bollard Association. I clicked. I followed. I engaged. Then these two IRL acquaintances started tweeting at each other. I was witnessing the almighty algo at work in real time, and for the first time it felt more invigorating than bleak.

Soon, I found myself consuming memes on r/fuckcars, bingeing the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel, following Strong Towns on Instagram, signing up for the Our Built Environment Substack, subscribing to The War on Cars podcast and more. I started explaining to anyone who would listen why parking requirements are to blame for most societal ills. I developed strong opinions about bike rack design. I dropped the word «stroad» into casual conversation.

In the span of only a few weeks, I went from proverbial Prius Lover to Car Destroyer on the pro/anti-car political compass I found on the Fuck Cars feed. And I started to wonder… had I been radicalized?

I’m not the only one asking that question. A sampling of other tweets to cross my algorithmically programmed feed: «can’t believe i’m finally being radicalized online and it’s by the @FuckCarsReddit,» and «NotJustBikes had radicalized me more then [sic] anything else in recent times,» or my favorite, «You watch one video on zoning laws in Japan and then suddenly it was 2am and I’m all like ‘it’s so true bestie, the suburban experiment *is* an anti-human ponzi scheme.'»

So what’s going on here?

Help, I’m orange-pilled

«These days it sometimes feels difficult to have your mind blown by a small observation,» the anonymous moderators of the Fuck Cars Twitter account told me. (Anonymity allows them to facilitate conversation, rather than making them spokespeople for the cause, they say.) «But r/fuckcars is full of mind-blowing realizations.»

It’s true. Did you know the average cost to operate a new car is almost $11,000 every year? Or that an urban resident who swaps the car for a bike for just one trip a day would save the equivalent emissions of a flight between London and New York every year? (And no, EVs won’t save us.) 

And did you know (I’m shaking you by the collar here) the concept of «jaywalking» was invented by the auto industry as one part of a coordinated effort to use the very fabric of our city design to maximize profits? European cities like Amsterdam represent both a bygone dream and an idyllic vision of the future; after all, we didn’t design US cities for the car –we bulldozed them to accommodate it.

Car dependency is bad on so many levels: It excludes the old, the young and the disabled from moving freely in ways public transit doesn’t, and it disproportionately taxes the poor. Car infrastructure is incredibly expensive. Being stuck in traffic is no one’s idea of a good time. And car-centered city design is isolating and just plain ugly. (Two words: Urban. Sprawl.)

«Like everyone else in suburbia, you were born into bondage,» proclaims Jason Slaughter in the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel’s foundational text on car dependency, «born into a prison you cannot escape without a motor vehicle.» It is tongue-in-cheek, a self-proclaimed «shitpost» of a video that introduces the «orange pill,» playing off that much-referenced Matrix monologue, but there’s something to it. Orange-pilling (not to be confused with the Bitcoin version of the orange pill, which I can only assume has worse side effects) might share the aesthetics of a conspiracy theory, but –and yes, I know this is something a conspiracy theorist would also say –it’s all true.

«Many of the mods were ‘radicalized’ by NJB’s [Not Just Bikes] Jason Slaughter,» a Fuck Cars moderator told me. «One of our mods actually remembers coming home from a trip to the low-car parts of Europe, and being disgusted and depressed by the frankly ugly car infrastructure, but not being able to explain why it was so bad. Then NJB came along, and suddenly we not only know how to explain what makes it bad, we can’t stop seeing it everywhere.»

The causes of our car-dependent hell are complex and diverse. It’s a real We Didn’t Start the Fire situation: oil shocks, white flight, assembly line automation, tax subsidies, «urban renewal,» the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956… I’m still in perpetual Math Lady meme mode with this stuff. My mind is newly blown every time I engage with the podcasts, newsletters and tweets the algorithms have hand-curated for me in my cozy little filter bubble. Everything makes sense now: The anti-car movement was the missing piece all along.

Fuck cars, amirite?

The Fuck Cars subreddit, founded in 2016, is a virtual utopia of its own, filled with «infrastructure porn» and likeminded urbanists who toss around references to the Jevons paradox and believe «Cars should be a last resort, not a first option.» In Fuck Cars world, car crashes are not «accidents» and people are categorized as YIMBYs and NIMBYs, not Democrats and Republicans. 

Despite its name, the community’s end game is decidedly not to ban all cars. Instead, they advocate for a world where driving a car is a choice, not the only option. It’s the kind of freedom I discovered when I moved to Sacramento, not the kind of freedom many drivers falsely convince themselves they can access behind the wheel of an oversized pickup truck.

There’s no real «us versus them» in the anti-car movement, because –paradoxically, poetically –even drivers would benefit from people-first infrastructure. «Would you rather drive to work on a lean, free flowing road or a huge, congested freeway?» the subreddit FAQ asks. «It turns out expanding highways and building more roads actually makes traffic worse due to induced demand.» 

In other words, those who have to drive would have a better time of it if the rest of us could get out of their way. That means investing in bike-friendly infrastructure, public transit and overall walkability.

One way of doing this, according to Debra Banks, executive director of Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates (the organization behind my farmer’s market’s bike valet), is by lowering speed limits. Another is a «road diet,» or decreasing a road’s width or number of lanes.

bikes parked under a canopy with a sign that says

«We’ve advocated for closing streets to cars and have worked with our city and county electees to complete a low-stress bicycle network, which would allow people to safely trade their car keys for a bike to make short trips around town,» Banks said. «But implementation has been very slow. Actions lag far behind plans and discussion.»

The anti-car movement may be exploiting the tools of online radicalization. It’s got the memes, the Matrix riffs, the provocative subreddit titles. (One Fuck Cars moderator points out an issue with milder options: «‘r/urbandesignshouldbeforpeople’ or ‘r/carsusespaceinefficiently’ would be harder to remember.») But if you ask me, the ends justify the means. 

For perspective, the Sacramento Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change recommends 40% of trips be via «active transportation» (walking, cycling and so on) by 2045, and another 50% by public transit. Those numbers today are closer to 10% and 4%, respectively. That leaves 86% of car trips, which need to go down to a seemingly impossible 10%. If some snarky tweets can nudge the needle in the right direction, send in the shitposts. Come for the outrage, stay for the political action.

Are you with me? We ride (the bus) at dawn

Still not convinced? «Go to a store in a manner that is not a car,» the mods recommend. «See how lovely it is outside, but also what challenges you face by taking the simple act of avoiding a car for one trip. How did this make you feel? The more you utilize what a city offers, the more you will want to change.»

It was at this point I realized that maybe I was giving Twitter too much credit. I’d tried biking and taking public transit to the grocery store in other cities I’ve lived in, and it wasn’t easy. It’s not just that the infrastructure wasn’t there, but the trip was so inconvenient that I felt I had to really stock up, which meant lugging enough groceries home to fill the cab of an F-150. Perhaps a lifetime of frustration without an obvious cause («car blindness,» the phenomenon is called) was my camel, and the anti-car movement was merely the straw that broke its back. 

I asked the Fuck Cars folks how to channel all the rage their memes have galvanized. Their subreddit FAQ has a ton of resources on how to make your community less car-centric and how to be less car-dependent in your daily life. You can spread the word on your own Twitter feed. You can make the maps of your neighborhood more conducive to non-car travel. You can even skirt the law and fashion your own protected bike lanes.

But their No. 1 piece of advice is to work at the local level. 

«Talking to your city council has a much bigger impact than you would think,» the mods told me. «They usually hear from so few of the populace that whatever you say can have a big impact on their mode of thought.»

Banks agrees: «It is easy to be a critic, but that doesn’t help unless you take action,» she said. «The democratic process means you need to take the long view and stick with the things you want to advocate for.»

A few weeks ago, I caught another mom at school pickup ogling my child bike seat. It was the closest I’ve ever come to understanding the thrill of being a gearhead showing off their car. «I love your bike seat!» she said.

At first I felt pleased with myself for having such a sweet setup, like I’d joined the ranks of those Twitter acquaintances with their fancy e-bikes. But then she added «I’m just too nervous to bike with my kid in traffic,» and my pleasure was eclipsed by the understanding that we have so much work left to do. There’s a long road ahead –a stroad, if you will –paved with two generations of infrastructure and political inertia. 

But there is relief in giving the problem a name, and coming together online with others who share the same frustrations and the same urbanist utopia dream. I know now that it’s not an individual problem but a systemic one, and though I still get a thrill from yelling «this is a bike lane, asshole!» to delivery trucks with their four-ways a-flashing, I understand now that there are better ways to cope than by slapping a car.

Correction, 2:55 p.m. PT: This story originally misstated the age range for deaths caused by motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are a  leading cause of death for those ages 5-24.  

Technologies

Tariffs Explained: Latest on Trump’s Shifting Import Tax Plan, and What It Means

Continue Reading

Technologies

Apple, I’m (Sky) Blue About Your iPhone 17 Air Color

Commentary: The rumored new hue of the iPhone 17 Air is more sky blah than sky blue.

I can’t help but feel blue about the latest rumor that Apple’s forthcoming iPhone 17 Air will take flight in a subtle, light-hued color called sky blue.

Sky blue isn’t a new color for Apple. It’s the featured shade of the current M4 MacBook Air, a shimmer of cerulean so subtle as to almost be missed. It’s silver left too close to an aquarium; silver that secretly likes to think it’s blue but doesn’t want everyone else to notice.

Do Apple employees get to go outside and see a real blue sky? It’s actually vivid, you can check for yourself. Perhaps the muted sky blue color reflects a Bay Area late winter/early spring frequent layer of clouds like we typically see here in Seattle.

«Who cares?» you might find yourself saying. «Everyone gets a case anyway.» I hear you and everyone else who’s told me that. But design-focused Apple is as obsessive about colors as they are about making their devices thinner. And I wonder if their heads are in the clouds about which hues adorn their pro products.

Making the case for a caseless color iPhone

I’m more invested in this conversation than most — I’m one of those freaks who doesn’t wrap my phone in a case. I find cases bulky and superfluous, and I like to be able to see Apple’s design work. Also, true story, I’ve broken my iPhone screen only twice: First when it was in a «bumper» that Apple sent free in response to the iPhone 4 you’re-holding-it-wrong Antennagate fiasco, and second when trying to take long exposure starry night photos using what I didn’t realize was a broken tripod mount. My one-week-old iPhone 13 Pro slipped sideways and landed screen-first on a pointy rock. A case wouldn’t have saved it.

My current model is an iPhone 16 Pro in black titanium — which I know seems like avoiding color entirely — but previously I’ve gone for colors like blue titanium and deep purple. I wanted to like deep purple the most but it came across as, in the words of Patrick Holland in his iPhone 14 Pro review, «a drab shade of gray or like Grimace purple,» depending on the light.

Pros can be bold, too

Maybe the issue is too many soft blues. Since the iPhone Pro age began with the iPhone 11 Pro, we’ve seen variations like blue titanium (iPhone 15 Pro), sierra blue (iPhone 13 Pro) and pacific blue (iPhone 12 Pro).

Pacific blue is the boldest of the bunch, if by bold you mean dark enough to discern from silver, but it’s also close enough to that year’s graphite color that seeing blue depends on the surrounding lighting. By comparison, the blue (just «blue») color of the iPhone 12 was unmistakably bright blue.

In fact, the non-Pro lines have embraced vibrant colors. It’s as if Apple is equating «pro» with «sophisticated,» as in «A real pro would never brandish something this garish.» I see this in the camera world all the time: If it’s not all-black, it’s not a «serious» camera.

And yet I know lots of pros who are not sophisticated — proudly so. People choose colors to express themselves, so forcing that idea of professionalism through color feels needlessly restrictive. A bright pink iPhone 16 might make you smile every time you pick it up but then frown because it doesn’t have a telephoto camera.

Color is also important because it can sway a purchase decision. «I would buy a sky blue iPhone yesterday,» my colleague Gael Cooper texted after the first rumor popped online. When each new generation of iPhones arrive, less technically different than the one before, a color you fall in love with can push you into trading in your perfectly-capable model for a new one.

And lest you think Apple should just stick with black and white for its professional phones: Do you mean black, jet black, space black, midnight black, black titanium, graphite or space gray? At least the lighter end of the spectrum has stuck to just white, white titanium and silver over the years.

Apple never got ahead by being beige

I’m sure Apple has reams of studies and customer feedback that support which colors make it to production each year. Like I said, Apple’s designers are obsessive (in a good way). And I must remind myself that a sky blue iPhone 17 Air is a rumored color on a rumored product so all the usual caveats apply.

But we’re talking about Apple here. The scrappy startup that spent more than any other company on business cards at the time because each one included the old six-color Apple logo. The company that not only shaped the first iMac like a tipped-over gumdrop, that not only made the case partially see-through but then made that cover brilliant Bondi blue.

Embrace the iPhone colors, Apple.

If that makes you nervous, don’t worry: Most people will put a case on it anyway.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Astronomers Say There’s an Increased Possibility of Life on This Distant Planet

Using the James Webb Space Telescope, astronomers are working to confirm potential evidence of life on a distant exoplanet dubbed K2-18b.

Astronomers are nearing a statistically significant finding that could confirm the potential signs of life detected on the distant exoplanet K2-18b are no accident.

The team of astronomers, led by the University of Cambridge, used data from the James Webb Space Telescope (which has only been in use since the end of 2021) to detect chemical traces of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and/or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), which they say can only be produced by life such as phytoplankton in the sea. 

According to the university, «the results are the strongest evidence yet that life may exist on a planet outside our solar system.»

The findings were published this week in the Astrophysical Journal Letters and point to the possibility of an ocean on this planet’s surface, which scientists have been hoping to discover for years. In the abstract for the paper, the team says, «The possibility of hycean worlds, with planet-wide oceans and H2-rich atmospheres, significantly expands and accelerates the search for habitable environments elsewhere.»

Not everyone agrees, however, that what the team found proves there’s life on the exoplanet.

Science writer and OpenMind Magazine founder Corey S. Powell posted about the findings on Bluesky, writing, «The potential discovery of alien life is so enticing that it drags even reputable outlets into running naive or outright misleading stories.» He added, «Here we go again with planet K2-18b.Um….there’s strong evidence of non-biological sources of the molecule DMS.»

K2-18b is 124 light-years away and much larger than Earth (more than eight times our mass), but smaller than Neptune. The search for signs of even basic life on a planet like this increases the chances that there are more planets like Earth that may be inhabitable, with temperatures and atmospheres that could sustain human-like lifeforms. The team behind the paper hopes that more study with the James Webb Space Telescope will help confirm their initial findings.

More research to do on finding life on K2-18b

The exoplanet K2-18b is not the only place where scientists are exploring the possibility of life, and this research is still an early step in the process, said Christopher Glein, a geochemist, planetary researcher and lead scientist at San Antonio’s Southwest Research Institute. Excitement over the significance of the research, he said, should be tempered.

«We need to be careful here,» Glein said. «It appears that there is something in the data that can’t be explained, and DMS/DMDS can provide an explanation. But this detection is stretching the limits of JWST’s capabilities.»

Glein added, «Further work is needed to test whether these molecules are actually present. We also need complementary research assessing the abiotic background on K2-18b and similar planets. That is, the chemistry that can occur in the absence of life in this potentially exotic environment. We might be seeing evidence of some cool chemistry rather than life.»

The TRAPPIST-1 planets, he said, are being researched as potentially habitable, as is LHS 1140b, which he said «is another astrobiologically significant exoplanet, which might be a massive ocean world.»

As for K2-18b, Glein said many more tests need to be performed before there’s consensus on life existing on it.

«Finding evidence of life is like prosecuting a case in the courtroom,» Glein said. «Multiple independent lines of evidence are needed to convince the jury, in this case the worldwide scientific community.» He added, «If this finding holds up, then that’s Step 1.»

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media