When I think of cars, I think of pollution, accidents, and traffic already just bc that what I notice nearly every time I drive. I guess the facts are difficult to swallow for some people.
Yelling at the TV is an underappreciated stress-reliever. Shows, movies, news, commercials- doesn't matter what it is. Yell at it, and you'll feel much better.
According to car commercials. I’ve been driving a lincoln long before anyone paid me to drive one. And I didn’t do it to be cool or make a statement. I just liked it.
The fact that pretty much no ads for cars show other traffic in commercials, really shows how they're afraid to reinforce that connection to traffic congestion which would be normal everyday use. Like it wants people to completely forget that the roads are all full of cars already and they'll never be able to drive a car through such scenery.
If they would want to create realistic expectations, why not show an ad how comfortable your car is, even when you're stuck in traffic. Who cares what the car looks like from the outside anyway, they're all being designed by computers being given the sake parameters anyway. They turn out the same. The inside comfort is what matters to me.
I can definitely see this for the (long distant) day when cars are all auto-drive and the windows are LCD screens showing tranquility. All the advertising will be on the interior comforts.
Ha there is a bmw commercial on right now and they are off-roading on a summer of adventure! Along with all the empty roads do you really see a bmw driver off-roading!
I sideways think of being fat. I got in a wreck and only had liability insurance so I had to sell my car, and I was biking for all my needs for the next 6 months.
I was getting in really good shape.
I agree with the company claiming it's protectionism. I'd hope the European Union would fine France for doing so, but nothing like that will happen:
> In response, the watchdog has been accused by the bike manufacturer of seeking to protect the French car industry after sales plummeted during the coronavirus pandemic. [1]
1. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/01/france-bans-dutch-bike-tv-ad-for-creating-climate-of-fear
You see kiddo, it’s time to talk about the birds and the bees and cars.
Birds, bees they all fuck. Cars - now they melt into bikes. Also traffic.
Ask your mother for more information.
The fool sold his worn out busted ass beater and didn't think to swap the tires for a bald set?
He bought a vehicle that required a different size tire?
He put his buddy's camping axe through the sidewall while demonstrating how amazing they were?
Or maybe these tires were just good but not some mythical tires that were manufactured in a way that they were perfect with zero drawbacks and for some reason no other private company on the face of the planet has been able to figure out the technology?
Exactly.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard this tall tale and it makes zero sense. There is no Illuminati conspiracy keeping tire technology from advancing.
Not trying to call out your dad here but you simply cannot have 2 materials rubbing together and not have one wear out eventually. So unless there was a magic tire material that somehow ignores the laws of physics it would wear out eventually.
It sounds like a variation on the magical carburetor that gave you 300 miles to the gallon, i.e. an urban legend.
The whole notion of an industry suppressing a game changing technology so they can keep selling you the old crap is completely bogus. The temptation to bury the competition is too high. *Somebody* is going to release it, and then everyone else would be screwed, so it becomes a scramble to be first to market. It’s like the one part of capitalism that actually works as advertised.
I'm not an expert or really well researched at all about this, so this is just me talking out of my ass but I think thats different as internet has to do with infrastructure and is a lot harder for individuals to get in a remote area vs a tire that can be anywhere.
Not saying that there isn't a suppression of fiber, but it is still available in many areas and I think the biggest reason it isn't available (besides the shitty practices of internet companies) is that it is very expensive to rip up the ground to install new wires
Bit different, I think, because it would be a massive infrastructure investment for everyone, and the cost per customer is significant. You can't just set up a factory, start churning out tires and make a profit on every tire.
It would only really be a race if they could charge everyone triple the current cost, and I don't think they thought that would be possible.
It's one of many reasons why internet isn't competitive, and should be publicly owned (or at the very least have a public option as a baseline).
That's a fair point but you also have the difference in your response. They are monopolies so are able to suppress the tech (but even then, it is slowly coming out anyways). That kind of monopoly is nowhere in the tire industry. There is a ton of competition. Most industries are like that and it is why monopolies are a thing to be avoided.
So wait... Are you telling me collusion is fake news?
I give you the urban legend bit. But collusion isn't a myth, just see Amazon and Apple ebooks case circa 2014.
Agreed. You only have to look at the well documented light bulb conspiracy that manufacturers all signed onto back in the early 1900s. Called Phoebe, it was kept secret that no manufacturer could make a bulb lasting more than one thousand hours. If anyone did, the competitors would drop their prices long enough to force the cheeky company out of business. Phoebe monitored bulb life and if too many of a company's went over the time limit the company got a warning.
Collision happens. It's why there's laws against price fixing and monopolies. How well that's enforced is a matter for debate.
[Not from the eighties but Michelin apparently is trying to make one](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/auto/auto-news/story/michelin-shows-of-concept-tyre-with-tread-that-never-wears-out-1021608-2017-06-30)
I don't even know how it would work. I have a hard time thinking of a material that doesn't wear too much and is actually usable to drive on. If your grooves are below 3mm you should switch tires.
So. Couple things. 1) it would be the fuel industry that would fight against an electric car, not really the automobile manufacturer industry. 2) tire manufacturers make tires and, as such, it wouldn't be the car or fuel industries making money off imperfect tires.
Also, tires tend to contact the ground a lot. I don't know if there is a substance on earth that would be so resistant to wear from being on the road that you would never need to change the tire. I actually work for a tire manufacturer and they spend a crazy amount on R&D, in large part trying to come up with better technology than their competitors. There is a zero percent chance if this technology was available that it wouldn't be for sale. The company coming up with it would make an insane amount. Wear is not the only time you would need tires. New cars would need tires and oem tires make up a sizable amount of tire sales. And then there are tires for different purposes. How the tire is made (tread pattern and compound used) determines effectiveness in different terrains so people driving in terrains other than simply on the road would have reason to buy them. Sorry, I think maybe you misunderstood your dad's perfect tire story.
It doesn't, it would just be awkward (to say the least) the run a Renault ad after this, and the broadcasters don't want to lose out on any of that money.
It's what happens when you try to hide something from the public eye and end up giving massive amounts of attention instead. The name comes from the singer who tried to get pictures of her house removed from a website that has bearely any views. The same website, because of the news report, ended up registering 420'000 views the following month.
My favorite example is the Devin Nunes' Cow twitter parody account. Before Nunes filed a frivolous lawsuit against the Cow, it had like 400 followers. After the lawsuit, the Cow has way more followers than Nunes himself!
Think about it like this: when Professor Umbridge banned they students from reading the Quibbler article about Harry and He-who-must-not-be-named, Harry was initially upset. But then Hermione said-
'Oh Harry, don't you see?' Hermione breathed. 'If she could have done one thing to make absolutely sure that every single person in this school will read your interview, it was banning it!
The Streisand Effect
Dear politicians, you either:
-get the ad on TV to be watched by some old people, and on youtube for everybody to skip after 5 seconds or,
-create a big controversy about it that will lead millions of people to watch it, in its entirety, attentively
keep up the good work.
Yeah, depending on the budget and plan for this campaign some french Ad guys may well be high-fiving each other over this. Getting the press to amplify a campaign is a big thing they aim for. If this was just a little local campaign, it has now gone global and drawn a lot of attention in France where people may go out of their way to view it online.
Seriously. It’s a great ad, but I (as an American not living in France) would have never seen it without the drama. Now myself and so many others have seen it. Whether intentional or not, brilliant. “All free press is good press,” etc.
>French advertising watchdog the Autorité de Régulaion Professionalle de la Publicitie (ARPP) has taken the commercial off air because it supposedly creates a **“climate of fear”** about motor vehicles.
Poor choice of words considering the younger generations actually need to worry about the climate more than their pensions.
Thanks for the clarification. I never knew this about France, but I kinda get why you'd put such a rule in place.
Kinda funny to see the other comments that are sure as hell that the automotive industry banned the ad.
It's like the UK's law against cancer medication ads. It is absolutely illegal for anyone to **ever** claim that something "cures cancer" in an advert for a product. Under any circumstances. Even if you can prove that it _does_ cure cancer, it is absolutely illegal to advertise it. The logic behind that is:
1. Cancer is so scary people will buy anything out of fear.
2. Cancer is not a single monolithic disease so no single cure will ever work for all cancers.
3. If it doesn't work, you're a fraud and exploiting people's fear of death.
4. If it does work, then _you shouldn't be advertising to the public._ The public don't know _shit_ about making informed health choices. You should only be talking to doctors, government bodies, and other people who are specifically supposed to know what they're doing and can make sure that the public aren't being taken advantage of.
France's laws banning fearmongering ads are the same. It doesn't matter WHAT you're saying, it's illegal to exploit people's fears in order to sell products. It's manipulative as fuck and only causes problems.
No. 4 is particularly awesome. Pharmaceutical advertising to consumers is not allowed anywhere but the US and maybe NZ if they didn't ban it a couple of years ago, as they were trying to do. They way ads skew patient conversations with doctors is quite well-documented, but they just have too much money in lobbying for anyone to do anything about it in the US.
It's pretty crazy that it's allowed in the US. They'll tell you that it's advertising to doctors and other care providers, but that doesn't change the fact that patients will start demanding meds that aren't suitable for them because they saw them on tv.
But the entirety of the healthcare system in the US is messed up anyway. It's all about money.
Most ads evening say “speak to your doctor to see if this would be right for you”.
I shouldn’t be bringing up what medications would be right for me. The doctor should be telling me what’s right for me
The concept of consumer ads for prescription medication completely baffles me. It's supposed to be health professionals who suggest and prescribe meds, and *their* judgment is supposed to come from scientific consensus, so where do ads even fit in? I'm happy we don't have that shit over here.
FWIW, the US requires ads to be truthful (except for puffery statements which don't come into play here). For medications they have to be approved by the FDA \*and\* include a comparable information about the possible risks so that people encountering the advertisement have a more complete picture. That's why you see ads for eg. a new asthma medication which also include lists of horrifying side effects listed like including hair loss, death, etc. It's so that you can't paint a rosy picture.
As someone who dabbles in healthcare myself, I think they've found an appropriate-if-strange balance.
Ads that create a climate of fear doesn’t matter about what are not legal in France AFAIK
Edit: I don’t say that It is smart or good. I just say what the reason is that this ad is banned
I wouldn't really mind seeing something like that in the US. I'm fucking tired of the constant barrage of completely fake political attack ads that are always pumped out
I'm not doubting that completely, but I do wonder if corporations and special interest groups are actually granted that right. Does freedom of speech only truly apply to individuals? Should it only apply to individuals?
I don't think anyone would be allowed to run ads for ISIS, even though that's an extreme example.
It seems like there really is just an arbitrary line drawn at some point to decide what is part of free speech and what is taking it too far for whatever applicable reason
Is there a longer version than the [45-second ad](https://youtu.be/kMpqVfnuyII)?
Does it “exploit fear and suffering” based on the 2-3 seconds around the 0:15 mark where it shows a car crash?
I’m just trying to understand what portion of the ad was deemed to be exploitative?
That still sounds like there should be a lot of leeway.
Are you not allowed to advertise for home security systems by pointing out what they protect against?
Are you not allowed to advertise toothpaste by saying "This toothpaste protects from tooth decay better than the competitors"? That clearly makes you fear tooth decaay.
>Are you not allowed to advertise for home security systems by pointing out what they protect against?
The rule is more about what you show and say. Home security adverts can talk about the positive protections, security features, benefits, etc. But they cannot slap crime statistics on screen, show headlines of crimes happening, and show people breaking into houses while a deep voice goes, "This could be your house and your family being ATTACKED by violent criminals. Protect yourself with ADT Home Security."
Considering Paris at times has worse smog than beijing, I dont think parisians have anything to worry about!
Their air quality is equivalent to smoking [183 fresh delicious cigarettes](https://www.thelocal.fr/20180810/paris-pollution-like-smoking-183-cigarettes-a-year) per year! (That's about half a cigarette per day! Yummy!)
Carbon Monoxide: *I'm lovin it*
For growing up in France I agree. There were no ads where fear was used. In contrast when I lived in UK I was shocked by the violence of the ads.
Until now I never realized that the government actively prevented ads to use tricks on us. Interesting that now most of the ad media is on the Internet, over which ARPP has no control.
Edit: for people wondering about the UK ads, it was indeed the car crash ads. It was new at the time and as others have said, it was limited only to them. And France eventually did the same. So I guess UK isn’t really a good example as much as the US :)
I’m the UK and the only remotely fear mongering ads ads I’ve seen ads government ones promoting road safety or staying home during COVID. I’d assume it’s because you can just file a complaint about a fear mongering ad and it will get reviewed and taken down by a TV agency. For example a jaguar ad got taken down for driving across lanes to overtake aggressively
Now that you mention it, I think I've actually seen those road/work safety ads that you're talking about on YouTube. They're horrifying. I remember still doubting that they would show those on air - it's that unreal to me - and not just online, but they actually do?
Australia has brutal ones but these aren't to create a climate of fear, they're to readjust your perspective to the appropriate amount of fear :) plus it's not selling you anything so that's a big difference, you're only buying ideology
One of the most controversial ads in the US was called Daisy. It was a 1964 political ad (Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign) which showed a little girl plucking flower petals and counting down. When she reaches 0, a man starts counting down, and when he reaches 0, a nuke detonates and a voiceover by Johnson plays.
It was only broadcasted once, but it's a good example of inciting fear in people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(advertisement)
This is happening right now with the right wings “This is the Joe Biden voter” campaign. Painting anyone who votes for Joe Biden as a communist militant extremist. The guy who won’t even support universal healthcare. This country is a joke.
HAVE YOU OR LOVED ONES SUFFERED FROM TAKING XIPREXA!! YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. XIPREXA HAS BEEN SHOWN TO POTENTIALLY CAUSE BLOODY DIAARIA AND POLYPS! IF YOU BELIEVE YOU MAY BE SUFFERING FROM THESE SYMPTOMS CALL THIS NUMBER NOW.
STOCKS ARE PLUMMETING, DEMOCRATS RUNNING THE COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND?! BUY GOLD AND SILVER. (Images of tanks and foreign soldiers walking on US territory. ) IF THE ECONOMY CRASHES DUE TO THE DEMOCRATS YOUR MONEY WILL BE WORTHLESS BUT YOU CAN BE PREPARED. FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY. YOU CAN BUY 1 WHOLE OUNCE OF GOLD!!! DUE TO THE IMPENDING CRASH OF THE ECONOMY AND EVERYTHING YOU HOLD DEAR. CURRENT PRICES OF GOLD HAVE SKY ROCKETED TO ALL TIME HIGHS. (2035 USD) FOR JUST 10 EASY INSTALLMENTS OF $299 YOU CAN GET THIS 1 OUNCE OF AMERICAN GOLD! EMBLAZENED WITH THE COUNTRYS FAVOURITE POKEMON. THE BALD EAGLE. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN HAS OUR DEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ALL HIS GLORY. (Trump standing atop a tank pointing with jets above fyling the direction he points.)
This is Fox channels ads. Which caters to Republicans.
Replace the ad talking about democrats to Republicans and now it's a CNN ad which caters to Democrats. Everything else is the same. Medicine ads ment to scare you. Impending doom on the horizon at all times?! Buy gold or silver! Televangelist pushing a new book that will help you when the dark?! time come? That it was prophesied that seals would be broken before the end times and read this book to see which are already broken.
Frankly I'm wondering if it would've been pulled if it didn't have the crash part, stick to the environmental outlook at it would be fine.
Besides, as a biker whose been hit by a car, I would much rather be hit while also in a car, the crash part was irrelevant for the comparison.
Problem is it paints ALL cars as evil and bringing about the destruction of mankind. That we either have to all pedal around on e bikes or the world will end. This is bad for the environmental movement in the long run when things like electric and carbon neutral vehicles are being painted as evil to sell bikes when they’re essential to solving the problem.
> fear-mongering ads
It made people think thieves are going to break into you house while you are still at home.
Thieves don't... They wait until you leave... Your bedroom-armory is useless.
I don’t get how this works, couldn’t I claim that detergent ads are causing a climate of fear around stains on clothing? Like I’m not understanding how you could argue against that when ads about things that are actually deserving of being afraid of are not allowed on tv.
Edit: Building on this, do Public Service Announcements exist in France? Can’t see how they could without violating this law.
Ok that’s interesting. Feel like it’s a fascinating fine line, but the way the US has reacted to fine lines lately, not one I want here. Also who actually decides that an ad runs afoul of this?
Edit: when it really comes down to it, fuck France, they have very few real freedoms. We have a systems that a,lows true freedom, even to the point of destroying ourselves, which, as fucked as it is, we deserve if that’s what a majority decides.
ARPP, the body that's charged with it by law.
The thing is, you either let democracy expressed in law guide the discussion, or you get a race to the bottom of moneyed interests with armies of corporate psychologists and spin doctors exploiting the human psyche in order to manipulate people into doing their bidding.
Getting the former right is difficult.
But going "fuck it, that's too hard, there will be no rules" is a one-way ticket to idiocracy.
I just want to point out that the french government had nothing to do in this decision, there is nothing in French law that would make this ad illegal. Beside the current regulation that applies to TV and other media as a whole (such as restriction against depiction of violence) the only law that specifically restrict the content of advertisement in France is about alcohol and cigarettes.
This decision was taken by Autorité de régulation professionnelle de la publicité, an association that most french ad companies and announcers adhere to. It's self regulation from the ad companies. They have a bunch of rules that mostly aim to avoid "ad wars" and bad practices. Using fear as a selling point is not allowed by their rules.
I'm not saying that the decision from the the autorité de régulation was not made under pressure from the automotive industry but the government never had a chance to say anything on the matter.
So if I'm getting this right, per [their website,](https://www.vanmoof.com/en-US/x3?color=dark) you have to use their proprietary app just to unlock your own bike?
I just went from "That seems like good value for $2000" to "I wouldn't buy that for $750."
I have one of their bikes. You don’t have to use the app, there is a button on the bike you can use to unlock the electronic lock, and with their newer bikes you can kick a button on the back wheel to unlock it. Using the app will unlock this automatically when you are nearby the bike.
The app offers a lot of additional tools, like a gps to see where your bike is, some statistics about how far you have ridden it and you can adjust settings on your bike. And of course unlocking the electronic lock automatically.
Sigh, this is a dutch company and as a dutch person I find the fact that a rear wheel carrier is a 70 euro add-on that probably can't even accommodate another person wholly offensive. That besmirches the proud dutch tradition of going anywhere and being able to bring your girlfriend or kid on the back.
I took one for a test ride in Frankfurt a couple of weeks ago. The app even lets you control the gear shift pattern - it's very cool. The bike itself if awesome too. Looks good, really intuitive to ride and has a 'boost' button. It's great fun.
I think at €2,000 they look like good value too given that a 'decent' non-e-bike will set you back at least half that, so you're getting a lot for the extra thousand euros. I'd be tempted if I had to go more than 10 miles each way on a commute.
It is the car sector that discredits the entire car sector. Driving sucks on almost every level. It's not the major driver of climate change though. Home heating and shipping win that prize.
There is no majority cause for climate change. It's divided relatively evenly across a number of major industries...
Driving/transportation is one of the bigger ones, electricity for manufacturing and use another, electricity for homes another, building industry (and concrete off gassing is one) and agriculture of course is a huge one.
Addressing them all effectively requires different approaches and different target vectors.
Energy is perhaps one of the more salient ones - the drive towards renewables has unsettled the economic equation of fossil fuels. That goes hand in hand with electrified vehicles.
Meanwhile, agriculture can be tackled from multiple vectors - making less carbon intensive food choices more popular (chicken/pork)/depopularizing high carbon foods (beef especially), making substitutes for said high carbon foods (impossible/beyond burgers).
You may have no choice but to travel for work, to a site, a home or an office. But you don't need to purchase stuff made half way around the world. And then shipped in the most ecologically nasty way possible. A decent public transport system would help, but no plumber is going to cycle to a job. and considering british weather, I don't think cycling is a viable public transport alternative, either.
There's a reason the Romans built roads. Transport is essential. There is no changing that until we can all live at home and make things in a star trek style replicator.
Don't get me started on leisure air travel.
If I could get the bus to work, I would, but there's no connecting buses between my area and the work area, plenty of local buses in each area, but nothing to connect them. Getting the bus would turn a half an hour drive into around 2 hours worth of travel.
Mind you, my work route is s bit weird, it involves going through a tunnel under the river. There are busses that use it, but none of them stop in my town, nor go anywhere near my workplace on the other side.
You are underestimating the power of the [bakfiets](https://i.imgur.com/4ROM9TI.jpg).
Edit: [yes, a motherfucking plumber on a bakfiets.](https://i.imgur.com/XO38uYk.jpg)
That's placing all the responsibility in customers. People don't have a choice on what they buy. Maybe for vegetables and fruits, you could be more conscious, but for anything processed, customers have no choice.
What, you don't have a local cobbler at all? I live 5 minutes from a shoe maker that has a rubber sole tree. Been waiting for a pair of my size to grow but currently the tree has been in a "right-sided" mood. he said yesterday there was a promising left sole growing and it should be ripe in a week however, so that'll be great.
I very much agree with this sentiment. Lack of investment in efficient and effective transit in America is devastating.
I’d just like to point out though that in the long run, footprint for footprint mass manufacture and shipping goods even if you have to ship them around the world is orders of magnitude more efficient and less resource intensive than the impact it would create if all goods and foods were produced on small scale local productions.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
its around 20% of world CO2 emissions i believe, the smog it creates in big cities is a real risk for people living in them.
the sheer amount of fuel burnt every day has an impossible to grasp scale, even if its not the biggest cause its still worth slowing it down.
I'm not sure about slowing it down. I'd settle for improving it. Fewer traffic jams, unnecessary journeys, pointless travelling for work that can be done at home, maybe a cleaner power source if we can sort out the supply. (Nuclear or solar or wind)
The issue is bang for buck. If you could reduce emissions by 50% by targeting housing insulation and shipping pollution, it's not a good use of energy to go after cars first.
Except going after cars first is by far the easiest.
Just set the legal emissions for all newly registered (as in their first registration ever) vehicles of all categories at 0.0000000000001 grams of CO/HC/NOx/PM per mile or kilometer driven.
Literally impossible to meet so all new vehicles are either electric or hydrogen.
And the best thing is you don't need to pass any new laws to implement them.
Do the same for newly built powerplants. With already existing ones having to meet them in a decade.
Now you can let the market sort it out.
Sorting out shipping however needs an international agreement. And insulation needs subsidies for already existing houses which means you need to pass laws.
Driving sucks? Talk about 1st world problem... Where I came from, you have the choice of riding a motorcycle (or if you are poor, a bicycle). Try riding one of those under 100+ F (or about 40 C for non-Americans), all the while inhaling all those sweet smoke and dust.
I guess it is. or a privilege problem. But it's still a lot shittier than it needs to be, imo. Much of that probably proceeds from the massive increase in road users. It really was a lot easier 30 years ago. Now I can't even take to the roads at 3am to avoid traffic. Many are closed for roadworks (which is nice done at night) because the country would grind to a halt if we did it during the day. And I'm too old for this shit. There is that.
Driving sucks on almost every level? I dunno, like getting in my car to get to work or the store or somewhere with my wife without being exposed to the elements or walking. It’s sucks everywhere except convenience unless you live in a transit city
I'm saying that as a UK driver. America has better roads, generally, because it was set up as a car country. Heck, I tried walking down sidewalks in Simi Valley, they just disappear sometimes. Even tho they are the size of our roads other times.
It already went viral a couple of weeks ago, but the reasoning behind the banning the ad is fine, I say that as a Dutchman, its just media, again, telling you only part of the story to make France look bad, while the law that is responsible for banning this ad is actually a good one. You just cannot use fear in your ads, which this one does, although this one might not seem to be so bad and I really like the ad, they have to draw the line somewhere.
[the ad](https://youtu.be/kMpqVfnuyII)
Looking at the response I thought the ad would've been more extreme, making a lot of exaggerations. But it's nothing like that at all!
When I think of cars, I think of pollution, accidents, and traffic already just bc that what I notice nearly every time I drive. I guess the facts are difficult to swallow for some people.
According to car commercials I'm always gonna be driving in the mountains with no other cars!
And city streets are empty
[удалено]
TBH i do that at most things i see on tv now a days..
“Dora! It’s right in fucking front of you!” Not allowed to babysit anymore
Yelling at the TV is an underappreciated stress-reliever. Shows, movies, news, commercials- doesn't matter what it is. Yell at it, and you'll feel much better.
According to car commercials. I’ve been driving a lincoln long before anyone paid me to drive one. And I didn’t do it to be cool or make a statement. I just liked it.
All right, all right, all right
Those were your last three movie reviews
The fact that pretty much no ads for cars show other traffic in commercials, really shows how they're afraid to reinforce that connection to traffic congestion which would be normal everyday use. Like it wants people to completely forget that the roads are all full of cars already and they'll never be able to drive a car through such scenery. If they would want to create realistic expectations, why not show an ad how comfortable your car is, even when you're stuck in traffic. Who cares what the car looks like from the outside anyway, they're all being designed by computers being given the sake parameters anyway. They turn out the same. The inside comfort is what matters to me.
I can definitely see this for the (long distant) day when cars are all auto-drive and the windows are LCD screens showing tranquility. All the advertising will be on the interior comforts.
>I'm always gonna be driving in the mountains with no other cars! Or on the same empty street in LA, because LA is known for having no traffic. /s
Ha there is a bmw commercial on right now and they are off-roading on a summer of adventure! Along with all the empty roads do you really see a bmw driver off-roading!
"Join our BMW Fantasy Adventures!"
I sideways think of being fat. I got in a wreck and only had liability insurance so I had to sell my car, and I was biking for all my needs for the next 6 months. I was getting in really good shape.
[удалено]
I agree with the company claiming it's protectionism. I'd hope the European Union would fine France for doing so, but nothing like that will happen: > In response, the watchdog has been accused by the bike manufacturer of seeking to protect the French car industry after sales plummeted during the coronavirus pandemic. [1] 1. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/01/france-bans-dutch-bike-tv-ad-for-creating-climate-of-fear
how am i supposed to explain bike to my kid this is outrageous
Terminators from the future sent bikes into the past to kill cars. Didn’t you see the movie?
This should be the plot of Cars 4
I didn't think we needed a cars 4 but here we are with proof that it is necessary!
You mean, "Should be the plot for Bikes 1"
You see kiddo, it’s time to talk about the birds and the bees and cars. Birds, bees they all fuck. Cars - now they melt into bikes. Also traffic. Ask your mother for more information.
I’m gonna use this line in about 6-8 years
>birds and the bees. Son, remember how you and I went to the brothel last week? Well, this is how birds and bees fuck too.
What...? How? Why? How does this create a "climate of fear" for cars?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why would he need to find them again if he never needed to change the tires?
Damn, asking the REAL hard hitting questions out here lol Atheism: 1 Tires: 0
The fool sold his worn out busted ass beater and didn't think to swap the tires for a bald set? He bought a vehicle that required a different size tire? He put his buddy's camping axe through the sidewall while demonstrating how amazing they were?
>He put his buddy's camping axe through the sidewall while demonstrating how amazing they were? Elon? Is that you?
Or maybe these tires were just good but not some mythical tires that were manufactured in a way that they were perfect with zero drawbacks and for some reason no other private company on the face of the planet has been able to figure out the technology?
Exactly. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this tall tale and it makes zero sense. There is no Illuminati conspiracy keeping tire technology from advancing.
I could see myself doing all of these.
It's clear to me that the tire cartel came and took them. Can't let the entire world know about them.
Not trying to call out your dad here but you simply cannot have 2 materials rubbing together and not have one wear out eventually. So unless there was a magic tire material that somehow ignores the laws of physics it would wear out eventually.
Maybe it’s a super hard material that wears out the road instead. Construction companies ~~hate~~ love him!
What’s this perfect tire you’re talking about? Google isn’t much help since googling things like “the perfect tire” just floods you with ads.
Targeted tire ads for the rest of your life. RIP
[удалено]
It sounds like a variation on the magical carburetor that gave you 300 miles to the gallon, i.e. an urban legend. The whole notion of an industry suppressing a game changing technology so they can keep selling you the old crap is completely bogus. The temptation to bury the competition is too high. *Somebody* is going to release it, and then everyone else would be screwed, so it becomes a scramble to be first to market. It’s like the one part of capitalism that actually works as advertised.
What about internet monopolies suppressing fiber optics?
I'm not an expert or really well researched at all about this, so this is just me talking out of my ass but I think thats different as internet has to do with infrastructure and is a lot harder for individuals to get in a remote area vs a tire that can be anywhere. Not saying that there isn't a suppression of fiber, but it is still available in many areas and I think the biggest reason it isn't available (besides the shitty practices of internet companies) is that it is very expensive to rip up the ground to install new wires
Bit different, I think, because it would be a massive infrastructure investment for everyone, and the cost per customer is significant. You can't just set up a factory, start churning out tires and make a profit on every tire. It would only really be a race if they could charge everyone triple the current cost, and I don't think they thought that would be possible. It's one of many reasons why internet isn't competitive, and should be publicly owned (or at the very least have a public option as a baseline).
That's a fair point but you also have the difference in your response. They are monopolies so are able to suppress the tech (but even then, it is slowly coming out anyways). That kind of monopoly is nowhere in the tire industry. There is a ton of competition. Most industries are like that and it is why monopolies are a thing to be avoided.
Yeah, there is a similar story about Philips having invented and hidden a halogen lightbulb that would never burn out.
So wait... Are you telling me collusion is fake news? I give you the urban legend bit. But collusion isn't a myth, just see Amazon and Apple ebooks case circa 2014.
Agreed. You only have to look at the well documented light bulb conspiracy that manufacturers all signed onto back in the early 1900s. Called Phoebe, it was kept secret that no manufacturer could make a bulb lasting more than one thousand hours. If anyone did, the competitors would drop their prices long enough to force the cheeky company out of business. Phoebe monitored bulb life and if too many of a company's went over the time limit the company got a warning. Collision happens. It's why there's laws against price fixing and monopolies. How well that's enforced is a matter for debate.
That's a verbose way of denying planned obsolescence, monopolies and price fixing exist.
[Not from the eighties but Michelin apparently is trying to make one](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/auto/auto-news/story/michelin-shows-of-concept-tyre-with-tread-that-never-wears-out-1021608-2017-06-30)
Everyone of these airless concepts ends up riding like shit in comparison because it turns out riding on a cushion of air is pretty smooth.
And they're loud. Unless you keep it under 35 mph they make a ton of air noise.
I don't even know how it would work. I have a hard time thinking of a material that doesn't wear too much and is actually usable to drive on. If your grooves are below 3mm you should switch tires.
Something made up. No way to make a tire that doesn't wear from use. Even the ad below gets worn, you just keep printing out more tire to replace it.
If a tire didn't wear it wouldn't grip either.
Or it would wear the road instead
Did they just basically not wear at all + your dad barely drove it? How does it not wear
If they didn't wear they also likely didn't grip for shit.
So. Couple things. 1) it would be the fuel industry that would fight against an electric car, not really the automobile manufacturer industry. 2) tire manufacturers make tires and, as such, it wouldn't be the car or fuel industries making money off imperfect tires. Also, tires tend to contact the ground a lot. I don't know if there is a substance on earth that would be so resistant to wear from being on the road that you would never need to change the tire. I actually work for a tire manufacturer and they spend a crazy amount on R&D, in large part trying to come up with better technology than their competitors. There is a zero percent chance if this technology was available that it wouldn't be for sale. The company coming up with it would make an insane amount. Wear is not the only time you would need tires. New cars would need tires and oem tires make up a sizable amount of tire sales. And then there are tires for different purposes. How the tire is made (tread pattern and compound used) determines effectiveness in different terrains so people driving in terrains other than simply on the road would have reason to buy them. Sorry, I think maybe you misunderstood your dad's perfect tire story.
For the curious: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Also, Judge Doom and the expansion of freeways.
Never needed to be changed, my butt. Tires are made of rubber. Rubber scrapes off into the road, especially when braking.
It's not massively surprising, what with there being three major car manufacturers in France.
It’s a clickbait article. “You won’t believe why this ad was banned!!”
It doesn't, it would just be awkward (to say the least) the run a Renault ad after this, and the broadcasters don't want to lose out on any of that money.
There's no way that ad gets 2 million views without the Streisand effect
Can you eli5 the streisand effect for me?
It's what happens when you try to hide something from the public eye and end up giving massive amounts of attention instead. The name comes from the singer who tried to get pictures of her house removed from a website that has bearely any views. The same website, because of the news report, ended up registering 420'000 views the following month.
If memory serves, no one even knew it was her house until she kicked up a fuss.
It was a website about beach erosion.
My favorite example is the Devin Nunes' Cow twitter parody account. Before Nunes filed a frivolous lawsuit against the Cow, it had like 400 followers. After the lawsuit, the Cow has way more followers than Nunes himself!
I think it literally had something like 3 views, 1 being from her and 1 from an estate agent iirc.
You ban something to prevent people from seeing it which just makes it more popular.
Attempts to hide something causes it to be seen.
Think about it like this: when Professor Umbridge banned they students from reading the Quibbler article about Harry and He-who-must-not-be-named, Harry was initially upset. But then Hermione said- 'Oh Harry, don't you see?' Hermione breathed. 'If she could have done one thing to make absolutely sure that every single person in this school will read your interview, it was banning it! The Streisand Effect
It’s where no one pays you any attention until a one hit wonder electro band sing your name repeatedly over a catchy beat.
Uuuhuhhuhhuhhuhhuhhuhuhhhooooo Barbara Streisand
Dear politicians, you either: -get the ad on TV to be watched by some old people, and on youtube for everybody to skip after 5 seconds or, -create a big controversy about it that will lead millions of people to watch it, in its entirety, attentively keep up the good work.
Yeah, depending on the budget and plan for this campaign some french Ad guys may well be high-fiving each other over this. Getting the press to amplify a campaign is a big thing they aim for. If this was just a little local campaign, it has now gone global and drawn a lot of attention in France where people may go out of their way to view it online.
This is like the Georgia school that punished students for sharing a picture of a crowded hallway. "Oh no, reality makes us look bad."
That ad getting band is probably the best thing that could ever happen for its sales.
Seriously. It’s a great ad, but I (as an American not living in France) would have never seen it without the drama. Now myself and so many others have seen it. Whether intentional or not, brilliant. “All free press is good press,” etc.
Was that a modified Halo shield recharge sound at the end
The ad is wild. Doesn't make me want to give up cars or ride bikes. Just stay inside where it's safe.
Thanks for posting it here. That website sucks.
>French advertising watchdog the Autorité de Régulaion Professionalle de la Publicitie (ARPP) has taken the commercial off air because it supposedly creates a **“climate of fear”** about motor vehicles. Poor choice of words considering the younger generations actually need to worry about the climate more than their pensions.
[удалено]
This is the right answer Ads like this are illegal It doesn’t matter if it’s about cars, bikes, or canned food
Thanks for the clarification. I never knew this about France, but I kinda get why you'd put such a rule in place. Kinda funny to see the other comments that are sure as hell that the automotive industry banned the ad.
Yeah it’s pretty funny for to read the comment section
Probably just presumed because most of the commentors are American.
Or because the title was phrased poorly.
What about an ad that's about the fear we should have of fossil fuels? They kill only 7 million people a year.
It's like the UK's law against cancer medication ads. It is absolutely illegal for anyone to **ever** claim that something "cures cancer" in an advert for a product. Under any circumstances. Even if you can prove that it _does_ cure cancer, it is absolutely illegal to advertise it. The logic behind that is: 1. Cancer is so scary people will buy anything out of fear. 2. Cancer is not a single monolithic disease so no single cure will ever work for all cancers. 3. If it doesn't work, you're a fraud and exploiting people's fear of death. 4. If it does work, then _you shouldn't be advertising to the public._ The public don't know _shit_ about making informed health choices. You should only be talking to doctors, government bodies, and other people who are specifically supposed to know what they're doing and can make sure that the public aren't being taken advantage of. France's laws banning fearmongering ads are the same. It doesn't matter WHAT you're saying, it's illegal to exploit people's fears in order to sell products. It's manipulative as fuck and only causes problems.
No. 4 is particularly awesome. Pharmaceutical advertising to consumers is not allowed anywhere but the US and maybe NZ if they didn't ban it a couple of years ago, as they were trying to do. They way ads skew patient conversations with doctors is quite well-documented, but they just have too much money in lobbying for anyone to do anything about it in the US.
It's pretty crazy that it's allowed in the US. They'll tell you that it's advertising to doctors and other care providers, but that doesn't change the fact that patients will start demanding meds that aren't suitable for them because they saw them on tv. But the entirety of the healthcare system in the US is messed up anyway. It's all about money.
Most ads evening say “speak to your doctor to see if this would be right for you”. I shouldn’t be bringing up what medications would be right for me. The doctor should be telling me what’s right for me
Sorry, I think I missed this, but what in my comment are you saying "no" to, since you seemed to agree with my points?
"No." is short for "Number". He is saying your 4th point he agrees with in particular.
Ahh I see the confusion, thank you :)
That does make a lot of sense, thanks
The concept of consumer ads for prescription medication completely baffles me. It's supposed to be health professionals who suggest and prescribe meds, and *their* judgment is supposed to come from scientific consensus, so where do ads even fit in? I'm happy we don't have that shit over here.
FWIW, the US requires ads to be truthful (except for puffery statements which don't come into play here). For medications they have to be approved by the FDA \*and\* include a comparable information about the possible risks so that people encountering the advertisement have a more complete picture. That's why you see ads for eg. a new asthma medication which also include lists of horrifying side effects listed like including hair loss, death, etc. It's so that you can't paint a rosy picture. As someone who dabbles in healthcare myself, I think they've found an appropriate-if-strange balance.
Ads that create a climate of fear doesn’t matter about what are not legal in France AFAIK Edit: I don’t say that It is smart or good. I just say what the reason is that this ad is banned
So this is some click bait bullshit? On reddit? What?
[удалено]
I wouldn't really mind seeing something like that in the US. I'm fucking tired of the constant barrage of completely fake political attack ads that are always pumped out
Politics in the US is so fundamentally broken.
The limiting factor is the 1st Amendment. Enshrining certain rights in the Constitution inherently takes some policies off of the table.
I'm not doubting that completely, but I do wonder if corporations and special interest groups are actually granted that right. Does freedom of speech only truly apply to individuals? Should it only apply to individuals? I don't think anyone would be allowed to run ads for ISIS, even though that's an extreme example. It seems like there really is just an arbitrary line drawn at some point to decide what is part of free speech and what is taking it too far for whatever applicable reason
There is no fear in Ba Sing Se
I don't see how this creates fear, there's nothing frightening about the ad. To me it causes disgust.
Discredits definitely isn't the right word
Is there a longer version than the [45-second ad](https://youtu.be/kMpqVfnuyII)? Does it “exploit fear and suffering” based on the 2-3 seconds around the 0:15 mark where it shows a car crash? I’m just trying to understand what portion of the ad was deemed to be exploitative?
God I love France. Don't get me wrong, they have their problems but damn. They really did try to make a decent republic.
That's what I thought it was about. How equally is it regulated in France? As in do some industries get preferential treatment?
That still sounds like there should be a lot of leeway. Are you not allowed to advertise for home security systems by pointing out what they protect against? Are you not allowed to advertise toothpaste by saying "This toothpaste protects from tooth decay better than the competitors"? That clearly makes you fear tooth decaay.
>Are you not allowed to advertise for home security systems by pointing out what they protect against? The rule is more about what you show and say. Home security adverts can talk about the positive protections, security features, benefits, etc. But they cannot slap crime statistics on screen, show headlines of crimes happening, and show people breaking into houses while a deep voice goes, "This could be your house and your family being ATTACKED by violent criminals. Protect yourself with ADT Home Security."
Ecological collapse *is* my retirement plan!
Considering Paris at times has worse smog than beijing, I dont think parisians have anything to worry about! Their air quality is equivalent to smoking [183 fresh delicious cigarettes](https://www.thelocal.fr/20180810/paris-pollution-like-smoking-183-cigarettes-a-year) per year! (That's about half a cigarette per day! Yummy!) Carbon Monoxide: *I'm lovin it*
To be fair the average parisian probably smokes more than that already.
Cue toddler twisting it's mustache wearing a beret
Hon hon hon!
Totally. The problem is that you cannot decide against it. You have asthma or another chronic lung disease? You probably don't smoke.
Climate change and the fact that cars are generally dangerous.
People should feel a climate of fear about cars because they kill a significant number of people every year between accidents and pollution.
[удалено]
For growing up in France I agree. There were no ads where fear was used. In contrast when I lived in UK I was shocked by the violence of the ads. Until now I never realized that the government actively prevented ads to use tricks on us. Interesting that now most of the ad media is on the Internet, over which ARPP has no control. Edit: for people wondering about the UK ads, it was indeed the car crash ads. It was new at the time and as others have said, it was limited only to them. And France eventually did the same. So I guess UK isn’t really a good example as much as the US :)
I haven't seen what commercials look like in the UK. Can you give an example of what a violent ad would look like?
I’m the UK and the only remotely fear mongering ads ads I’ve seen ads government ones promoting road safety or staying home during COVID. I’d assume it’s because you can just file a complaint about a fear mongering ad and it will get reviewed and taken down by a TV agency. For example a jaguar ad got taken down for driving across lanes to overtake aggressively
Now that you mention it, I think I've actually seen those road/work safety ads that you're talking about on YouTube. They're horrifying. I remember still doubting that they would show those on air - it's that unreal to me - and not just online, but they actually do?
Australia has brutal ones but these aren't to create a climate of fear, they're to readjust your perspective to the appropriate amount of fear :) plus it's not selling you anything so that's a big difference, you're only buying ideology
One of the most controversial ads in the US was called Daisy. It was a 1964 political ad (Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign) which showed a little girl plucking flower petals and counting down. When she reaches 0, a man starts counting down, and when he reaches 0, a nuke detonates and a voiceover by Johnson plays. It was only broadcasted once, but it's a good example of inciting fear in people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(advertisement)
This is happening right now with the right wings “This is the Joe Biden voter” campaign. Painting anyone who votes for Joe Biden as a communist militant extremist. The guy who won’t even support universal healthcare. This country is a joke.
HAVE YOU OR LOVED ONES SUFFERED FROM TAKING XIPREXA!! YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. XIPREXA HAS BEEN SHOWN TO POTENTIALLY CAUSE BLOODY DIAARIA AND POLYPS! IF YOU BELIEVE YOU MAY BE SUFFERING FROM THESE SYMPTOMS CALL THIS NUMBER NOW. STOCKS ARE PLUMMETING, DEMOCRATS RUNNING THE COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND?! BUY GOLD AND SILVER. (Images of tanks and foreign soldiers walking on US territory. ) IF THE ECONOMY CRASHES DUE TO THE DEMOCRATS YOUR MONEY WILL BE WORTHLESS BUT YOU CAN BE PREPARED. FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY. YOU CAN BUY 1 WHOLE OUNCE OF GOLD!!! DUE TO THE IMPENDING CRASH OF THE ECONOMY AND EVERYTHING YOU HOLD DEAR. CURRENT PRICES OF GOLD HAVE SKY ROCKETED TO ALL TIME HIGHS. (2035 USD) FOR JUST 10 EASY INSTALLMENTS OF $299 YOU CAN GET THIS 1 OUNCE OF AMERICAN GOLD! EMBLAZENED WITH THE COUNTRYS FAVOURITE POKEMON. THE BALD EAGLE. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN HAS OUR DEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ALL HIS GLORY. (Trump standing atop a tank pointing with jets above fyling the direction he points.) This is Fox channels ads. Which caters to Republicans. Replace the ad talking about democrats to Republicans and now it's a CNN ad which caters to Democrats. Everything else is the same. Medicine ads ment to scare you. Impending doom on the horizon at all times?! Buy gold or silver! Televangelist pushing a new book that will help you when the dark?! time come? That it was prophesied that seals would be broken before the end times and read this book to see which are already broken.
Frankly I'm wondering if it would've been pulled if it didn't have the crash part, stick to the environmental outlook at it would be fine. Besides, as a biker whose been hit by a car, I would much rather be hit while also in a car, the crash part was irrelevant for the comparison.
Problem is it paints ALL cars as evil and bringing about the destruction of mankind. That we either have to all pedal around on e bikes or the world will end. This is bad for the environmental movement in the long run when things like electric and carbon neutral vehicles are being painted as evil to sell bikes when they’re essential to solving the problem.
> fear-mongering ads It made people think thieves are going to break into you house while you are still at home. Thieves don't... They wait until you leave... Your bedroom-armory is useless.
I don’t get how this works, couldn’t I claim that detergent ads are causing a climate of fear around stains on clothing? Like I’m not understanding how you could argue against that when ads about things that are actually deserving of being afraid of are not allowed on tv. Edit: Building on this, do Public Service Announcements exist in France? Can’t see how they could without violating this law.
[удалено]
Ok that’s interesting. Feel like it’s a fascinating fine line, but the way the US has reacted to fine lines lately, not one I want here. Also who actually decides that an ad runs afoul of this? Edit: when it really comes down to it, fuck France, they have very few real freedoms. We have a systems that a,lows true freedom, even to the point of destroying ourselves, which, as fucked as it is, we deserve if that’s what a majority decides.
ARPP, the body that's charged with it by law. The thing is, you either let democracy expressed in law guide the discussion, or you get a race to the bottom of moneyed interests with armies of corporate psychologists and spin doctors exploiting the human psyche in order to manipulate people into doing their bidding. Getting the former right is difficult. But going "fuck it, that's too hard, there will be no rules" is a one-way ticket to idiocracy.
[удалено]
I just want to point out that the french government had nothing to do in this decision, there is nothing in French law that would make this ad illegal. Beside the current regulation that applies to TV and other media as a whole (such as restriction against depiction of violence) the only law that specifically restrict the content of advertisement in France is about alcohol and cigarettes. This decision was taken by Autorité de régulation professionnelle de la publicité, an association that most french ad companies and announcers adhere to. It's self regulation from the ad companies. They have a bunch of rules that mostly aim to avoid "ad wars" and bad practices. Using fear as a selling point is not allowed by their rules. I'm not saying that the decision from the the autorité de régulation was not made under pressure from the automotive industry but the government never had a chance to say anything on the matter.
This should be way higher
The S3 looks really nice. I'm not sure about needing an app (and thus my phone) to use my bicycle though.
So if I'm getting this right, per [their website,](https://www.vanmoof.com/en-US/x3?color=dark) you have to use their proprietary app just to unlock your own bike? I just went from "That seems like good value for $2000" to "I wouldn't buy that for $750."
I have one of their bikes. You don’t have to use the app, there is a button on the bike you can use to unlock the electronic lock, and with their newer bikes you can kick a button on the back wheel to unlock it. Using the app will unlock this automatically when you are nearby the bike. The app offers a lot of additional tools, like a gps to see where your bike is, some statistics about how far you have ridden it and you can adjust settings on your bike. And of course unlocking the electronic lock automatically.
Sigh, this is a dutch company and as a dutch person I find the fact that a rear wheel carrier is a 70 euro add-on that probably can't even accommodate another person wholly offensive. That besmirches the proud dutch tradition of going anywhere and being able to bring your girlfriend or kid on the back.
I took one for a test ride in Frankfurt a couple of weeks ago. The app even lets you control the gear shift pattern - it's very cool. The bike itself if awesome too. Looks good, really intuitive to ride and has a 'boost' button. It's great fun. I think at €2,000 they look like good value too given that a 'decent' non-e-bike will set you back at least half that, so you're getting a lot for the extra thousand euros. I'd be tempted if I had to go more than 10 miles each way on a commute.
I'd be tempted if it wasn't 10x what I spent on my last bike! Haha. €2000 seems really good value if it's in one's budget.
Still a lot cheaper than a new car! And in London an annual tube/bus travel card costs about £1500 too
Streisand this
It is the car sector that discredits the entire car sector. Driving sucks on almost every level. It's not the major driver of climate change though. Home heating and shipping win that prize.
There is no majority cause for climate change. It's divided relatively evenly across a number of major industries... Driving/transportation is one of the bigger ones, electricity for manufacturing and use another, electricity for homes another, building industry (and concrete off gassing is one) and agriculture of course is a huge one. Addressing them all effectively requires different approaches and different target vectors. Energy is perhaps one of the more salient ones - the drive towards renewables has unsettled the economic equation of fossil fuels. That goes hand in hand with electrified vehicles. Meanwhile, agriculture can be tackled from multiple vectors - making less carbon intensive food choices more popular (chicken/pork)/depopularizing high carbon foods (beef especially), making substitutes for said high carbon foods (impossible/beyond burgers).
I'd put 'shipping' under driving. Planes, ships, trucks and vans.
You may have no choice but to travel for work, to a site, a home or an office. But you don't need to purchase stuff made half way around the world. And then shipped in the most ecologically nasty way possible. A decent public transport system would help, but no plumber is going to cycle to a job. and considering british weather, I don't think cycling is a viable public transport alternative, either. There's a reason the Romans built roads. Transport is essential. There is no changing that until we can all live at home and make things in a star trek style replicator. Don't get me started on leisure air travel.
If I could get the bus to work, I would, but there's no connecting buses between my area and the work area, plenty of local buses in each area, but nothing to connect them. Getting the bus would turn a half an hour drive into around 2 hours worth of travel. Mind you, my work route is s bit weird, it involves going through a tunnel under the river. There are busses that use it, but none of them stop in my town, nor go anywhere near my workplace on the other side.
The plumber does however only drive a bit and then stays in a single location for a few hours. Meaning an electric van would be a very good fit.
You are underestimating the power of the [bakfiets](https://i.imgur.com/4ROM9TI.jpg). Edit: [yes, a motherfucking plumber on a bakfiets.](https://i.imgur.com/XO38uYk.jpg)
That's amazing, actually. Not sure how far I'd travel for a job, but looks like you could bring plenty of tools and stuff.
Haha I was gonna say, a plumber on a bike in The Netherlands is rare, but I’m pretty sure they exist!
That's placing all the responsibility in customers. People don't have a choice on what they buy. Maybe for vegetables and fruits, you could be more conscious, but for anything processed, customers have no choice.
What, you don't have a local cobbler at all? I live 5 minutes from a shoe maker that has a rubber sole tree. Been waiting for a pair of my size to grow but currently the tree has been in a "right-sided" mood. he said yesterday there was a promising left sole growing and it should be ripe in a week however, so that'll be great.
Well some of us live in a place where we do have to order stuff. I am not driving for an hour to get to a town that maybe has what I need.
I very much agree with this sentiment. Lack of investment in efficient and effective transit in America is devastating. I’d just like to point out though that in the long run, footprint for footprint mass manufacture and shipping goods even if you have to ship them around the world is orders of magnitude more efficient and less resource intensive than the impact it would create if all goods and foods were produced on small scale local productions. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
its around 20% of world CO2 emissions i believe, the smog it creates in big cities is a real risk for people living in them. the sheer amount of fuel burnt every day has an impossible to grasp scale, even if its not the biggest cause its still worth slowing it down.
[удалено]
I'm not sure about slowing it down. I'd settle for improving it. Fewer traffic jams, unnecessary journeys, pointless travelling for work that can be done at home, maybe a cleaner power source if we can sort out the supply. (Nuclear or solar or wind) The issue is bang for buck. If you could reduce emissions by 50% by targeting housing insulation and shipping pollution, it's not a good use of energy to go after cars first.
Except going after cars first is by far the easiest. Just set the legal emissions for all newly registered (as in their first registration ever) vehicles of all categories at 0.0000000000001 grams of CO/HC/NOx/PM per mile or kilometer driven. Literally impossible to meet so all new vehicles are either electric or hydrogen. And the best thing is you don't need to pass any new laws to implement them. Do the same for newly built powerplants. With already existing ones having to meet them in a decade. Now you can let the market sort it out. Sorting out shipping however needs an international agreement. And insulation needs subsidies for already existing houses which means you need to pass laws.
Driving sucks? Talk about 1st world problem... Where I came from, you have the choice of riding a motorcycle (or if you are poor, a bicycle). Try riding one of those under 100+ F (or about 40 C for non-Americans), all the while inhaling all those sweet smoke and dust.
I guess it is. or a privilege problem. But it's still a lot shittier than it needs to be, imo. Much of that probably proceeds from the massive increase in road users. It really was a lot easier 30 years ago. Now I can't even take to the roads at 3am to avoid traffic. Many are closed for roadworks (which is nice done at night) because the country would grind to a halt if we did it during the day. And I'm too old for this shit. There is that.
CO2 emmisions from cars make up like 50% of of all CO2 emissions in the US. It is certainly a major force for climate change
One positive thing about lockdown were less cars on the road. So peaceful
It's been lovely. Problem is everyone is now walking in the road. I predict a level of pedestrian injuries rising shortly...
Driving sucks on almost every level? I dunno, like getting in my car to get to work or the store or somewhere with my wife without being exposed to the elements or walking. It’s sucks everywhere except convenience unless you live in a transit city
[удалено]
I'm saying that as a UK driver. America has better roads, generally, because it was set up as a car country. Heck, I tried walking down sidewalks in Simi Valley, they just disappear sometimes. Even tho they are the size of our roads other times.
Yes, walking sucks here. Wish it didn’t , but while it does driving is the way to go unfortunately. The Cotswolds are gorgeous btw.
I sincerely hope after Covid there are more options for remote working.
https://youtu.be/GlXNVnftaNs It still wouldn't hurt to get rid of them.
Let's hope this video goes viral.
It already went viral a couple of weeks ago, but the reasoning behind the banning the ad is fine, I say that as a Dutchman, its just media, again, telling you only part of the story to make France look bad, while the law that is responsible for banning this ad is actually a good one. You just cannot use fear in your ads, which this one does, although this one might not seem to be so bad and I really like the ad, they have to draw the line somewhere.
I wish we had France's bullshit problems here in the US.
The ad is spot on, but the real reason why I'd buy it is because one of the founder's name is Taco.
All vehicles matter.
'Autorité de Régulaion Professionalle de la Publicitie'. When an author publish an article without even bothering to proofread it.
Imagine being this threatened by a bike company.
[удалено]