Here are some ideas in preparation!
For me, the following topics/theses are of interest.
Why do people still drive cars? Does it offer any advantages? Or is it just a huge case of self-delusion? Because we are being manipulated and fall victim to lobbyism?
A few days ago, I rode my bike around the lake Starnberger See. It took me a few hours. First, I went from Neubiberg to Starnberg by S-Bahn train. Then we rode our bikes around the lake and took the S-Bahn train back from Starnberg. It was a wonderful summer day, everything just beautiful. But near the lake, all the cars were hell. All the parking spaces were taken, nothing could be done about it. And there was no end of stress – among the car drivers.
I am fairly mobile. Especially in Munich. But also in Germany, Europe and occasionally even in this world. And I can always manage without using a car. Doing without a car as a mobility tool has only advantages. When all is said and done, you feel a lot better without a car!
Here is one question that might be worth answering:
What requirements must be met for a car journey to make sense, i.e. for it to offer considerable advantages over alternative mobility?
Why do people still dare to go places by car? In the process, they accept horrendous collateral damage, either without thinking or because they are arrogantly egomaniacal, not only in the social sector, both inflicted on third parties and on themselves?
Would the following metaphor fit? Driving a car is on the same level as smoking in public buildings, and not only if it happens in the city? Whenever I ride my bike, all those cars pollute my lungs, just like the smokers used to when they sat at the dinner table across from me.
When sitting behind the wheel of a car, we consciously take the risk that we might probably injure or kill other people. It still happens far too often.
When we drive a car, we produce pollutants that harm other people. People who do not want any involvement with cars at all.
Cars are noisy, which significantly reduces the quality of life where we live, both in cities and villages.
Cars give those sitting in it and especially the driver a whole lot of distress.
Going by car robs the people the opportunity to exercise and thus makes them obese.
Here is a tweet I read that is probably not all that hilarious: perhaps you should, before getting rid of them outside, first transmit the exhaust fumes of a car into the car.
At this point, I do not have a “moralizing” discussion in mind. Instead, I want a very basic and constructive judgement of values.
Pedelecs (e-bikes) are a stroke of genius!
The combination of body and machine
For rational and efficient mobility and logistics, e-machines are perfect.
Especially with lower speeds and for slim mobility, electric vehicles offer an excellent alternative.
Maybe we could make 90% of our intra-city individual and logistically necessary mobility a lot better, cheaper, healthier, nicer and more efficient by using e-bikes and other suitable electric vehicles (scooters, trucks, large taxis as part of public transportation,… )?
(I am well aware of the fact that electric mobility – e.g. the e-car – is not a solution individually. The very damage done to the environment and CO2 output that the production of a single huge battery – such as for a Tesla or even for an e-UP – creates shows that this will not be a solution for fast and long-range communication).
Is it possible that our massive switch from riding a bicycle to driving a car in post-war Germany was caused by all those many and strenuous inclines? And that, since the invention of the e-bike, the bad weather is the last remaining argument against riding bikes? And that it is actually quite easy to solve this problem (since it is part of being human)?
And is “high-power mobility” – being able to quickly cover medium and long distances – basically not about “shared economy” but about “shared mobility”? And has shared mobility not been invented a long time ago, although there is definitely room for improvement?
Here are the format and the method I suggest for our next meeting:
How about a practical exercise in building vexillae? All these topics can be discussed and processed using the technology of building vexillae. The ars construendi vexilla is a dialectic method for coming to reasonable agreements (rational consensus) in groups. And that is something you can – or better: must – realize in an agile way and at eye-level!
How do you feel about it? What would you prefer? Which topic, which method. Do you have better ideas and/or additional recommendations? Should I organize the planned meeting and invite people?
If so, I would organize a room for July, 13th in the Munich area, write a program and publish the time and program in Meet-Up and on the AktMobCmp-homepage .
Or should we just leave it be, because it does not make sense, anyway? And because there is not the slightest chance for a better life without air pollution and noise? Because the car lobby governs the world?
Then I would cancel the meeting and perhaps also terminate AktMobCmp.
(Translated by EG)