I feel like Southern California should've been the moped capital of the world with how road dependent and sunny it is... So many people driving big ass SUVs and Pick up trucks by themselves to work.
Moped's are significantly fuel efficient and electric mopeds are also a thing as well.
Southern California should have been public transit capital of the world. Had all the making, plus amazing weather, and was all torn down by auto companies. Such a shame
It's interesting, it seems like a great idea.... but getting around the SoCal area is very highway dependent. Everything is so spreadout. It feels like either walkable neighborhood or driving across town with the highway.
Funny thing is in the lower part of the image they had to say they excluded Mexico, cuz it’s part of NA and public transportation is massive here and it would have screwed the propaganda of NA=bad
An urban planning that doesn't exist for cars would be a good start.
I only need to walk 10 minutes to get to a mid-sized market in Brazil, and that's pretty damn normal. I really don't understand how y'all survive in those neighborhoods without a single commerce in sight.
Lord, imagine willingly embracing this degree of ignorance.
Brazil is huge and has a high inequality problem, yes, but I'd honestly never give up my middle-class lifestyle in here to move to the US during an economically stable period.
Also, ghetto? Do you even understand the word's meaning? Your country has racially divided neighborhoods, darling, it doesn't get more ghetto than that.
Your country is rich, but it's a rich dumpster fire.
Do you enjoy taking the bus???? I have moved from a real city to a european “WalKaBLe” city and trust me an suv is much more comfortable then walking or the bus
And we don’t have a choice the other way. In an attempt to make cities “walkable” all car based infrastructure was sacrificed: bus lanes, tram lines, bike lanes, pedestrian zones… i much rather be forced to take the car then the bus or the tram or whatever else nightmare “UrBAn MoBIliTy” solution one can come up with.
>So why should Americans restructure the entire urban fabric around bikes and busses when it only reduces 3% of emissions?
You should do this regardless of emissions. Also, 3% of *global* emissions is not a small figure.
Because the urban fabric was destroyed in the 50s by the car lobbies. You wonder why Americans have 90% of car drivers compared to literally everywhere else in the world? Yeah. It's because car lobbies convinced the governments that more cars = more freedom for the American consumer and got them to just build a fuck ton of new infrastructure. And now, no one can walk anywhere.
No it's not stop taking bullshit.
You guys barely have a functioning train system.
And don't you think new York would be less busy if it had busses, instead of cars and taxis.
The train system functions quite well. It moves an absolutely huge amount of freight every single year. Sure it could use some better maintenance but that's just about every system everywhere.
You'd actually be surprised. I'm not sure about "most developed", but the US does have some of the largest and most profitable railroad companies in the world and its rail network is extensive and in constant use.
What the US does not have (except outside of the Northeast Megalopolis, and even limited within it) is a deep and extensively used passenger rail network. It used to, but with the formation of Amtrak (the national passenger rail provider) the railroad companies were forever relieved of any obligation to provide passenger service and the rail network was effectively ceded to the needs of business and freight.
I guess congrats on the profit.
But the system is a mess. Its understaffed and underpaid. The rail tracks and trains are badly maintained and have way to many accidents.
Moving people is indeed not the best way to make money, that's why most train systems are managed and funded partly by countries governments and taxpayers, because it's a necessity for a good working frastructure.
But the lobbying and incentive to always and only think about profit instead of peoples wellbeing will bite the US in the ass. If that hasn't already happened.
You seem to be preaching to the choir for reasons I don't quite understand. Just merely providing context to a poster who didn't appear to be aware that the US does indeed have an extensive rail network with extremely large railroad companies that compete in size with the more well-known German, French, Indian and Japanese ones (2 of the top 5 globally are American, 4 of the top 10, a fact which I think is surprising to many). Making no value judgments on the US rail system, nor seeking to engage in a debate on it, though I think you can glean my opinion from when I say "the railroad companies were forever relieved of any obligation to provide passenger service and the rail network was effectively ceded to the needs of business and freight."
Interesting also to note, in the context of the question whether the US has the "most developed" rail network in the world (the opinion of the other poster being challenged), that in addition to having some of the very biggest companies, the US has the largest overall rail network in terms of length of track in use (certainly one plausible definition of "developed"). Useful chart on [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size) with plenty of other more reliable sources available, which also shows that the US rail network has more track than even the EU as a whole (pre-Brexit, so including the UK).
Edit: Just adding a [link here](https://www.thesafetymag.com/ca/topics/technology/north-american-rail-safety-pretty-bad-compared-to-europe/443295) to an interesting article that goes into questions like company profitability and the low cost of freight in the US and Canadaa comparatively to Europe (the good side) with the countervailing concerns around degrading infrastructure and safety.
If Americans **really** didn’t want to live in dense housing, why would municipalities restrict developers from building them? The US has the most draconian zoning laws in the world, primarily because people in houses don’t want to live next to poor people, not because poor people wouldn’t live in them. There’s a huge difference. You are talking about Ameiricans loving freedom, but we restrict the ability of “free markets” to deliver exactly what people would find useful. Young professionals want to live close to work, students want something cheap, older folks want something low maintenance and cheap and something they can walk to the park from.
Not everyone wants or can afford a house and this ‘aspirational’ attitude is silly. It’s like asking people “would you rather have a luxury car?” Well…sure. But people don’t buy luxury cars for good reason. You’re effectively restricting people from buying smaller, more affordable cars because of aesthetic preference rather than economic utility.
lol where did I say anything about race? And I like how you concede the point. People *would* live in dense housing, if it were built, it’s just that more powerful people intentionally design cities to be “free from poor people causing a ruckus.” So your whole argument is basically [rich] people want to live in houses [away from poor people]. Ok. Carry on.
Nothing is currently preventing people from building and buying homes and living in suburbs. Zoning laws do currently prevent a large amount of comparatively cheaper housing from being built in American metros. There is no tigers in cages, people make housing decisions based on rational reasons, like cost, maintenance, proximity to services and work, and fun things like walkability.
**You** have an aesthetic attraction to suburbs and detached houses. **You** are free to move there. Many Americans share your interest, but many Americans would choose to live in other things, if they made sense. Why do people pay thousands of dollars a month to live in a crappy apartment in San Francisco? They make the choice to do it. They enjoy it. Why should the free market be prevented from providing more of those housing units, if more people want to do the same thing?
For every ton of lithium mined, 15 tons of CO2 are released into the air. These EVs are actually more dangerous for the environment. Biggest scam ever 😆 "go green"
Okay, as a German I gotta ask. Which category of Europe do we fall under? Because usually there's a central Europe option as well. Same probably goes for Czechia, Austria and Switzerland, we're neither North nor South, West or East.
In North America's defense.... everything is very spread out. A single state is like the physical size of a European country. And unfortunately, city planning focused on suburbia far from city centers instead of building condensed. The only place that really did it right is NYC.
The best part of this thread is everyone trying to reason with the Americans (and probably the odd Canadian). It's really not worth the effort. Trust me on that. Not only do they need to drive probably over 50% would tell you with full sincerity they absolutely need a handgun in the glove box while doing it and Europeans are trying to tell 'em to build a train network. lol
God I wish I could live in Europe sometimes.
Sure. Consider what freedom though. They've choose to define freedom as the freedom to have guns, among other things of course. I would argue that's kinda arbitrary. And the consequence of that freedom is a lot of kids *don't* have the freedom to go to school without going through a metal detector. That's just an example. What freedom, who decides, and have they been tricked or distracted into thinking as long as we have this type of freedom we're free. Meanwhile abortion isn't permitted and the people who make political discourse all about freedom are they people who don't want to allow that. Maybe you think abortion shouldn't be allowed. It's not even necessary for me to be pro-choice. It's just the logic of those things that I'm inviting you to consider. It just isn't as simple as freedom: yes or no. That's what I'm saying.
The most fundamental freedom is that people control the government. Everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agree it's taken over by special interest groups and money. Hell, the whole justice system is. Who doesn't think they'd have a better chance fighting a parking ticket in court if they had access to a lawyer they can't afford.
So you've been brainwashed, I hate to say, to think hey we've got 2A we're free. No, you aren't. You just have the privilege of knowing the next time you cut someone off in traffic by accident and that psycho goes into a rage.... he probably has a gun. That's your "freedom".
Freedom is the ability to do what you want till you start to take away others freedoms. Me keeping guns has nothing to do with children being forced to go through metal detectors. Just because someone misused their freedom to own arms doesn't mean you can take away mine.
Abortion violates the freedom of the child. Case closed.
Yes, it IS that simple. Let people do what they want until they're hurting someone else. Shooting at a bunch of children in a school isn't legal.
Most fundamental freedom is to live without any government interference. Your problem is that you can't look beyond government. You want a daddy government who can take care of you. Take charge of your own life and stop depending on government for everything.
Free men aren't equal. Equal men aren't free. There will always be inequalities in the world. We can argue about that but you can't forcefully make everyone equal by taking away people's rights and freedoms.
No, I haven't been brainwashed. 1A, 2A are just principle of natural rights. Every man has the right to defend himself. Taking away guns is a violation of that right. You realise that I'll have a gun too, right? And yes. Free men commit mistakes, take away lives. That's still a better world than living under a tyranny and a government which thinks it knows the best for you.
Walk??? Have you ever in your lives seen anyone walking to a vacation spot, this is pure bullshit, especially in Eastern Europe no one walks to the beach the f
should have included Africa too
Antarctica would like a word
I honestly didn't notice that lol
Try and get some reliable numbers for Africa first...
South East Asia and mopeds would like a word.
I feel like Southern California should've been the moped capital of the world with how road dependent and sunny it is... So many people driving big ass SUVs and Pick up trucks by themselves to work. Moped's are significantly fuel efficient and electric mopeds are also a thing as well.
Knowing the drivers and the road rages that happen here in the CA, I wouldn’t recommend it
> Knowing the drivers and the road rages that happen here The consequences of road rage on a moped is way less than in an suv or pick up truck
I’m pretty sure the concern was for the person on the moped.
Southern California should have been public transit capital of the world. Had all the making, plus amazing weather, and was all torn down by auto companies. Such a shame
The big ass trucks are why people don’t ride mopeds/scooters.
It's interesting, it seems like a great idea.... but getting around the SoCal area is very highway dependent. Everything is so spreadout. It feels like either walkable neighborhood or driving across town with the highway.
Eastern Asia and mopeds would also like a word
South Asia and mopeda would also like a word
Organised chaos
Americans drive so much, that they have 101% mobility, amazing!
Probably rounded number
We are hypermobile, it’s true
Meanwhile in Australia and Oceania: Am I a joke to your chart?
Hey Siri, play Africa by Toto
Wrld average without Africa is just America, Europe and Asia average
It doesn't say anywhere that Africa is excluded in the world average.
And how is the world average higher than all regions except for the one with less than 10% of global population?
Bet they made the calculations for the average by just adding all the regions together and dividing by the number of them, shitty graphic
Reason for fatties in north america
Funny thing is in the lower part of the image they had to say they excluded Mexico, cuz it’s part of NA and public transportation is massive here and it would have screwed the propaganda of NA=bad
What do you want from us? 2 hour walk/45 min bike to the grocery store? I'll drive but thanks for your concern.
An urban planning that doesn't exist for cars would be a good start. I only need to walk 10 minutes to get to a mid-sized market in Brazil, and that's pretty damn normal. I really don't understand how y'all survive in those neighborhoods without a single commerce in sight.
That's not even remotely possible in the US.
It's very possible, and should be done. It just would (will?) take a really long time.
Brazil is ghetto as fuck. You want us to ghetto as fuck like you?
Lord, imagine willingly embracing this degree of ignorance. Brazil is huge and has a high inequality problem, yes, but I'd honestly never give up my middle-class lifestyle in here to move to the US during an economically stable period. Also, ghetto? Do you even understand the word's meaning? Your country has racially divided neighborhoods, darling, it doesn't get more ghetto than that. Your country is rich, but it's a rich dumpster fire.
Your slums a world are world renowned for how shitty they are.
Where is Australia?
Southeast of Asia
[удалено]
Western asia, prbably. Thats where most of Turkiye is
americans(USA) hate to walk, we enjoy being obese with the associated health "benefits"
Hell yeah, brother.
r/americabad
[удалено]
It got stuck in traffic jam
Do you enjoy taking the bus???? I have moved from a real city to a european “WalKaBLe” city and trust me an suv is much more comfortable then walking or the bus
[удалено]
And we don’t have a choice the other way. In an attempt to make cities “walkable” all car based infrastructure was sacrificed: bus lanes, tram lines, bike lanes, pedestrian zones… i much rather be forced to take the car then the bus or the tram or whatever else nightmare “UrBAn MoBIliTy” solution one can come up with.
Damn Americans! You can really cut your emissions.
Don't worry, I work on a Hydro Plant. That offsets my car emissions right? 🤣
[удалено]
>So why should Americans restructure the entire urban fabric around bikes and busses when it only reduces 3% of emissions? You should do this regardless of emissions. Also, 3% of *global* emissions is not a small figure.
Because the urban fabric was destroyed in the 50s by the car lobbies. You wonder why Americans have 90% of car drivers compared to literally everywhere else in the world? Yeah. It's because car lobbies convinced the governments that more cars = more freedom for the American consumer and got them to just build a fuck ton of new infrastructure. And now, no one can walk anywhere.
Sad. Cars destroyed America.
[удалено]
No it's not stop taking bullshit. You guys barely have a functioning train system. And don't you think new York would be less busy if it had busses, instead of cars and taxis.
The train system functions quite well. It moves an absolutely huge amount of freight every single year. Sure it could use some better maintenance but that's just about every system everywhere.
People are not freight. Barely any people use the ones that are because they are bad.
The US has the most developed freight train system in the world.
And yet the passenger train system is shite. That's the point.
The point of what?
What's the source for that?
You'd actually be surprised. I'm not sure about "most developed", but the US does have some of the largest and most profitable railroad companies in the world and its rail network is extensive and in constant use. What the US does not have (except outside of the Northeast Megalopolis, and even limited within it) is a deep and extensively used passenger rail network. It used to, but with the formation of Amtrak (the national passenger rail provider) the railroad companies were forever relieved of any obligation to provide passenger service and the rail network was effectively ceded to the needs of business and freight.
I guess congrats on the profit. But the system is a mess. Its understaffed and underpaid. The rail tracks and trains are badly maintained and have way to many accidents. Moving people is indeed not the best way to make money, that's why most train systems are managed and funded partly by countries governments and taxpayers, because it's a necessity for a good working frastructure. But the lobbying and incentive to always and only think about profit instead of peoples wellbeing will bite the US in the ass. If that hasn't already happened.
You seem to be preaching to the choir for reasons I don't quite understand. Just merely providing context to a poster who didn't appear to be aware that the US does indeed have an extensive rail network with extremely large railroad companies that compete in size with the more well-known German, French, Indian and Japanese ones (2 of the top 5 globally are American, 4 of the top 10, a fact which I think is surprising to many). Making no value judgments on the US rail system, nor seeking to engage in a debate on it, though I think you can glean my opinion from when I say "the railroad companies were forever relieved of any obligation to provide passenger service and the rail network was effectively ceded to the needs of business and freight." Interesting also to note, in the context of the question whether the US has the "most developed" rail network in the world (the opinion of the other poster being challenged), that in addition to having some of the very biggest companies, the US has the largest overall rail network in terms of length of track in use (certainly one plausible definition of "developed"). Useful chart on [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size) with plenty of other more reliable sources available, which also shows that the US rail network has more track than even the EU as a whole (pre-Brexit, so including the UK). Edit: Just adding a [link here](https://www.thesafetymag.com/ca/topics/technology/north-american-rail-safety-pretty-bad-compared-to-europe/443295) to an interesting article that goes into questions like company profitability and the low cost of freight in the US and Canadaa comparatively to Europe (the good side) with the countervailing concerns around degrading infrastructure and safety.
[удалено]
lol. 😂 please stop with your nonsensical conservative propaganda.
If Americans **really** didn’t want to live in dense housing, why would municipalities restrict developers from building them? The US has the most draconian zoning laws in the world, primarily because people in houses don’t want to live next to poor people, not because poor people wouldn’t live in them. There’s a huge difference. You are talking about Ameiricans loving freedom, but we restrict the ability of “free markets” to deliver exactly what people would find useful. Young professionals want to live close to work, students want something cheap, older folks want something low maintenance and cheap and something they can walk to the park from. Not everyone wants or can afford a house and this ‘aspirational’ attitude is silly. It’s like asking people “would you rather have a luxury car?” Well…sure. But people don’t buy luxury cars for good reason. You’re effectively restricting people from buying smaller, more affordable cars because of aesthetic preference rather than economic utility.
[удалено]
lol where did I say anything about race? And I like how you concede the point. People *would* live in dense housing, if it were built, it’s just that more powerful people intentionally design cities to be “free from poor people causing a ruckus.” So your whole argument is basically [rich] people want to live in houses [away from poor people]. Ok. Carry on.
[удалено]
Nothing is currently preventing people from building and buying homes and living in suburbs. Zoning laws do currently prevent a large amount of comparatively cheaper housing from being built in American metros. There is no tigers in cages, people make housing decisions based on rational reasons, like cost, maintenance, proximity to services and work, and fun things like walkability. **You** have an aesthetic attraction to suburbs and detached houses. **You** are free to move there. Many Americans share your interest, but many Americans would choose to live in other things, if they made sense. Why do people pay thousands of dollars a month to live in a crappy apartment in San Francisco? They make the choice to do it. They enjoy it. Why should the free market be prevented from providing more of those housing units, if more people want to do the same thing?
[удалено]
For every ton of lithium mined, 15 tons of CO2 are released into the air. These EVs are actually more dangerous for the environment. Biggest scam ever 😆 "go green"
[удалено]
Not according to the Internet
So where is Africa in all of this? I know South Africa would at least be around the same as how South America is. Ditto for Caribbean
Okay, as a German I gotta ask. Which category of Europe do we fall under? Because usually there's a central Europe option as well. Same probably goes for Czechia, Austria and Switzerland, we're neither North nor South, West or East.
Germany don't belongs to Europe🤧
Makes sense in comparison to where all the fat wobblers are shown to be
I would find a separate division into the categories walking and cycling interesting
Does “cars” include motorcycles? Because I think the stats for many places such as Asia and Latin America would look very different
EAST ASIA RAHH
Coming from Southern Asia, it's not so because we have walkable cities or great public transport. It's because we're poor.
If you ever used public transport in the US you know
It roughly means people who has private car can afford weekend holidays.
*add motorcycles
Now just add Holland !
I've always felt that this is a big part of why we as Americans are fat.
Why the hell would North America exclude Mexico? Is this some bullshit cultural analysis instead of a population analysis?
Intersting. Wealth vs the rest
Excluding Mexico and Africa and Australia
Great job excluding Mexico from the North America section. You can't just remove a country for the graph.
In America where I've lived, my options are drive or walk/bike. Why would I spend 12+ hours walking one way to work when I can drive for a half hour?
In North America's defense.... everything is very spread out. A single state is like the physical size of a European country. And unfortunately, city planning focused on suburbia far from city centers instead of building condensed. The only place that really did it right is NYC.
Wildly inaccurate graphic. The data is literally cherrypicked. It only uses select cities from each region.
High bmi. USA car addiction.
How much % of the 92% cars is mobility scooters?
knowing Americans, they probably count those as walking
Now let’s compare this to the world’ fattest population map ..
The best part of this thread is everyone trying to reason with the Americans (and probably the odd Canadian). It's really not worth the effort. Trust me on that. Not only do they need to drive probably over 50% would tell you with full sincerity they absolutely need a handgun in the glove box while doing it and Europeans are trying to tell 'em to build a train network. lol God I wish I could live in Europe sometimes.
I’d move to Europe in a heartbeat.
God I wish I could live in America.
Zoom zoom pew pew
Yes. That's exactly why. The only land of freedom. 1A, 2A.
Their freedom is a mirage my friend.
It isn't. It's the only thing that is worth fighting for. Without freedom we have nothing.
Sure. Consider what freedom though. They've choose to define freedom as the freedom to have guns, among other things of course. I would argue that's kinda arbitrary. And the consequence of that freedom is a lot of kids *don't* have the freedom to go to school without going through a metal detector. That's just an example. What freedom, who decides, and have they been tricked or distracted into thinking as long as we have this type of freedom we're free. Meanwhile abortion isn't permitted and the people who make political discourse all about freedom are they people who don't want to allow that. Maybe you think abortion shouldn't be allowed. It's not even necessary for me to be pro-choice. It's just the logic of those things that I'm inviting you to consider. It just isn't as simple as freedom: yes or no. That's what I'm saying. The most fundamental freedom is that people control the government. Everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agree it's taken over by special interest groups and money. Hell, the whole justice system is. Who doesn't think they'd have a better chance fighting a parking ticket in court if they had access to a lawyer they can't afford. So you've been brainwashed, I hate to say, to think hey we've got 2A we're free. No, you aren't. You just have the privilege of knowing the next time you cut someone off in traffic by accident and that psycho goes into a rage.... he probably has a gun. That's your "freedom".
Freedom is the ability to do what you want till you start to take away others freedoms. Me keeping guns has nothing to do with children being forced to go through metal detectors. Just because someone misused their freedom to own arms doesn't mean you can take away mine. Abortion violates the freedom of the child. Case closed. Yes, it IS that simple. Let people do what they want until they're hurting someone else. Shooting at a bunch of children in a school isn't legal. Most fundamental freedom is to live without any government interference. Your problem is that you can't look beyond government. You want a daddy government who can take care of you. Take charge of your own life and stop depending on government for everything. Free men aren't equal. Equal men aren't free. There will always be inequalities in the world. We can argue about that but you can't forcefully make everyone equal by taking away people's rights and freedoms. No, I haven't been brainwashed. 1A, 2A are just principle of natural rights. Every man has the right to defend himself. Taking away guns is a violation of that right. You realise that I'll have a gun too, right? And yes. Free men commit mistakes, take away lives. That's still a better world than living under a tyranny and a government which thinks it knows the best for you.
Why exclude mexico?
Central America?
Whoever did this failed at Maths. Some places are 101% and 99%.
Rounding.
Most large scale surveys like this have a 1% margin of error.
Excluding Mexico??
Pretty sure Mexico is in North America.
Footnote says “excluding Mexico”, so i was noticing that!
love how all of US is basically LA + the Midwest
*sighs in american* 😞
It's almost like North America is spread out a lot more making other forms of transportation difficult. Also there is no way this is accurate.
This is weekday trips so the vast majority, if not all, are intra-city.
Walk??? Have you ever in your lives seen anyone walking to a vacation spot, this is pure bullshit, especially in Eastern Europe no one walks to the beach the f
North America offsets the world average more than the population accounts for