Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 375 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Kill Your Car

Cars are doing us more harm than good.

Cars pollute the air and water. They clutter up the land with roadways and parking lots.

anti-car shirtCars encourage not just the burning of fossil fuels, but drilling, too, resulting in significant ecological degradation.

Cars fill our neighborhoods with noise. They slam into pedestrians and bicyclists, making it dangerous to move anywhere by muscle power.

Cars reduce our communities to only those places that can be driven to. They homogenize our culture by encouraging us to speed past the details of our localities.

Cars make us lazy and fat, pulling us toward a growing national diabetic coma.

It’s time to step out from behind the driver’s side air bag and strike back.

It’s time to Kill Your Car.

This shirt is made in the USA.

9 comments to Kill Your Car

  • manning120

    I know this idea is intended to be comedic, and it is. But deniers of global warming will view it as confirmation that environmentalists want to ban the automobile to stop global warming. Of course, there are some extremists in the movement who think we must do just that, beginning today. The problem is, if we’re ever going to get something done in the fight against warming, the deniers have to be convinced it’s in their interest to cooperate in the fight. Jokes like this don’t communicate that to them.

    • I don’t interpret it as a joke. There are lots of societies in which people get along fine without cars. Why is the idea of the United States joining those societies a joke?

      • manning120

        I’m surprised you would ask that question. The vast majority of Americans consider the proposal to ban cars with internal combustion engines so far-fetched as to be a joke. Banning assault weapons would be child’s play by comparison. But, what if we had cars that worked on electricity, and the electricity was produced without fossile fuels –and the cars were as cheap as the ones we now drive? Then doing away with the cars we now drive wouldn’t be so far-fetched. Working toward that is no joke.

      • Steven

        IMO, a car-less society isn’t a joke.

        In some areas of our broad country, it’s highly impractical (I live 2 mi from my kids’ Elementary school, 5 mi from the nearest C-Store and my kids’ future high school, 7 mi from the nearest grocery store, 20 mi from the nearest major retailer, etc.)

        In other areas, if enough people wanted to, it would be doable. Difficult, but not impossible. It would probably involve major amounts of urban planning.

  • Tom

    At this point the only way to stop global warming is to stop industrial civilization – all of it. Since this won’t be done, we’re going to suffer horribly in the coming years with food shortages, dying trees and other vegetation, floods, droughts, much stronger storms, disease, and ultimately extinction. All the weather related problems we’re having now along those lines are just a taste of how bad it’s going to get in coming years, as we continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, oceans become to acidic for life and it continues to get hotter and hotter. Australia is an example of what’s coming here happening right now – if you’d care to look manning. If we were going to prevent any of this, first we’d have kept our global population down, next we’d have powered things more sustainably (like back in the 1970’s it should have happened), and thirdly we’d have built walkable communities and more local food production. We missed on all three and now we’re in trouble. These changes will be forced on us by nature while we’re fighting to survive another day. It won’t be easy any longer.

  • You lump all cars into one category, but there are many types of cars with varying impacts.

    Combustion cars (full gasoline)
    Diesel cars
    Hybrid cars
    Plug-in hybrid cars
    Electric cars
    Hydrogen cell cars (hypothetical future category)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currently_available_electric_cars

    Depending on your needs, there’s a perfect electric car for you. City speed for people who don’t drive on the highway and highway speed for people who do are avialable. Also, racway speed is available as well, but do you really need all that speed unless you race?

  • BobSmith

    If you want your points to be taken seriously, you need to not have your article (or your comments) constructed entirely of angry, ill-informed hyperbole. And, if you want to have any impact, you need to present solutions that are reasonable next steps for the average person.

    Instead of “KILL YOUR CAR”, perhaps try something like “Maybe we could limit how much we drive by walking or riding bikes to local destinations. You’ll save money, you’ll get more exercise, and you’ll help the environment.”

    If you present your ideas in a way that’s angry, silly, and asks people to do unrealistic things (like immediately abandon all car use whatsoever), you won’t get anything done, and beyond that, you’ll just create antagonism and anger towards yourself and your cause.

    Ask for something reasonable, and you might get a result. Ask for something absurd (like giving up a device necessary for most people to make a living) and you’re just pissing in the wind.

    • I disagree with you, Bob.

      First, I think there’s great reason to be angry, not just mildly concerned, or intellectually dubious, about the automotive culture that has transformed American society.

      Second, people have been timidly asking for small, “reasonable” adjustments to the excessive use of cars for decades now, and it’s not been an effective tactic. At best, suggesting to people that they might make some small adjustments, “maybe” to their overuse of cars will result in small actions that have no measurable impact on the overall problem. More likely, such meek utterances are having no impact at all, other than to confirm that no one is willing to take a strog stand on the issue.

      Third, I WANT to create antagonism. We need to end the idea that driving a car is a normal, acceptable activity. Driving a car needs to become a controversial activity. Driving a car is, after all, an selfish and lazy choice that harms other people for the sake of personal convenience.

      Fourth, you have failed to identify any specific statement in this article that is either “ill-informed” or “hyperbole”. I don’t think you can.

      Given the extreme and systematic damage being caused by cars and their drivers, I think that a reasonable next step would be for people to drastically reduce or eliminate their use of cars, and to adjust their lives accordingly.

      Yes, KILL YOUR CAR is a quite reasonable solution. You just don’t like it, Bob.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>