I reach my workplace, primarily/typically, by:

I live about 20 minutes walking from my work. About 2 years ago, I developed a wart on the bottom of my foot that persisted for months and made walking difficult and injury-inducing. My posture and gait were badly affected and, as a mid-distance runner (10K - marathon) I was getting quite out of shape. My low periods were lasting longer and my self-confidence was not what it had been. Nothing therapy-worthy, but I was not as happy as I am when I'm well-exercised.

Four months ago, a friend of mine and her boyfriend had their bicycles stolen, and I tagged along when they went replacement shopping. I got so excited in offering advice I found myself really wanting one, too. I'd considered bicycling but wrote off cycling in SF as too dangerous, even though I am a very experienced bicyclist.

I bought a street bicycle (track style with 8-speed internal hub and front and back brakes), outfitted myself and it with safety gear (helmet and lights), and pretty much only ride during daylight hours. I've logged over 1,000 miles and the size and scope of the city have dramatically shrunk for me. Everything is so much more accessible and there's no parking required.

My fitness rapidly came back and my commute which would be 15 minutes by car (including parking) and 20 minutes walking is 5 minutes by bike, 7 minutes if I go really slow.

I've had a couple of spills and have exchanged words with motorists (why they feel entitled to tell cyclists how to bike is beyond me; I obey signage and vehicle laws) and I revert to walking or mass transit when the weather is bad, but the small investment of a bicycle has helped me recover my health and self-confidence and has made SF more accessible than it had been the two years previous.

Every time I use my bicycle to get groceries, run an errand, or meet friends at a cafe, I'm boosting my physical and mental health and reducing my commuting carbon footprint and as someone in his middle age (mid-40s) these things are more important than when I was a strapping young lad.

I like to ride my bicycle!

I see your reasoning skills are on a par with your editing skills. The argument is not that no one needs to go more than 160 miles in a day, it's that the vast majority of car users do not need to go that far on a daily basis. The average commute distance in the USA is 16 miles each way, so 160 miles gives you five times the daily range needed for this: enough to make a detour to go shopping, or to go out in the evening, and still have a lot of range to spare. If you're driving 160 miles every day then you are probably spending at least 3 hours a day driving which, unless you are working as a driver, is going to be pretty horrific from a quality-of-life perspective.

A relatively large number of people need to go that far occasionally, but may be better off renting a long-range vehicle for the times when they do. A smaller group needs to do longer trips regularly.

Your argument is a bit like complaining about people saying that not everyone needs a helicopter to get to work, because you work on an oil rig...

It's not just about range. It's about load too. And, most of all, to have the freedom to go somewhere when you want or need to, without first renting a vehicle and taking a taxi to the car rental place. Yes, my truck is a gas guzzler. But I can also fit my two large dogs in the back, or some bags of mulch and a fruit tree or two, or I can go visit my friends who live 100 miles away, or buy furniture from a yard sale, or load up for an impromptu fishing trip, or ...
Without having to plan days in advance. Cause my car can do that - now.

What's needed are hybrid/electrics that aren't just meant for short passenger trips. Because even if that may be 80% of the driving, most drivers want something that handles most of the remaining 20% too. What cars give people is freedom.
What today's electric/hybrid cars provide isn't freedom, but fettering.

The argument that you can rent a car when you need it doesn't hold water, because most of us don't plan everything in advance. It's like saying that you don't need an internet connection or printer. If you need it, you can always go to the library to use Internet and Kinkos to print out. That may be true for some, but it doesn't help when I want something done right now.
Again, it's about freedom, and people are willing to pay for that.

OK, this is something that super-duper gets on my nerves. I use a gas-powered vehicle because I need to for work, not to get to work, and I need to go long distances daily. Businesses depend on me daily to keep them in operation. Police, hospitals, pharmacies, and clinics depend on me daily to keep their computers, networks, printers, and sometimes medical imageing equipment working, so indirectly lives are at stake.

Back in the 1980's there was this thing a lot of people had so that their small car could occasionally take a bigger load like say a fruit tree and 1000lbs of mulch or some furniture... what was it again? oh yeah, a fucking utility trailer. Works like a charm, takes up less room than an oversized truck, doesn't burn extra gas when it's capacity isn't needed.

If you only occasionally need the extra capacity, do yourself and everyone else a favour and get a car sized for the majority of what you need it for then get a utility trailer, rent a truck, or get delivery for the 2 times a year when you need more capacity.

Get over your ego and do a real analysis of what you need.

It's why I do my own brakes - less than 90 minutes, and usually 1/3 the cost of having them done, along with the knowledge that they're done right.

Who modded this insightful?
First of all, what electric car is approved for a tow hitch? That kind of kills it right there.

Plus, you seriously think I should transport my dogs on a utility trailer?
And always drive around with it in case I decide to buy something that can't fit in the coupe? Except that I now can't park most places?
Or should I perhaps even buy two utility trailers, so the first one can be dedicated to extra batteries so I can extend the range to go see my friends who live an hour away?
That sounds ... economical, practical, nah, blabbering from someone who got a wild idea and let his ego get in the way of analyzing the impact of what he said.

Utility trailers can be useful. But first of all you have to be able to pull one(!), and even then they're only useful for a few specific things. Which is precisely why you don't see them on every other car.

That's what I did, and you obviously did not.
My analysis led me to the conclusion that an electric car isn't a choice for me if I want to have the freedom to do the things I do. Your analysis led nowhere because you didn't do it.

First of all, what electric car is approved for a tow hitch?

So get a small gas-powered car. If you read again I was saying to get a car that fits your needs most of the time, not specifically an electric. if our old 80 HP tercel could tow a utility trailer, so can the current crop of 100-140HP subcompacts

Plus, you seriously think I should transport my dogs on a utility trailer?

The dogs go in the car, where they're safer than in your truck bed.

And always drive around with it in case I decide to buy something that can't fit in the coupe?

No, I think you should plan ahead. Why should you inflict higher emissions, overcrowded parking lots, and higher risk of injury in case of an accident on everyone else just so you don't have to plan ahead 1% of the time?

You have a petrol powered car with enough torque to pull a utility trailer. Not a hybrid/electric.
And you probably don't have a pack of dogs, an orchard, a wood workshop, friends who live at the other end of the state, or go fishing and skiing.

Just because something works for you, you can't extrapolate to conclude that it will work for everyone, or even most people.
Look at the sales of and resale value of hybrids and electric cars. There's your answer - they don't work for most people, or they would have bought them. It's that simple.
Glad it works for you, now bugger off.

In my case it worked out to roughly $300/hr on a best case (least cost) scenario, and over $450/hr on a worst case (most expensive) scenario on both vehicles this year. I also gained piece of mind with the knowledge that it was done correctly, and not having having to go back 3 times because they didn't want to do it the way I wanted it done the first time. Shops are sometimes notorious for thinking they know your particular car better than you. I've changed at least 20 sets of brakes over my driving life, and an additional 5 sets of shoes/drum combos, among various other car work that including rebuilding 2 engines and rebuilding/replacing three manual transmissions (2 things I won't do again if I can help it, I just don't have that kind of time these days) Also:

1) I don't do "Just Brakes" or anyone like them, I do value my life.
2) There was a vibration I correctly diagnosed as a slightly warped rear disc - odds are they'd have turned it, it would have worked for about a month, and then warped again, with me back in the shop complaining about it and having to shell out more money because, darn, that wasn't part of the original brake job.
3) I didn't have to pay the 50%-100% markup on parts.

I'd say the pay rate was just fine. Oh, and those labor rates are real, btw, once you factor in how much a decent mechanic (trustworthy they'll do a good job) charges for the full job. Decent mechanics no longer accept parts they haven't sourced themselves, so you will always wind up paying that nifty markup, or so my experiences in my area with various recommended shops has wound up. I checked a good number of them for both vehicles, one's a SUV, nothing fancy.

I don't know where you live, but where I live, parking lots have white lines marking the parking space. An SUV takes up exactly the same number of parking spaces as a Th1nk.

Of course, in your world, many small cars would take up two spaces, because you also need a space for the utility trailer.

As for the environmental impact, have you factored in the environmental impact of the additional rental cars and taxis needed?

Or that people with small cars drive to the store far more often than I do in my big SUV?

To buy groceries transported by not-so-eco-friendly means, where I go out and pull up carrots, onions and fruit from the garden my SUV made easy?

Or the environmental impact of causing traffic jams because a car not designed for pulling a load will be struggling with both acceleration and hills?
The most environmentally friendly driving is when people don't have to hit their brakes and can go at cruise speeds. Driving an underpowered car defeats both - for other people.
The next time a Prius pulls out on the road in front of me and takes 20 seconds to get up to the 55 mph I was doing, or holds back the entire line because it's slower than a semi-trailer going uphill, I want to stop the driver and charge her for the gas she just wasted.

The situation isn't black and white. What's certain is that if the "eco-friendly" cars had been a better alternative in all ways, they'd rule the road. They don't, despite economical incentives from the governments.

One day, we will have eco-friendly cars that can replace what we drive today. But not today. "Are we there yet" has to be answered with "patience", not a lie.

Unless you have a magic money making machine where time goes in and money goes out then your whole argument is bullshit. In all likelihood, there is a limited amount of time you can sell to someone else. There's even a greater chance that any extra time you work is FOR FREE.

So your "free time" is really and truely worthless.

Get over yourself princess.