Talk:Automobile

	This Technology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Explanation of content changes:

"By 1908 the first car was mass produced"

Erm. "Car" is singular. You can't mass produce one car. You can mass produce cars in general, or a particular type of car, but not one specific car.

Is this not some obscure verbal usage/form? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"However due to most peoples lack of any intelligence very very large wagons called SUVs became popular which rollover and get poor mpg."

No. Just...no. It had nothing to do with stupidity, and everything to do with cultural trends.

Also: an SUV is a car. It might have a wagon body type, but it is not a wagon. I know this seems obvious, but it's worth making that clear in the article.

"This forced some of the biggest car manufactures to pull out of the worlds largest car market."

As written, a bit of a non-sequitor.

If anybody's got any problem with any of these edits, feel free to say so. Sorry if I was obnoxious--it's late and I'm tired.A Writer of Vaudevilles 06:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Mission

I can't quite see what this has to do with out mission as stated.--Bob^{bing up} 06:38, 16 November 2008 (EST)

As it is written now, not too much, but automobiles have been a big point of contention in policy debates over climate change. I would consider thousands of people buying impractical, unsafe machines which they know hurt the environment for cultural reasons pretty unscientific, myself. The whole gas-guzzler-pride reaction to environmentalism in the states is definitely a component of the anti-science movement, anyway. A Writer of Vaudevilles 16:59, 16 November 2008 (EST)

OK, if there's a clear anti-science angle then it should be included. It's possible that it might be better as paragraph of the global warming article though. Incidentally one might be able to make similar arguments about any mode of transport which uses an internal combustion engine.--Bob^{bing up} 17:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Agree with Bob: incorporate a stripped down version into Global Warming?  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 20:15, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, as interesting as some of it is (marginally), there really isn't a reason for this article. We have automotive woo, which is much more to the point. I'd suggest making this a fork page to GW, the woo article, and anything else we can think of. ħuman 21:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(god, bob said this 4 years ago)

So, what makes this on mission, and how can we focus it to be more on mission.--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 20:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh just fork it like human suggested above. I just like the silly pictures. Ty^talk 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean fork, in this context. (I'm only used to fork being used for pages like "mary: were you looking for her, or her, or her?)GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:fork, and see above. Ty^talk 21:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, four years later (not really, but we can pretend). It's still its own page as far as I can tell. 76.122.3.178 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Destroying earth

Many people are beginning to realize that USA/UK did everything wrong, building too many automobiles & small buildings because it was/is so deadly. Looking backwards, they can see we all should have built only 50-100 story Tower cities (roundish 12-sided, massive, to save lives and save the Earth. Klop789 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about and why it's in quotes?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no quotes, my words. I say we shouldn't have built any cars/etc or houses/small buildings, but USA did it cuz there was lots of empty free land, thus private property, which most people can never have. Klop789 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't make any sense in a number of ways. Not least due to the fact that the automobile is an European invention. And you should be careful with how you use "we".--ZooGuard (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cars kill people. Either through running over children or through air pollution... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Article needs (more) updating. Hummer was discontinued during Great Recession, though WP says it might be coming back.

Self Driving Cars

What, no mention of these here yet? CorruptUser (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Exhaustive question

Can 'A really big exhaust will make it go faster!' be read in a cod-Freudian sense? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it can also just be read as real fucking dumb, which is my preferred take. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

One should know when a cave or an exhaust pipe are #just# a cave or an exhaust pipe. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I hate cars

I'm probably going to do a big write up in the car-free space. --PhoxyDude (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

People are also weird when they advocate abolishing cars everywhere like they haven't set foot in a suburb. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a "no cars ever" kind of person, but car free suburbs are a thing. I live in an american style car-dependent suburb currently, literally the american dream is one of the worst things to happen to city planing. NotJustBikes on youtube has some great videos on exactly what the problems are with it all. regardless, car dependency should be combated as much as possible. --PhoxyDude (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)