First, our attitude toward speed in the U.S. is self-contradictory and bizarre. It's far worse to drive 35 mph on a city street in Manhattan than 90 mph (assuming no or low traffic) on the highway. The first is "only 5 over" (the NYC speed limit is 30, which is way too high) and might get you a small fine; the second can put you in jail, in some states.
The issue with cars is that the vehicle that is best for highways (capable of speeds up to at least 80 mph) is not great for city driving. Automatic transmissions make it even worse, because there are now idiots who have no idea how fast they're driving (yeah, I'm a stick snob).
Second, the car did a great job of something in the 1950s. It was a rent/house-price control mechanism that actually worked-- without causing a shortage. It scaled back the power of landlords by allowing development of low-value land. Suburbia turned into something ugly-- racist, detached, gluttonous, environmentally harmful, and ultimately (paradoxically?) expensive-- for a variety of reasons, including increased specialization in the economy (more driving, more scaling problems with traffic) and a Parkinson's Law effect of consumer capitalism. Isolated people turned out to be more needy, confused, and liable to overspend, making a market for gigantic houses, ridiculous cars, and tons of low-quality consumer dreck (bought on credit) that no one really needed. Slowly, the tyranny of the landlords crept back in, and things people actually needed (healthcare, education, and finally housing) became again expensive, then extortionate. That's where we are now.
The car is actually a huge money-hole for most working families, and auto loans a "gateway drug" to yet more unnecessary consumer debt. The car was supposed to liberate them from landlords. Now, it's a white elephant they can only afford because they have no choice: the jobs are all 10-50 miles away, public transportation is expensive and emasculated in most places-- even Amtrak is unaffordable for most; and the roads are unsafe to bike or walk (highways and ghettos, both products of suburbanization). So people drop hundreds of dollars per month on car payments, fuel, insurance, parking, tolls, and repairs (plus the involuntary payment through taxes, but that could be argued to be a win for most; if you eat, you use the roads). For people out of cities, the car has become the new landlord.
In the 1930s to '50s, however, no one saw all these unintended consequences. Now, it's an open question whether the benefits of widespread automobile usage merit the risk to public safety and the slashing of public spaces. I'd say "no". On the other hand, if you were a working-class person in the 1940s and this new invention had the promise of liberating you from the landlord so you could send your kids to school and actually retire, you might think differently. They didn't have the foresight to see all the negative unintended consequences or car-reliance.
The issue with cars is that the vehicle that is best for highways (capable of speeds up to at least 80 mph) is not great for city driving. Automatic transmissions make it even worse, because there are now idiots who have no idea how fast they're driving (yeah, I'm a stick snob).
Second, the car did a great job of something in the 1950s. It was a rent/house-price control mechanism that actually worked-- without causing a shortage. It scaled back the power of landlords by allowing development of low-value land. Suburbia turned into something ugly-- racist, detached, gluttonous, environmentally harmful, and ultimately (paradoxically?) expensive-- for a variety of reasons, including increased specialization in the economy (more driving, more scaling problems with traffic) and a Parkinson's Law effect of consumer capitalism. Isolated people turned out to be more needy, confused, and liable to overspend, making a market for gigantic houses, ridiculous cars, and tons of low-quality consumer dreck (bought on credit) that no one really needed. Slowly, the tyranny of the landlords crept back in, and things people actually needed (healthcare, education, and finally housing) became again expensive, then extortionate. That's where we are now.
The car is actually a huge money-hole for most working families, and auto loans a "gateway drug" to yet more unnecessary consumer debt. The car was supposed to liberate them from landlords. Now, it's a white elephant they can only afford because they have no choice: the jobs are all 10-50 miles away, public transportation is expensive and emasculated in most places-- even Amtrak is unaffordable for most; and the roads are unsafe to bike or walk (highways and ghettos, both products of suburbanization). So people drop hundreds of dollars per month on car payments, fuel, insurance, parking, tolls, and repairs (plus the involuntary payment through taxes, but that could be argued to be a win for most; if you eat, you use the roads). For people out of cities, the car has become the new landlord.
In the 1930s to '50s, however, no one saw all these unintended consequences. Now, it's an open question whether the benefits of widespread automobile usage merit the risk to public safety and the slashing of public spaces. I'd say "no". On the other hand, if you were a working-class person in the 1940s and this new invention had the promise of liberating you from the landlord so you could send your kids to school and actually retire, you might think differently. They didn't have the foresight to see all the negative unintended consequences or car-reliance.