[HN Gopher] People Hate the Idea of Car-Free Cities-Until They L...
___________________________________________________________________
People Hate the Idea of Car-Free Cities-Until They Live in One
Author : jseliger
Score : 82 points
Date : 2022-12-26 14:53 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.co.uk)
| 2devnull wrote:
| I suspect people who like to live in cities prefer them to be car
| free. I equally suspect people who don't like cities do not live
| in cities.
|
| I suspect therefore that this headline is misleading.
| mushbino wrote:
| Most people in the US aren't used to car-free cities unless
| they've traveled abroad. It's not something you realize until
| you experience it first hand.
| watwut wrote:
| It is normal for people to change opinions about something
| after experiencing it - in both ways. Some things look and
| sound bad ... until you tried it. And other things look and
| sound great ... until you tried it.
| treis wrote:
| This is a weird article where they mention a bunch of objections
| and say nothing about whether or not they're correct.
| barrystaes wrote:
| If you are from the US and wonder whats up with the bike hippies:
| All cities you know are car-centric infrastructure, and i'd have
| a hard time seeing the problem also.
|
| Just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SXXTBypIg
|
| Im dutch and despite being able to ride over in 5 minutes and
| park my beautiful car _right behind_ the stores, i still prefer
| to use my bike for daily groceries to get there faster and
| easier. The cities are designed for this. A bike never has to
| cross a 4-lane road with homes nearby.
| leviathant wrote:
| Philadelphia reporting in: The core of my city was designed in
| the 17th century for horses, and grew short on money before
| that could be completely undone. As someone who used to put
| 20,000 miles on my car annually, living in the part of Philly
| where I do, I might drive twice a month.
|
| That said, visiting Amsterdam was still quite the revelation.
| Having lived and worked in Philadelphia for over a decade,
| visiting other American cities often isn't as exciting as it
| used to be for me, and I pick up on patterns that used to be
| normal for me, like how everything is a fifteen minute drive to
| anything else.
|
| I do still feel an odd appeal to American suburbia sometimes,
| but I don't think I'd go back to that kind of living if I
| didn't have to.
| Proven wrote:
| [dead]
| sn0w_crash wrote:
| I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to
| push everyone else to ride bicycles? We are happy for them, why
| do we need to join them?
|
| I personally do not feel safe on a bike in a crowded city. Even
| if you took cars out of the equation. I also do not want to
| arrive to work/meetings sweaty and in need of a towel. It's also
| very cold where I live. My car is warm.
|
| There are numerous reasons I'm not interested in riding a bike.
| Yet I can't go more than a day without someone from the bicycle
| church trying to give me a pamphlet.
| voussoir wrote:
| One of my favorite youtube channels at the moment is Not Just
| Bikes. And, it's right in the name: it's not just about bikes.
| It's about trains, busses, pedestrianization, mixed-use zoning,
| more options for housing density besides single family homes
| with front lawns. We waste so much potential with car
| dependency. Bikes are just one of the puzzle pieces.
| hooverd wrote:
| Dutch cycling is always touted as superior but nobody ever
| talks about the cost of clogs and blackface needed for the
| full Dutch experience.
| gumby wrote:
| > I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need
| to push everyone else to ride bicycles?
|
| I have never understood why the automobile crowd feel the need
| to push everyone else to accommodate their desires and their
| restructuring of towns and landscapes around cars. Not to
| mention their sacrificing safety for people not in cars!
|
| If you want to be a car person, OK: you be you. But they don't
| deserve the primacy they have managed to seize.
| david-gpu wrote:
| If you don't want to bike, then don't.
|
| But some of us _want_ to bike and find it unnecessarily
| dangerous at present because of all the privately-owned
| vehicles driving far too fast, far too close to us. It's not
| the ambulances or the delivery vans that put us in danger --
| there aren't enough of them to make a difference. The danger
| consistently comes from roads that are designed to maximize the
| speed and convenience of drivers rather than the safety of
| everybody else.
|
| My kids' school is 3Km (2mi) from where we live, a short bike
| ride away. However, can my family ride to school in the
| morning? Not at all, it's too dangerous for kids to ride with
| all the traffic, but it doesn't have to be this way. With
| simple traffic calming measures like having narrower
| residential streets the cars wouldn't be driving much faster
| than the bikes. This isn't science-fiction, it's how things
| work in plenty of livable cities around the world.
|
| So, don't drive a bike if you don't want to, but me driving my
| bike doesn't put you in danger, and I wish I could say the same
| about your car.
| stickyricky wrote:
| You should give it a try! It's a lot of fun. In Chicago (as an
| example) you can drive your car downtown, park it, and rent a
| bike with the Lyft app. They have bike stations all over the
| city. Try to rent one near the lakefront and bike up and down
| on the car-free lakeside trail. Its safe, fun, and you can get
| around the city really quickly.
|
| If you want to understand what cyclists are upset about, be
| adventurous. Ride in the urban core and then work your way
| outwards to the suburbs. You may develop an understanding for
| their perspective!
| pzone wrote:
| The bicycle crowd feels unsafe too. The physical risks of
| cycling are almost entirely due to cars. Even in icy, slippery
| conditions, a bicycle accident poses almost no risk of
| dismemberment or death, except when there are cars involved.
|
| For millions of people, cycling is a cheap, convenient, healthy
| and fun way to get around. This is particularly true since
| e-bikes became widely available. There is no way to get these
| riders back into cars. But almost nowhere in the US is there
| enough biking infrastructure to make them truly safe and
| separated from car traffic. This lack of infrastructure is why
| they can come off as a nuisance to drivers and pedestrians.
|
| I'm sorry you feel pressured by cycling advocates to change
| your lifestyle. Maybe that is not the best way for them to
| advocate for change.
| u801e wrote:
| > The bicycle crowd feels unsafe too.
|
| Except their feelings don't correlate with actual safety.
| Statistically, same direction rear end collisions are the
| least common type of collision while collisions at
| intersections are the most common. The bicycle infrastructure
| solutions the bicycle crowd comes up with increase the risk
| of collisions at intersections. Specifically, right hooks
| (where a right turning motorist turns across the path of a
| cyclist going straight through the intersection), left
| crosses (where a left turning motorist crosses the path of a
| cyclist going straight through the intersection), and drive
| outs (where a motorist entering the road from a side street
| crosses the path of a cyclist).
|
| The one way to reduce the risk of intersection collisions is
| to ride in the center of the general purpose lane, but
| certain members of the bicycle crowd don't feel safe doing
| that. But feeling safe doesn't correlate with actual safety
| from a statistical point of view.
| david-gpu wrote:
| _> The bicycle infrastructure solutions the bicycle crowd
| comes up with increase the risk of collisions at
| intersections_
|
| Either cyclists don't know what sort of infrastructure
| makes them safe, or you have an imperfect understanding of
| the sort of infrastructure that they would like to see.
|
| _> The one way to reduce the risk of intersection
| collisions is_
|
| That is one way, but not "the" one way, nor the best way.
| Dutch-style intersections are probably the state of the art
| solution when sharing the road with cars is unavoidable.
| Car-free cyclepaths are even safer. There are other means
| as well, including the elimination of right turns on red,
| which are particularly dangerous to pedestrians as well.
| u801e wrote:
| > Either cyclists don't know what sort of infrastructure
| makes them safe
|
| Many cyclists have had no education, training or
| classroom instruction on how to cycle safely in traffic
| and have a distorted view of what infrastructure can do
| for them in terms of safety. For example, this cyclist[1]
| ended up in a crash because he failed to foresee the
| situation that could have easily been avoided. He
| evidently thought that the protected bike lane he was
| using made him safer. Yet, he could have easily been run
| over after being pushed out into the roadway. Someone
| with education and training would have realized that the
| motorist was not looking in their direction and they
| should anticipate that they won't yield to them.
|
| > or you have an imperfect understanding of the sort of
| infrastructure that they would like to see.
|
| I've seen plenty of examples of infrastructure that
| increases the risk of the collisions I mentioned earlier
| because the cyclist is hidden from the motorists' view
| until shortly before both arrive at the intersection.
| This doesn't give the motorist or the cyclist enough time
| to determine which of them should yield.
|
| Infrastructure that relies on traffic lights to provide a
| protected movement through an intersection is the best
| solution in those cases, but results in longer wait times
| for everyone. This leads to non-compliance with traffic
| control signals and people who will try to beat the light
| to avoid a several minute wait. Unfortunately, most
| infrastructure I've seen relies on mutual yielding to
| work. Mutual yielding will work with both are moving at
| walking speed, but not at vehicular speed.
|
| > Dutch-style intersections are probably the state of the
| art solution when sharing the road with cars is
| unavoidable
|
| This doesn't address the numerous mid-block intersections
| where there isn't sufficient room to install one. Second,
| these intersections are geometrically similar to modern
| roundabouts (from the point of view of a motorist making
| a right turn at one), yet one study[2] has shown that
| around 71% of motorists exiting a roundabout yield to
| pedestrians waiting to cross or within a crosswalk.
| Presumably, the rate of yielding for cyclists are are
| moving at 15 to 25 feet per second instead of just 3 to 5
| feet a second would even be lower because the motorist
| would be less likely to see them because the cyclist
| would be further away from crossing the intersection.
|
| > Car-free cyclepaths are even safer.
|
| They are not available in all cases.
|
| > There are other means as well, including the
| elimination of right turns on red, which are particularly
| dangerous to pedestrians as well.
|
| But this doesn't address the right on green problem,
| which is when most right hook collisions happen.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
|
| [2] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/nchrprpt572.pdf (figure
| 63 on page 83 in the PDF)
| Beltalowda wrote:
| > For example, this cyclist[1] ended up in a crash
| because he failed to foresee the situation that could
| have easily been avoided
|
| In general I agree that with some defensive cycling (and
| driving!) you can prevent a lot of accidents, but I'm not
| sure if I agree with that example; the car seemed to stop
| for the cyclist, and then it started moving with about a
| second for the cyclist to react.
|
| Usually "eye contact" is the best bet, but it's near-
| impossible judge from that video if that was there or
| seemed like it was there. It's certainly possible the
| driver looked to the right in the direction of the
| cyclist and simply missed him due to situational
| blindness. Cyclist assumed driver saw him, driver didn't
| really register the cyclist, with the video as a
| consequence.
|
| What reasonable expectations are also depends on how
| common cycling is in the location, how common that sort
| of cycle path is, stuff like that. I don't even know
| where that video was filmed. It's always easy to judge
| these things after the fact from a video sipping coffee
| from behind your desk, but in real life it's very easy to
| interpret something wrong, make a mistake, or just not
| pay attention for 3 seconds.
|
| I take some amount of issue with the phrasing "this
| cyclist ended up in a crash because he failed to foresee
| the situation". He ended up in a crash because the driver
| ran in to him. He could perhaps have _prevented_ the
| crash by correcting for the driver 's mistake - which
| would clearly have been a better outcome, and is also why
| these videos are useful so we can all learn from them -
| but it's still primarily due to the driver's mistake that
| the crash happened.
| mns wrote:
| I'm living in one of the most cyclist friendly cities in
| Europe (according to the city officials :) ). I used to ride
| to work for almost 5 years until I moved too close to work so
| now I just walk. I love my city, I love how you can cycle,
| use public transport or just walk and a car is more of a
| nuisance here. Having said all this, the only group of people
| that I can't stand and I almost hate is cyclists. They are
| the most entitled and loud group, even here, and for me, even
| as I still almost cycle everywhere when the weather allows
| me, I am more scared of other cyclists than I am of cars.
|
| It is amazing how the majority of cyclists ignore all
| possible rules, traffic lights, traffic signs, bike paths
| (and we have them EVERYWHERE). You will always have some
| asshole on a bike grunting at a pedestrian, another cyclist
| or at a car, while riding with no lights on the wrong side of
| the street on the walkway, when there is a proper bike path
| right next to him. Just this winter the cycling community was
| outraged that after an ice rain the city didn't clean the
| paths, which was almost impossible to do, all while they were
| riding in the winter on ice with no special tires and then
| complaining that while it was not even recommended to go
| outside, it is dangerous for them to ride their bikes.
|
| In the end I think there is a lot left to go, especially in
| educating people, because as e-bikes becomes more popular,
| more people get access to bikes that run faster than they
| could ever do (and we now have more accidents because of
| this), it will get worse before it gets better when it comes
| to cycling.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| I'm a careful cyclists, purely out of self-preservation,
| and also because traffic in general is already stressful
| enough without me adding to it. Plus, I care about less
| cars in cities and not adding to the perception of "asshole
| cyclist" is helpinig, a teeny tiny bit.
|
| Still, you will get a lot of hate. Twice people have tried
| to run me _off the cycle path_ followed by some unhinged
| diatribe about how the cycle path should not be there and
| that it 's all a waste of taxpayer money and a bunch of
| nonsense. People are free to have that opinion, and I don't
| even especially mind of they go off on some rant about it,
| but they're not free to to consciously drive their fucking
| cars in my direction.
|
| Then, of course, there's all the places where there aren't
| cycle paths. I've lost count of the number of provocations.
| Minding your business, cycling how you should be, and
| someone overtakes you - no way they didn't know you were
| there - and just veers in to you because "toot toot I'm a
| car motherfucker imma driving here now".
|
| Then there's the pedestrians who will complain if you cycle
| on the cycle path because they don't realize it's a cycle
| path, or because they don't care. Or the cycle paths just
| ends with nowhere to go and you will get complaints if you
| go over the footpath because that's literally the only way
| to go other than the 80mph road (and not doing that).
|
| Basically, you will get hate no matter what you do. Plus
| everything tends to be extremely car-centric anyway, so if
| you're not careful it's not _that_ hard to go to "I get
| abuse from entitled assholes no matter what I do so fuck
| you all then".
|
| No saying this as a justification, but there's some pretty
| bad feedback loops going on here.
| photonbeam wrote:
| Car free cities should have bicycles as a nice-to-have, walking
| and transit should be primary
| tinyspacewizard wrote:
| > I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need
| to push everyone else to ride bicycles?
|
| Driving a car in a urban area is great for the driver but
| pretty terrible for everyone else:
|
| - Congestion
|
| - Air pollution
|
| - Noise pollution
|
| - Space taken up by parking
|
| - Danger of being run over
|
| It doesn't really matter if you walk, cycle or get public
| transport. These have much lower externalities.
|
| > I personally do not feel safe on a bike in a crowded city.
| Even if you took cars out of the equation
|
| This is a shame because the cars (and other motor traffic) are
| in fact the main danger. Retirees and children cycle everywhere
| in NL because it feels safe enough for them to do so.
| JimBlackwood wrote:
| Is driving in an urban area really great for the driver?
| Genuine question, btw.
|
| Everytime I've driven in EU capitals, I've been more
| frustrated than ever while driving. In every scenario
| walking, cycling or a tube would've felt more pleasant and
| quicker.
|
| Traffic light after traffic light, constant congestion. What
| a mess. 20 minutes for a few kilometers.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| Depends a bit on the city, where in the city, etc. Once you
| go outside of the inner city things usually tend to be
| better, but not always. Capitals are probably worse than
| average. "Tube" implies London and London is definitely
| worse than average.
|
| When I lived in Bristol (England), it wasn't so bad for the
| most part (not that I had a car). Some smaller cities can
| still be pretty bad though; e.g. inner city traffic in Cork
| (Ireland) is just horrible. I was quite a bit faster
| cycling to the city centre from work than some coworkers
| were with cars, especially if you take parking in to
| account.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| The bicycle crowd isn't pushing for people to ride bicycles,
| they're pushing for basic, safe, all ages and abilities cycling
| infrastructure so they're not killed by a car.
| bratbag wrote:
| This is the cry of someone who has run out of good arguments.
| numtel wrote:
| I never understood why does the car crowd feel the need to push
| everyone else to drive cars?
|
| They make the thoroughfares dangerous and increase the
| distances between things so much that the only way to exist is
| to have a car. They require paving huge areas so that
| temperatures are more extreme since there's so few tree
| anymore. Driving is extremely stressful, always worrying that
| someone could die if anyone driving stops paying attention for
| a second.
|
| There are numerous reasons why I'm not interested in driving.
| Yet [sic] I can't go more than a day without someone from the
| car church complaining that their "rights" are being infringed.
| mint2 wrote:
| >" I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need
| to push everyone else to ride bicycles?"
|
| Stop and reflect a moment that essentially any development in
| the US over the past 60 years was built in a manner that
| REQUIRES cars and assumes cars are the default and that
| pedestrians and bikers are annoyances that do not belong and
| were not planned in.
|
| Hmm why in that world would bikers need to advocate loudly for
| change?
| gfsdgfsdgfds wrote:
| What does this have to do with the bicycle crowd?
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I've traveled to "car-free" world cities. I've traveled to "car-
| free" small towns. Having cars is just better.
|
| It's just a preference.
|
| It's super weird to me that this idea is catching on so fast. Do
| you know what day-to-day life is like in those areas? It's
| expensive.
|
| Probably because you can't travel to competition.
|
| And you're absolutely renting anywhere "car-free."
|
| For a generation being screwed over by housing, some people sure
| are asking for it.
| goosedragons wrote:
| How much money you really saving traveling 10 extra miles to
| save $5 on groceries in your $30,000 car that costs $2000 a
| year to insure and $60 a week to fill up?
| belorn wrote:
| Car-free small town just sounds weird. If it a small town there
| isn't much cars to begin with, and people who live there likely
| need a car to travel to other towns for work or finding shops
| that have the specific inventory that people need.
|
| Living in an small apartment at the city core in a world city
| is a very different experience. Among other things, those
| places tend to have subways and people tend to live in quite
| smaller living space. Unless parking is subsidized, parking
| costs alone can cost more than rent in a small town, while
| parking in a small town tend to be free.
| squaredot wrote:
| I hope that in the future, with autonomous public transportation
| service more like cabs, we can lessen the impact of cars in
| cities.
|
| Currently I can imagine that it is not always easy to solve the
| problem with one solution, as people tend to change jobs more
| often than they change homes, and sometimes connections by public
| transportation are very inconvenient.
| watwut wrote:
| Building convenient public transport is doable. It does not
| requires new technology either.
| techhazard wrote:
| Exactly, self-driving cars do not solve the car problem; Good
| public transportation does.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| "car free city" is a bit of an oxymoron. How do ambulances and
| fire engines access buildings to administer emergency services?
| How do deliveries to stores work? No city can actually function
| without automobiles.
|
| The reality is that there's sections of the city that are
| pedestrian only. I lived in Barcelona for two years, and that's
| how it worked. There are some pedestrian roads that have benches
| and storefronts, but there's automobile traffic one street over.
| The article describes the superblock system: basically the
| interior of the block is pedestrian only, but the larger exterior
| streets have car traffic. No one is more than a block away from
| car traffic at any time.
| carapace wrote:
| > No city can actually function without automobiles.
|
| C'mon, cities predate cars by thousands of years.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Right, and those cities were miniscule by today's standards,
| and their municipal services were terrible. How many times
| did London burn down before the 20th century? How effective
| was medieval London's emergency medical services?
| JCharante wrote:
| > those cities were miniscule by today's standards
|
| Rome had a million people in it 100 BC. There were still
| large cities. Also most large cities today (Tokyo,
| Shanghai, London, Paris, New York) have strong public
| transport systems and most people don't need cars. So you
| can have large cities where most people live a car-free
| lifestyle.
|
| > How many times did London burn down before the 20th
| century?
|
| I think fire codes being enforced & developments in
| building techniques helped reduced fires, not just that we
| can drive fire trucks to situations.
| Nomentatus wrote:
| On the one hand, by the principle of charity, what was meant
| was that modern cities can't function without automobiles,
| not that ancient Sumeria required automobiles. Straw man.
|
| On the other hand, by the principle of charity, what's being
| argued is that modern cities can't dump all automobiles
| immediately; not the idea that modern technology is too
| feeble to allow a city design without automobiles to function
| at all. Straw woman.
|
| On the third hand, by the principle of charity, what is being
| argued is that most automobiles can be dropped from large
| parts of modern cities with more gain than loss; not that
| entire metropolitan and suburban areas can drop cars without
| inconvenience. Straw pronoun of your choice.
|
| In other words, none of the arguments here are what they
| appear to be about superficially. They're really about degree
| of difficulty - is that underestimated or over-estimated? vs
| the benefits: more or less than you'd think. To argue that,
| you need details, which are in short supply until the
| experiments get not just to your city but to your block.
|
| It's in good part an argument about network effects - and we
| aren't used to taking those into account properly.
|
| Where I live, the standard argument as bike lanes/routes were
| being (expensively!) built downtown was: "Nobody even uses
| them!" Which was true as long as the bike routes were all
| less than a couple kilometers long. Now bike traffic is
| picking up as routes lengthen and multiply; so I rarely if
| ever hear that argument. Now what I hear is "you still need a
| car" because few bike routes are very long as yet, rather
| than objections to bike lanes in the middle of streets (or
| displacing streets) existing at all. Soon it will be "where I
| live you still need a car." Finally, when the lanes are built
| out, which they will be, the argument will be "I just like
| the convenience of a car."
|
| My own view now: "I didn't expect this, but I really like
| that my neighborhood is quieter; which it is because there's
| now a pocket park right where an intersection used to be, one
| block from me. Just that change has made a remarkable
| difference. Damned nice to sit there in relative silence.
| Watching bikes hum by from time to time."
| x86x87 wrote:
| Just because something is possible at a certain scale or used
| to be done in a specific way does not mean it's a good idead.
|
| A city with 1000 people is a conmpletely differeny
| proposition than a city with 100k people.
| tinyspacewizard wrote:
| How it works in Amsterdam, for example, is that you can still
| drive most places, however:
|
| 1. The motor vehicle route is extremely indirect, so walking is
| typically quicker
|
| 2. There is no free parking
|
| 3. Store loading happens only at certain times
|
| 4. There are shortcuts that emergency services can unlock with
| special keys
| throwthroyaboat wrote:
| As an addendum to 4., I believe emergency service vehicles
| are also allowed to use the tram tracks.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And for some reason they are not banning taxis or
| "ridesharing". Just the poor have to suffer.
| MrDresden wrote:
| Clearly you did not read the article, as it revolves around the
| ways many cities have reduced car traffic by offering
| alternatives.
|
| Cars will not be removed, but they should not be the primary
| transportation mechanism by which we design our cities going
| forward.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| My point exactly: the term "car free city" is click bait.
| "Car free cities" are not even remotely car free, I'm glad
| you agree.
|
| Also how do you conclude that I didn't read the article when
| I refer to Barcelona's super block system, and reference it's
| mention in the article? Do a better job reading comments.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| No not your point.. that point was already made in the
| article, noone is saying here (and no reasonable person
| would think?!?) that car-free means 100% car free, you are
| overly nit picking at a term for unknown reason.
| JCharante wrote:
| Well if that's your standard then "serverless" isn't really
| "server less" but we still call it that.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Severless refers to the fact that someone else is
| provisioning the server. By that standard, my friend that
| never uses public transit or bicycles, and Ubers
| everywhere is "car-free".
| blep_ wrote:
| In fairness, a lot of us have been grumbling about that
| word since it caught on.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I saw a horse at a fancy wedding once too, but it's still fair
| to call most cities "horse-free" in this context.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Even in "car-free" cities you'll see cars every other block,
| at least. It's nowhere near comparable to calling cities
| "horse-free".
| inamberclad wrote:
| One of the best times I spent working is when I lived a 15 minute
| Caltrain ride, and a 15 minute walk from my work in Mountain
| View. I could, and often did, make the drive in half the the time
| for less money, but not driving also meant no time lost in
| traffic, waiting for other people, or dealing with all the risks
| of driving. Afterwards, I moved to Houston where driving is
| mandatory. Even though my commute wasn't as long and I worked
| more remotely, my mood and life satisfaction took a fairly large
| downturn.
| Seanambers wrote:
| I don't know where this romanticizing of car free cities & no
| cars comes from, but it has gotten a hold in the eco /
| environmentalist camp and is being spread like shit on a farm.
|
| It's false advertising. Copenhagen for instance has a very nice
| climate and is a compact and flat city which lends itself nicely
| to bicycle transport, not all cities are equal by a long shot.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Many are though, so we probably shouldn't dismiss a solution
| only because it doesn't apply to a subset of cities.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > I don't know where this romanticizing of car free cities & no
| cars comes from
|
| You can't possible imagine any of the things they often loudly
| shout about?
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Fewer cars on the road is better for drivers too. You're not
| just stuck in traffic; you are traffic.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| I don't think anyone has ever said they are against cars
| outright, just hinting at transport being a utility and
| personal cars being more of a luxury in cases where better
| public transport would suffice.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-26 23:02 UTC)