• Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cars are a form of personal transportation. Personal transportation is great, things like bikes and escooters can get people around very quickly. The problem with cars is that they go too fast, and they take up too much space.

    It’s a tragedy of the commons. Cars would be great if they were only used by professional drivers, didn’t require parking, and were limited to how many could fit on the roads without causing traffic. (These are called busses and taxis)

    All cities in the 60s and 70s were excited about cars. Even cities that would be considered “anti-car” nowadays, like NYC, Paris, and Amsterdam, were excited about cars and building massive highways. However, what most people realized, is that building enough parking, and building wide enough roads to handle all the cars is really hard (and in some cases, literally impossible). Residents realized that they didn’t want any more of their city to be bulldozed for yet another highway or parking lot, and went fuckcars.

    On top of that, this all happened before we understood the impacts of cars on climate change and mental health.

    So yes, we built car-dependent places because it was convenient, and now we’re de-carifying those places because it was a terrible decision.

          • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is just as irrational for me to make the claim I made as you to make yours without evidence. Fortunately the arguments against car-dependent infrastructure planning go far beyond “we don’t like 'em”. The human and environmental benefits of walkable cities with robust public transit and the unsustainability of car-dependency speak for themselves. What other issue of political advocacy would “some people disagree” fly as a reasonable argument? The whole point of advocacy is to shift the tide of popular opinion enough to make material change

              • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s not “some” people though is it?

                ??? It is indeed “some” people lmao. Not all people, not no people, some people.

                What I’m against is people taking it too far to the extreme and punishing car owners like the little eco fascists they are.

                Ah I see, so you’re against an imaginary straw man! Glad we got that sorted out.

                You are a completely unserious contrarian and there is no point in talking to you.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I have plenty of friends and family in the us and Sweden who own cars. I dont know a single person who enjoys driving to work.

        My point still stands, cars are nice for the first 10k people to drive, but they fucking suck for the other 40k+ people in your city.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep most car owners whose cars are not unreliable pieces of shit do enjoy their cars. I’ve been careful over the years to only buy cars that I would enjoy driving and owning. Zero regrets about any of my 5 car purchases. I only sometimes regret selling a couple of them.