• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    107 months ago

    , it’s there to efficiently move as many people as possible, as safely as possible.

    So you are saying you are in favor of banning cars from the street too then?

    • @Beetschnapps
      link
      257 months ago

      Yea honestly I’m not defending cars.

      As a cyclist for decades my shit is all about safety. So running heavy motorcycles through a bike lane is a big fucking deal to me.

      But I’m also smart enough to realize the solution isn’t to ban cars nor is it to force cyclists into weird positions. Got to be something in between no?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        37 months ago

        Nah let’s ban cars. The petrol ones are polluters that are killing all life on earth, and the electric ones still have PM10 pollution that gives kids asthma and allergies, plus they’re destructive to communities

        • Instigate
          link
          fedilink
          37 months ago

          Serious question: are you concerned that banning all cars will negatively impact some groups more than others - for instance, people living with disability? Cars are a far more preferable mode of transport for someone who has a physical disability; someone who has autism and struggles with sensory overload; or someone who is morbidly obese and struggles to walk even short distances. What are your thoughts on how their needs can be accommodated if we take all cars off the road overnight tonight?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            37 months ago

            Amazing how the existence of a single person who (may possibly) need a car means that everyone gets to drive cars and there is nothing that should be done about cars. Man isn’t that convenient for you.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              27 months ago

              Amazing how that didn’t address the question at all, and instead just dismissed it with your own preconceived notions for where this conversation might go.

            • Instigate
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              I think you might’ve made an unfair assumption about my position just because I asked a question. To clarify: I am all for reducing car usage as much as possible by implementing high-quality no-cost public transport solutions. I am however concerned that a blanket ban on all cars will negatively impact already underprivileged communities, and so a more methodical approach that limits and disincentivises car usage for those who don’t need it, while still retaining options for those who do, would better address the issue with the least unintended consequences possible.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                A car ban with specific exceptions, like for disabled folk.

                There, does that work for you?

                Also, everything has positives and negatives, does not mean you should discount them as options entirely.

                • Instigate
                  link
                  fedilink
                  27 months ago

                  That sounds like a good place to start to me!

                  A few other concerns that I have with a blanket ban are around implementation - if it’s done suddenly then public transport systems will be extremely overwhelmed and will underperform, leading to large losses in productivity across the economy. Do you think a staged approach or a fast approach is more appropriate, and what sort of timeframes do you think are feasible for enacting a ban?

                  You’re absolutely right - just about any action taken on a population-wide scale will have both positives and negatives, and they’re also not likely to be shared equally among stratified groups in that population. Just to be clear - I’m not discounting a car ban as an option entirely but rather trying to determine how it would actually work. In my utopia there would rarely be need for personal vehicles, but I’m not smart enough to know the steps to get there. I’m keen on discussing what those steps might be, and how we can engage them in a way that their impact on individuals is as equitable as possible.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    3
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    In my opinion, people should change as quickly as possible, I think thats going to be extremely important for humans across the board moving forward.

                    That said, I dont know how to apply that thought societally, everyone has different tolerances. And also, most people I meet resist change without thought, so my guess is it would be incredibly slow as everyone would be mostly concerned with making sure its not an inconvenient solution.

                    Just giving it a few minutes thought here, I want to say this is a problem that should be solved by local government, as that would be the largest scale where you could vary the approach by specific population needs.

                    Maybe some farm heavy states are going to essentially need most of their vehicles, who knows.

                    Probably first we need to all agree on the problem though…

                    Edit: idea! Maybe use federal government to set the goals and direction we should be heading in, and let local governments handle the how and how much and how fast.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            27 months ago

            Depends heavily on the disability. For, for instance, blind people, the day cars were banned would be the best day of their lives!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -2
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I think you’re full of shit. I have autism and I can’t drive a car. I struggle too much with sensory overload. I think there is a nuanced conversation to be had about this issue, but not with your bad faith ass telling me nonsense about my own disability. A car dependent society is ableist. And here’s you defending it while using me as your prop to make a point that harms me. My disability isn’t yours to weaponise. You’re not helping me, you’re harming me.

            • Instigate
              link
              fedilink
              47 months ago

              That’s a fair call mate, but I would like to remind you that Autism is a spectrum, and many different people have many different presentations and symptomatology associated with their conditions. I’m sorry that you’re not able to drive due to your condition, but many others are able to including some of my close family members.

              My bad if what I wrote made you feel like a prop - it wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely trying to spark conversation about disability accommodations in car-free world.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -1
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                You said cars are a preferable mode of transport for people with physical disabilities, and used a semicolon to imply the same for people with autism. That’s true in some cases, but the way you presented it is reductive and misleading, and it erases people like me and most other disabled people. Most disabilities benefit from public transit and walkability more than cars. Cars make elderly people lose their mobility faster. Cars cause obesity. It’s easier to ride the train in a wheelchair than drive a car. Wheelchair cars are expensive and hard to use. What you presented as absolute truth is false most of the time.

                And I don’t think we should ban Dutch style microcars, which are great for disabled mobility and travel at bicycle speeds.

                • Instigate
                  link
                  fedilink
                  37 months ago

                  I see the confusion - my semicolon usage was to denote items in a list. Physical disabilities, Autism and obesity were three separate conditions that I was suggesting may be impacted by removing all cars from the road. My apologies if that was not clear. I included Autism in there specifically because my cousin recently got his licence and has been over the moon about how he no longer has to deal with the sensory overload shit he puts up with on public transport. It was an example close to my heart, and clearly it was close to yours as well.

                  I’m sorry that it seems as though I’ve presented concepts as absolute truths - that was not my intention. My intention was to list some circumstances where some people may be negatively affected as a starting point for discussion around disability accommodations in a car-free world.

                  Just to state - I personally do believe we need to reduce car usage as much as possible and seriously ramp up accessibility while removing all costs for high-quality public transport. I think cars are a blight on our society and we rely far too heavily on them. I just don’t know how to get rid of them without any negative unintended consequences. I was seeking a debate, or to be informed on how this could be done well. Instead it seems as though I’ve offended you, which was not my intention.

                  I know that understanding tone from text can be difficult at the best of times but I’ve honestly tried to be as genuine and non-combative as possible. I’m sorry there’s not more I can do to convey that I agree with your sentiment and am asking for help in how that can be put into place without accidentally harming anyone.