4 ms·

Everything humans do are for humans. What's your point? Transportation doesn't equal car, but more car space equals less pedestrian space.

fiatjaf 10y ago
That's a totally different argument.
massysett 10y ago
My point is it is ridiculous to make statements like "the city is ruled by the car." The car is not a living thing. It cannot rule anything. All the cars are there because they serve people. People find them to be useful. What people are really saying when they claim the city is "ruled" by cars is that they believe there are too many cars--which is a rather odd statement, seeing as cars are useful and people voluntarily buy and use them. It's odd that these people are motivated not by their love for walking, not by their love of particular kinds of spaces, and not by their desire for a certain lifestyle. Rather, they are motivated by their dislike for cars. This is an immediately off-putting argument since most people do not hate their cars. If they would focus on getting more of what they want, rather than less of what they do not want, then maybe they would be able to craft winning solutions that do not rely on taking useful things away from people.
- dalke 10y ago
  > "What people are really saying .. they believe there are too many cars" No. While I'm certain there are some who believe that, it is not a universal belief. Which routes are the most direct, the ones for drivers, the ones for walkers, or the ones for cyclists? If the car route is most direct, while the safe biking route requires 25% more distance, then the car has been placed ahead of other modalities. If walkers and cyclists are limited in where they can cross the street, then the system favors the car driver. If drivers aren't required to stop for foot traffic, then the system favors the car driver. If there are 6 lane surface roads with a crosswalk, but no pedestrian island or other safe refuge for slow walkers, then the system favors the car driver. Are there ways to run most errands without using a car? Are the roads constructed to maximize vehicle throughput? Or minimize maintenance costs? Or minimize the number of traffic deaths? How much of vehicle parking is subsidized? (Don't forget zoning requirements for the number of parking spaces.) The more the system favors driving over other modalities, the more reasonable it is to say that "the city is ruled by the car", at least metaphorically. > Rather, they are motivated by their dislike for cars. This is not true. The "Vision Zero" plan, for example, is motivated by the desire for no traffic deaths, not from a dislike for cars. Austin, TX is putting that plan into place. At http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-07-08/no-kill-for-traffic/ http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-07-08/no-kill-for-t... you can see the logo for "Year of Mobility 2016", which includes all major transport modalities. It is not based on a dislike of cars.

fiatjaf 10y ago

That's a totally different argument.

massysett 10y ago

My point is it is ridiculous to make statements like "the city is ruled by the car." The car is not a living thing. It cannot rule anything. All the cars are there because they serve people. People find them to be useful. What people are really saying when they claim the city is "ruled" by cars is that they believe there are too many cars--which is a rather odd statement, seeing as cars are useful and people voluntarily buy and use them. It's odd that these people are motivated not by their love for walking, not by their love of particular kinds of spaces, and not by their desire for a certain lifestyle. Rather, they are motivated by their dislike for cars. This is an immediately off-putting argument since most people do not hate their cars. If they would focus on getting more of what they want, rather than less of what they do not want, then maybe they would be able to craft winning solutions that do not rely on taking useful things away from people.

dalke 10y ago
> "What people are really saying .. they believe there are too many cars" No. While I'm certain there are some who believe that, it is not a universal belief. Which routes are the most direct, the ones for drivers, the ones for walkers, or the ones for cyclists? If the car route is most direct, while the safe biking route requires 25% more distance, then the car has been placed ahead of other modalities. If walkers and cyclists are limited in where they can cross the street, then the system favors the car driver. If drivers aren't required to stop for foot traffic, then the system favors the car driver. If there are 6 lane surface roads with a crosswalk, but no pedestrian island or other safe refuge for slow walkers, then the system favors the car driver. Are there ways to run most errands without using a car? Are the roads constructed to maximize vehicle throughput? Or minimize maintenance costs? Or minimize the number of traffic deaths? How much of vehicle parking is subsidized? (Don't forget zoning requirements for the number of parking spaces.) The more the system favors driving over other modalities, the more reasonable it is to say that "the city is ruled by the car", at least metaphorically. > Rather, they are motivated by their dislike for cars. This is not true. The "Vision Zero" plan, for example, is motivated by the desire for no traffic deaths, not from a dislike for cars. Austin, TX is putting that plan into place. At http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-07-08/no-kill-for-traffic/ http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-07-08/no-kill-for-t... you can see the logo for "Year of Mobility 2016", which includes all major transport modalities. It is not based on a dislike of cars.