I don't understand what thought process was used to write this: driving is necessary and will be until we decide to live as we did in the 1800s. Subsidize driv

I don't understand what thought process was used to write this: driving is necessary and will be until we decide to live as we did in the 1800s. Subsidize driving? Gas tax, taxes, etc are not inexpensive by any means. >>"When we experienced the epidemic of drunk driving, we didn’t go back to prohibition. Instead, we raised penalties to make drivers more responsible, set tougher limits on blood alcohol content, and put more money into enforcement. People still drink—but there’s a different level of understanding of responsibility and consequences, and fewer people drive drunk." I have to disagree. The fact they were drunk is just hidden from the public. The penalties for drunk driving are not nearly harsh enough to expect people to not do it. The past 3 accidents involving death I've seen have involved people that were certainly drunk, but the toxicology reports were never released and will never be. The public should know. I drive 25 miles to school each day. Being forced to live on campus because of the dangerous pollution would be insane. There should be no penalty for driving besides the costs of infrastructure, which are, in fact, well covered by taxes or would be if it didn't take 2 years to do something that should take a month, cities didn't randomly decide they need to change intersections or randomly add them. 4 deer ran in front of my car this morning. Nothing would have helped besides insurance if I would have hit them. Driving is dangerous but there is no reason to penalize it or hinder it. Yes, I support walking to work if you live in a city and you're near it, but that is purely logical. The pollution caused by cars is one factor of many in climate change. It will not magically stop or even drastically decrease by penalizing driving. Gas is usually $2.40 - that is expensive enough.