6 ms·
I get the point - and I support the development of car-free suburbs for people who want them. Streets safe for children, people saying hello instead of staring
by brc 16y ago
I get the point - and I support the development of car-free suburbs for people who want them. Streets safe for children, people saying hello instead of staring from behind closed windows, etc. Less local pollution, more friendly streets, less accidents : all pluses.
I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one.
Further, not everywhere is suitable. Someone riding around cities near me have got high humidity and steep hills to deal with : you don't ride a bike without some serious fitness. Those cruisy bikes you see in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Cambridge are of no use.
What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no laws saying you should do it. Entirely personal choice all round.
For my part I have a large car but work from home, so it gets driven maybe once per fortnight. There's no way I would part with it : it's my ticket to freedom when I do choose to get out and about. And I enjoy it thoroughly when I do.
- eru 16y agoI find lots of strange laws (or just rules / contracts) much more acceptable locally, where you can choose to live in this community or not --- than would be acceptable on a larger scale like a nation.
- whatajoke 16y ago> I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one. Not everybody thinks about you when choosing the people they want to live with. You argue like a conservative asshole berating a bunch of hippies for choosing their own way of life. > What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no laws saying you should do it. Entirely personal choice all round. That is entirely upto the people living in those subuebs. If they decide that you should drive your car around rather than through their suburb, then I don't see how it violates your personal freedom. Next you will be bitching about congestion charges.
- brc 16y agoYou missed my point. If you read my comment, I think it's a good idea. I just don't want legislation either for or against the idea. If people want to live in car-less suburbs, I support that. I don't support being forced to live in a car-less suburb, that's all.
- monos 16y ago> I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, > and that I am some sort of evil person for having one. I am not saying you are a bad person, but giving a car to everyone - like we do right now - is a terrible idea. I'm hoping for legislation that will ban private persons from buying cars. No one (...) needs half a ton of metal and 70PS to move his 70kg ass.
- oostevo 16y agoI'm paraphrasing Jay Leno who was being interviewed on a car show, so take this with the appropriate number of grains of salt, but ... I'd like to see cars go the way of the horse. Horses used to be used for transportation, everybody had one, and they were abused to a huge degree. Then cars came along, and now horses are kept just by enthusiasts who care for them a great deal and go riding for fun every once in a while. I think the best of both worlds would be for [insert your car alternative of choice here] to develop enough to replace the car for commuting and errands, with just a few thousand cars for people who like to drive them around tracks or through the countryside every once in a while.
- jacquesm 16y agoIt sounds like Jay Leno would like people like Jay Leno to continue to be able to drive without all those other drivers.
- pchristensen 16y ago"I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one." In the US, it's basically illegal to build any kind of development that doesn't require a car or two. Some exceptions, like Kentlands in MD, or Stapleton in Denver, require developers to prepare plans in advance, lobby for variances to zoning and parking requirements. It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects. All this means that unless you're building a standard subdivision, an office park, or a strip mall, you're at a competitive disadvantage and incur higher costs and risks. Let there be no illusion that the "market" provided the built environment we have.
- MichaelSalib 16y agoI am saddened that I can only give this comment one upvote. In fact, in most US cities, it is illegal to build high density development like the kind that already exists in those cities.
- anamax 16y ago> It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects. That's the market speaking.
- MichaelSalib 16y agoI don't think so. A "standard" project is one that complies with zoning regulations and keeps the nutty neighbors happy (which often requires concessions far beyond zoning limits). So we're not talking about market control, we're talking about government policy. Governments set zoning rules. Not markets. Just because markets are involved, doesn't mean that a phenomena is fundamentally a product of a free market.
- anamax 16y agoWe're only talking about govt wrt zoning. A "non-standard project" that is seeking funding by definition meets the relevant zoning because no one borrows money to build something that zoning forbids. When a lender says offers different terms for different zoning-legal projects, that's the market.