6 ms·

I have a hard time imagining how somebody could be opposed to this and pretend they have anything but selfish motivations. Emissions kill people. They kill the

I have a hard time imagining how somebody could be opposed to this and pretend they have anything but selfish motivations. Emissions kill people. They kill the elderly. They kill people with asthma. They give people cancer. Your car is an instrument of death even if you don't hit anyone. Parts of the UK have appallingly bad air quality (by regional standards; obviously it's not Beijing). People are dying en masse but because you can't see it and say "my car was the one that killed them" most people just. don't. care. Also the majority of trips are short enough to be done via bike or ebike if you give people safe routes to do so, something the UK has been completely unwilling to do.

ddorian43 8y ago
You fix things by working from the top of highest offenders. Something tells me it's not the average people.
- mtgx 8y ago
  Fixing the climate change problem should have always involved systemic solutions - i.e. bans on diesel vehicles, high carbon prices, etc, not stuff like "use less water in your home." But since most governments are corrupt/can get paid by those rich companies they are trying to regulate, the former has also been the most difficult to implement.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  As a population car users represent a massive amount of emmisions. Removing that would be one of the highest offenders.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Indeed - so focusing on large companies selling devices causing massive destruction makes perfect sense.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Oil companies are the biggest polluters and contributors to climate change. By severely reducing the amount of fossil fuel vehicles on the roads, we lessen the demand for fossil fuels, and reduce pollution. Big cargo ships should also be targeted, they burn significantly worse grades of fuel, and pollute a lot more.
provolone 8y ago
I don't like the idea of the government banning stuff. I'm a lifelong cyclist, ex-bike courier. Cars don't offend me. Bad drivers do. I always loved the freedom of cycling. The lack of regulation and traffic stops is one of my favorite points. Never enjoyed 'cycling routes' or special bike lanes. They always seem to box me in. I feel less safe in these areas.
- Heliosmaster 8y ago
  The government is banning stuff all the time. You are not allowed to do a plethora of things that harm other people or society (stealing? murder? destroying public property?). A ban on petrol/diesel car is nothing special.
  - ndnxhs 8y ago
    Its more of a revocation of the privilege to use destructive vehicles on public land. I'm sure after the ban your cars will still be legal to use on private property.
  - provolone 8y ago
    Controlling violence is one of the primary justifications for government. You're comparing apples and oranges - Violent acts and prohibition of inanimate objects don't fit in the same scope. Prohibition of alcohol would be a more apt comparison.
    - knorker 8y ago
      You are not allowed to possess a knife in public (without good reason), nor are you allowed to own guns. Cars physically hurt people even when they aren't hitting people. I think your rule about possession being different from action doesn't hold water at all.
      - provolone 8y ago
        Books are also inanimate and have been banned throughout history. Cannabis is another interesting one. Lots of data and settled science about how terrible it was... Lately western nations have been walking that one back.
skocznymroczny 8y ago
Not everyone can afford electric cars.
- incangold 8y ago
  It doesn’t matter. Literally nobody can afford climate failure. Once you’ve got a realistic threat of civilisational collapse on one side of the equation, things look different. Not everyone being able to afford a car, or having to eat veggie burgers... These aren’t real problems in comparison. Quite apart from the fact that we shouldn’t all need cars in the first place. I live in Europe, with kids, and I’ve never felt the need to even get a license. Trains are far more convenient. Cars being a luxury means public transport will need to improve everywhere. Which is great for everyone, and for the economy.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > It doesn’t matter. Literally nobody can afford climate failure. That is a sweeping overgeneralisation and literally false. There are going to be large communities of people who will suffer more from giving up cars than from climate change. Maybe you don't have an poor people living in your part of the world, but wishing a peasant lifestyle on the poor because you don't want to engage with their problems is neither constructive nor pleasant. What people can afford does matter, and it is worth considering how much the poor are being asked to give up versus how much we expect their sacrifice to help.
    - incangold 8y ago
      It’s fair to point out that I was being hyperbolic. Depending on exactly where we fall in the range of bad to catastrophic possible futures ahead of us, it may be hard to find too many people who would be more affected by giving up cars than climate change. I am clearly not wishing a peasant lifestyle on the poor, that is a straw man. I am wishing working public transport on everyone. Your final paragraph I absolutely agree with. I over-egged my comment for effect. The general lack of alarm and urgency surrounding climate change is frustrating.
- 8y ago
ndnxhs 8y ago
Aside from emissions, if you drive a car you are making public spaces more dangerous even of you follow the rules perfectly. Our cities and public spaces are extremely hostile to pedestrians especially kids. Its drilled in to everyone that you have to have a constant grip of your child's hand when walking outside because they could be instantly killed for stepping in the wrong spot at the wrong time. It also takes forever to walk anywhere because pedestrian crossings are programmed to be extremely slow as to not disrupt drivers as well as intersections often requiring 2 crossings to get to the desired location vs just one when driving.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  The sheer amount of space that was forcefully taken from pedestrians and cyclists, in order to make room for cars is absolutely astounding once you take a critical look at it. Those 4-lane boulevards though city centers could fit generously-proportioned sidewalks and bike paths and greenery, food stalls, cafés and dedicated bus lanes (or you could move public transit underground for better space utilization). Instead they're full of gridlocked traffic, made up of countless ~1.5t lumps of steel and plastic, transporting a single occupant each.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    When people complain about cyclists on footpaths, I agree wholeheartedly. Yet, when I point out that drivers did EXACTLY this and killed everyone in their way, it's like I'm speaking Martian. Streets are for people. At least they were for all of human history until ~100 years ago.
jfk13 8y ago
> Also the majority of trips are short enough to be done via bike or ebike if you give people safe routes to do so, something the UK has been completely unwilling to do. Just because a trip is short enough doesn't necessarily mean it's actually practical to make via (e)bike. People often need to take more than a backpack's- or pannier's-worth of stuff with them. I love my bike, and use it when appropriate, but it doesn't come close to replacing a car.
- knorker 8y ago
  Yeah, so since it'd only get us 99.99% of the way there let's not do it. :-P
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Which is about as relevant as saying "sometimes I have to cross a river so a car doesn't come close to replacing a boat". This strawman argument is trotted out every time someone suggests an alternative to cars for normal getting around. I'm not suggesting a human-powered piano delivery service. I'm not proposing we replace logging trucks with cargo bikes. I am saying that a large number of trips can be taken by modes other than car when doing so becomes a safe and pleasant option. We have proven examples of this (DK, NL) and they are really nice places to walk, cycle, and perhaps paradoxically, drive, as a result.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Often? I'm a developer like most people here and I have to carry less than a backpacks worth on almost all of my trips. On the times I do need to carry more it could fit on one of those bike trailers I see around. Of course if you are are a tradie or something and you need to carry around ladders and pipes than a bike isn't ideal but for almost everyone it is for almost all of our trips. Taking a car to work for most of us is using a sledge hammer to push in a thumb tack.
  - jfk13 8y ago
    I wasn't thinking in terms of a developer getting to the office. Personally, I don't think I've driven my car to work for at least the past ten years. Many days it doesn't leave the driveway. But there aren't adequate alternatives that would allow me to get rid of it altogether.
lixtra 8y ago
The very computer you are typing on and throw away in a few years poisoned people in its production and operation. We are all alive for selfish reasons and compete for resources with others, including clean air. An absolute standpoint does not help. We have to aim to improve and optimize.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  These MPs have made their proposal for a way to improve and optimize: use zero-emissions cars instead of petrol/diesel. CalRobert has made their proposal: the same, but also reduce the number of car trips by improving cycling infrastructure. Neither proposal is absolute, though they exist: ban all [private] cars [from cities]. What's yours?
  - lixtra 8y ago
    >> People are dying en masse but because you can't see it and say "my car was the one that killed them" most people just. don't. care. People are dying en masse, because people read forums like HN. His argument is poor. Wheter building cycling lanes is a net improvement can be discussed. It will depend on the details.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  >"The very computer you are typing on and throw away in a few years poisoned people in its production and operation." Which is why we must Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. My main PC is from 2011, still going strong with only minor upgrades (RAM, SSD, new GPU). My laptop is of a similar age. I don't foresee replacing either anytime soon. We need to stop the ridiculous gadget race.

ddorian43 8y ago

You fix things by working from the top of highest offenders. Something tells me it's not the average people.

mtgx 8y ago
Fixing the climate change problem should have always involved systemic solutions - i.e. bans on diesel vehicles, high carbon prices, etc, not stuff like "use less water in your home." But since most governments are corrupt/can get paid by those rich companies they are trying to regulate, the former has also been the most difficult to implement.
ndnxhs 8y ago
As a population car users represent a massive amount of emmisions. Removing that would be one of the highest offenders.
CalRobert 8y ago
Indeed - so focusing on large companies selling devices causing massive destruction makes perfect sense.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
Oil companies are the biggest polluters and contributors to climate change. By severely reducing the amount of fossil fuel vehicles on the roads, we lessen the demand for fossil fuels, and reduce pollution. Big cargo ships should also be targeted, they burn significantly worse grades of fuel, and pollute a lot more.

provolone 8y ago

I don't like the idea of the government banning stuff. I'm a lifelong cyclist, ex-bike courier. Cars don't offend me. Bad drivers do. I always loved the freedom of cycling. The lack of regulation and traffic stops is one of my favorite points. Never enjoyed 'cycling routes' or special bike lanes. They always seem to box me in. I feel less safe in these areas.

Heliosmaster 8y ago
The government is banning stuff all the time. You are not allowed to do a plethora of things that harm other people or society (stealing? murder? destroying public property?). A ban on petrol/diesel car is nothing special.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Its more of a revocation of the privilege to use destructive vehicles on public land. I'm sure after the ban your cars will still be legal to use on private property.
- provolone 8y ago
  Controlling violence is one of the primary justifications for government. You're comparing apples and oranges - Violent acts and prohibition of inanimate objects don't fit in the same scope. Prohibition of alcohol would be a more apt comparison.
  - knorker 8y ago
    You are not allowed to possess a knife in public (without good reason), nor are you allowed to own guns. Cars physically hurt people even when they aren't hitting people. I think your rule about possession being different from action doesn't hold water at all.
    - provolone 8y ago
      Books are also inanimate and have been banned throughout history. Cannabis is another interesting one. Lots of data and settled science about how terrible it was... Lately western nations have been walking that one back.

skocznymroczny 8y ago

Not everyone can afford electric cars.

incangold 8y ago
It doesn’t matter. Literally nobody can afford climate failure. Once you’ve got a realistic threat of civilisational collapse on one side of the equation, things look different. Not everyone being able to afford a car, or having to eat veggie burgers... These aren’t real problems in comparison. Quite apart from the fact that we shouldn’t all need cars in the first place. I live in Europe, with kids, and I’ve never felt the need to even get a license. Trains are far more convenient. Cars being a luxury means public transport will need to improve everywhere. Which is great for everyone, and for the economy.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > It doesn’t matter. Literally nobody can afford climate failure. That is a sweeping overgeneralisation and literally false. There are going to be large communities of people who will suffer more from giving up cars than from climate change. Maybe you don't have an poor people living in your part of the world, but wishing a peasant lifestyle on the poor because you don't want to engage with their problems is neither constructive nor pleasant. What people can afford does matter, and it is worth considering how much the poor are being asked to give up versus how much we expect their sacrifice to help.
  - incangold 8y ago
    It’s fair to point out that I was being hyperbolic. Depending on exactly where we fall in the range of bad to catastrophic possible futures ahead of us, it may be hard to find too many people who would be more affected by giving up cars than climate change. I am clearly not wishing a peasant lifestyle on the poor, that is a straw man. I am wishing working public transport on everyone. Your final paragraph I absolutely agree with. I over-egged my comment for effect. The general lack of alarm and urgency surrounding climate change is frustrating.
8y ago

ndnxhs 8y ago

Aside from emissions, if you drive a car you are making public spaces more dangerous even of you follow the rules perfectly. Our cities and public spaces are extremely hostile to pedestrians especially kids. Its drilled in to everyone that you have to have a constant grip of your child's hand when walking outside because they could be instantly killed for stepping in the wrong spot at the wrong time. It also takes forever to walk anywhere because pedestrian crossings are programmed to be extremely slow as to not disrupt drivers as well as intersections often requiring 2 crossings to get to the desired location vs just one when driving.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
The sheer amount of space that was forcefully taken from pedestrians and cyclists, in order to make room for cars is absolutely astounding once you take a critical look at it. Those 4-lane boulevards though city centers could fit generously-proportioned sidewalks and bike paths and greenery, food stalls, cafés and dedicated bus lanes (or you could move public transit underground for better space utilization). Instead they're full of gridlocked traffic, made up of countless ~1.5t lumps of steel and plastic, transporting a single occupant each.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  When people complain about cyclists on footpaths, I agree wholeheartedly. Yet, when I point out that drivers did EXACTLY this and killed everyone in their way, it's like I'm speaking Martian. Streets are for people. At least they were for all of human history until ~100 years ago.

jfk13 8y ago

> Also the majority of trips are short enough to be done via bike or ebike if you give people safe routes to do so, something the UK has been completely unwilling to do. Just because a trip is short enough doesn't necessarily mean it's actually practical to make via (e)bike. People often need to take more than a backpack's- or pannier's-worth of stuff with them. I love my bike, and use it when appropriate, but it doesn't come close to replacing a car.

knorker 8y ago
Yeah, so since it'd only get us 99.99% of the way there let's not do it. :-P
CalRobert 8y ago
Which is about as relevant as saying "sometimes I have to cross a river so a car doesn't come close to replacing a boat". This strawman argument is trotted out every time someone suggests an alternative to cars for normal getting around. I'm not suggesting a human-powered piano delivery service. I'm not proposing we replace logging trucks with cargo bikes. I am saying that a large number of trips can be taken by modes other than car when doing so becomes a safe and pleasant option. We have proven examples of this (DK, NL) and they are really nice places to walk, cycle, and perhaps paradoxically, drive, as a result.
ndnxhs 8y ago
Often? I'm a developer like most people here and I have to carry less than a backpacks worth on almost all of my trips. On the times I do need to carry more it could fit on one of those bike trailers I see around. Of course if you are are a tradie or something and you need to carry around ladders and pipes than a bike isn't ideal but for almost everyone it is for almost all of our trips. Taking a car to work for most of us is using a sledge hammer to push in a thumb tack.
- jfk13 8y ago
  I wasn't thinking in terms of a developer getting to the office. Personally, I don't think I've driven my car to work for at least the past ten years. Many days it doesn't leave the driveway. But there aren't adequate alternatives that would allow me to get rid of it altogether.

lixtra 8y ago

The very computer you are typing on and throw away in a few years poisoned people in its production and operation. We are all alive for selfish reasons and compete for resources with others, including clean air. An absolute standpoint does not help. We have to aim to improve and optimize.

Symbiote 8y ago
These MPs have made their proposal for a way to improve and optimize: use zero-emissions cars instead of petrol/diesel. CalRobert has made their proposal: the same, but also reduce the number of car trips by improving cycling infrastructure. Neither proposal is absolute, though they exist: ban all [private] cars [from cities]. What's yours?
- lixtra 8y ago
  >> People are dying en masse but because you can't see it and say "my car was the one that killed them" most people just. don't. care. People are dying en masse, because people read forums like HN. His argument is poor. Wheter building cycling lanes is a net improvement can be discussed. It will depend on the details.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
>"The very computer you are typing on and throw away in a few years poisoned people in its production and operation." Which is why we must Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. My main PC is from 2011, still going strong with only minor upgrades (RAM, SSD, new GPU). My laptop is of a similar age. I don't foresee replacing either anytime soon. We need to stop the ridiculous gadget race.