3 ms·

I don't think that we have to assume competence when we have a system in place for issuing licenses, but you do have a point about people needing access to tran

by lunias 7y ago

I don't think that we have to assume competence when we have a system in place for issuing licenses, but you do have a point about people needing access to transportation. I do believe that any real solution would have to provide reasonable alternatives for people who do not meet the requirements. I also don't feel like the bar has to be raised much with regard to the licensing, but currently (and I believe knowledge of this to be reflected in some patterns of traffic control) the bar is clear-able by all with little to no competence check.

magduf 7y ago
>I do believe that any real solution would have to provide reasonable alternatives for people who do not meet the requirements. Sorry, but that's completely impossible. You simply cannot have a spread-out, car-based society with "reasonable alternatives" for people who can't drive, unless perhaps you're going to heavily subsidize Uber and Lyft. Buses and trains don't work well in suburbs; trains only make sense with enough density to have enough ridership, and buses only make sense to fill in where train lines don't exist. In the suburbs, people stuck taking the bus get penalized with ridiculously long transit times, because the bus takes a long, circuitous route, only comes once or twice an hour, etc. That isn't a "reasonable alternative" when people with a car get get there in 10 minutes or less. So you have two choices: a society like Germany's where at least in urban areas it's easy to get around without a car, and then you can have a very high competency requirement for car drivers; or a society like America's, where the whole society is designed for cars (except for a small handful of urban cores) and you have to have a car to achieve a middle-class existence, so you cannot have a high competency requirement because otherwise you are restricting peoples' right to movement and travel.
- lunias 7y ago
  Offering reasonable alternatives is impossible? Why can't we begin to restructure our society to be more like, in your example; Germany, so that it is possible? Just because there are steps to providing alternatives doesn't make their eventual existence impossible, right?
  - magduf 7y ago
    >Offering reasonable alternatives is impossible? The way it is now (with the sprawl that we currently have), yes, due to physics. You can't change physics. There just isn't any way to make a bus a viable transit alternative in a sprawling suburban area; everything is just too far apart. >Why can't we begin to restructure our society to be more like, in your example; Germany, so that it is possible? Well I wasn't really talking about long-term, I was talking more short-term, with the assumption that the sprawl we have will remain or be extended. I simply don't see any attempts in this country to increase density, except perhaps the "urban growth boundary" around Portland. Sure, I'd love to see this country decide it wants to be more like Germany or Japan and stop all new sprawl, and instead require higher density development near city cores, so that public transit is more feasible, and also provide more funding for transit construction (since that usually drives density: people frequently want to live close to the subway stations). But there's a lot of fanciful things that I'd like to have; that doesn't mean very many people agree with me, and I don't see much agreement with me on this issue in America today, at least not from the voters.

by lunias 7y ago

magduf 7y ago

>I do believe that any real solution would have to provide reasonable alternatives for people who do not meet the requirements. Sorry, but that's completely impossible. You simply cannot have a spread-out, car-based society with "reasonable alternatives" for people who can't drive, unless perhaps you're going to heavily subsidize Uber and Lyft. Buses and trains don't work well in suburbs; trains only make sense with enough density to have enough ridership, and buses only make sense to fill in where train lines don't exist. In the suburbs, people stuck taking the bus get penalized with ridiculously long transit times, because the bus takes a long, circuitous route, only comes once or twice an hour, etc. That isn't a "reasonable alternative" when people with a car get get there in 10 minutes or less. So you have two choices: a society like Germany's where at least in urban areas it's easy to get around without a car, and then you can have a very high competency requirement for car drivers; or a society like America's, where the whole society is designed for cars (except for a small handful of urban cores) and you have to have a car to achieve a middle-class existence, so you cannot have a high competency requirement because otherwise you are restricting peoples' right to movement and travel.

lunias 7y ago
Offering reasonable alternatives is impossible? Why can't we begin to restructure our society to be more like, in your example; Germany, so that it is possible? Just because there are steps to providing alternatives doesn't make their eventual existence impossible, right?
- magduf 7y ago
  >Offering reasonable alternatives is impossible? The way it is now (with the sprawl that we currently have), yes, due to physics. You can't change physics. There just isn't any way to make a bus a viable transit alternative in a sprawling suburban area; everything is just too far apart. >Why can't we begin to restructure our society to be more like, in your example; Germany, so that it is possible? Well I wasn't really talking about long-term, I was talking more short-term, with the assumption that the sprawl we have will remain or be extended. I simply don't see any attempts in this country to increase density, except perhaps the "urban growth boundary" around Portland. Sure, I'd love to see this country decide it wants to be more like Germany or Japan and stop all new sprawl, and instead require higher density development near city cores, so that public transit is more feasible, and also provide more funding for transit construction (since that usually drives density: people frequently want to live close to the subway stations). But there's a lot of fanciful things that I'd like to have; that doesn't mean very many people agree with me, and I don't see much agreement with me on this issue in America today, at least not from the voters.