4 ms·
Which is why you shouldn't be making the decisions.
by eMSF 7y ago
Which is why you shouldn't be making the decisions.
- cyborgx7 7y agoHow silly of me. We should definitely organize MORE of our society around the needs of car owners. /s
- criddell 7y agoWe should organize society however we the people want. That means a bottom-up rather than top-down approach that will vary greatly depending on local demographics, climate, etc... All of us think we know what is needed, but the reality is different ideas need to be floated and we vote for the solution we want to see for our area.
- cyborgx7 7y agoWhat kind of non-argument is that? Of course we should organize society however we want. That is why I'm trying to persuade people into agreeing with me on what the right way to organize society is.
- criddell 7y agoMy point is that it's a little pointless to argue on global forum like HN because it's such a local issue. You don't need to convince anybody here, it's the people in your local community that are going to make the change.
- cyborgx7 7y agoPublic transport infrastructure is definitely a global issue.
- criddell 7y agoNot really. From where I'm sitting in Austin I don't really care if Madrid has good public transportation or not. If the people of that city decide to fund that or something else doesn't affect me nor should they care what I think.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y agoHave fun getting your stores stocked by trucks with no roads. Having a baby? Hop on a train, hopefully it's not delayed. Mother dying? Walk a few blocks, train, hopefully she'll make it. Public transportation in American cities barely works as is, and usually only for tourists (see LA) and yet you want to rely solely on it?
- kalenx 7y agoSee? That's the precise problem with car advocates. How many times in your _life_ are you having a baby? How many times in your _life_ is your mother dying? Just take the car in these situations, that's not the problem. The problem is people justifying 90% of the car usages (which could be replaced by bicycle or public transportation) by being snarky about the remaining 10% (and I'm being generous with 10%).
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y agoYou're missing the point. People have emergencies, and everyday people have dire emergencies like that. Trains do not fit those cases, which happen ALOT, every second. You want to change everything without having a solution to fill the void.
- cyborgx7 7y agoHow does any of this justify the amount of people taking the car to work every day driving for upwards of 45min-1h to and back? Of course transport of goods and emergency situations need to be accounted for. Your pretending that any of what I said dismisses this is incredibly dishonest.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y agoThat should be solved. Cities have noone else to blame but themselves for poor public transportation (see California's train). It really is a waste to have people commuting like that, it's a city problem though, not a car problem. Yes, cars should be limited in your cities, and yes you need better public transportation, but that doesn't mean getting rid of cars everywhere. You need to structure around roads because you need to connect goods and services to the last mile, but you also don't need to have every citizen in your congested city driving to work. I don't see why you're conflating those two.