3 ms·
> On balance, cars [...] has been a huge negative. That's a ridiculous hyperbole. Cars have had a huge impact on mobility and availability of goods. It's easy
by blauditore 7y ago
> On balance, cars [...] has been a huge negative.
That's a ridiculous hyperbole. Cars have had a huge impact on mobility and availability of goods.
It's easy to just see the downsides since all those benefits can be taken for granted nowadays, especially when living in a city where cars are less important for personal use.
- UncleOxidant 7y agoAt the turn of the last century most people rode bikes - a healthier activity than riding in cars. Around the same time, most cities developed extensive electric trolley systems which were largely destroyed after the automobile took over. People were mobile prior to the automobile. Cities were developed by necessity to be human-scale in the pre-automobile era. After the automobile they were developed (in the US especially) for the automobile which meant that it was very difficult to get around without a car.
- jfrankamp 7y agoSo your argument is that because cars have upsides, the downsides can't be greater? The downsides of making cars central are huge, and because of that large progressive cities are removing them. That doesn't sound like hyperbole, that sounds like the pendulum swinging the other way because on balance, they are negative.