4 ms·
Roads are basically "killing people here is ok as long as you follow few simple rules" zones. It's insane. If I told people "I'm going to shoot my gun in the c
by ajuc 7y ago
Roads are basically "killing people here is ok as long as you follow few simple rules" zones. It's insane.
If I told people "I'm going to shoot my gun in the city from time to time - if you don't want to die please step away when I light this red laser sight" and then did exactly that and blamed people for not avoiding it - that wouldn't fly. But cars are so convenient it's allowed.
- seszett 7y agoWhat you're describing is basically what happens in France during hunting season in the countryside. Luckily, the most frequent victims are the hunters themselves, but sometimes random hikers too. "But we had put up a sign that there was a hunting session in the forest!" seems to be a valid defense most of the time.
- icebraining 7y ago"What happens is, men put on bright red hats, and they go out in the woods, and they shoot at each other. There's no penalty for this, and it's a lot of fun. Once in a while someone even shoots a deer!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y agoSounds pretty similar to US deer hunting season then, except beer wasn't mentioned anywhere. There's something special about the recklessness of deer hunters specifically, as other game seasons don't seem to have this problem.
- rkangel 7y agoCalling it convenience is minimising the importance. Economic value is also important. This is most obvious when talking about trucks, but people being able to move large distances rapidly has a positive benefit to society.
- helen___keller 7y agoThe value to society of trucks is undebatable but I'm not so convinced for the personal car. If we're talking about people moving large distances rapidly, there's solutions that don't involve transforming our entire living habitat to death zones. These solutions dont apply to rural or small-town environments, but do apply to cities. And it just so happens that cities, by virtue of their population density, maximize the negative externalities of cars (less open space and more people means the pollution is more concentrated and affects more people. the noise of every honk is annoying more nearby residents, etc) In conclusion, cars aren't necessary in cities but are awful for the residents, even for those who choose to never touch a vehicle.
- commandersaki 7y ago> In conclusion, cars aren't necessary in cities but are awful for the residents, even for those who choose to never touch a vehicle. Disagree, for many they are a necessary evil. You can live without but you have to contort your lifestyle.
- turbinerneiter 7y agoI think cars have pretty much shaped our world in a way where they became a necessary "evil". Simplified thought: the local grocery dies because everyone can easily drive 10km to the supermegamarket, which makes driving there the only choice. It would be interesting to see how our world would have evolved without cars. There sure would be a lot missing, but also a lot of things simply done in a different way. Maybe this kind of SF already exists? Cyclepunk anyone?
- helen___keller 7y ago> for many they are a necessary evil Don't get me wrong, on an individual level I strongly agree that cars are necessary for probably 90%+ of the united states for a reasonable standard of living. That's kind of the issue: we've built a spread out, suburbanized environment where the only people who can live without a car, are the people who live really close to the downtown part of the city. These people, in an ironic twist, have to breath the fumes and hear the sounds of the hundreds of thousands of cars belonging to those outside city center who drive through every day. My argument is just that it doesn't have to be that way.
- tdhoot 7y agoHave you heard of gun ranges? There are so many examples of situations where you risk death if you don't follow rules, your argument isn't persuasive at all.