4 ms·

> Why have technical innovation at all, let's just outlaw > stuff... > I really don't get this desire to outlaw cars. That's not the point, it's that in this

by bArray 7y ago

> Why have technical innovation at all, let's just outlaw > stuff... > I really don't get this desire to outlaw cars. That's not the point, it's that in this case the infrastructure cost to clean up cities is astronomical. Forgetting air pollution, noise pollution, deaths from traffic collisions, congestion - you also have to consider the shear infrastructural costs that _already_ go into maintaining road surfaces, traffic control, policing, etc. And that's without tunnel boring. > I like walkable cities, but I also like the comfort and > privacy of car transport. I think we just have to look at the practicality of private transport in cities. > I still don't enjoy being squeezed in with thousands of > other people. Perhaps this is where public transportation can be innovated on. > Does that mean that people like me have to be reeducated > and/or forced to see the error of their ways? Most likely - it's simply the march of progress. As horses were mostly outlawed/discouraged from cities, I suspect cars will be too.

rklaehn 7y ago
> > Does that mean that people like me have to be reeducated and/or forced to see the error of their ways? > > Most likely - it's simply the march of progress. As horses were mostly outlawed/discouraged from cities, I suspect cars will be too. I think I will pass. If you outlaw driving in cities without a good alternative, I will just not live in a city anymore. But let me guess: you want to outlaw that too...
- selestify 7y ago
  > If you outlaw driving in cities without a good alternative I think the point is indeed to provide good public transportation as a suitable alternative. > I will just not live in a city anymore And why not? That's an entirely legitimate choice
  - giomasce 7y ago
    > And why not? That's an entirely legitimate choice Not only, it might be considered the precise sought after effect.
    - rh8938 7y ago
      Same logic behind cycle lanes causing drivers to stop driving due to increased difficulties. That's the point.
      - iCarrot 7y ago
        Let's not start the cyclists vs motorists flame. Cycle lanes, especially protected ones, are there to encourage cycling.
        bluGill 7y ago
        That is the idea. The implementation of cycling lanes often has unintended consequences. Getting the details right is important or we end up with "cycle lanes to nowhere", lanes more dangerous than what was there before, drivers so angry about the lanes that the next round of politicians ban cycling completely, or several other possible futures I'm not even aware of. (Note that all of the above objections are general, they can apply to lanes for any purpose - only by careful work as the car lobby able to avoid them 100 years ago...)
  - michaelt 7y ago
    > And why not? If your aim is "Reduce pollution caused by cars" then changing people from car-owning city-dwellers into car-owning suburb-dwellers might increase total pollution. For example, if a family with one car turns into a family with two or three.
    - bobbydroptables 7y ago
      Which is a great example of why we should be taxing cars more to reflect all of their externalities. There probably shouldn't be three car families.
      - HPsquared 7y ago
        I think a pay-as-you go road tariff would be a nice way to introduce some 'nudges' in the right direction. It could be managed by GPS trackers in vehicles, with the ability to charge different amounts in different locations and time of day (i.e. driving in cities or during rush hour should be discouraged), level of congestion, vehicle type (weight, length, self-driving or not), and selective emission controls (e.g. high polluters banned from city centres). Fuel taxes are a simple, proportional way to target carbon emissions (effectively a carbon tax). However things like this should all be done with care (see gilets jaunes).
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Even if they're all electric cars? This is why I live in the suburbs. You can't champion density as the solution on the one hand, and then say, "you have to drastically change your lifestyle to support density!". Just let people who don't want to live in density pay for the externalities of low density living (require EVs, higher cost for infra, etc).
        bobbydroptables 7y ago
        I'm not saying anything. I'm relaying what everyone who studies global warming has said. I'm not "championing" anything either. I am relaying the science on global warming which indicates that if we continue down this path then we are absolutely screwed. Density is not my idea. Density is what you get if you want (a) 7 billion people and (b) anything remotely resembling a sustainable society. If you also want a not dense society, then tell me which of (a) and (b) you want to eliminate. If you're saying you want to ween us off of our rapidly worsening fossil fuel addiction then I don't know what to tell you but I do have several bridges to sell you.

by bArray 7y ago

rklaehn 7y ago

> > Does that mean that people like me have to be reeducated and/or forced to see the error of their ways? > > Most likely - it's simply the march of progress. As horses were mostly outlawed/discouraged from cities, I suspect cars will be too. I think I will pass. If you outlaw driving in cities without a good alternative, I will just not live in a city anymore. But let me guess: you want to outlaw that too...

selestify 7y ago
> If you outlaw driving in cities without a good alternative I think the point is indeed to provide good public transportation as a suitable alternative. > I will just not live in a city anymore And why not? That's an entirely legitimate choice
- giomasce 7y ago
  > And why not? That's an entirely legitimate choice Not only, it might be considered the precise sought after effect.
  - rh8938 7y ago
    Same logic behind cycle lanes causing drivers to stop driving due to increased difficulties. That's the point.
    - iCarrot 7y ago
      Let's not start the cyclists vs motorists flame. Cycle lanes, especially protected ones, are there to encourage cycling.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        That is the idea. The implementation of cycling lanes often has unintended consequences. Getting the details right is important or we end up with "cycle lanes to nowhere", lanes more dangerous than what was there before, drivers so angry about the lanes that the next round of politicians ban cycling completely, or several other possible futures I'm not even aware of. (Note that all of the above objections are general, they can apply to lanes for any purpose - only by careful work as the car lobby able to avoid them 100 years ago...)
- michaelt 7y ago
  > And why not? If your aim is "Reduce pollution caused by cars" then changing people from car-owning city-dwellers into car-owning suburb-dwellers might increase total pollution. For example, if a family with one car turns into a family with two or three.
  - bobbydroptables 7y ago
    Which is a great example of why we should be taxing cars more to reflect all of their externalities. There probably shouldn't be three car families.
    - HPsquared 7y ago
      I think a pay-as-you go road tariff would be a nice way to introduce some 'nudges' in the right direction. It could be managed by GPS trackers in vehicles, with the ability to charge different amounts in different locations and time of day (i.e. driving in cities or during rush hour should be discouraged), level of congestion, vehicle type (weight, length, self-driving or not), and selective emission controls (e.g. high polluters banned from city centres). Fuel taxes are a simple, proportional way to target carbon emissions (effectively a carbon tax). However things like this should all be done with care (see gilets jaunes).
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Even if they're all electric cars? This is why I live in the suburbs. You can't champion density as the solution on the one hand, and then say, "you have to drastically change your lifestyle to support density!". Just let people who don't want to live in density pay for the externalities of low density living (require EVs, higher cost for infra, etc).
      - bobbydroptables 7y ago
        I'm not saying anything. I'm relaying what everyone who studies global warming has said. I'm not "championing" anything either. I am relaying the science on global warming which indicates that if we continue down this path then we are absolutely screwed. Density is not my idea. Density is what you get if you want (a) 7 billion people and (b) anything remotely resembling a sustainable society. If you also want a not dense society, then tell me which of (a) and (b) you want to eliminate. If you're saying you want to ween us off of our rapidly worsening fossil fuel addiction then I don't know what to tell you but I do have several bridges to sell you.