3 ms·

> Great, so if we can't all have something, none of us should have it! Forget the fact that the vast majority of families own and benefit from personal transpor

> Great, so if we can't all have something, none of us should have it! Forget the fact that the vast majority of families own and benefit from personal transportation, the important thing is that we're all equal, even if the equal case is on average worse for everyone, right? This is entirely the opposite of what the car-free movement is trying to accomplish. Car-free is strictly concerned dense urban areas, where private automobiles pretty strictly work against the common good. They are noisy, dangerous, polluting, and fail to create efficient transportation networks. In such places, there is very good reason to believe that car-free would improve quality of life and median welfare for residents. Obviously car-free is not a realistic option in suburban, semi-urban, and rural areas. No one who is advocating car-free is suggesting we do it there. Any increase in equality that comes along with it (honestly I'm skeptical it would make much of a difference) would be purely incidental.

ctdonath 7y ago
Impression of the "car free" movement is complete elimination of vehicles, urban and rural alike. "Move closer to a train station" seems axiomatic.
- ogre_codes 7y ago
  Your impression is largely wrong here. The goal here is to make dense urban areas safer, cleaner, and improve the quality of life in those dense urban areas where getting around without a car makes sense. That may mean people who live in sub-urban and rural areas have to stop at the fringe and catch a bus, walk, or pedal the last leg of their journey, but it doesn't mean they need to give up their cars for transport outside those dense urban areas.
ogre_codes 7y ago
> Any increase in equality that comes along with it (honestly I'm skeptical it would make much of a difference) would be purely incidental. "Equality" is perhaps a poor choice of words here. I will say that for people on the cusp—mainly young and poor people—having a car break down can spiral into a really bad situation or even homelessness. When you can't afford to fix your car and your car is required to get to your job, the situation can become untenable quickly.

ctdonath 7y ago

Impression of the "car free" movement is complete elimination of vehicles, urban and rural alike. "Move closer to a train station" seems axiomatic.

ogre_codes 7y ago
Your impression is largely wrong here. The goal here is to make dense urban areas safer, cleaner, and improve the quality of life in those dense urban areas where getting around without a car makes sense. That may mean people who live in sub-urban and rural areas have to stop at the fringe and catch a bus, walk, or pedal the last leg of their journey, but it doesn't mean they need to give up their cars for transport outside those dense urban areas.

ogre_codes 7y ago

> Any increase in equality that comes along with it (honestly I'm skeptical it would make much of a difference) would be purely incidental. "Equality" is perhaps a poor choice of words here. I will say that for people on the cusp—mainly young and poor people—having a car break down can spiral into a really bad situation or even homelessness. When you can't afford to fix your car and your car is required to get to your job, the situation can become untenable quickly.