6 ms·

The anti-car crowd has missed this, somehow, in their lust to convert all of us to lemmings that can only get around with mass transport. There's an incredible

The anti-car crowd has missed this, somehow, in their lust to convert all of us to lemmings that can only get around with mass transport. There's an incredible sense of freedom that comes with a car: you can go where you choose, when you choose, without filing a flight plan or getting a ticket or anything other than fueling the thing up. When you're dealing with something on the scale of North America, it's hard to imagine going without. As a Canadian, there are places here that mass transit can never dream of taking me. Am I to never go to these places?

naravara 7y ago
You realize you can have a lot more enjoyable driving experiences if you enable all the people who only drive for instrumental reasons to get off the roads right? Nobody is "anti-car." People are anti-city-planning-that-requires-you-to-use-a-car-every-day-in-order-to-be-a-functioning-member-of-society.
- pubstik 7y ago
  Even "pro-car" people are in favor those who would rather not drive keeping off the roadways. This is a strawman on both sides of the argument. Clearly a functional public And private transport infrastructure are both useful to everyone who also leaves their domicile.
  - akgerber 7y ago
    There are actual policies (the easiest one is stopping mandates for huge amounts of free/discounted parking at all new homes & businesses) that make it possible for people who would rather not drive to not drive, and many 'pro-car' people come out to oppose their implementation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
ohples 7y ago
As a member of that anti-car crowd, I think most of us would be happy with just banishing cars from city and most residential centers. We want to make cars an option, not a requirement. Having too many cars also starts to encroach on other peoples freedoms via noise pollution, smog, less open space, etc. Also, keep in mind we are talking about something that kills and injures a large number of people a year.
- pubstik 7y ago
  Pools kill many people a year, mostly children, but we don't close them because the risk is severly outweighed by their utility. I think your argument is overall sound, but you need to find some better examples that apply. If we really were so outraged about auto deatus we would be clamoring for anti-screen enforcement, which has a larger effect on deaths than drunk driving, street racing, and all gun crime combined.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    To be fair, states are starting to ban using non-hands-free phones. One curious point is that, in a neighboring state, the fine is extremely small. However, insurance companies are treating such citations as a similar risk to having a DWI/DUI citation; construction workers and other drivers are already having a hard time getting hired because their record of having been pulled over for usinga phone makes them too expensive for employers to insure for company vehicles.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      > However, insurance companies are treating such citations as a similar risk to having a DWI/DUI citation; Insurers have a strong financial incentive to have "mass market" infractions that don't really tell you anything about someone's risk in the highest category in any state that uses a points system because the points system provides a "we're all gonna charge these people more" pact with the other insurers and they can get the actual violation data they use for risk assessment in other ways (usually straight from the DMV's api). I'm not defending phone usage but I think anyone with an IQ above freezing can see that the average instance of it (which around here is people texting at red lights) is not as big of a risk indicator as a DUI citation.
wffurr 7y ago
You can do the same thing with a rail pass and frequent service. Hop on, hop off, whatever schedule you want. It's a wonderful way to travel. You could even gasp rent a car at a stop if you want to go further out into the wilderness for a bit. Or bicycles. Or horses. Or hang-gliders. The places you should only be able to get to with mass transport are city centers, where cars are an incredibly dangerous polluting menace.
drdeadringer 7y ago
I don't miss having a car. Sure, your "freedom to". "Just Hop In And Go Right Now On A Whimsical Fancy". All in that 1950s Golden Glory afterglow. Here's the other side of the coin: You are missing "freedom from". The stress of driving in traffic. The stress of Those Other Drivers. Parking: finding, paying for, &c. Gas prices. Vehicle maintenance. Those awesome places one can't get to without a car? This is partly why the car rental business exists; it's not just for Business-Person Just Off The Tarmac. Different people have different lifestyles, especially when in living in different places.

naravara 7y ago

You realize you can have a lot more enjoyable driving experiences if you enable all the people who only drive for instrumental reasons to get off the roads right? Nobody is "anti-car." People are anti-city-planning-that-requires-you-to-use-a-car-every-day-in-order-to-be-a-functioning-member-of-society.

pubstik 7y ago
Even "pro-car" people are in favor those who would rather not drive keeping off the roadways. This is a strawman on both sides of the argument. Clearly a functional public And private transport infrastructure are both useful to everyone who also leaves their domicile.
- akgerber 7y ago
  There are actual policies (the easiest one is stopping mandates for huge amounts of free/discounted parking at all new homes & businesses) that make it possible for people who would rather not drive to not drive, and many 'pro-car' people come out to oppose their implementation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

ohples 7y ago

As a member of that anti-car crowd, I think most of us would be happy with just banishing cars from city and most residential centers. We want to make cars an option, not a requirement. Having too many cars also starts to encroach on other peoples freedoms via noise pollution, smog, less open space, etc. Also, keep in mind we are talking about something that kills and injures a large number of people a year.

pubstik 7y ago
Pools kill many people a year, mostly children, but we don't close them because the risk is severly outweighed by their utility. I think your argument is overall sound, but you need to find some better examples that apply. If we really were so outraged about auto deatus we would be clamoring for anti-screen enforcement, which has a larger effect on deaths than drunk driving, street racing, and all gun crime combined.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  To be fair, states are starting to ban using non-hands-free phones. One curious point is that, in a neighboring state, the fine is extremely small. However, insurance companies are treating such citations as a similar risk to having a DWI/DUI citation; construction workers and other drivers are already having a hard time getting hired because their record of having been pulled over for usinga phone makes them too expensive for employers to insure for company vehicles.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    > However, insurance companies are treating such citations as a similar risk to having a DWI/DUI citation; Insurers have a strong financial incentive to have "mass market" infractions that don't really tell you anything about someone's risk in the highest category in any state that uses a points system because the points system provides a "we're all gonna charge these people more" pact with the other insurers and they can get the actual violation data they use for risk assessment in other ways (usually straight from the DMV's api). I'm not defending phone usage but I think anyone with an IQ above freezing can see that the average instance of it (which around here is people texting at red lights) is not as big of a risk indicator as a DUI citation.

wffurr 7y ago

You can do the same thing with a rail pass and frequent service. Hop on, hop off, whatever schedule you want. It's a wonderful way to travel. You could even gasp rent a car at a stop if you want to go further out into the wilderness for a bit. Or bicycles. Or horses. Or hang-gliders. The places you should only be able to get to with mass transport are city centers, where cars are an incredibly dangerous polluting menace.

drdeadringer 7y ago

I don't miss having a car. Sure, your "freedom to". "Just Hop In And Go Right Now On A Whimsical Fancy". All in that 1950s Golden Glory afterglow. Here's the other side of the coin: You are missing "freedom from". The stress of driving in traffic. The stress of Those Other Drivers. Parking: finding, paying for, &c. Gas prices. Vehicle maintenance. Those awesome places one can't get to without a car? This is partly why the car rental business exists; it's not just for Business-Person Just Off The Tarmac. Different people have different lifestyles, especially when in living in different places.