3 ms·

Needing an expensive car to get anywhere is the opposite of "freedom of movement." If you live in a car-dependant place, but are unable to drive for any reason

• dkdk8283 6y ago
  That makes absolutely no sense. I broke my leg and I was disabled for 6 months. Having a car during that period was essential. Having a car is a nice luxury. Public transportation is a pain.
  • cameronh90 6y ago
    What you find here is that people with broken legs are still regularly walking around using crutches, which is advisable from a health perspective. We do of course have other systems for disabled people to get around if public transport is unsuitable. But you're right in a way. Driving is more pleasant than public transport, but it's completely not scalable as we've seen over the last 50 years. Rural living isn't scalable globally either except in relatively few countries (USA being one) due to the land and infrastructure constraints. The only reason driving a car and living rural seems affordable is you're not paying for the externalities, and are in a sparsely populated country. Most people in the world are going to need to live most of their lives in urban built up areas, and it's right that public policy favours the those people, and that is best achieved by discouraging car use in favour of transit, walking and cycling. If you want to drive a car that's fine, but people who do should pay the costs, and that includes the additional maintenance costs that delivery services should be charged for sending heavy destructive vehicles over rural roads. Kind of like flying first class.