5 ms·
I think that's a terrible idea. It's just a negative. What about when we need to get somewhere?
by FridayoLeary 5y ago
I think that's a terrible idea. It's just a negative. What about when we need to get somewhere?
- chaps 5y agoThe implication of these pipe dreams includes the doubling down of public transit infrastructure.
- FridayoLeary 5y agoImprove public transport then take away my car. But what they can do is get rid of all those useless, oversized, bloated SUV's. A car doesn't need to be a status symbol, and in approximately 99.99987% of use cases it does not need to be a Mercedes G-Wagen amg. (there are millions of drivers out there, so i'm not sure if i put in enough 9's)
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoIf you improve public transit you don't need to take away people's cars. Nobody is enduring a car commute into Boston, NYC, London, Paris, etc, unless their other options are downright terrible.
- rootusrootus 5y agoSmart cars for everyone. Statistically that's all anyone should need. Sounds really like a leopard-ate-my-face moment, TBH. It's fine when they come for the things you don't like. Just wait...
- lamontcg 5y ago> Smart cars for everyone. Statistically that's all anyone should need. That's not how statistics work.
- 3np 5y agoYou use public transport. Which implies huge infrastructure developments, of course.
- imgabe 5y agoPublic transportation, bikes, Uber, walking Allow denser construction so the places you need to get are within walking distance. There are other forms of transportation besides cars.
- ledauphin 5y agoyou had me until "Uber". those are.... cars.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoTaxis are worse because they will be spending time driving around without a passenger. In the worst case they will be doing twice the mileage of a personal vehicle.
- lenzm 5y agoPublic transit, walk, bike, ... Nobody bats an eye if you can't get somewhere easily by public transit but the prospect of not being able to drive somewhere is incomprehensible?