3 ms·

>it doesn't justify letting everyone drive everywhere. Where do you draw the line? Who "deserves" the freedom of free movement and who does not? Assuming the n

>it doesn't justify letting everyone drive everywhere. Where do you draw the line? Who "deserves" the freedom of free movement and who does not? Assuming the near-future cars are quiet and tailpipe emission-free EV's, why would you care who does/does not drive? If you like to walk, walk. If you need to drive, drive. Why try to force everyone into the lifestyle you think is best? Not letting "everyone drive everywhere" is a scary future that I would not like to live in. If I have the means and wish to drive, I will.

Arnt 5y ago
That is indeed a question, and I observe that the democratic process that decides it is a bit skewed, at least from some people's points of view. AFAICT, a fair summary is that almost everyone wants restrictive rules where they live, but some/many also want permissive rules in other places (to which they can then drive). The suburban voters who want to drive in the inner city are quick to complain if one of the navigation systems starts recommending a shortcut through residential streets in their suburb. Since voting happens according to where one lives, the suburban voters have next to no say in inner-city matters. This may be seen as fair or unfair. Unfair, because it means that the most car-unfriendly voters tend to set the rules where it matters most, while the most car-friendly voters don't matter much. Fair, because it depresses the number of cars in the noisiest areas, somewhat equalising the noise/traffic people have to suffer where they live.
Steltek 5y ago
The public needs to decide how to allocate public space: for roads, bus lanes, bike paths, or sidewalks. Even if everyone was magically given EVs tomorrow, cities would still be choked with traffic, fights for parking, and dead pedestrians run over by distracted drivers. Since the 1950's, car centric thinking has dominated US transportation planning. Go to a US city meeting and experience the struggle to simply install a 3ft bike lane on a 4 lane road. You may recoil at restrictions being placed on cars but it's well past time for it to happen.

Arnt 5y ago

That is indeed a question, and I observe that the democratic process that decides it is a bit skewed, at least from some people's points of view. AFAICT, a fair summary is that almost everyone wants restrictive rules where they live, but some/many also want permissive rules in other places (to which they can then drive). The suburban voters who want to drive in the inner city are quick to complain if one of the navigation systems starts recommending a shortcut through residential streets in their suburb. Since voting happens according to where one lives, the suburban voters have next to no say in inner-city matters. This may be seen as fair or unfair. Unfair, because it means that the most car-unfriendly voters tend to set the rules where it matters most, while the most car-friendly voters don't matter much. Fair, because it depresses the number of cars in the noisiest areas, somewhat equalising the noise/traffic people have to suffer where they live.

Steltek 5y ago

The public needs to decide how to allocate public space: for roads, bus lanes, bike paths, or sidewalks. Even if everyone was magically given EVs tomorrow, cities would still be choked with traffic, fights for parking, and dead pedestrians run over by distracted drivers. Since the 1950's, car centric thinking has dominated US transportation planning. Go to a US city meeting and experience the struggle to simply install a 3ft bike lane on a 4 lane road. You may recoil at restrictions being placed on cars but it's well past time for it to happen.