7 ms·

If you ban people from driving cars and make them walk everywhere - you could also eliminate car accident deaths, it's not sustainable though...

by usaphp 5y ago

wbsss4412 5y ago
I mean maybe you’re onto something and don’t realize it. Banning cars would be more akin to totally locking down rather than incentivizing vaccination, masks and other public health measures that aren’t as invasive. Maybe, similarly discouraging car y use and encouraging walking is a good thing.
- aronpye 5y ago
  So basically destroy rural populations which are also the source of all our food? Unless I’m mistaken in that cities are actually the source of all life sustaining industries.
  - pm90 5y ago
    Enough with the hyperbole. Discouraging car use won’t destroy rural populations; it would improve the QoL of urban ones.
    - aronpye 5y ago
      You can’t survive in a rural area without a car
      - pm90 5y ago
        The parent said: > Maybe, similarly discouraging car y use and encouraging walking is a good thing. That policy won’t take cars away from the rural populace.
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        Is discouraging synonymous with destroying in your lexicon? Most people don’t live in rural areas and most deadly accidents don’t occur in rural areas either. Discouraging car use in cities has next to no effect on rural populations.
        aronpye 5y ago
        Approx 19.3% of Americans live in rural areas, and a higher proportion of rural residents are in poverty. Therefore, measures to discourage car use are likely to disproportionally adversely impact some of the poorest in society. Unless those measures somehow completely avoid affecting rural populations. I’d support city only measures like a city income tax to fund public transportation and conversion of stroads to pedestrian friendly streets. But what is likely to happen are general taxations on car users such as fuel duty and onerous regulations which push up the cost of car ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_Stat...
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        You’re making a lot of assumptions as to what “discouraging car use” entails. We both agreed that rural areas would not be a good place to target such policies, so why assume I was saying we should push policies that are overly broad?
    - Auracle 5y ago
      How would you discourage car use? Taxes?
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        Realistically? Changing planning rules that require tons of extra parking, wide roads, and overbuilt freeways. Current policies induce demand and make it difficult to promote transit and other modes.
quadrangle 5y ago
What do you mean not sustainable??? If we limited and regulated car use pretty extremely and stuck with trains, bikes, and walking, we would be half the way there toward a completely sustainable society. Cars are a major source of the least sustainable aspects of humanity on earth today.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Most of America needs cars. Society would collapse if you just "limited and regulated car use pretty extremely". If there's a solution to that, then let's just do that, and skip the authoritarian part afterward.
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    You mean most of America is designed to be car-dependent. So, yes, in the current design it needs cars. I wasn't saying we could just suddenly ban them tomorrow. The solution is hard because of how bad we've gotten things. But the solution has little authoritarian about it. We just change our priorities for the design of public infrastructure. We don't even need to actually ban cars at all. Make it practical and enjoyable to do everything by train, bike, or walking whenever possible and most people will happily do it. The result is a huge decrease in deaths both through healthier living and less cars. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos describes things pretty well and accessibly. In short: the Netherlands was on track 40 years ago to be nearly as car-dependent as the U.S. and yet protesters blocked some highway proposals and the country went in a different direction. Today, it's the best designed place in the world, and its even better for drivers too.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > But the solution has little authoritarian about it. The authoritarian part was limiting/regulating car use pretty extremely. I'm perfectly fine with making alternatives to cars more practical, just not with making cars less practical.
dr_zoidberg 5y ago
It's pretty sustainable on cities witth proper public transport. And I say that living on a city with pretty much subpar public transport, but on which I manage to go everyday just walking, save for a few trips from time to time where I definitely need to move by car (it's a bit under once per week, think 30-40 times a year).
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
If you banned cigarettes, you'd save many lives, and it's also pretty much sustainable for everybody except the tobacco industry. I'm not sure which country (NZ?) implemented a law, that everyone born after some year, will not be able to buy cigarettes anymore, so old smokers can still buy them, but kids just turning 18 can't anymore, and never will be able to.
- usaphp 5y ago
  Banning cigarettes is not something that is comparable to banning people from traveling and gathering with their friends...
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    But it saves lives. In my country (Slovenia), cigarettes kill more people than covid did (in the last 2 years)... we had huge lockdowns, and pointed the fingers at anyone who ignored some of the rules (even though our constitutional court ruled afterwards that most of the lockdowns were unconstitutional), but just banning smoking would save more lives than covid took away.
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      > but just banning smoking would save more lives than covid took away. ... Assuming people wouldn't buy on the black market, drive down to Croatia, Italy or Austria to replenish their supply, etc.
      - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        If you did an age-ban (anyone born after 2003 can't buy them), there'd probably be less younger smokers, because driving across the border takes time and money.
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      You may know this, but smoking is being banned in New Zealand.

If you ban people from driving cars and make them walk everywhere - you could also eliminate car accident deaths, it's not sustainable though...

by usaphp 5y ago

If you ban people from driving cars and make them walk everywhere - you could also eliminate car accident deaths, it's not sustainable though...

wbsss4412 5y ago

I mean maybe you’re onto something and don’t realize it. Banning cars would be more akin to totally locking down rather than incentivizing vaccination, masks and other public health measures that aren’t as invasive. Maybe, similarly discouraging car y use and encouraging walking is a good thing.

aronpye 5y ago
So basically destroy rural populations which are also the source of all our food? Unless I’m mistaken in that cities are actually the source of all life sustaining industries.
- pm90 5y ago
  Enough with the hyperbole. Discouraging car use won’t destroy rural populations; it would improve the QoL of urban ones.
  - aronpye 5y ago
    You can’t survive in a rural area without a car
    - pm90 5y ago
      The parent said: > Maybe, similarly discouraging car y use and encouraging walking is a good thing. That policy won’t take cars away from the rural populace.
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      Is discouraging synonymous with destroying in your lexicon? Most people don’t live in rural areas and most deadly accidents don’t occur in rural areas either. Discouraging car use in cities has next to no effect on rural populations.
      - aronpye 5y ago
        Approx 19.3% of Americans live in rural areas, and a higher proportion of rural residents are in poverty. Therefore, measures to discourage car use are likely to disproportionally adversely impact some of the poorest in society. Unless those measures somehow completely avoid affecting rural populations. I’d support city only measures like a city income tax to fund public transportation and conversion of stroads to pedestrian friendly streets. But what is likely to happen are general taxations on car users such as fuel duty and onerous regulations which push up the cost of car ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_Stat...
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        You’re making a lot of assumptions as to what “discouraging car use” entails. We both agreed that rural areas would not be a good place to target such policies, so why assume I was saying we should push policies that are overly broad?
  - Auracle 5y ago
    How would you discourage car use? Taxes?
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      Realistically? Changing planning rules that require tons of extra parking, wide roads, and overbuilt freeways. Current policies induce demand and make it difficult to promote transit and other modes.

quadrangle 5y ago

What do you mean not sustainable??? If we limited and regulated car use pretty extremely and stuck with trains, bikes, and walking, we would be half the way there toward a completely sustainable society. Cars are a major source of the least sustainable aspects of humanity on earth today.

josephcsible 5y ago
Most of America needs cars. Society would collapse if you just "limited and regulated car use pretty extremely". If there's a solution to that, then let's just do that, and skip the authoritarian part afterward.
- quadrangle 5y ago
  You mean most of America is designed to be car-dependent. So, yes, in the current design it needs cars. I wasn't saying we could just suddenly ban them tomorrow. The solution is hard because of how bad we've gotten things. But the solution has little authoritarian about it. We just change our priorities for the design of public infrastructure. We don't even need to actually ban cars at all. Make it practical and enjoyable to do everything by train, bike, or walking whenever possible and most people will happily do it. The result is a huge decrease in deaths both through healthier living and less cars. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos describes things pretty well and accessibly. In short: the Netherlands was on track 40 years ago to be nearly as car-dependent as the U.S. and yet protesters blocked some highway proposals and the country went in a different direction. Today, it's the best designed place in the world, and its even better for drivers too.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > But the solution has little authoritarian about it. The authoritarian part was limiting/regulating car use pretty extremely. I'm perfectly fine with making alternatives to cars more practical, just not with making cars less practical.

dr_zoidberg 5y ago

It's pretty sustainable on cities witth proper public transport. And I say that living on a city with pretty much subpar public transport, but on which I manage to go everyday just walking, save for a few trips from time to time where I definitely need to move by car (it's a bit under once per week, think 30-40 times a year).

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

If you banned cigarettes, you'd save many lives, and it's also pretty much sustainable for everybody except the tobacco industry. I'm not sure which country (NZ?) implemented a law, that everyone born after some year, will not be able to buy cigarettes anymore, so old smokers can still buy them, but kids just turning 18 can't anymore, and never will be able to.

usaphp 5y ago
Banning cigarettes is not something that is comparable to banning people from traveling and gathering with their friends...
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  But it saves lives. In my country (Slovenia), cigarettes kill more people than covid did (in the last 2 years)... we had huge lockdowns, and pointed the fingers at anyone who ignored some of the rules (even though our constitutional court ruled afterwards that most of the lockdowns were unconstitutional), but just banning smoking would save more lives than covid took away.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    > but just banning smoking would save more lives than covid took away. ... Assuming people wouldn't buy on the black market, drive down to Croatia, Italy or Austria to replenish their supply, etc.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      If you did an age-ban (anyone born after 2003 can't buy them), there'd probably be less younger smokers, because driving across the border takes time and money.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    You may know this, but smoking is being banned in New Zealand.