3 ms·
It's mostly cultural I suspect. There are almost no technical reasons and very few financial reasons why it wouldn't be possible. But to get there you'd have to
by oneplane 4y ago
It's mostly cultural I suspect. There are almost no technical reasons and very few financial reasons why it wouldn't be possible. But to get there you'd have to make cities (as that's where those ares are the most useful) a bit more like Europe and Japan (for living, not for driving around in a big car), and people don't like change and in the US it's even more of a dislike it the change seems to come from an example outside of the country.
Most of this suspicion is cobbled together from my own experience in the US (mostly the costs, not the middle part), and publications like NotJustBikes and about the way some US cities tend to grow outwards because investing in making what's already there healthy to live in is not as profitable as waiting for gentrification-ripeness and building around it in the meantime.
- WalterBright 4y agoCrash protection is a technical reason. US car regulations grew up around larger cars.
- oneplane 4y agoThat would definitely end up in a spiral where you can only keep making bigger cars so they can't get crashed to death by other cars. Reminds me of the side-effect of car-centric urban designs where it apparently is 'not news' to have people crash their cars into buildings.
- 8note 4y agoCrash protection is also a function of speed and what you'll crash into. Change those, and the car can be different