31 ms·
The pride remark is anecdotal on my part, but based on SUV sales I would argue that my point is close to true in the US. Cars are a luxury. If you are willing
by favflam 4y ago
The pride remark is anecdotal on my part, but based on SUV sales I would argue that my point is close to true in the US.
Cars are a luxury. If you are willing to pay a tax based on engine displacement , give priority on roads to pedestrians and cyclists, and still prefer car-travel, then it is a win-win. If you want city governments to prioritize car-travel over everyone else, then it is a win-lose. The only winner will be car-owners who can spare the cash flow.
The economics on transporting 1s of kgs of food by 1000s of kgs of metal no longer makes sense in the United States for the majority of people as they have poor cash flow and poor balance sheets. I think economically speaking delivery trucks and local supermarkets should take most of the burden.
- notch656a 4y ago>I think economically speaking delivery trucks and local supermarkets should take most of the burden. Currently car owners disproportionately pay for roads that those without cars enjoy. They pay for roads (in their own fuel tax, purchase tax on automobile, and often in registration fees) that allow heavy delivery trucks to bring food and medicine and various goods to local shops and addresses where the car-less can access them. This all despite a car wears remarkably less on a road than the semis that truck in these goods so the car-less (and others) can access them locally. If anything, pedestrians and bike riders underpay for a road system they take advantage of. In fact one can ride a bicycle and be a near complete free-rider to the road system, if your income is low enough, despite still availing yourself of benefits such as trucked in food/medicine/goods.