5 ms·

>"why do we as a society in various countries require poor people to buy a car in order to participate in society?" I believe this framing is wrong. "Participa

>"why do we as a society in various countries require poor people to buy a car in order to participate in society?" I believe this framing is wrong. "Participating in society" is a loaded term because it is so ambiguous. I believe the truth of the matter is the owning a vehicle enables so much more movement and activity. >"Maybe instead of doing that, we should treat cars as luxury objects and an after-thought and instead actually build correctly and in a equitable and affordable way?" I get the sentiment, but I find it to be glib because it glosses over why this would be so hard to implement, and how we got to this situation in the first place. In a way, it seems like "Instead of things being bad, why don't we make things good?"

ericmay 4y ago
I don't think it's too ambiguous. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. That's how our cities in America are designed and how a huge number of people live their day to day lives. > why this would be so hard to implement I definitely agree that it's hard to implement, but that's because of design and special interests in not implementing it. It would be cheaper for sure. You can think through it yourself because cities a long time ago (which were less complex and had less access to technology) built this way, and then as they "progressed" they built more difficult to build and more complex highways, cars, and roads. So it's easier to implement walkable cities and neighborhoods almost by definition because that's what was built first.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. " I take challenge with this because it is hyperbolic. It is one thing to say mass transit is insufficient, but to claim there are no alternatives whatsoever is flat-out wrong. And, the claim that someone has to own a car in order to "do anything related to society in the physical world" is just as bad. People absolutely manage without this, and it also discounts all the mass transit options you already support and want to see expand. Part of what upsets me so much about the car-critical movement is how fast and loose people play with words.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I live in the suburbs in Lewis Center, Ohio. If I want to get a coffee? I have to get in my car and drive somewhere. Groceries? Same. Gym? Well I built one in my garage, but same thing. Doctor? Off and away I go in a car. I can walk over to this pizza place, but doing so is dangerous because I have to cross a high-traffic road with a 45 mph speed limit. Very few people do it, though I do see teenagers cross the highway from time to time with skateboards and such like it's Frogger. There isn't just no mass transit, there isn't any transit at all. There aren't any bus stops, there are no bike lanes, there's no train (and never will be) you are stuck in suburban islands where the primary way of getting from one to the other involves a rather ridiculous walk or just literally running multiple lanes of traffic. So please don't suggest that I'm being hyperbolic or loose and fast with words here. This is what reality looks like for where I live and for many millions of Americans.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      Your clarification is helpful and if you had mentioned the context of your location I would not have considered it hyperbolic. You do indeed live in an area where what you mentioned is true. Without mentioning a specific locale the context seemed as if you were making an assertion at-large.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        You could have asked though too... Of course every square inch of America isn't like this, but I think enough of it is that it's a pretty substantial problem - at least from what I've visited. Cheers!
cptskippy 4y ago
> I believe the truth of the matter is the owning a vehicle enables so much more movement and activity. So it's then fair to say that our society is built around motor vehicle ownership and that an inability to afford one excludes you from all that our society has to offer?

ericmay 4y ago

I don't think it's too ambiguous. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. That's how our cities in America are designed and how a huge number of people live their day to day lives. > why this would be so hard to implement I definitely agree that it's hard to implement, but that's because of design and special interests in not implementing it. It would be cheaper for sure. You can think through it yourself because cities a long time ago (which were less complex and had less access to technology) built this way, and then as they "progressed" they built more difficult to build and more complex highways, cars, and roads. So it's easier to implement walkable cities and neighborhoods almost by definition because that's what was built first.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. " I take challenge with this because it is hyperbolic. It is one thing to say mass transit is insufficient, but to claim there are no alternatives whatsoever is flat-out wrong. And, the claim that someone has to own a car in order to "do anything related to society in the physical world" is just as bad. People absolutely manage without this, and it also discounts all the mass transit options you already support and want to see expand. Part of what upsets me so much about the car-critical movement is how fast and loose people play with words.
- ericmay 4y ago
  I live in the suburbs in Lewis Center, Ohio. If I want to get a coffee? I have to get in my car and drive somewhere. Groceries? Same. Gym? Well I built one in my garage, but same thing. Doctor? Off and away I go in a car. I can walk over to this pizza place, but doing so is dangerous because I have to cross a high-traffic road with a 45 mph speed limit. Very few people do it, though I do see teenagers cross the highway from time to time with skateboards and such like it's Frogger. There isn't just no mass transit, there isn't any transit at all. There aren't any bus stops, there are no bike lanes, there's no train (and never will be) you are stuck in suburban islands where the primary way of getting from one to the other involves a rather ridiculous walk or just literally running multiple lanes of traffic. So please don't suggest that I'm being hyperbolic or loose and fast with words here. This is what reality looks like for where I live and for many millions of Americans.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    Your clarification is helpful and if you had mentioned the context of your location I would not have considered it hyperbolic. You do indeed live in an area where what you mentioned is true. Without mentioning a specific locale the context seemed as if you were making an assertion at-large.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      You could have asked though too... Of course every square inch of America isn't like this, but I think enough of it is that it's a pretty substantial problem - at least from what I've visited. Cheers!

cptskippy 4y ago

> I believe the truth of the matter is the owning a vehicle enables so much more movement and activity. So it's then fair to say that our society is built around motor vehicle ownership and that an inability to afford one excludes you from all that our society has to offer?