4 ms·

Most, not all. If you ban cars, that also bans their uses for families with multiple kids or family members.

ericpauley 4y ago
Yours is the first comment in this thread about a car ban. Nobody is arguing that cars don't have uses, but that also doesn't mean we should ignore their negative effects and skip investing in more efficient options.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  If you redo roads to only permit bikes instead of cars, it's an effective car ban. Sure, you can still have your car, but you can't take it anywhere because the roads only fit bikes now. Of course there's nuance to be had, but most discussions just devolve into "why would anyone need a car?"
  - ericpauley 4y ago
    Again, I don’t think anyone is arguing for making regions of the US unreachable by car. But when there are 6+ car lanes and no separated bike infrastructure there are clearly regions unreachable by bike.
  - ehnto 4y ago
    No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins. Regarding the obvious tax comment someone will make, infrastructure budgets usually come from city and council taxes, it does not come from car registration or even fuel tax when you wring out the details. In other words cyclists have been paying their share of infra budget and getting nothing for it for a long time. If you can't picture what it actually looks like, look up the Not Just Bikes video on Stroads. It does a good job of describing the current situation, and why it's hard for people to imagine how bikes could fit with current road infra without impacting them.
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      > No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins. You may want that, and indeed, I would highly prefer that, but most people who discuss this can only think about political punishments to affect behavior and go back to thinking that driving must absolutely suck in order for people to choose other options, rather than making alternatives even better than driving. You don't need to begin with the mindset of "too many car lanes, destroy them until people are forced to use the nonexistant bus". It should begin with "people prefer driving. How many we make something even better so they don't prefer driving anyone?" Sure, that will begin a competition between transportation modes, but when it comes from trying to make something even better, not out of wrath of driving/cars, then perhaps people will listen.
      - ehnto 4y ago
        I'm in total agreeance, this can be a hard conversation to have online because I think each side assumes the worst version of the other. Separated bike lanes does not imply removing total car throughput, in many cases separated bike lanes can be routed down low-traffic areas, alongside drainage canals or railways, through parks and such. Areas where maybe a handful of cars are using it, but hundreds of cyclists would use since it's the bike thoroughfare. Modern city planning is often a story of "Worst of both worlds", in that because we can't even get these small projects done, people are are on foot or cycling have no choice but to be in the way of car traffic (be that cycling in traffic or making it so there has to be pedestrian crossings on major roads and that kind of thing). It's terrible for everyone when it could have been excellent had there just been some better planning and more budget toward non-car infra.
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      > No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins. The reason why you don't see why this "angers" drivers, is because it doesn't. No driver is angered by a bicyclist on their own road not interfering with the flow of traffic. Drivers are angered by cyclists that impede the flow of traffic and create safety hazards (yes, mostly for themselves) by having a bicycle share the road with a 2000 pound steel car going twice the speed. Move cyclists to a grade separated lane and no one will be bothered. The problem is the population of bicyclists is large enough to support such an infrastructure project in only a few places. Whereas the cost of laying down a white strip of paint is sufficiently cheap that it can be done in many more places. So it boils down to money. Arguing that cyclists pay taxes which are used to fund roads and so should have this major infrastructure project funded just for them (if they can direct their taxes this way, will they promise to never to drive a car? Are other people allowed to dedicate their tax funds to support projects just for them? Can childless people opt out of funding public schools and instead fund special centers just for them?) -- is not going to work. Public spending is about pooled resources and public benefits. Everyone benefits from roads -- e.g. even the bicyclists purchase goods shipped to them via roads. Roads allow the economy to function so that bikes can be produced and purchased, etc. At the same time, one can argue that cars benefit from cyclists who reduce traffic. These things are sorted out via a political process -- as a result of power, not some kind of mathematical algorithm. Gain political power and you will gain the power to have these types of infrastructure funds directed for your group, otherwise it wont happen. That means cyclists need to win over the rest of the public whose representatives vote on these matters -- which up to this point is not something cyclists have been interested or capable of doing -- e.g. having good public relations and outreach to other taxpayers who aren't cyclists. Cyclists have an image problem with the rest of the public, which results in their political power being disproportionately small. That is why, in most places, all they get is the white strip of paint.
breuleux 4y ago
"Ban cars" is a fringe position very few people actually hold. This being said. I mean. Cars have only been around for about a century, we've managed without them for millennia. Surely there is a way to reorganize many places so that their use can be slashed by 95%+, including by families. One key thing is that it depends on the place. I think that in a lot of big cities it would be possible (not politically, but theoretically) to e.g. ban all curbside parking, reserve all central lanes for high frequency buses, limit all (non-bus) car traffic to 10 km/h. Car traffic would vanish on its own and the QOL increase for residents would more than make up for the inconvenience (less noise, less eyesore, more trees, safe biking, jaywalk everywhere, play in the street, etc.) On the other hand, you can't really get cars out of hellscape car-centric suburbs (which mostly exist in the US, from my understanding) because they have been designed around the assumption that cars exist. You wouldn't get QOL improvements from slashing car traffic like you would in cities. So I would argue to leave all these places alone, but we should try to suppress cars in dense cities as much as possible. As someone who lives in one, I would particularly like curbside parking to be nuked, because cars are an eyesore, they block visibility, and they are wasting so much usable space.
ehnto 4y ago
Of course, the only reason you need a car for your family is because we built car centric cities that require it. We haven't had that for long, less than 100 years. I wouldn't suggest someone run a family without a car in a modern American city, but there are still places even in America that didn't get rebuilt around cars and of course plenty of places around the world where you can raise a family without a car.

Yours is the first comment in this thread about a car ban. Nobody is arguing that cars don't have uses, but that also doesn't mean we should ignore their negative effects and skip investing in more efficient options.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago
If you redo roads to only permit bikes instead of cars, it's an effective car ban. Sure, you can still have your car, but you can't take it anywhere because the roads only fit bikes now. Of course there's nuance to be had, but most discussions just devolve into "why would anyone need a car?"
- ericpauley 4y ago
  Again, I don’t think anyone is arguing for making regions of the US unreachable by car. But when there are 6+ car lanes and no separated bike infrastructure there are clearly regions unreachable by bike.
- ehnto 4y ago
  No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins. Regarding the obvious tax comment someone will make, infrastructure budgets usually come from city and council taxes, it does not come from car registration or even fuel tax when you wring out the details. In other words cyclists have been paying their share of infra budget and getting nothing for it for a long time. If you can't picture what it actually looks like, look up the Not Just Bikes video on Stroads. It does a good job of describing the current situation, and why it's hard for people to imagine how bikes could fit with current road infra without impacting them.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    > No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins. You may want that, and indeed, I would highly prefer that, but most people who discuss this can only think about political punishments to affect behavior and go back to thinking that driving must absolutely suck in order for people to choose other options, rather than making alternatives even better than driving. You don't need to begin with the mindset of "too many car lanes, destroy them until people are forced to use the nonexistant bus". It should begin with "people prefer driving. How many we make something even better so they don't prefer driving anyone?" Sure, that will begin a competition between transportation modes, but when it comes from trying to make something even better, not out of wrath of driving/cars, then perhaps people will listen.
    - ehnto 4y ago
      I'm in total agreeance, this can be a hard conversation to have online because I think each side assumes the worst version of the other. Separated bike lanes does not imply removing total car throughput, in many cases separated bike lanes can be routed down low-traffic areas, alongside drainage canals or railways, through parks and such. Areas where maybe a handful of cars are using it, but hundreds of cyclists would use since it's the bike thoroughfare. Modern city planning is often a story of "Worst of both worlds", in that because we can't even get these small projects done, people are are on foot or cycling have no choice but to be in the way of car traffic (be that cycling in traffic or making it so there has to be pedestrian crossings on major roads and that kind of thing). It's terrible for everyone when it could have been excellent had there just been some better planning and more budget toward non-car infra.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    > No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins. The reason why you don't see why this "angers" drivers, is because it doesn't. No driver is angered by a bicyclist on their own road not interfering with the flow of traffic. Drivers are angered by cyclists that impede the flow of traffic and create safety hazards (yes, mostly for themselves) by having a bicycle share the road with a 2000 pound steel car going twice the speed. Move cyclists to a grade separated lane and no one will be bothered. The problem is the population of bicyclists is large enough to support such an infrastructure project in only a few places. Whereas the cost of laying down a white strip of paint is sufficiently cheap that it can be done in many more places. So it boils down to money. Arguing that cyclists pay taxes which are used to fund roads and so should have this major infrastructure project funded just for them (if they can direct their taxes this way, will they promise to never to drive a car? Are other people allowed to dedicate their tax funds to support projects just for them? Can childless people opt out of funding public schools and instead fund special centers just for them?) -- is not going to work. Public spending is about pooled resources and public benefits. Everyone benefits from roads -- e.g. even the bicyclists purchase goods shipped to them via roads. Roads allow the economy to function so that bikes can be produced and purchased, etc. At the same time, one can argue that cars benefit from cyclists who reduce traffic. These things are sorted out via a political process -- as a result of power, not some kind of mathematical algorithm. Gain political power and you will gain the power to have these types of infrastructure funds directed for your group, otherwise it wont happen. That means cyclists need to win over the rest of the public whose representatives vote on these matters -- which up to this point is not something cyclists have been interested or capable of doing -- e.g. having good public relations and outreach to other taxpayers who aren't cyclists. Cyclists have an image problem with the rest of the public, which results in their political power being disproportionately small. That is why, in most places, all they get is the white strip of paint.

breuleux 4y ago

"Ban cars" is a fringe position very few people actually hold. This being said. I mean. Cars have only been around for about a century, we've managed without them for millennia. Surely there is a way to reorganize many places so that their use can be slashed by 95%+, including by families. One key thing is that it depends on the place. I think that in a lot of big cities it would be possible (not politically, but theoretically) to e.g. ban all curbside parking, reserve all central lanes for high frequency buses, limit all (non-bus) car traffic to 10 km/h. Car traffic would vanish on its own and the QOL increase for residents would more than make up for the inconvenience (less noise, less eyesore, more trees, safe biking, jaywalk everywhere, play in the street, etc.) On the other hand, you can't really get cars out of hellscape car-centric suburbs (which mostly exist in the US, from my understanding) because they have been designed around the assumption that cars exist. You wouldn't get QOL improvements from slashing car traffic like you would in cities. So I would argue to leave all these places alone, but we should try to suppress cars in dense cities as much as possible. As someone who lives in one, I would particularly like curbside parking to be nuked, because cars are an eyesore, they block visibility, and they are wasting so much usable space.

ehnto 4y ago

Of course, the only reason you need a car for your family is because we built car centric cities that require it. We haven't had that for long, less than 100 years. I wouldn't suggest someone run a family without a car in a modern American city, but there are still places even in America that didn't get rebuilt around cars and of course plenty of places around the world where you can raise a family without a car.