4 ms·

There's no need to ban cars - it would be quiet sufficient just for governments to stop building infrastructure (and making various laws around its usage) as th

There's no need to ban cars - it would be quiet sufficient just for governments to stop building infrastructure (and making various laws around its usage) as though cars were the only type of transport that mattered. FWIW, in principle self-driving tech could make our cities far more "people" friendly and less attuned to the needs to cars, but only if there was some sort of motivation for the tech to be developed with that goal in mind.

panick21_ 4y ago
Actually there is a huge need to ban cars in cities. Many cities are doing it and those cities are far better to live in and visit because of it. Large scale pedestrianization of cities is a gigantic for for improvement of the world. Both in terms of less accidents, cleaner air, more attractive city, more efficient transit, increase health from bicycle use and walking. I could go on. So the program should be ban cars from anything that could even remotely be consider a core part of the city, massively slow cars down around the city, remove all on-street parking on all public land, eliminate all minimum parking requirements. The list of policies goes on. > self-driving tech could make our cities far more "people" friendly Having cars with 1 person use up the most valuable space in the world is bad enough, doing it with cars that have 0 people in them is worse. Self driving at best should be for a very small % of trips, maybe less then 1% in very few special cases, maybe for old people, people with disabilities and stuff like that.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  > Many cities are doing it Can you give an example of a such a city (other than the obvious examples of having sections of the inner core of a city where car usage is restricted, which is pretty much the norm in many older European cities)? But it doesn't make any sense to build (or even maintain) a city with roads designed for cars, then not allow them to be used for that purpose. If the roads and other car-based infrastructure were re-purposed in a way that made them clearly unsuitable for cars, again, as I said, you don't need to ban them - it just wouldn't be feasible or practical to use them for the vast majority of people.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    There are lots of example and test going on. Yes old cities in Europe always had this but these zones are expanding. Barcelona Super-Blocks, Paris has a huge program, even Brugge is doing more of it, many cities in the Netherlands. In North America Montreal has been pushing forward. Even New York has done some of this, but not nearly enough. > a city with roads designed for cars, then not allow them to be used for that purpose Actually, walking, bikes, buses and commercial vehicles can use them just fine without personal cars being there. You can also put stuff there, like restaurants can expand. You can make use the space in lots of different ways. Yes eventually you want to move away from asphalt streets towards something more reasonable (and more environmentally friendly) but there is lots of things you can do on asphalt. > it just wouldn't be feasible or practical to use them for the vast majority of people. Actually removing cars and giving priority for walking, bicycles and public transport increases the transport capacity of the streets. Its also better for business along those streets as has been proven in study after study done on pedestrianization.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  > Actually there is a huge need to ban cars in cities. Many cities are doing it and those cities are far better to live in and visit because of it. I think you missed the point. People drive cars on roads. Stop building, and start removing, roads and people no longer drive on them. There is no need to go through the process of banning cars if you just change how and what infrastructure gets built.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    You don't need to remove roads, you simply need to repurpose them. You can't just remove roads in the middle of cities. Like what does that even mean? You just block of cars and let people retake those spaces.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      > You can't just remove roads in the middle of cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_removal Plenty of other info online describing various successful transformation projects that basically involved getting rid of car-based (or worse, car-exclusive) infrastructure. My main point is that it doesn't need to be replaced with something where cars aren't allowed at all, just with infrastructure that gives equal priority to all modes of getting around. And it's just not removal, I'd hope to see that as a guiding policy for the building of new urban developments too (sadly we're still someway off that in Australia - most of that occurs on the city fringes and further entrenches car-dependency).

panick21_ 4y ago

Actually there is a huge need to ban cars in cities. Many cities are doing it and those cities are far better to live in and visit because of it. Large scale pedestrianization of cities is a gigantic for for improvement of the world. Both in terms of less accidents, cleaner air, more attractive city, more efficient transit, increase health from bicycle use and walking. I could go on. So the program should be ban cars from anything that could even remotely be consider a core part of the city, massively slow cars down around the city, remove all on-street parking on all public land, eliminate all minimum parking requirements. The list of policies goes on. > self-driving tech could make our cities far more "people" friendly Having cars with 1 person use up the most valuable space in the world is bad enough, doing it with cars that have 0 people in them is worse. Self driving at best should be for a very small % of trips, maybe less then 1% in very few special cases, maybe for old people, people with disabilities and stuff like that.

wizofaus 4y ago
> Many cities are doing it Can you give an example of a such a city (other than the obvious examples of having sections of the inner core of a city where car usage is restricted, which is pretty much the norm in many older European cities)? But it doesn't make any sense to build (or even maintain) a city with roads designed for cars, then not allow them to be used for that purpose. If the roads and other car-based infrastructure were re-purposed in a way that made them clearly unsuitable for cars, again, as I said, you don't need to ban them - it just wouldn't be feasible or practical to use them for the vast majority of people.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  There are lots of example and test going on. Yes old cities in Europe always had this but these zones are expanding. Barcelona Super-Blocks, Paris has a huge program, even Brugge is doing more of it, many cities in the Netherlands. In North America Montreal has been pushing forward. Even New York has done some of this, but not nearly enough. > a city with roads designed for cars, then not allow them to be used for that purpose Actually, walking, bikes, buses and commercial vehicles can use them just fine without personal cars being there. You can also put stuff there, like restaurants can expand. You can make use the space in lots of different ways. Yes eventually you want to move away from asphalt streets towards something more reasonable (and more environmentally friendly) but there is lots of things you can do on asphalt. > it just wouldn't be feasible or practical to use them for the vast majority of people. Actually removing cars and giving priority for walking, bicycles and public transport increases the transport capacity of the streets. Its also better for business along those streets as has been proven in study after study done on pedestrianization.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
> Actually there is a huge need to ban cars in cities. Many cities are doing it and those cities are far better to live in and visit because of it. I think you missed the point. People drive cars on roads. Stop building, and start removing, roads and people no longer drive on them. There is no need to go through the process of banning cars if you just change how and what infrastructure gets built.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  You don't need to remove roads, you simply need to repurpose them. You can't just remove roads in the middle of cities. Like what does that even mean? You just block of cars and let people retake those spaces.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    > You can't just remove roads in the middle of cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_removal Plenty of other info online describing various successful transformation projects that basically involved getting rid of car-based (or worse, car-exclusive) infrastructure. My main point is that it doesn't need to be replaced with something where cars aren't allowed at all, just with infrastructure that gives equal priority to all modes of getting around. And it's just not removal, I'd hope to see that as a guiding policy for the building of new urban developments too (sadly we're still someway off that in Australia - most of that occurs on the city fringes and further entrenches car-dependency).