3 ms·

You're doing that thing where you pretend one person needing something somewhere invalidates improving anything for anyone anywhere else. Dense rural environmen

You're doing that thing where you pretend one person needing something somewhere invalidates improving anything for anyone anywhere else. Dense rural environments served by transit exist, and the cause of a lot of travel is getting past all the car infrastructure. Driving is the singularly most destructive and dangerous thing that humans have invented and CO2 is just the worst of its many downsides, the resources and space that go into them and the infrastructure is probably about third on the list after the millions it kills, lithium is just one aspect of that.

Retric 4y ago
Next medical emergency picture staying at home without driving or taking an ambulance for prompt medical care. That’s the world without cars for the vast majority of humanity. Cars have literally saved hundreds of millions of lives. You may pretend I am talking about one person, yet I am describing the vast majority of humanity when I say the car has been one of the greatest inventions of all time. Greatly surpassing computers, telephones, and just about everything else you depend on daily. > Dense rural environments served by transit exist There are no dense rural environments, you may be confused at what this term means but towns are not rural. The term is referring to a lack of density.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Rural just means a low average density and low town population. You could have a single building with 2499 people every 4km with a train stop on the ground floor and it would count as rural. <20% of the US population lives in rural areas, and <20% of those are more than 10 miles from their third nearest food shop. If a region can service three food shops and a hospital it can support regional transit. Personally not wanting to doesn't make it impossible to travel 10 miles by bike or LEV.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You're pulling out the straw man where stopping the sreets being choked with parked cars and traffic somehow means ambulances can't move through them. > There are no dense rural environments, you may be confused at what this term means but towns are not rural. The term is referring to a lack of density. You can have a region with low density where the services are all concentrated. Your straw man about making it so people can do something OTHER than use a car somehow meaning all cars vanish is also extremely tiresome.
  - Retric 4y ago
    No, I am saying without the invention of cars there are no ambulances or trips to the hospital in the. > You can have a region with low density where the services are all concentrated. We call such things towns.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > No, I am saying without the invention of cars there are no ambulances or trips to the hospital in the. Which is not a privately owned car with associated infrastructure. Ie. The thing that does the harm. > We call such things towns. Google the words 'rural town'. You're attempting to overload the word 'rural' to include those people but simultaneously claim they could not possibly live within 5km of transport and therefore must he forced to use a car. Edge cases on edge cases don't justify removing the freedom of 99% of the population to live comfortably without one.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Trying to move the goalposts from “cars” to cars I don’t like. But explain again how on earth is someone driving themselves or a loved one to a hospital in their private car not a privately owned car? > Edge cases on edge cases don't justify removing the freedom of 99% of the population to live comfortably without one. Again you’re pretending the vast majority of people are somehow in areas where public transportation is viable. This is 100% absolutely false.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The goalposts are still at "let people exist safely and comfortably outside a car and stop paying for your car use". Your repeated attempts to characterise this as something else don't change it. > Again you’re pretending the vast majority of people are somehow in areas where public transportation is viable. This is 100% absolutely false. Citation needed. Also "At least one safe sustainable transport option" isn't "transit only". Also it's amazing how quickly you went from "there's a bunch of reasons to reduce car dependence but you should dismiss this one" to a gish gallop of reactionary nonsense. Almost like it was a bad faith rhetorical technique to dismiss it.

Retric 4y ago

Next medical emergency picture staying at home without driving or taking an ambulance for prompt medical care. That’s the world without cars for the vast majority of humanity. Cars have literally saved hundreds of millions of lives. You may pretend I am talking about one person, yet I am describing the vast majority of humanity when I say the car has been one of the greatest inventions of all time. Greatly surpassing computers, telephones, and just about everything else you depend on daily. > Dense rural environments served by transit exist There are no dense rural environments, you may be confused at what this term means but towns are not rural. The term is referring to a lack of density.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Rural just means a low average density and low town population. You could have a single building with 2499 people every 4km with a train stop on the ground floor and it would count as rural. <20% of the US population lives in rural areas, and <20% of those are more than 10 miles from their third nearest food shop. If a region can service three food shops and a hospital it can support regional transit. Personally not wanting to doesn't make it impossible to travel 10 miles by bike or LEV.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
You're pulling out the straw man where stopping the sreets being choked with parked cars and traffic somehow means ambulances can't move through them. > There are no dense rural environments, you may be confused at what this term means but towns are not rural. The term is referring to a lack of density. You can have a region with low density where the services are all concentrated. Your straw man about making it so people can do something OTHER than use a car somehow meaning all cars vanish is also extremely tiresome.
- Retric 4y ago
  No, I am saying without the invention of cars there are no ambulances or trips to the hospital in the. > You can have a region with low density where the services are all concentrated. We call such things towns.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > No, I am saying without the invention of cars there are no ambulances or trips to the hospital in the. Which is not a privately owned car with associated infrastructure. Ie. The thing that does the harm. > We call such things towns. Google the words 'rural town'. You're attempting to overload the word 'rural' to include those people but simultaneously claim they could not possibly live within 5km of transport and therefore must he forced to use a car. Edge cases on edge cases don't justify removing the freedom of 99% of the population to live comfortably without one.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Trying to move the goalposts from “cars” to cars I don’t like. But explain again how on earth is someone driving themselves or a loved one to a hospital in their private car not a privately owned car? > Edge cases on edge cases don't justify removing the freedom of 99% of the population to live comfortably without one. Again you’re pretending the vast majority of people are somehow in areas where public transportation is viable. This is 100% absolutely false.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The goalposts are still at "let people exist safely and comfortably outside a car and stop paying for your car use". Your repeated attempts to characterise this as something else don't change it. > Again you’re pretending the vast majority of people are somehow in areas where public transportation is viable. This is 100% absolutely false. Citation needed. Also "At least one safe sustainable transport option" isn't "transit only". Also it's amazing how quickly you went from "there's a bunch of reasons to reduce car dependence but you should dismiss this one" to a gish gallop of reactionary nonsense. Almost like it was a bad faith rhetorical technique to dismiss it.