3 ms·

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

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

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.