> Cars are expensive, if they didn't need one they wouldn't have one. I know so many people, even in places like London or Vienna, so with extremely good trans

> Cars are expensive, if they didn't need one they wouldn't have one. I know so many people, even in places like London or Vienna, so with extremely good transport systems, who bought expensive cars because that's what most people in their families do. Sometimes it's a status symbol, sometimes a pattern people fall into due to upbringing. It's similar, although not identical to people in their 20s or 30s owning a TV set yet spending most of their screen time on their phones or laptops. And, again, this is not a binary issue. The point I'm trying to convey here is that: 1. cars are useful, but 2. it's perfectly plausible to have a _significantly smaller_ amount of cars than we do and it would be a net improvement 3. with improvements in both transport systems (3.1) and _also_ education (3.2, also sic!) we get more people closer to 2. 4. 3.1. and 3.2 can be done in parallel, which means that now, more people than we think _don't_ need cars We're not there yet but were getting there. > You are very much in the minority. Of course, what made you think I implied otherwise? I feel like our discussion started with a big misunderstanding of each other's opinion earlier in the thread.