3 ms·

The answer is right there, so obvious. More mass in motion at high speeds, all things being equal, is more danger, damage and destruction, more wear and tear on

by trgn 4y ago

The answer is right there, so obvious. More mass in motion at high speeds, all things being equal, is more danger, damage and destruction, more wear and tear on roads. Simple physics. It is a tragedy of the commons. Any individual rationalization is in effect making the situation worse, and a post hoc justification of the current arms race. This needs top down regulation, not bottom-up convergence. Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years ago, because cars have gotten more foul. Note that the only places where this noxious effect is countered, are the places that side-step the issue by curbing driving as a whole. The galvanizing program of every western european city the last 10-15 years has been calming traffic and encouraging walking, cycling, transit. The effects are clear. Cars are trashing up those cities less than before, they've improved quality of life. In most of the US, the effect is the opposite. No efforts to curb driving; and the bigger cars and trucks have made cities worse; deadly, dangerous, scaring people into bigger cars, scaring people from riding bikes, walking. Things can always get worse, and we've been finding out.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>more wear and tear on roads. Listen, I hate the electric hummer and Chevy 2500s as much as the next guy but talking point needs to be taken out back and shot. The wear and tear light vehicles put on the road is a rounding error on any road that sees commercial traffic >Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years ago, This is just pure lying. The "fleet" is much cleaner than it was 15-20yr ago for a variety of reasons. Cities are much safer and richer. >This needs top down regulation, Top down regulation is what gave us LA. People in general can't be trusted to centrally plan and the people who think they can solve the world's ills with central planning are the least trustworthy. We need to "regress" to pre-1940s urban development patterns.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >Cities are much safer and richer. Speaking generally, rather than specifically in the context of cars, most big US cities were worse on pretty much every axis (other than cost) in 1990 than they are today. I suspect most people who object to the, say, Disneyfication of Times Square weren't there at night 30 years ago. Cities were in general significantly more dangerous and grittier than they are today.

by trgn 4y ago

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>more wear and tear on roads. Listen, I hate the electric hummer and Chevy 2500s as much as the next guy but talking point needs to be taken out back and shot. The wear and tear light vehicles put on the road is a rounding error on any road that sees commercial traffic >Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years ago, This is just pure lying. The "fleet" is much cleaner than it was 15-20yr ago for a variety of reasons. Cities are much safer and richer. >This needs top down regulation, Top down regulation is what gave us LA. People in general can't be trusted to centrally plan and the people who think they can solve the world's ills with central planning are the least trustworthy. We need to "regress" to pre-1940s urban development patterns.

ghaff 4y ago
>Cities are much safer and richer. Speaking generally, rather than specifically in the context of cars, most big US cities were worse on pretty much every axis (other than cost) in 1990 than they are today. I suspect most people who object to the, say, Disneyfication of Times Square weren't there at night 30 years ago. Cities were in general significantly more dangerous and grittier than they are today.