4 ms·

Agreed, no accidental deaths/smog if everyone walked/biked, but that doesn't mean city+cars aren't accomplishing their job of A to B. It isn't the cleanest or s

Agreed, no accidental deaths/smog if everyone walked/biked, but that doesn't mean city+cars aren't accomplishing their job of A to B. It isn't the cleanest or safest way, but I don't think he argued "greater good" so much as "good enough". If these were deal-breaker issues for everyone, then people would walk/bike instead of use cars (or just leave the city), but clearly cars are a definite "want" item. Which is to say, yeah, I suppose we're selfish, but then again, owning property is selfish, comrade.

philwelch 15y ago
It's questionable to base public policy on individual choices when the costs of those choices are socialized and the benefits of those choices are privatized.
- cobrausn 15y ago
  Idealistically sound, but not realistic. Roads and cars exist to meet a need (individual mobility and mass transit, primarily). At this time, that need also serves the public, and it is disingenuous to say that roads only benefit those with cars. Perhaps some good public transit systems will come along one day that can make a meaningful dent in the amount of people who need to own cars. I'm still waiting for those systems, but I won't be holding my breath. Also, as an aside, try riding a bike about 5 ~ 10 miles when it's 105 degrees out (pretty common where I live), or even hovering around zero (fairly common where I used to live). It's not fun, nor is it practical. It's a big part of why nobody does it.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    > Perhaps some good public transit systems will come along one day that can make a meaningful dent in the amount of people who need to own cars. I'm still waiting for those systems, but I won't be holding my breath. They exist in most of the developed world; North America is the major exception. All that's required to create them here is good public policy, which was the topic to begin with.

philwelch 15y ago

It's questionable to base public policy on individual choices when the costs of those choices are socialized and the benefits of those choices are privatized.

cobrausn 15y ago
Idealistically sound, but not realistic. Roads and cars exist to meet a need (individual mobility and mass transit, primarily). At this time, that need also serves the public, and it is disingenuous to say that roads only benefit those with cars. Perhaps some good public transit systems will come along one day that can make a meaningful dent in the amount of people who need to own cars. I'm still waiting for those systems, but I won't be holding my breath. Also, as an aside, try riding a bike about 5 ~ 10 miles when it's 105 degrees out (pretty common where I live), or even hovering around zero (fairly common where I used to live). It's not fun, nor is it practical. It's a big part of why nobody does it.
- philwelch 15y ago
  > Perhaps some good public transit systems will come along one day that can make a meaningful dent in the amount of people who need to own cars. I'm still waiting for those systems, but I won't be holding my breath. They exist in most of the developed world; North America is the major exception. All that's required to create them here is good public policy, which was the topic to begin with.