4 ms·

"Roads are for cars, not for bikes or people" You realize how stupid you sound, right?

• franga2000 3y ago
  The thing is, purely out of context, I'd be inclined to agree. Roads are for cars, it's just that roads shouldn't be the only way to get to places. Add more walking and cycling paths and bikes/pedestrians won't have to use the roads.
  • sobkas 3y ago
    > The thing is, purely out of context, I'd be inclined to agree. Roads are for cars, it's just that roads shouldn't be the only way to get to places. If roads are for cars, then you will have no problems with abolishing people being inside of them while they drive on your sacred car only roads? > Add more walking and cycling paths and bikes/pedestrians won't have to use the roads. Add them where? Because in your scenario it's either cars or pedestrians and guess who have better lobbyists?
    • franga2000 3y ago
      I don't know what you're trying to say here... As far as I care, we can just ban cars entirely, but until then, separating the multi-ton metal boxes traveling at over 100 km/h operated by barely qualified teenagers from the squishy cyclists and pedestrians seems like a pretty obvious solution.
• throw9away6 3y ago
  Why Is that stupid? It’s like saying airports are for planes or ports are for boats. Yes there are other vehicles there but primarily the design criteria is cars