4 ms·
> Bold ideas are welcome. Burrying heads in the sand not an option. It's simple. It's more mobility options, especially safe active transportation. EVs are sti
by trgn 3y ago
> Bold ideas are welcome. Burrying heads in the sand not an option.
It's simple. It's more mobility options, especially safe active transportation. EVs are still cars. It's a change in the margin. What is really needed is people biking, walking for their daily errands instead of using a car.
As for the safe part, it does not require anything special. The aspirational world of the future will be made real with bollards and trees. The american brain today cannot comprehend this. Yet it is a certainty.
- avalys 3y agoYou're basically saying that you want to force everyone to live in a city - a super dense developed area where all your daily needs are within walking distance. Not everyone wants to live in a city!
- oats 3y agoWhat? How do you derive that reading from the parent comment?
- ruined 3y agoit is possible to live in the country, with all of your daily needs within walking distance. what will become impossible is the current fad of living in the "country" with a city lifestyle.
- whiddershins 3y agoWhat?
- Foreignborn 3y agoPeople are free to live where they want, but should pay for the full externalities that these lifestyles cost.
- trgn 3y agoNo, it's not what I said. Keep the car out in the country. I wrote safe mobility options for all, so active modes of transportation are a viable alternative to the car. That applies both to the city and the country. To make walking and biking safe, the implementation will be largely low-tech. Trees, bollards. It's not EVs (high tech) that will trigger the transformation to curb pollution. It will be people choosing to walk and bike iso choosing to the drive.