3 ms·

The resistance to the idea of walkable cities often stems from a deeply ingrained cultural perception of personal vehicles as symbols of individual freedom and

by takoid 3y ago

The resistance to the idea of walkable cities often stems from a deeply ingrained cultural perception of personal vehicles as symbols of individual freedom and empowerment. In societies where cars are integral to the social fabric, any shift away from that can ignite concerns about loss of personal liberties. The ability to move freely in one's own vehicle is seen as not just a convenience, but as a safeguard against a potentially oppressive regime that might find it easier to control a population restricted to designated walkways or public transportation. The presence of personal vehicles allows for the rapid mobilization of people for protests, uprisings, or other forms of civil unrest, providing a decentralized form of power. Therefore, the skepticism around the transition to walkable cities isn't just about lifestyle adjustments; it taps into deeper fears about the erosion of individual freedoms and collective agency.

sagarm 3y ago
It's very easy to prevent movement via car: just block the roads. Blocking people moving on foot is much harder.
- takoid 3y ago
  While it's theoretically possible to block roads to prevent the movement of vehicles, doing so on a large scale presents significant logistical challenges that could weaken an authoritative regime. Roadblocks require personnel, materials, and continuous maintenance to remain effective. Every blocked road would require surveillance and manpower to enforce the restrictions, diverting resources from other operations. Moreover, road networks are often intricate and expansive, providing multiple alternative routes that would also need to be blocked and guarded. The sustained effort required would strain any regime's resources, making it a less viable long-term strategy for maintaining control. Additionally, while blocking foot traffic might be "harder," it's crucial to recognize that pedestrian movement has its limitations in speed, distance, and the carrying capacity for supplies. The argument for the "difficulty" in blocking foot traffic seems to overlook these inherent limitations, which can be just as easily exploited to contain and control a population. For instance, restricted zones, barricades, or even curfews could be implemented in walkable areas to deter foot movement. And unlike vehicles, individuals on foot are far more susceptible to environmental factors like weather, further limiting their effectiveness in a scenario requiring rapid mobilization. Contrary to the notion that cars are easily contained, their speed and range offer a unique form of decentralized power. The very act of needing to block roads to contain vehicular movement is a testament to the car's potency as a tool for mobilization and resistance. Therefore, while no method of transportation is completely impervious to control, the ability to move freely in one's own vehicle still offers a degree of autonomy and flexibility that can be crucial in challenging situations.
  - sagarm 3y ago
    Even easier: just prevent gas from being delivered. Cars also make excellent roadblocks.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
    Make ADAS mandatory. Criminalize modification of firmware with death penalty, life-long working camps, or some such. Deploy geo-fence via always online ADAS. Grid locked... SPLYRRQ Edit: Enforce integrity of ADAS-firmware at all times by agents of the 'Driving Quality Ensurance Agency' analog to the stuff the TSA is doing. JOBS! SECURITY! PROFIT! Or just pump up the DMV with those powers, and the people. Because JOBS! SECURITY! PROFIT!
manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Therefore, the skepticism around the transition to walkable cities isn't just about lifestyle adjustments; it taps into deeper fears about the erosion of individual freedoms and collective agency. I guess that the people falling for this conspiracy don't see the irony of being economically strapped to a constantly depreciating machine, that needs, at the very least, two governmental issued licenses to be legal to be driven around.
- takoid 3y ago
  It's important to differentiate between the relative inconveniences of obtaining and maintaining a license and the absolute impediment posed by the lack of access to a personal vehicle. Governmental licenses, while a form of regulation, generally do not serve as effective tools to suppress rapid mobilization for protests, uprisings, or other civil unrest. They are largely administrative hurdles that the vast majority of citizens can and do clear, thus retaining their decentralized power of mobility. On the other hand, a lack of access to personal vehicles entirely changes this dynamic. Without a car, the population's ability to quickly mobilize and organize diminishes substantially, thereby increasing vulnerability to central control. Protests or other forms of collective action often require rapid assembly at specific locations, sometimes far from one's residence. Public transportation routes can be easily shut down or rerouted, and walking may not be feasible over long distances or in emergencies. In this context, personal vehicles are not just a convenience; they serve as a critical enabler for civic engagement and resistance to potential tyranny. Therefore, while the economic and regulatory aspects of car ownership are not trivial, they are outweighed by the benefits of maintaining a system that allows individuals a meaningful degree of autonomous movement.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > In this context, personal vehicles are not just a convenience; they serve as a critical enabler for civic engagement and resistance to potential tyranny. These "self organizing concerned citizens agains tyranny" are one hundred percent not aligned with the general European sentiment, not even in the UK, first and foremost because urban density in European cities is ~4x vs those in the US. Cuts in public transportation drive as much public outrage as rising gas prices. I think that you are reading too much into this, effectively giving this conspiracy theory some semblance of rationality. You would be hard pressed to find any of the high ranked European proponents able to articulate any of the ideas you just presented. In fact, the article mentions how the conservative government in the UK are the ones pushing against 15-minute cities. Will the loons side with the government to stand against the tyranny of the government?

by takoid 3y ago

sagarm 3y ago

It's very easy to prevent movement via car: just block the roads. Blocking people moving on foot is much harder.

takoid 3y ago
While it's theoretically possible to block roads to prevent the movement of vehicles, doing so on a large scale presents significant logistical challenges that could weaken an authoritative regime. Roadblocks require personnel, materials, and continuous maintenance to remain effective. Every blocked road would require surveillance and manpower to enforce the restrictions, diverting resources from other operations. Moreover, road networks are often intricate and expansive, providing multiple alternative routes that would also need to be blocked and guarded. The sustained effort required would strain any regime's resources, making it a less viable long-term strategy for maintaining control. Additionally, while blocking foot traffic might be "harder," it's crucial to recognize that pedestrian movement has its limitations in speed, distance, and the carrying capacity for supplies. The argument for the "difficulty" in blocking foot traffic seems to overlook these inherent limitations, which can be just as easily exploited to contain and control a population. For instance, restricted zones, barricades, or even curfews could be implemented in walkable areas to deter foot movement. And unlike vehicles, individuals on foot are far more susceptible to environmental factors like weather, further limiting their effectiveness in a scenario requiring rapid mobilization. Contrary to the notion that cars are easily contained, their speed and range offer a unique form of decentralized power. The very act of needing to block roads to contain vehicular movement is a testament to the car's potency as a tool for mobilization and resistance. Therefore, while no method of transportation is completely impervious to control, the ability to move freely in one's own vehicle still offers a degree of autonomy and flexibility that can be crucial in challenging situations.
- sagarm 3y ago
  Even easier: just prevent gas from being delivered. Cars also make excellent roadblocks.
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
  Make ADAS mandatory. Criminalize modification of firmware with death penalty, life-long working camps, or some such. Deploy geo-fence via always online ADAS. Grid locked... SPLYRRQ Edit: Enforce integrity of ADAS-firmware at all times by agents of the 'Driving Quality Ensurance Agency' analog to the stuff the TSA is doing. JOBS! SECURITY! PROFIT! Or just pump up the DMV with those powers, and the people. Because JOBS! SECURITY! PROFIT!

manuelabeledo 3y ago

> Therefore, the skepticism around the transition to walkable cities isn't just about lifestyle adjustments; it taps into deeper fears about the erosion of individual freedoms and collective agency. I guess that the people falling for this conspiracy don't see the irony of being economically strapped to a constantly depreciating machine, that needs, at the very least, two governmental issued licenses to be legal to be driven around.

takoid 3y ago
It's important to differentiate between the relative inconveniences of obtaining and maintaining a license and the absolute impediment posed by the lack of access to a personal vehicle. Governmental licenses, while a form of regulation, generally do not serve as effective tools to suppress rapid mobilization for protests, uprisings, or other civil unrest. They are largely administrative hurdles that the vast majority of citizens can and do clear, thus retaining their decentralized power of mobility. On the other hand, a lack of access to personal vehicles entirely changes this dynamic. Without a car, the population's ability to quickly mobilize and organize diminishes substantially, thereby increasing vulnerability to central control. Protests or other forms of collective action often require rapid assembly at specific locations, sometimes far from one's residence. Public transportation routes can be easily shut down or rerouted, and walking may not be feasible over long distances or in emergencies. In this context, personal vehicles are not just a convenience; they serve as a critical enabler for civic engagement and resistance to potential tyranny. Therefore, while the economic and regulatory aspects of car ownership are not trivial, they are outweighed by the benefits of maintaining a system that allows individuals a meaningful degree of autonomous movement.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > In this context, personal vehicles are not just a convenience; they serve as a critical enabler for civic engagement and resistance to potential tyranny. These "self organizing concerned citizens agains tyranny" are one hundred percent not aligned with the general European sentiment, not even in the UK, first and foremost because urban density in European cities is ~4x vs those in the US. Cuts in public transportation drive as much public outrage as rising gas prices. I think that you are reading too much into this, effectively giving this conspiracy theory some semblance of rationality. You would be hard pressed to find any of the high ranked European proponents able to articulate any of the ideas you just presented. In fact, the article mentions how the conservative government in the UK are the ones pushing against 15-minute cities. Will the loons side with the government to stand against the tyranny of the government?