2 ms·

If people are not willing to drive correctly without being distracted or under influence, that is their fault. We shouldn't have to trade security of everybody

If people are not willing to drive correctly without being distracted or under influence, that is their fault. We shouldn't have to trade security of everybody for the conveniency of the reckless ones. That whole sense of entitlement is baffling. Besides cars are more expensive than riding a bike to a place where public transit is available.

Dylan16807 3y ago
People need cars. You can't take away half of people's cars without massively restructuring transit. In aggregate, people are correct to feel entitled to get around town without going bankrupt trying. Why would that baffle you? You're not talking about exceptionally bad drivers, you're talking about half of them. That makes a big difference.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  If half of them are bad and dangerous, I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. Th number matters for whether it's feasible to implement. In a large sense everyone is a bad driver. > People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too. People are stuck in situations that need cars. Adaptation without external help would take decades. Tens of millions would suffer badly. With enough change cars could be turned back into a luxury, but right now they aren't a luxury for most people in the US.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      People are much more adaptable than you pretend.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        People can't make cost-effective options appear by sheer willpower. They can bike short distances, but longer trips would depend on access to vehicles they don't own, whether transit or other people's cars. If you give them enough warning they can adapt. But for a change like this the only solution for many people is "don't live there, good luck moving".

Dylan16807 3y ago

People need cars. You can't take away half of people's cars without massively restructuring transit. In aggregate, people are correct to feel entitled to get around town without going bankrupt trying. Why would that baffle you? You're not talking about exceptionally bad drivers, you're talking about half of them. That makes a big difference.

prmoustache 3y ago
If half of them are bad and dangerous, I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. Th number matters for whether it's feasible to implement. In a large sense everyone is a bad driver. > People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too. People are stuck in situations that need cars. Adaptation without external help would take decades. Tens of millions would suffer badly. With enough change cars could be turned back into a luxury, but right now they aren't a luxury for most people in the US.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    People are much more adaptable than you pretend.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      People can't make cost-effective options appear by sheer willpower. They can bike short distances, but longer trips would depend on access to vehicles they don't own, whether transit or other people's cars. If you give them enough warning they can adapt. But for a change like this the only solution for many people is "don't live there, good luck moving".