4 ms·

Unpopular opinion, but the truth: We have to drive and it's a right. I agree about the infrastructure issues. Still the modern "safe driving" mentality that peo

Unpopular opinion, but the truth: We have to drive and it's a right. I agree about the infrastructure issues. Still the modern "safe driving" mentality that people want is at odds with that REALITY. This could change with public transit, however we don't do this. Even the best countries fall short, and most don't get close. It's actively discouraged in the USA. Actually, you could argue that people already have to deal with too much BS to drive. The paperwork, rules, and so forth clearly are challenging for people to adhere to. So we throw the majority of people into a situation they aren't equipped for on a daily basis. Then this becomes a major cause of legal efforts, that alienate perfectly good citizens from society and cause us to forfeit our civil rights. You can claim that people just need to be responsible, or we need to pass some safety law but it's delusional. The truth is we don't have a replacement for this. The average person can't afford to be carted around, and we would need to get to a place where driving was purely recreation. So we are going to need very good public mass transit options, and IMO some kind of vast network of professional drivers that are more affordable than Uber, for the occasional "cargo trips" or to go "the last mile" (more like 10-50).

nayuki 3y ago
Mostly agreed, except for: > We have to drive and it's a right. WTF? Driving is by definition a privilege. You're maneuvering a 2-ton murder machine. We got into the current mess because people treat driving as a right - I have to have parking, I have to get there fast, I have to bend everything society to fit my car. And when someone gets caught for a DUI, judges go lenient because they know that taking away their license will obliterate their means to work and live. > So we are going to need very good public mass transit options, and IMO some kind of vast network of professional drivers that are more affordable than Uber Sort of. We need denser cities and mixed-use neighborhoods so that people can live close to the goods and services they need. Transit is a feasible problem as evidenced by Europe and Asia. No society has operated under the assumption of a vast network of professional private vehicle drivers (so, disregard bus drivers). > go "the last mile" (more like 10-50) That's the problem. We have to stop designing cities like that.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > Driving is by definition a privilege. You're maneuvering a 2-ton murder machine. I think this point needs sharpening a bit by making the implicit explicit: "Driving" per se isn't the issue, it's where one does it and who else they may endanger when doing it badly or recklessly. People can maneuver 2-ton murder machines alone on their personal closed track as much as they want.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  The point was to give an UNpopular opinion. The current driving system is a joke in need of reform. The poor suffer the most. IMO people just need to cut some of the BS with this driving stuff. I don't think judges really go particularly leniently anymore. You can't function without a car. The reality is that we probably need to accept that driving is here to stay as a basic NEED and act accordingly. Certain people that are extremely dangerous drivers are going to get their rights curtailed, however we should also support everyone functioning in society. I think we need to get closer to the system I saw in Netherlands, however IMO it really fell short of what I want to see. Until we surpass this, I think we just need to accept driving. Lots of jurisdictions, even in EU have vast areas with poor service. Most cities I've been in would be fine with public transit. It's networks of large population centers that can be easily connected, especially with good bike culture we could be just like the Netherlands. It's large swaths of the non-city land that contain people and towns that would be a challenge. You can't just not drive. It raises alarm bells and attracts unwanted attention. I'm not the only one that's experienced this, I think you can find this on /r/fuckcars. An employer almost called the cops on me once. It's fucking weird. That's not even getting into how unsafe it can be. How can we pretend this is a "privilege"? IMO it's like calling healthcare a privilege (which btw I also think is a right)
bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
People only have to drive because they (either directly or via elected officials) chose to design large swaths of land that were only livable if cars were elevated to the preferred mode of travel. Better infrastructure design (in general, points of interest being built closer together) would obviate something like 90% of car trips. But being forced to drive was absolutely a choice, and one that, with some effort, can be undone.
rainsford 3y ago
At least in the US I can see a reasonable argument for most people needing to drive, but it's much less obvious people need to drive the vehicles they do the way that they do to meet basic transportation requirements. One obvious if almost certainly unpopular solution would be to have the basic drivers license you get now with essentially no effort only cover small speed limited cars that would pose far less risk to everyone else on the road. If you want or need something larger or faster, require a separate license with testing, experience, and re-certification requirements in-line with the extra responsibility operating such a vehicle should involve. You abuse that even a little, back to a GPS speed limited Corolla hatchback you go. This addresses the issue with a lack of driving alternative while also addressing the cases where people need more than basic transportation. But I guarantee people would lose their minds and start setting fire to their local DMV if such a change were even theoretically proposed. Because the problem with car culture in the US (and elsewhere) isn't that driving is a necessity, it's that being a driver comes with such a massive sense of unearned entitlement that any restrictions at all for any reason are treated as a massive violation of God given rights. Even attempts to enforce existing laws are met with absurd levels of hostility, like the opposition to red light or speed cameras. I say this as someone who likes driving and likes cars, but as someone who is also a private pilot, the reason we don't have a driving safety culture like we have a flying safety culture is that the absolute worst possible example of an unsafe pilot you could imagine is basically the average driver. And not only is that driving behavior accepted in a way it never would be in the aviation community, but it's treated as an unassailable right.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  They see it as an "entitlement", because that's how society works. Don't want to drive and you will immediately start to experience discrimination, including microaggressions (no it's not like being the victim of racial oppression, just another way wind up in an outgroup). The REALITY that I think is still being ignored in this thread is we don't rely on planes for our day to day travel, on average. I'm never going to need to hop in a plane just to eat, make it to work, or meet my friends. I don't think it's "an entitlement" to want food, to get to work, and not be treated as a burdensome freak. To the vast vast majority of people, even frequent business travelers, flying is for occasional long distance travel, never for day to day activities. If we really get to the point where non-driving is treated equally to driving, I might agree. However this seems exceedingly unlikely and is incredibly expensive. It would require me to be able to get around as a non-driver with the same cost and convenience. This turns out not to be economically feasible.

nayuki 3y ago

Mostly agreed, except for: > We have to drive and it's a right. WTF? Driving is by definition a privilege. You're maneuvering a 2-ton murder machine. We got into the current mess because people treat driving as a right - I have to have parking, I have to get there fast, I have to bend everything society to fit my car. And when someone gets caught for a DUI, judges go lenient because they know that taking away their license will obliterate their means to work and live. > So we are going to need very good public mass transit options, and IMO some kind of vast network of professional drivers that are more affordable than Uber Sort of. We need denser cities and mixed-use neighborhoods so that people can live close to the goods and services they need. Transit is a feasible problem as evidenced by Europe and Asia. No society has operated under the assumption of a vast network of professional private vehicle drivers (so, disregard bus drivers). > go "the last mile" (more like 10-50) That's the problem. We have to stop designing cities like that.

Terr_ 3y ago
> Driving is by definition a privilege. You're maneuvering a 2-ton murder machine. I think this point needs sharpening a bit by making the implicit explicit: "Driving" per se isn't the issue, it's where one does it and who else they may endanger when doing it badly or recklessly. People can maneuver 2-ton murder machines alone on their personal closed track as much as they want.
P_I_Staker 3y ago
The point was to give an UNpopular opinion. The current driving system is a joke in need of reform. The poor suffer the most. IMO people just need to cut some of the BS with this driving stuff. I don't think judges really go particularly leniently anymore. You can't function without a car. The reality is that we probably need to accept that driving is here to stay as a basic NEED and act accordingly. Certain people that are extremely dangerous drivers are going to get their rights curtailed, however we should also support everyone functioning in society. I think we need to get closer to the system I saw in Netherlands, however IMO it really fell short of what I want to see. Until we surpass this, I think we just need to accept driving. Lots of jurisdictions, even in EU have vast areas with poor service. Most cities I've been in would be fine with public transit. It's networks of large population centers that can be easily connected, especially with good bike culture we could be just like the Netherlands. It's large swaths of the non-city land that contain people and towns that would be a challenge. You can't just not drive. It raises alarm bells and attracts unwanted attention. I'm not the only one that's experienced this, I think you can find this on /r/fuckcars. An employer almost called the cops on me once. It's fucking weird. That's not even getting into how unsafe it can be. How can we pretend this is a "privilege"? IMO it's like calling healthcare a privilege (which btw I also think is a right)

bobbylarrybobby 3y ago

People only have to drive because they (either directly or via elected officials) chose to design large swaths of land that were only livable if cars were elevated to the preferred mode of travel. Better infrastructure design (in general, points of interest being built closer together) would obviate something like 90% of car trips. But being forced to drive was absolutely a choice, and one that, with some effort, can be undone.

rainsford 3y ago

At least in the US I can see a reasonable argument for most people needing to drive, but it's much less obvious people need to drive the vehicles they do the way that they do to meet basic transportation requirements. One obvious if almost certainly unpopular solution would be to have the basic drivers license you get now with essentially no effort only cover small speed limited cars that would pose far less risk to everyone else on the road. If you want or need something larger or faster, require a separate license with testing, experience, and re-certification requirements in-line with the extra responsibility operating such a vehicle should involve. You abuse that even a little, back to a GPS speed limited Corolla hatchback you go. This addresses the issue with a lack of driving alternative while also addressing the cases where people need more than basic transportation. But I guarantee people would lose their minds and start setting fire to their local DMV if such a change were even theoretically proposed. Because the problem with car culture in the US (and elsewhere) isn't that driving is a necessity, it's that being a driver comes with such a massive sense of unearned entitlement that any restrictions at all for any reason are treated as a massive violation of God given rights. Even attempts to enforce existing laws are met with absurd levels of hostility, like the opposition to red light or speed cameras. I say this as someone who likes driving and likes cars, but as someone who is also a private pilot, the reason we don't have a driving safety culture like we have a flying safety culture is that the absolute worst possible example of an unsafe pilot you could imagine is basically the average driver. And not only is that driving behavior accepted in a way it never would be in the aviation community, but it's treated as an unassailable right.

P_I_Staker 3y ago
They see it as an "entitlement", because that's how society works. Don't want to drive and you will immediately start to experience discrimination, including microaggressions (no it's not like being the victim of racial oppression, just another way wind up in an outgroup). The REALITY that I think is still being ignored in this thread is we don't rely on planes for our day to day travel, on average. I'm never going to need to hop in a plane just to eat, make it to work, or meet my friends. I don't think it's "an entitlement" to want food, to get to work, and not be treated as a burdensome freak. To the vast vast majority of people, even frequent business travelers, flying is for occasional long distance travel, never for day to day activities. If we really get to the point where non-driving is treated equally to driving, I might agree. However this seems exceedingly unlikely and is incredibly expensive. It would require me to be able to get around as a non-driver with the same cost and convenience. This turns out not to be economically feasible.