4 ms·
Trees are nothing but obstacles to traffic. If you take a good look at cities, you will see that they were built for cars, and cars alone. Anything that's not a
by classified 2y ago
Trees are nothing but obstacles to traffic. If you take a good look at cities, you will see that they were built for cars, and cars alone. Anything that's not a car has no place in a city.
- lopis 2y agoEven if that was true, sounds like a net gain if trees make cities more inhospitable for cars.
- classified 2y agoBut then, where would all those poor cars live?
- f6v 2y agoNot in Europe though.
- morsch 2y agoMostly better, still awful.
- ffgjgf1 2y agoDepends, people keep saying stuff about “Europe” as if it’s some single monolithic place. In any case very few people live in old town houses built prior to the late 19th century (in those places have their own issues) and there was plenty of car centric development during the 1950s and subsequent decades.
- self_awareness 2y ago> Anything that's not a car has no place in a city. Erm, I thought cities are for people, not for cars
- nottorp 2y agoErm, I think HN could use a "+1, well done sarcasm" upvote.
- Mordisquitos 2y agoHN commenters should definitely use the '/s' tag, as it is essential to correctly label the intention of sarcastic comments. /s
- lopis 2y agoWell, this isn't Reddit, so many we could have less sarcasm? Sarcasm isn't accessible even with text tags and doesn't help move the discussion forward.
- nottorp 2y agoYes, HN is as hostile to humour as StackOverflow is to 'don't give ready to paste code, teach the man how to fish instead' answers.
- oblio 2y agoEven for the US, I think the worst part is that they're not an obstacle to traffic, but they're an extra expense plus they block those huge ads from roadside businesses. Americans are making many of their roads and towns/cities hell just to penny pinch.