4 ms·
I think the point is that perhaps we've swung too far to the extreme in favor of cars. We've lost a social gathering place. Not to mention, when other modes o
by aliston 12y ago
I think the point is that perhaps we've swung too far to the extreme in favor of cars. We've lost a social gathering place. Not to mention, when other modes of transportation (i.e. bikes) share the road with cars, in cases of bike-car collisions, it is almost always assumed that the bicyclist is at fault.
Also, I think the tide is shifting. Many cities are moving towards more pedestrian friendly corridors, replacing some streets with parks etc.
- Zikes 12y agoI guess I'm a bit jaded against articles that wax nostalgic about what society has supposedly lost in the pursuit of progress.
- SilasX 12y ago>Also, I think the tide is shifting. Many cities are moving towards more pedestrian friendly corridors, replacing some streets with parks But that's orthogonal -- the cities are saying "no cars here". They're not saying "hey, peds get (more) preference on the car-shared roads now". They still enforce the very same car/foot traffic separation that the auto industry (and anyone concerned with safety) wanted.
- baddox 12y agoI can certainly agree that the car culture in the US is a bad thing. But I don't quite understand why streets make sense at all as a social gathering place. Why not parks or people's yards/driveways/patios?
- Zikes 12y agoBecause idealistic utopia/good old days/change is inherently bad.
- saosebastiao 12y agoBecause in urban areas, people live next to the street, and their neighbors live next to the street, and the closest park is a few blocks away, and almost nobody has a yard/driveway/patio.