4 ms·

> It is an ambitious idea, but city officials obviously feel that the personal motorcar does not fulfill a function that walking, biking and taking public tran

> It is an ambitious idea, but city officials obviously feel that the personal motorcar does not fulfill a function that walking, biking and taking public transport cannot. Except fucking over the people who actually live there for the benefit of people who exist there transiently.

jessaustin 12y ago
'easytiger, when HN voters can't comprehend your writing, they downvote. While it's pretty clear to this somewhat-experienced reader of English-language online fora that "fucking over the people" is an action you ascribe to "the personal motorcar" rather than to "walking, biking and taking public transport", most respondents (thus, presumably, most voters) seem to have whooshed. Often we must be more verbose than we'd like, to communicate with those who are not in the habit of thinking while reading.
- jrs99 12y ago
  or you could just not mind the downvotes whether they are misunderstood, accidental, or random.
darkstar999 12y ago
What? The plan provides car-free routes between desitnations, how does that fuck anyone over?
CalRobert 12y ago
Can you explain? I live in the middle of a city and have no car, and would feel delighted, not fucked over, if cars were banned (or made to pay extremely steep usage fees) in the city center.
- baddox 12y ago
  > I live in the middle of a city and have no car, and would feel delighted, not fucked over, if cars were banned That doesn't seem to contradict the parent claim. You're saying you would be fine with banning something that you already don't use. A more relevant criticism would be if you did have a car in a city but still wouldn't mind cars being banned.
  - CalRobert 12y ago
    Perhaps we should allow Abrams tanks to be operated in the city as well because some people think it might be a more convenient way to get around? Cars are awesome - they really are! So are helicopters. That doesn't mean one should have to drive a car just to buy a quart of milk.
    - baddox 12y ago
      I can make a similar argumentum ad absurdum, but on the other side. I don't like chocolate ice cream. I never eat it anyway, so I have absolutely no problem with it being banned.
      - 6t6t6 12y ago
        The fact that you eat chocolate ice cream doesn't affect my health, only yours. The fact that you drive a car affects the health of everyone living in the city, takes a huge amount of public space, and makes cities ugly and less habitable. I guess you can understand the difference.
        baddox 12y ago
        I understand the difference, but the argument I'm criticizing is insufficient.
        6t6t6 12y ago
        Do you use to down-vote opinions that differ from yours?
      - CalRobert 12y ago
        When chocolate ice cream kills over 30,000 innocent people a year in the US, and about half a million around the world, every single year, that will become a valid argument. The point is that huge, heavy, and fast metal machines should not be permitted to operate in cities without substantially greater restriction.
7Z7 12y ago
Who in this case is the one living there, and who is the one existing transiently? Seems more likely that cyclists are local and motorists are not, no?

jessaustin 12y ago

'easytiger, when HN voters can't comprehend your writing, they downvote. While it's pretty clear to this somewhat-experienced reader of English-language online fora that "fucking over the people" is an action you ascribe to "the personal motorcar" rather than to "walking, biking and taking public transport", most respondents (thus, presumably, most voters) seem to have whooshed. Often we must be more verbose than we'd like, to communicate with those who are not in the habit of thinking while reading.

jrs99 12y ago
or you could just not mind the downvotes whether they are misunderstood, accidental, or random.

darkstar999 12y ago

What? The plan provides car-free routes between desitnations, how does that fuck anyone over?

CalRobert 12y ago

Can you explain? I live in the middle of a city and have no car, and would feel delighted, not fucked over, if cars were banned (or made to pay extremely steep usage fees) in the city center.

baddox 12y ago
> I live in the middle of a city and have no car, and would feel delighted, not fucked over, if cars were banned That doesn't seem to contradict the parent claim. You're saying you would be fine with banning something that you already don't use. A more relevant criticism would be if you did have a car in a city but still wouldn't mind cars being banned.
- CalRobert 12y ago
  Perhaps we should allow Abrams tanks to be operated in the city as well because some people think it might be a more convenient way to get around? Cars are awesome - they really are! So are helicopters. That doesn't mean one should have to drive a car just to buy a quart of milk.
  - baddox 12y ago
    I can make a similar argumentum ad absurdum, but on the other side. I don't like chocolate ice cream. I never eat it anyway, so I have absolutely no problem with it being banned.
    - 6t6t6 12y ago
      The fact that you eat chocolate ice cream doesn't affect my health, only yours. The fact that you drive a car affects the health of everyone living in the city, takes a huge amount of public space, and makes cities ugly and less habitable. I guess you can understand the difference.
      - baddox 12y ago
        I understand the difference, but the argument I'm criticizing is insufficient.
        6t6t6 12y ago
        Do you use to down-vote opinions that differ from yours?
    - CalRobert 12y ago
      When chocolate ice cream kills over 30,000 innocent people a year in the US, and about half a million around the world, every single year, that will become a valid argument. The point is that huge, heavy, and fast metal machines should not be permitted to operate in cities without substantially greater restriction.

7Z7 12y ago

Who in this case is the one living there, and who is the one existing transiently? Seems more likely that cyclists are local and motorists are not, no?