Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Cars don't belong in cities, says Top Gear's James May
Bit too absolutist imo, people with mobility issues exist, i’d say most cars don’t belong in cities, and it would be solved by good design, traffic restrictions etc.
when I was a kid almost all kids took the bus and walked to school, now I live opposite of an elementary school in a “socialist block” in middle europe and in the morning there is a huge line of cars dropping off kids, the school literally has a roundabout in front of it’s entrance to make it easier, it’s awful design, not to mention there is literally a bus stop on the other side of the school.
There is 0 reason for kids to be driven to school.
With you first point i disagree. I think public transport is often just fine or even preferable for people with mobility issues. If they are wheelchair bound then they cannot drive. And public transport has come a long way in terms of supporting disabled people such as most trains trams buses from were I come from now support wheelchair access.
Although I would be interested if there are any examples were taking public transport is infeasible or unhelpful to specific situations.
Wheelchair bound people absolutely can drive, there are a lot of retrofit vehicles that support a wheelchair and have alternative controls.
Maybe not ideal, but in some parts of the US not having a car is a real problem.
Why would wheelchair bound people have to pay so much more to get car they can use, when they can pay the same price as everyone else for a ticket to ride with public transportation?
Also there are blind and other handicapped people that can easily ride public transport on their own, but would have to rely on others to ride with their own car.
Public transport is especially useful for the handicapped and elderly compared to personal cars.
why would they buy a car when they can pay the same price for public transport
They answered that
In a lot of the US public transport access is non-existent
And truthfully, for a not insignificant part of the country, it won’t be. Population densities just wouldn’t support it.
why would they buy a car when they can pay the same price for public transport
They answered that
Basically, because they have no choice. More public transportation is choice.
Yes it’s definitely 100% a reasonable choice for people who don’t even technically live in cities. Absolutely
@LovesTha@floss.social@Lv_InSaNe_vL @Malfeasant I'm happy to limit the 'no personal cars' to areas that are 1/4 acre blocks and below. (Remembering that a 1/4 acre block gets back a substantial amount of useful land when you delete the driveway, so blocks all become 'bigger' in such a system)
Places that are substantially less dense than that do benefit from cars. But that isn't that large a % of people, while it is a very large % of the land mass.
10% of Americans live in towns of under 10000 people.
I wouldn’t call that “insignificant” lmao
@Lv_InSaNe_vL The only person in this thread to use 'insignificant' is you. So who are you quoting?
And towns of less than 10,000 people still have a healthy chunk of people living in suburban density.