this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
1368 points (96.5% liked)
Greentext
4485 readers
605 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, some people do talk about banning cars completely. I guess you’re a fuck cars moderate lol. Local ordinances can really change the way people live in an area, like banning plastic bags etc. So it’s not unreasonable to worry about total bans, people who want less car usage policies should try to understand other perspectives.
People might talk about banning privately own cars, but nobody seriously talks about completely banning cars at all. Service vehicles have their place in a walkable city, and taxi and carsharing is part of that, and even the most fuck-cars people are in favour of those.
I mean, there is always someone with a weird position, but those are flat-earthers of the movement, nobody cares about those.
I know. FuckCars in general is a purity contest that doesn't understand how certain things work. Cars are here to stay in our society for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean all our decisions for city planning have to center around them.
My city has less than 5% of people commuting by bike, and around 25% work from home. These numbers seem roughly typical of US cities. If we got 20% of people commuting by bike while keeping the work from home number, that would be transformative. That's a huge number of cars off the road. Basically like adding a whole lane of traffic, but without the induced demand problems.