I would really rather that these were actual examples, and not conspiracy theories. We all have our own unsubstantiated ideas about what shadowy no-gooders are doing, but I’d rather hear about things that are actually happening.
I would really rather that these were actual examples, and not conspiracy theories. We all have our own unsubstantiated ideas about what shadowy no-gooders are doing, but I’d rather hear about things that are actually happening.
“Owning a car gives you freedom” is a big one considering how expensive they are and that most people just use them to sit in traffic jams on their commute 90%+ of the time they are using them.
It is context dependent.
Owning a car does give you freedom in rural settings where mass transit never existed before it was bought out and run into the ground by automotive companies. They were even fairly cheap for decades if you bought them used!
But yes, if you live and work somewhere with traffic jams then owning one instead of using and pushing for more mass transit is the opposite of freedom.
I’m not even in a rural setting and the only way to get my dogs to the vet is via car. Getting a taxi to drive there is difficult when one of your dogs starts vomiting after the second turn.
That and getting to by family in a rural setting. 2 hours by car vs up to 8 by train. With two dogs. That won’t happen 😐
Besides that I don’t really need a car.
And depending on your car make, model, and year, there is constant surveillance/data collecting negating the owners “freedom”.
As part of a couple that just got knocked down to one vehicle instead of two, due to a wreck, I wholly disagree with your statement. Take a kid to friends house? Lol. Nope. Pick up a loaf of bread or grocery store? Negative. Park for a walk? Sorry. Get to work? Better start walking down the highway.
Can’t you…just walk?
Not if the American automotive industry has anything to say about it. The whole country has been built around making walking impossible or too dangerous to attempt, just to maximise car sales at the expense of citizens’ freedoms.
I don’t doubt it, I just don’t understand it.
You don’t have to walk on the roads. Is there no grass or dirt nearby to walk on?
Why have grass or dirt when you can have roads…? Grass and dirt sell no cars.
But what is next to the road
Judging by the pictures I’ve seen of the US, and google maps street view, more road, or parking lots. Sometimes, but not often, short stretches of sidewalk, often not wide enough to walk on safely, regularly interrupted by lampposts and whatnot.
I live in an area that is not safe for the kids (or adults) to walk. It’s a hilly windy area outside city limits of a smaller touristy place. Lotta state park area if you go at least 4 miles away, though.
In this case the lie has been repeated so much and so loud that entire cities have been designed according to it.
Your whole environment is designed that way because cars need so much space. If you lived in a walkable European city all of that wouldn’t be a problem.
If my grandma had wheels she’d be a wagon.
Mind giving an example of such a city? Not like I’d be able to move now, but one never knows.
Just watch the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes. He not only shows you examples of such cities, but goes into great detail explaining why their design works—and what flaws they have.
Not European, but most Japanese and Korean cities are very walkable. With trains or busses, it can occasionally be easier to get around than by car