|
Top-level
 @straphanger It's not hell to see produce that travelled from elsewhere on the shelves of their grocery stores or hell when the firetrucks arrive to put out a house on fire or... People forget how isolated people and communities were before cars and highways. It's great to look towards the next revolution in transportation, but just vilifying cars doesn't do any good. Age of sail was replaced by the age of rail that was replaced by highways and vehicles... what's next? 8 comments
@straphanger Accessibility for all includes cars. The same roads allow bicycles and public transit and emergency vehicles and transportation of goods. It doesn't mean that cities shouldn't be made friendlier to more than cars. It would be amazing to see trains better supported, but in Canada, that will mean mostly along the southern border and northerners will never have the same access, and other than affordability for the infrastructure, in places it will be impossible.  @CStamp the problem is that cars are ludicrously inefficient in their energy consumption (even EVs) in a world that is quickly coming to the fatal consequences of its energy addiction. accessibility for all may include some form of transportation that looks like a very small “car”, but it would be for a very small minority of people with particular special needs, traveling at speeds similar to walking and cycling. no one is entitled to high speed, single passenger, private transportation. @jakintosh So bikes are out unless they are bicycles built for two! But, then, there isn't a more ableist transportation mode. Making cities and towns friendlier is a good goal, but you don't get to play god and tell others what they are entitled to. Vehicles can only go as fast as someone walks? There is a huge difference in walking speeds & biking speeds. The thought of only being able to take transportation to limited places wth tons of other people is a big no for me. @CStamp it’s not “playing god”, it’s living within limits. if purchase price wasn’t an issue, should we all have access to private helicopters? no, because airspace would be crowded and resource utilization would skyrocket… and yet, oops, cars. moving tons of steel and glass (and lithium) just to move a 150lb human being is ludicrously wasteful, and the icky “thought” of having to be close to other people when swiftly and efficiently crossing huge distances is not going to get sympathy from me. @jakintosh When I first moved to Toronto, my first job took 1 1/2 hr in the morning to get to and 2 1/2 hr to get home. This was using subways and buses. Bikes will NOT fix this. The whole car evil, bike good thing is nothing but superficial gloss to why people prefer cars. No one should have to spend 4-5 hours commuting a day and many do. It needs to be affordable for businesses to stay within cities and affordable housing around places people work is needed. Want people to... @jakintosh ...depend on cars less, people need a reason. And the choice between a 4 hr commute vs 40-60 min? Most folk will choose the one that actually allows them to have a life if they have the option. As for roads and cars bad, good road are extremely important, as is the ability to travel. Not all places (in Canada) will ever be easy to access. So there are very different conversations about making cities less car dependant and saying no one has a right to drive a car. @jakintosh And it is playing god if you spend no time thinking of the ramifications of what you are saying and say things like no one has a right to drive faster than someone can walk. Time is the most valuable thing we possess. Spending hours instead of minutes to get somewhere is huge. |
Gregory's Server
@CStamp The age of transit, trains, bicycles, active transport, and accessibility for all, which I and many of my peers are fighting to bring back.