A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
Image transcript:
The "what if you wanted to go to heaven, but god said ____" meme template, but here it says, "What if you wanted to walk to get groceries, but city planners said DRIVE". The last panel is an image of a massive freeway full of cars.
Counterpoint: having a working car makes a human being have vastly more freedom to travel than not having a car.
Having a car means you can drive to anywhere that roads on your continent lead to, and even to places that don't have roads if your car is off-road capable. Without a car, you have to hire transport to get to anywhere you can't get to by your human body power.
I would never live without a car unless it was physically impossible. Law banning cars would not stop me, I would build my own fucking car if I had to.
You're arguing for having a car in a thread about needing a car
It's not about banning cars, it's about designing places to make them not necessary
Where I live you can walk to the local shops
Loads of people drive, but you don't have to. This is good.
Exactly. There's a pattern I've noticed of people interpreting "car dependency reduces freedom" as "car ownership reduces freedom". But the point you, I, and many others are trying to make is that building our cities in such a way that no one has a choice but to drive everywhere is counter to the idea of freedom.
Freedom is the freedom to choose how you want to get about your city and not be coerced into owning and maintaining a (rather expensive) vehicle just to get groceries. People want choices.
People interpret it that way because the community is called "fuck cars" and some users are very toxic and don't present the nuances very well.
A lot of people support better public transportation. But nobody is being won over to the movement with antagonism and name calling.
There's some good discussions too, I get it, but it's no surprise that misunderstanding occurs.
(I like your username, except now I have the song in my head)
*had a car to drive anywhere*
*drives to the same 3 spots 99% of the time*
Explain that.
Not hard to explain at all. I am lazy and I enjoy the cool stuff I have at home more than I enjoy traveling frequently. But in my case it would be driving to the same 5 to 10 spots most of the time. I go to different cities to visit people or a dispensary with a better selection, etc.
It's pretty cool to have the option to do any of the above anytime I want.
It's too bad you don't have the freedom to rent a car...
Yes I do. Do you not?