this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
576 points (93.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9607 readers
456 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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.

Posting Guidelines

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:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution.

[...]

We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

sure it could technically be interpreted that way

How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)?

More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity

Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community?

the outrage you exhibit.

projection, or else hyperbolae

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ripped out completely as in actually remove them

Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely.