Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

I am perfectly fine to give people with medical issues an exception. But that doesn't mean that we should build everything around cars. Cars also cause a lot of health issues which should also be accounted for.

View on HN

Yes - the argument is against the primacy and dominance of cars, not their existence in reasonable circumstances.

Going to the extreme is a good strategy to kill any debate. I am not sure if the GP intended this but I so often hear "Want to make changes to health care/ taxes/ others? Socialism! go to Venezuela!". Debate ended.

Lol definitely agree that this thread is mostly filled with extremeness. I don't think people should be advocating the removal of all cars/vehicles on the planet until there is a reasonable way to replace their functions (how do people, goods and large-scale construction projects get around in in normal and emergency situations). Similarly I don't think providing specific car free zones in small 1 mile blocks is the same as murdering elderly and pregnant people.

Agree. We've really put all our eggs in one basket in the USA... you NEED a car to reasonably participate in most parts of society. Sure public transit or biking are options, but they are much less efficient than driving. This is the problem. We've spent 75 years building this way, now when we want to take small steps towards reversing that, the steps are widely misunderstood. In a sense we've been extremely car oriented for 75 years, so that when anything except ultimate car domination is presented, it appears extreme.

  > you NEED a car to reasonably participate
  > in most parts of society.

Not for most people. Unless they have a very severe mental or physical disability. Driving is much less efficient than biking and/or public transit in how I have planned my life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com