Hacker News Reader

> their logic, pretty straightforwardly, is that it makes you depend on the government for movement

The same government that issues you your driving license in the first place, and sets the standards for examining folks with a provisional license, and determining when licenses are revoked?

It's a bizarre argument in any case given many areas in the UK have public transport provided by private companies.

> The same government that issues you your driving license in the first place, and sets the standards for examining folks with a provisional license, and determining when licenses are revoked?

The very same indeed! Their logic is that license indicates your ability to use roads safely, and is not the means for preventing you from using the roads or owning cars. Presumably, they trust the government on that.

> It's a bizarre argument in any case given many areas in the UK have public transport provided by private companies.

I suspect those companies have to work with local governments—or can you, as a private company, just go around unilaterally setting up bus lanes, bus stops, railways and so on?

> I know smart, very adequate people who point out that efficient public transport, planning for walkability and (consequently) restricting private vehicles are policies that benefit authoritarianism.

  I know smart, very adequate people who point out that the automobile, and the   planning and building it requires, is a device that benefits authoritarianism. Without it, people are free to walk or ride a horse wherever they feel like, but the automobile makes them dependent on government to be able to get around. And any government that lets them get around could stop them getting around, whenever they feel like it.

> I know smart, very adequate people who point out that the automobile, and the planning and building it requires, is a device that benefits authoritarianism. Without it, people are free to walk or ride a horse wherever they feel like,

Good luck walking or riding a horse hundreds of kilometres in one day—or, in fact, just daily commuting to the other side of a typical modern city that was planned for cars almost exclusively.

> and (consequently) restricting private vehicles

This "consequently" is quite a jump and doing a lot of heavy lifting in jumping from policies that are completely neutral to "authoritarianism" to something where a discussion about the implications makes sense

There's nothing benefiting authoritarianism in having efficient public transport and walkable cities. And I fail to see how decrying these policies as authoritarian will help anything.

Especially since the end result seems to be (in the UK's case) the central government planning (or at least posturing) to crack down on local governments' ability to develop their own urban policy. If I had to choose between "being able to walk to the dentist" and "central government threatening the independence of local governments" I'd go with the latter as being more worthy of worry about authoritarianism

A separate conversation can be had about restricting private vehicles should such a restriction occur.

I nearly omitted “consequently” as I would expect it to be obvious to anyone who is into walkable city planning: real estate is limited, so the choice between 7-lane road sprawl and walkable 1 or 2 lane streets—sometimes bus-only, sometimes shared with pedestrians, inevitably with heavy restrictions on speed and plenty of traffic lights—is binary. You cannot prioritise both pedestrian and public transport traffic and private cars simultaneously.

Yes, but "not prioritising private cars" is not authoritarianism.

The logic is that prioritizing public transport, and hence restricting private cars, is restricting freedom of movement by making you depend on municipal government for transportation. Did you read the rest of my original comment?

Your logic is based on the equivalence between prioritizing public transport and placing restrictions on cars

I can maybe see the point when talking about limited traffic zones. But the discussion here was about: 1. Reducing the need (not opportunity or freedom, need) to travel 2. Making public transport more effective

Neither of those is a restriction on cars. Nothing stops you from owning a car even though you don't need it and nothing stops you from using it even if it's inconvenient or unnecessary

I didn't see the point in answering to this comment earlier but since we're here:

> real estate is limited, so the choice between 7-lane road sprawl and walkable 1 or 2 lane streets—sometimes bus-only, sometimes shared with pedestrians, inevitably with heavy restrictions on speed and plenty of traffic lights—is binary

1. Traffic lights or speed bumps do not restrict cars, they restrict their convenience maybe, and they definitely restrict their ability to cause property damage and maimings around them. But you can still own and use your car, you're just not being subsidized as much by the rest of the community in doing so 2. Real estate is indeed limited. In the space you wasted for a 7 lane street plus the parking required you could have had a 2 lane street and an extra building used for apartments, offices, shops or an extra park or both. If making it mildly more uncomfortable to drive a car is a restriction on freedom on movement (your logic, not mine) then making it more expensive to have an apartment (because of reduced supply) and increasing the chance of getting injured by exposure to exhaust fumes or directly by car crashes is an infringement on the right to life itself

Obviously both of those statements are moronic. Making life better for those who don't want to own a car (or can't afford to) is not a restrictions on cars. If people decide that owning a car isn't worth it anymore for them then that's not coercion, it's showing that people were being "forced" into owning a car before when they didn't need to need it

If you posit that traffic lights, speed bumps, narrower slower roads, emergency services or bus only streets, along with other measures that aim to create a city that is easy to navigate by public transport and on foot, do not restrict private cars, then your idea of what “restrict” entails might be different enough from mine (and perhaps that of most people who own cars, which in fact does not include myself) to render any further discussion a waste of time.

It's easier for the government to take away my car than to take away my legs.

> "is that it makes you depend on the government for movement [...] I have to admit that they have a point."

You already depend on the government for building and maintaining the roads and the traffic lights and all accoutrements, the government can already close roads and restrict you. Public transport doesn't need to be government provided, it can be privatised (although this works badly in the UK). You also depend on the government in various ways for food and water and electricity - from land use and transport to crime prevention to upholding trade and food safety requirements and the value of currency; everyone in a city does, at least. Picking the car as the important thing for "freedom" is a ... weird one. And doesn't address the idea of "freedom from having to have a car".

> "Yet I can think of a few recent examples where control over public transportation was used to suppress protests."

"The PMLN-led federal and Punjab governments have closed several roads leading to Islamabad from various Punjab cities and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province in an effort to stop PTI activists from marching on Islamabad."[3] - there's control over the roads used to suppress something or other (I don't know what PTI activists are, but I'm assuming this isn't in the middle of a war because that probably wouldn't be using shipping containers and talking of 'activists').

What about the COVID lockdowns preventing people from going outside at all? Having a car didn't give you freedom then, and public transport wasn't involved. What about The UK[2] making it legal for the police to shut down protests because the protestors might walk slowly down roads - no control over public transport needed to stop the protest (and on the flip side, car drivers depending on the government to keep cars moving).

In Paris: "Every first Sunday of the month is the new car-free day in Paris. It's an initiative appreciated by many Parisians, who have fallen under the spell of a capital free of motorized vehicles and noise pollution. The capital's first four arrondissements are closed to car traffic on one Sunday a month."[1] - more showing that governments can shut roads and therefore car drivers are dependent on the government for freedom of movement, as well as public transport users are.

[1] https://www.sortiraparis.com/en/news/in-paris/articles/17562... -

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/15/police-to-get-...

[3] https://dailytimes.com.pk/940632/govt-closes-all-roads-leadi...

> You already depend on the government for building and maintaining the roads and the traffic lights and all accoutrements

That is absolutely correct. I use the fact that a car owner would still rely on the government to plan and maintain private road infrastructure as my main counter-argument to those people, with varying success.

> you depend on the government for a lot of things so another thing to depend on them for is good okay

> you already do depend on the government for use of your car and you don't need to depend on the government for public transport so the argument that rests on the premise that you don't depend on the government for your car which is good but would have to depend on the government for use of public transport which would be bad, is nonsensical okay