Hacker News Reader

Comment by GiorgioG | Hacker News Reader

> I am experiencing this firsthand in debates about urban transportation policy. One part of the challenging is getting people to recognize the negative impacts of cars (pollution, injuries, parking space) and car-dependent designs (unwalkable neighborhoods, little consideration for mass transit service, no autonomy with a car).

I recognize the negative impacts, and yet will happily keep my vehicles because the benefits outweigh the risks and negative impacts. It's a trade-off many of us will continue making because there is no better alternative that checks all the boxes.

View on HN

> benefits outweigh the risks and negative impacts

This is deflecting a critique of a systemic problem with a defense in terms of individual (and personal) effects. Taken broadly, this statement is utterly wrong, and the benefits come nowhere close to the dramatically negative impacts on human health and life, accessibility, neighborhood cohesion, child development, commute time/difficulty, the local and global economy, the local and global environment, etc.

If the whole system around you were changed, even marginally, toward more efficient and effective uses of land, infrastructure, and resources than a car culture, you would almost certainly significantly benefit (along with everyone else). For problems of this magnitude your personal choice is not really the issue (though there are certainly personal choices you can make which have a slight positive impact in your local neighborhood).

I understand why you would continue driving because of the lack of alternatives, but why would you be happy about doing so?

Yeah I understand. I've seen many responses along the lines of "my drive to work is 30 minutes; if I had to take public transit then it's 3 buses in 90 minutes". So far, I'm tolerant to those comments.

What I have a problem with is that instead of saying that a car works for them personally, they start attacking the people who challenge the car-dominated status quo. They propose ridiculous edge cases as gotchas, blithely ignore any evidence presented, and make it clear that you're an idiot for proposing any idea that differs from the norm. Furthermore, they fiercely attack any incremental change - whether it be congestion pricing or upzoning or adding bus-only lanes - even when every time it has been tried the populace is satisfied with the outcome after it gets implemented.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com