Is there anyone left here who still doesn't
know that banning all private vehicles is
utterly stupid on steroids?
know that banning all private vehicles is
utterly stupid on steroids?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't think the plan is to ban themIs there anyone left here who still doesn't
know that banning all private vehicles is
utterly stupid on steroids?
The title says to "eliminate" them.I don't think the plan is to ban them
1. You're committing a black-and-white fallacy. Just because a better public transport system wouldn't solve all problems, is not enough reason not to try it.So in conclusion: I would say "no... this would not be good for europe at all".
Not even the countries with the best public transport lines would currently be able to accommodate all those extra commuters. Not a chance.
An enormous amount of extra vehicles and additional lines would be necessary.
It would cost many many billions and no matter how good of a job they would do - they would not be able to give people the same "freedom of travel" they enjoy today.
That's a title - which is almost always clickbait.The title says to "eliminate" them.
How is that not to ban them?
How do you regard the bans on DDT, lead paint, and asbestos?People should have the freedom to buy whatever they want.
What about banning them in cities, and making all of the transportation there autonomous, and then allowing them on rural highways, and remote areas? Doesn't that seem like it would be cost saving , and allow the country to stockpile oil reserves?Is there anyone left here who still doesn't
know that banning all private vehicles is
utterly stupid on steroids?
Depending on where you live, it seems probable, and I bet it would be safer. Good idea. But I think the rural areas are the place for private vehicles, because that would be where it makes the most sense. Wise transportation seems like it could be profitable, in that the government could stockpile oil if they wanted, if people only used private cars in rural places. And if most private car traffic was within a city, it wouldn't be like the rural traffic would increase if you were to suddenly band private vehicles within a city, I don't thinkTruth be told most of us could do everything we need to do transportation-wise with a glorified (weatherized) electric golf cart. They'd cost $10k brand new and would be very reliable and perpetually repairable. Longer trips could easily be handled using commuter trains and buses.
But none of this is about what's wise. It's all about what's profitable to those who make all the decisions. And wise transportation is not profitable transportation. Not profitable enough, anyway. So we won't be seeing any wise transportation decisions being made anytime soon.
I didn't mean to minimize the troubles caused by the Covid shutdown, and I didn't think we were talking about months or about indefinite periods of time like with Covid. I miscommunicated. I was thinking about very short periods of time like 3 days or less or the occasional week.
You're right about that. Where I live it is more than 3 or 5 per year but still not very bad. Maybe a day at a time things are closed for weather, and it could actually be as little as 5 in a year. Very rarely we'll have snow on the roads for a few days. Occasionally the power goes out. That's not everywhere though. If we had no personal automobiles we'd have other problems but business closures due to weather would not be such a slight.But that's not sensible. Is the weather only going to be bad 3 to 5 days a year?
I'm a bit shocked that you speak so casually about actively shutting down the entire economy, regardless for how many days.You're right about that. Where I live it is more than 3 or 5 per year but still not very bad. Maybe a day at a time things are closed for weather, and it could actually be as little as 5 in a year. Very rarely we'll have snow on the roads for a few days. Occasionally the power goes out. That's not everywhere though. If we had no personal automobiles we'd have other problems but business closures due to weather would not be such a slight.
I tend to take things literally.That's a title - which is almost always clickbait.
A wee bit more reasonable.What about banning them in cities, and making all of the transportation there autonomous, and then allowing them on rural highways, and remote areas? Doesn't that seem like it would be cost saving , and allow the country to stockpile oil reserves?
Over here in Belgium, several cities already have "car free" zones, actually.What about banning them in cities, and making all of the transportation there autonomous, and then allowing them on rural highways, and remote areas? Doesn't that seem like it would be cost saving , and allow the country to stockpile oil reserves?
I think that all works really well if 99% of your traveling concerns short and predictable distances.I have no children, and I don't need to transport any goods that often. Public transport in my city is excellent, and there is enough car sharing to get a car (almost) always when I need it; for emergencies or when I'm drunk I can get a taxi (I don't use Uber, because I think it's a ****ty exploitative business model and should go out of business). So for me, there is no reason to pay for the maintenance of a car.
I guess that this will be far more common in the future. There really should be no reason for anybody to maintain their own car. We have the tech, it would be much more efficient, better for the environment. The only reason it doesn't work, is inertia - technological, psychological, and otherwise.
Besides, I am highly in favor of shared taxis. Much more cost-effective than individual cars, but more flexible than public transport, and with the right tech, things should be traceable enough to avoid ugly violence, for the most part.
... at the price that it actually costs.People should have the freedom to buy whatever they want.
People should have the freedom to buy whatever they want. Some people today choose to live without a car, good for them, some others want a car and if they can afford it should get one if they want one. It is not a matter of other people deciding if we can have them or not.
Glasgow has an LEZ, too. Sent all the Facebook radicalised uncles into a tinfoil hat frenzy. Lower pollution is fascism, apparently.Over here in Belgium, several cities already have "car free" zones, actually.
These zones are rather small though. In general no need for public transport as everything within it is pretty much at reasonable walking distance.
Antwerp also has a "low emission" zone. This means that cars need to meet a certain emission standard in order to be able to drive into the city.
A 12-year old diesel car for example, isn't allowed. Smart camera's monitor all license plates that go in and out of the city and check the car model in the national database. Hefty fines follow for those who enter the city with a car that has emissions that don't meet the standard.
But this is something to motivate people to switch to cleaner cars - not to not drive at all.
If driving works well for you now, that's great... but there will probably be a time when it doesn't.I think that all works really well if 99% of your traveling concerns short and predictable distances.
For me, it wouldn't work at all. Work-wise, private-wise, family-wise.
Granted, I don't live in the city. And I wouldn't want to either, tbh. Far to crowded and "busy" for me.
I like the peace and quite from the country side.