Bit too absolutist imo, people with mobility issues exist, i’d say most cars don’t belong in cities, and it would be solved by good design, traffic restrictions etc.
when I was a kid almost all kids took the bus and walked to school, now I live opposite of an elementary school in a “socialist block” in middle europe and in the morning there is a huge line of cars dropping off kids, the school literally has a roundabout in front of it’s entrance to make it easier, it’s awful design, not to mention there is literally a bus stop on the other side of the school.
There is 0 reason for kids to be driven to school.
With you first point i disagree. I think public transport is often just fine or even preferable for people with mobility issues. If they are wheelchair bound then they cannot drive. And public transport has come a long way in terms of supporting disabled people such as most trains trams buses from were I come from now support wheelchair access.
Although I would be interested if there are any examples were taking public transport is infeasible or unhelpful to specific situations.
Why would wheelchair bound people have to pay so much more to get car they can use, when they can pay the same price as everyone else for a ticket to ride with public transportation?
Also there are blind and other handicapped people that can easily ride public transport on their own, but would have to rely on others to ride with their own car.
Public transport is especially useful for the handicapped and elderly compared to personal cars.
@Lv_InSaNe_vL@Malfeasant I’m happy to limit the ‘no personal cars’ to areas that are 1/4 acre blocks and below. (Remembering that a 1/4 acre block gets back a substantial amount of useful land when you delete the driveway, so blocks all become ‘bigger’ in such a system)
Places that are substantially less dense than that do benefit from cars. But that isn’t that large a % of people, while it is a very large % of the land mass.
Sure no problem, let’s say you live in a village that’s next to a small town and then you are sent to an appointment to another doctor that’s only found in a nearby city, doing all that stuff is a lot of travelling, exhausting
I disagree. I think disability access should be one of the most important things considered when designing public spaces.
Its something that I (an American) honestly took for granted until I spent some time in Europe. I’m fortunate to be completely physically and mentally (for this conversation lol) capable, but I have friends who are not. But going around Europe, especially outside of big cities, it was shocking to see how many buildings aren’t wheelchair accessible, how roads crossings aren’t designed for people with vision impairments, how little braille there was, bathrooms without mobility bars, and countless other little things.
And the argument I heard a lot was either “but they’re old buildings” or “it’ll cost too much money” and honestly those are some BS answers.
Idk the US does a lot wrong, but the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) really does seem to be the global standard. And it’s an incredibly good thing.
To explain my downvote: yes, designing for disabled access is important. But making out that the ADA is actually enforced, and ignoring its origins in controlling and disempowering disabled people, is bullshit. So’s your original pessimistic example - if we’re improving public transit and banning cars from cities, we can absolutely tear up the carbrained suburbs, and massively expand access-a-ride and similar services in the meantime.
I am not discussing edge cases I provided the example asked for, I agree with James May that cars in cities suck and we should plan cities better and reduce their numbers as much as possible, I just dislike the absolutist nature of the headline it’s the exact type of headline that opposers of good urban planning will point to when accusing people of wanting to taker freedum and their cars
My local public transit only commes by five times a day, and if the bus is already full, they’ll not let the wheelchair user on. Ostensibly they’ll send a van to pick them up, but those don’t adhere to a schedule and can take hours to arrive.
Transit around here is so bad that I’ve had multiple jobs tell me I’m not eligible for hire if I rely on the bus.
@faythofdragons@pineapple shitty PT is not the goal. Yes there are PT systems that are shit, that doesn’t mean good PT is worse than good individual car ownership (something I’ve never heard of), it just means shitty PT need to be less shitty.
Shitty public transit is the goal around here though. Its being run by fucking NIMBYs that don’t like that the bus that goes to my town also services a reservation, and just whine whine whine that the fully packed bus is too expensive and should be cut.
Western Washington, surprisingly enough. I thought the area had fantastic transit before I moved, but outside the cities it sucks. I’m currently waiting for a taxi because my MRI finished after the last bus home. It’s only 5:30pm.
Mobility issues are the first dog whistle of car pros, and the first point to be dissected entirely.
Handicapped people have tools they use to navigate an office floor, and they use those same tools to cross from their apartment to the corner store. Building pedestrian-friendly cities and encouraging low-speed transport like bikes and trams helps them too.
Many handicap users also can’t drive cars, meaning public transit options suited to their common routes are a godsend. Advocates of bikes often encourage having that whole setup, so people can pick between walking, biking, or trains as needed.
I didn’t notice it’s fuck cars and I don’t really care, I will not make shitty absolutist comments that I don’t agree with, I believe in cities needing much better designs and better public infrastructure and disincentivizing cars as much as possible.
Children going to school need bike trains, folks with disabilities need good accessible public transport, some might need adapted or well designed personal vehicles, everyone else needs cycles with theft-proof storage and great, cheap public transport
Bit too absolutist imo, people with mobility issues exist, i’d say most cars don’t belong in cities, and it would be solved by good design, traffic restrictions etc.
when I was a kid almost all kids took the bus and walked to school, now I live opposite of an elementary school in a “socialist block” in middle europe and in the morning there is a huge line of cars dropping off kids, the school literally has a roundabout in front of it’s entrance to make it easier, it’s awful design, not to mention there is literally a bus stop on the other side of the school.
There is 0 reason for kids to be driven to school.
With you first point i disagree. I think public transport is often just fine or even preferable for people with mobility issues. If they are wheelchair bound then they cannot drive. And public transport has come a long way in terms of supporting disabled people such as most trains trams buses from were I come from now support wheelchair access.
Although I would be interested if there are any examples were taking public transport is infeasible or unhelpful to specific situations.
Wheelchair bound people absolutely can drive, there are a lot of retrofit vehicles that support a wheelchair and have alternative controls.
Maybe not ideal, but in some parts of the US not having a car is a real problem.
Why would wheelchair bound people have to pay so much more to get car they can use, when they can pay the same price as everyone else for a ticket to ride with public transportation?
Also there are blind and other handicapped people that can easily ride public transport on their own, but would have to rely on others to ride with their own car.
Public transport is especially useful for the handicapped and elderly compared to personal cars.
They answered that
And truthfully, for a not insignificant part of the country, it won’t be. Population densities just wouldn’t support it.
Basically, because they have no choice. More public transportation is choice.
Yes it’s definitely 100% a reasonable choice for people who don’t even technically live in cities. Absolutely
@Lv_InSaNe_vL @Malfeasant I’m happy to limit the ‘no personal cars’ to areas that are 1/4 acre blocks and below. (Remembering that a 1/4 acre block gets back a substantial amount of useful land when you delete the driveway, so blocks all become ‘bigger’ in such a system)
Places that are substantially less dense than that do benefit from cars. But that isn’t that large a % of people, while it is a very large % of the land mass.
10% of Americans live in towns of under 10000 people.
I wouldn’t call that “insignificant” lmao
Sure no problem, let’s say you live in a village that’s next to a small town and then you are sent to an appointment to another doctor that’s only found in a nearby city, doing all that stuff is a lot of travelling, exhausting
Let’s say you live on the moon and need to reach earth for the funeral of your Aunt who rules the underground city of Uthrangon.
You are discussing edge cases. Urban planning should consider edge cases but not base the code design of a city after them.
I disagree. I think disability access should be one of the most important things considered when designing public spaces.
Its something that I (an American) honestly took for granted until I spent some time in Europe. I’m fortunate to be completely physically and mentally (for this conversation lol) capable, but I have friends who are not. But going around Europe, especially outside of big cities, it was shocking to see how many buildings aren’t wheelchair accessible, how roads crossings aren’t designed for people with vision impairments, how little braille there was, bathrooms without mobility bars, and countless other little things.
And the argument I heard a lot was either “but they’re old buildings” or “it’ll cost too much money” and honestly those are some BS answers.
Idk the US does a lot wrong, but the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) really does seem to be the global standard. And it’s an incredibly good thing.
To explain my downvote: yes, designing for disabled access is important. But making out that the ADA is actually enforced, and ignoring its origins in controlling and disempowering disabled people, is bullshit. So’s your original pessimistic example - if we’re improving public transit and banning cars from cities, we can absolutely tear up the carbrained suburbs, and massively expand access-a-ride and similar services in the meantime.
I am not discussing edge cases I provided the example asked for, I agree with James May that cars in cities suck and we should plan cities better and reduce their numbers as much as possible, I just dislike the absolutist nature of the headline it’s the exact type of headline that opposers of good urban planning will point to when accusing people of wanting to taker freedum and their cars
@kameecoding @pineapple yes, spending all your day driving is exhausting. With good PT that day of errands is quite enjoyable.
I’d say that’s quite person dependent, for me driving is a mostly relaxing thing, but I know I an a weirdo who enjoys driving.
@kameecoding enjoying and it being taxing aren’t really relayed. Driving takes effort that sitting on a bus doesn’t
For me sitting ona bus is more taxing, because I am not doing anything and I am among people.
Like I said, I am probably the weirdo here
My local public transit only commes by five times a day, and if the bus is already full, they’ll not let the wheelchair user on. Ostensibly they’ll send a van to pick them up, but those don’t adhere to a schedule and can take hours to arrive.
Transit around here is so bad that I’ve had multiple jobs tell me I’m not eligible for hire if I rely on the bus.
@faythofdragons @pineapple shitty PT is not the goal. Yes there are PT systems that are shit, that doesn’t mean good PT is worse than good individual car ownership (something I’ve never heard of), it just means shitty PT need to be less shitty.
Shitty public transit is the goal around here though. Its being run by fucking NIMBYs that don’t like that the bus that goes to my town also services a reservation, and just whine whine whine that the fully packed bus is too expensive and should be cut.
Phoenix area by any chance? Or Oklahoma?
Western Washington, surprisingly enough. I thought the area had fantastic transit before I moved, but outside the cities it sucks. I’m currently waiting for a taxi because my MRI finished after the last bus home. It’s only 5:30pm.
Mobility issues are the first dog whistle of car pros, and the first point to be dissected entirely.
Handicapped people have tools they use to navigate an office floor, and they use those same tools to cross from their apartment to the corner store. Building pedestrian-friendly cities and encouraging low-speed transport like bikes and trams helps them too.
Many handicap users also can’t drive cars, meaning public transit options suited to their common routes are a godsend. Advocates of bikes often encourage having that whole setup, so people can pick between walking, biking, or trains as needed.
I don’t really see any circumstance where a mobility-impaired person would prefer a car inside a city over just a motorized wheelchair…
i would like to answer.
What is, human settlements outside city where people also live but have to go into the city sometime?
bro you are on fuckcars, commenting shit like this either means you’re here in bad faith or you’re just ignorant.
I didn’t notice it’s fuck cars and I don’t really care, I will not make shitty absolutist comments that I don’t agree with, I believe in cities needing much better designs and better public infrastructure and disincentivizing cars as much as possible.
Bro it showed up at the top of /all, get over yourself
They could drive to a transit station then take mobility friendly transit to their destination.
@kameecoding @Global_Liberty
Children going to school need bike trains, folks with disabilities need good accessible public transport, some might need adapted or well designed personal vehicles, everyone else needs cycles with theft-proof storage and great, cheap public transport