>>339242
Sure.

Jello Biafra, the lead singer from the Dead Kennedys, ran for mayor of San Fran and he said he would outlaw cars

At first I thought I'd point out the trollish nature of this thread (banned?) but then it percolated into me a bit. And I realized that the majority of the United States should be torn down and turned back to fields and then the majority of downtowns could be car-free paradises like the old west.

What a wonderful world that could be.

yes but then everyone would have to live within 10 miles of where they work or ride a public bus

>>339242
>other than commercial vehicles

how does this work
seriously think about the implications of this loophole before you reply

honestly with todays demand (not just for motorized vehicles) to ban the use of motorized vehicles would do far more harm than good even if commercial and ems vehicles are still allowed.

No, because I'm not an authoritarian prick who believes I should make decisions for everyone else.

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, you know.

>>339246
>>339248
>>339253
>>339262
>>339290
Good show /n/.

OP, you have my approval.
Cars = problems: obesity + anger + anti-social + preventable death.

Eh.
I really hate cars. I've been living directly at a 6-lane road for the last 12 years until I moved out recently. This shit is just too bothersome. You could get around in a city so well if it weren't for all the cars.

Banning, no. But it should be extremely expensive to drive a car in the city.

I'm with you OP, but instead of banning them, death to all cagers!

>>339242
no. i love riding my bike but as transportation its pretty useless

No. I just wish people were more rational and less lazyfucks.

Most people could live without a car (or at least no using it everyday), and thus saving a load of money. But hey, their choice. I don't blame others for being retarded. When I REALLY need a car I just borrow it.

Consider the following: I own three cars, I use them a lot, I'm 5'10" tall and my weight is 133 lbs.

Greetings from /o/

>>339335

We're not Europoor here in the US. It's difficult to live within walking distance of most workplaces and public transportation hubs/stops unless you are in an urban area (and a lot of those people already don't own cars), and if everyonerode bikes this place would smell like India 9 months out of the year. In the south at least.

>itt: people that know little of the glorious USA or have never left New York City in their entire lives

>>339335

I'm with you but for health reasons instead of economics. I live in south louisiana and see people get in their car to drive 3 blocks to the corner store all the time. my wife and i have shared a car for two years now and it hasn't really been an inconvenience at all- the only time I drive is if I'm going to buy something I can't carry on my bike, if I'm going more than eight or nine miles for an errand, or if it's lightning and shit.

>>339353

>not the typical American

Most of us mind body odor stench.

>people are doing something i disapprove of
>solution is to ban it
I like cars, but I'm not a hate-all-else nutter either. I like cycling and trains too, though I loath buses. Yes there are probably a lot of people who do rely too much on their cars and would be better cycling, walking or using public transport. But that's up to them, and banning stuff is not the way to get through to people.

Although I often cycle to work rather than commute by car, I also go for long weekend drives just for the hell of it. Unnecessary but fun, and I'd rather burn fuel to enjoy myself than on a boring commute.

>>339353
>People driving their cars to the Circle K to buy a pack of smokes.

I want to kill them, dude. BikeBreauxs4Life

No because public transport is overpriced, shit and usually late also going to work for some people is to fr to cycle etc.

If you wanted to outlaw cars there needs to be a good alternative nice trains or busses where you are garunteed a seat at a resonable price or free.

I don't really think cars should be banned. I just wish they were sometimes so I could ride my bike where ever without these tanks (SUVs, but cars too) on the road.

Many, perhaps most people are like me in that they could bike ride 2-3 miles to get where ever they needed to go in my city (gym, work, grocery, etc.). I think most cities are like this. And if people didn't have cars they'd move closer to work. But there's also the mcmansion/mortgage mess, so people are bound for life to their current residence. Renters don't have that problem.

It sucks not being able to get some good exercise while on the way to work, school, etc. And instead being forced to drive even though it's only not very far. It would also be nice to get some sun, breathe fresh air, see birds, trees, etc. on the way. pic related

That's all. Nothing major. But ce la vi. Life sucks.

>>339416

Roll windows down. Or, if you're me, put the top down. Driving can be fun and rewarding as well if you make it so.

>>339242
That's extremely ridiculous.

>>339242
No, I'm not an angsty faggot and see just how crucial cars are to American life.

I'd like to see a mid sized city built around bikes and smaller electric vehicles, but no full sized cars. Maybe have some kind of moving sidewalk highway system for express travel.

le bamp

>>339443

There's some town in buttfucksville, USA that only has golfcarts. It's interesting.

>>339416

Pretty much this, I wish biking was more of an option for me.. there's a nice little shopping center/restaurant plaza area a few miles from me, but it's on a.. 8? lane road past an intersection with a 6 lane road. 0 percent bike friendly. I love life too much.

>>341266
The city is in Arizona. It's for old folks.

>>341266
>There's some town in buttfucksville, USA that only has golfcarts. It's interesting.

There is more than a few "places", but most of them are retirement communities that are technically located on private property (including the roads) so they can allow people to drive whatever they want. Most of the retirement communities that allow golf carts are based around a golf course anyway, and the {old} people buy their own golf carts so they don't have to walk or drive back and forth to the golf course.

Almost all US states allow them to be used on public streets (with varying restrictions) but a few municipal towns have laws and facilities specifically intended for them--see this wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle

I don't think banning cars is smart or practical. But people definitely rely on cars too much and I would like to see more neighborhoods/villages being built or modified to make owning and operating a car prohibitively expensive and difficult

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?pagewanted=all

^Like this.

I'd also like to see more separate bike paths built parallel to major roads and highways. My city is trying to be more bike friendly by re-striping roads to include on-road paths. These paths are either ignored by motorists, or used as empty beer bottle receptacles. I don't feel very safe using them, especially with so many people texting while driving (not to mention the assholes that try to run you off the road while yelling "NICE BIKE, FAGGOT").

>>341310
>I'd also like to see more separate bike paths built parallel to major roads and highways. My city is trying to be more bike friendly by re-striping roads to include on-road paths. These paths are either ignored by motorists, or used as empty beer bottle receptacles. I don't feel very safe using them, especially with so many people texting while driving (not to mention the assholes that try to run you off the road while yelling "NICE BIKE, FAGGOT").
Fuck yeah, that'd be awesome. I'm so jelly of /n/ whenever they talk about proper bike lanes.
Here, there are no bike lanes. Occasionally, roads are a bit extra wide for whatever reason, but they're filled with assholes swerving into you, trash, glass, and road shit.
A ways away, there are bike lanes, but there around lakes and other bullshit. I need to go places, not 'exercise' by going round the lake half a time on my balloon tired beach cruiser. I'm not a middle aged woman, I'm a normal asshole like every other asshole who has to get shit done.

sure is militant eco-nazi in here

>>341462
I sense the opposite, more like Suburbia Defense Squad in here. Cars are necessary but are only necessary one per carpool not hurr durr, I need a car because everyone else has one or hurr durr, i'd look poor if I didn't own my own car. As for not wanting to smell/the nasty people of public transportation, that's what high speed rail could overcome which is faster than car travel. We could have that in the states easily but oldfucks complain about big government spending their tax money though it's perfectly fine that we the taxpayers pay for the military's war on arabs, the military is special, not big government.

tl;dr This thread is filled with you can't say you want to ban cars-nazis not eco-nazis.

>>341497
>carpool, public transport
No. Just no. The whole reason cars are popular is because people like private transport, NOT public transport. All the systems in europe are incredibly expensive, through taxpayer subsidy or steep fares or both.

The future is finding new ways of powering private cars, not trying to force people to use the inherently inferior methods which they rushed to escape by buying cars as soon as they became available. People don't want to give up their cars for carpool, buses or trains the same way they don't want to give them up for horses, oxcarts or walking. Technological progress and more mobility is what humans have always been about and you can't turn the clock back.

>>341503
People like cars in a low density environment, because it's the only sensible way to get around the massive distances (inverse of density).

People like transit in a high density environment, because transit is seamless with pedestrian trips ideal with short distances. Parking -- the lack thereof -- just kills cars for short trips in a dense environment. It's so terrible you'd only use the car if you have to: deliveries, heavy equipment, emergencies and unusual commutes.

It boils down to countryside versus city.

>>341503
>The future is finding new ways of powering private cars
I guess cars in the future will be able to drive on rugged desert terrain for 100s of miles as most of the world will be desert with everyone in the current day driving around their own personal pollution machine every day. Inb4 Global Cooling and the Cap and Trade scam makes Climate Change Theory incorrect altogether.

>not trying to force people to use the inherently inferior methods
>>Advanced Mass Transportation(Minimal to Zero Pollution)
>>Inferior to Gasoline-powered 1000 lb. Derp Machine

>Technological progress and more mobility is what humans have always been about and you can't turn the clock back.
Exactly what auto companies did when they made cars a household "necessity" whereas before then people shared cars and got more mileage for the buck not having to upkeep a fleet of cars for each person to drive their own on the same exact route to the same exact job or same exact market. Seriously, GTFO!

>>341685
Cars definitely aren't some intrinsic part of human nature. We like to wander but it's pretty unnatural to be able to go 100 miles in a day. Sitting in a familiar room on wheels isn't really exploring, anyway.

>>341691
I'm not even a naturist, it's cool to be able to travel but we're selling ourselves short with personal cars and fucking up our only home in the universe. I'm not even against personal transportation, people can isolate themselves within a mass transportation system for all I care, they can be in a 1 person train car per say in whatever form that would take in mass transport in the future. It's just completely unnecessary for people to live in suburbs and drive for miles and miles every day. I myself wish to live nearby to public places not in isolation out in the middle of nowhere.

On Tuesday I left my Manhattan apartment and walked 1 1/2 blocks to take the (1) Broadway local subway from 110th street to 59th street, where I changed for the (A) train limited (express) to the Howard Beach station. At Howard Beach I took the AirTrain to a terminal at JFK airport. Cost $2.25 for the subway, and $5 for the air-train. Alternatives were taking the LIRR instead of the A train $13, a Supershuttle (shared car/van service) for $23, a taxi for about $60 or a private limo for about $100.

>>341713

continuing...

Later that evening my flight arrived in San Jose, California. My ultimate destination - a friends home about 15 miles from downtown Santa Cruz. I got there via private car. Like most people at the SJC airport I waited to be picked up by a private car, or else they already had their car parked at the airport. Time from SJC to Santa Cruz via car - about 45 minutes)

My transportation alternatives from SJC to Santa Cruz (a medium-sized University town) are, IMHO, very bad:

(a) free airport public bus to Caltrain train station, Caltrain 2 stops to San Jose, then camp out at train station from 9pm until 6am waiting for the limited service Highway 17 express bus to Santa Cruz, then take 2 more buses to get within 1 mile of my destination. During daylight hours this option can take as little as 4 hours. When its running it takes about 4-5 hours to get to the airport (about the same amount of time it takes to take a train from Boston to Washington DC).

(b) Shared private car/van/shuttle to Santa Cruz. Several companies have gone in and out of business in recent years. When available this costs around $75. Time - about 2-3 hours depending on shuttle schedule and how many other people are in the shuttle and where they need to be dropped off.

(c) Private car rental. If your flight arrives early enough the car rental companies at SJC will still be open. Prices depend on what type of car, discounts you're eligible for, how long you keep the rental and whether you're going to return the car to the airport or in a local city. ($40-$90). (time: about 20 minutes for the rental company to pick you up and get you to your rental car, then driving time, then time the next day to return the rental car.)

>>341715

My life in the Santa Cruz area is very car centric. With the exception of being on the UC campus or downtown Santa Cruz, shopping and other services are motorist not pedestrian friendly. In many places sidewalks do not exist and you have to walk along the highway and enter shopping centers via large parking lots. During everyday activities everyone assumes you travel by car; there are no thoughts of ride sharing, car pooling, or even minimizing trips. Bicycles are viewed as expensive toys and not alternative forms of transportation.

i simply never want to drive one ever again.

so much so that I wont.

>>341685
>pollution machine
I did say "new ways of powering", you know. I don't want to get into the global warming stuff, we don't need to, because whatever we think about that there isn't enough oil to keep powering all our cars, especially once everyone in India and China wants one.

>Advanced Mass Transportation(Minimal to Zero Pollution)
>Inferior to Gasoline-powered 1000 lb. Derp Machine
See above re: power, pollution. You're missing my point, which is that private door-to-door transport where you can choose the route, stop where you like, carry your stuff, go when it suits you, is inherently superior to the compromises necessary for mass transportation, which has fixed routes, timetables and stops. Owning your own private transport that goes where you want when you want will always be more convenient, and that's why people like it.

>...whereas before then people shared cars and got more mileage for the buck not having to upkeep a fleet of cars for each person to drive their own...
No, before car ownership was widespread people just traveled a lot less, and used public transport. Sure there was a stage where maybe one guy in a circle of friends had a car and gave his buddies lifts; that was merely part of the process of people switching to cars, not a stable state. His buddies all bought cars as soon as they could.

>Seriously, GTFO!
That doesn't help you get taken seriously, you know.

My point is that we talk far too much about forcing people to give up their cars and accept a downgrade in their living standard, rather than offering a superior alternative that people want to upgrade to. Humanity solves problems through technological advance, not downgrading our aspirations.

>>341507
OK that makes sense and you're right about the density arguments. If I had to live in a city center I'd be tempted not to bother with a car because parking is a pain in the ass.

But who the hell wants to live in a crowded city unless they have to? That's why people move to suburbs, right?

People usually move to the suburbs cause property is cheaper. They want a big place, not some grungy little apartment.

>>341723
>But who the hell wants to live in a crowded city unless they have to?

People who love the performing arts (music, dance, theater, ...) want to live close to that action. For them there's an immense value in being able to casually drop by the ballet or opera to see if last minute tickets are available. There are always talks at galleries and museums. If you're up for it there are new things to do every day of the week. While your friends in the burb could drive into the city 'whenever they want' chances are they won't because its far less spontaneous and dealing with traffic and parking takes the joy out of it.

>>341722
My point is that while people may enjoy the convenience of a personal car and choosing everything about their routes so that it is best for them, what they're doing is not best for everyone else. You may not want to get into Global Warming but I do, I live in a small mountain town, it usually snows at least a few weeks out of the year and pours rain for months out of the year whilst being generally cold as fuck year round(I don't live here by choice), this year has been different from most, about 3 days of snow so far, maybe 4 days of rain, it's generally warmer. I've heard news about villages in Africa that are losing some environmental feature they've had for centuries, facts show the Earth's temperature is rising and if they continue to rise at the current levels, we're basically fucked. Mass Transport allows people for less expense and less polluting to arrive at their destination. A few people on the thread have been saying it's inconvenient in a given area, that's because in the US, we have underfunded Public Transportation like all other social programs. The money that could be going into building the fastest possible form of transportation except for something like a Space Plane that hasn't been used extensively(High-Speed Rail) which is used exclusively publicly is going into the auto industry and other consumerist bullshit and through our tax system into the military so that we can buy bombs to kill arabs with which also pollutes the Earth. Personal car ownership just does more harm then good. It's time for real sustainable alternatives to daily life not simply talk of maybe 10 years down the road getting enough funds to start researching something.

>>341754
I don't want to derail into discussing climate change (along with consumerism, the military or middle eastern politics), because it's irrelevant. Joe public isn't particularly interested in this in America, let alone China or wherever, and won't be until it's too late to do anything. In places where large numbers of voters express concern, that tends to turn out to be rather soft when you ask them to actually make a sacrifice in their living standards. People will give up their car keys when you pry them from their cold, dead fingers, unless you can offer something better. And by better I mean from a simple practical perspective to the guy who doesn't give a flying fuck about his emissions.

"Oh hey, how'd you like to ditch that big, comfy car and take the bus and train instead? It'll be slightly cheaper, substantially inconvenience you, and require a lot of tax dollars in investment, but it'll save lives in the developing world!" You know what the answer is. I'm not saying that it's morally right, I'm just saying that it is.

Living near where you work would make you more accountable for what you do.

what if every road had a shoulder? Could this be mandated like the other lines on the pavement are?

A ban on cars is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as giving every American 4 grand to buy a new car when they trade in an old car that prolly just gets resold and is still out there clunking in a different country.

End food stamps and welfare to make people not be able to afford gas is my solution.

>>341766
This. Urban sprawl fucked up everything. Fucking baby boomers.

Anyone who thinks cars should be banned is a fucking moron who has never experienced life outside of a city center. I wouldn't disagree that alternative modes of transportation should be encouraged and automotive use discouraged where it's less necessary, but anything outside that is fucking stupid.

>>341762
I know what you're getting at, Murrika will always be Murrika but that's exactly why a car ban would be a good idea, forcing comfy suburban assholes to adopt to the needs of the modern world would be the ultimate form of entertainment and would serve as a lesson to these remaining baby-boomer, it's all about me fags.

>It'll be slightly cheaper, substantially inconvenience you, and require a lot of tax dollars in investment, but it'll save lives in the developing world!"
Significantly and increasingly cheaper as the price of gas continually rises is more like it. Substantially inconvenience you if you're the stereotypical severely obese, unable to stand up at all, murrikan is more like it. Requires a lot of tax dollars deferred from waste in other allowances such as welfare queen soldiers and death drones is more like it. It'll not only save lives in the developing world but the entire world, you'd be surprised how many people could stand to die if the world's natural resources are continually depleted to the point rapidly approaching where there's not enough water to supply the whole population.

>>341776
You are a fucking moron. You can clearly see in >>341754 that not everyone advocating this is from the city, i'm from bum fuck nowhere as far as most are concerned. You are obviously too fucking stupid to read up the thread before posting half ass assumptions like everyone advocating a ban on cars lives in the center of a city. I could just as easily say everyone that doesn't want a car ban is an auto company executive.

>>341777

Fucking hell, this board is too full of eurofags who cannot into population density and rural distances.

If your nearest grocery store is 20 miles away (that's 32 kilometers, dickwads), obesity or not, you're not walking there and back in any reasonable time frame. Biking might be a little bit more feasible but you're still looking at a challenge for the average non-fattie, and then you've got to get all those groceries back on a bicycle. A LOT of America is like this, we're not as bunched together as Europeans.

Personally, I lived in Boston for years and owned a car there because I worked a significant distance outside of the city. Even so, having a car in the city was an inconvenience a lot of the time, and getting around inside metro Boston was usually easier via MBTA or bike. Most of my friends in Boston didn't own cars, or if they did, they never drove them. And Boston just started their new Hubway public bike system, which seems to be doing well in its first operational week. That's the way to go, encourage alternative transportation as much as possible, and in the places where it's actually the superior alternative you'll see a difference.

>>341778

The answer to global warming isn't to revert to pre-industrial revolution standards of living. The biggest contributors to the problem are industrial polluters, and as far as personal automotive ownership, as I've stated the best bet is to encourage alternative transportation, and also to discourage unnecessarily inefficient vehicle decisions. I drive a pickup truck because I use it for work, but most SUV/truck owners would get by fine with a smaller car. But a lot of people in the US would not be able to keep anything near the current standard of living without access to a car.

well I do not think they should be banned. Just regulated. It is unreasonable to ban cars, not everyone lives 10 minutes away from everything they could possibly need. I think cars should be regulated though. I am thinking along the lines of regulations that avoid the roads being clogged up with cars FOR ONE PERSON! This I find somewhat preposterous. At least if you are foreveralone get a motorbike and save yourself some money and the world some pollution. Ideally everyone should ride bicycles whenever it is reasonable. I am an extremist and ride my bike everywhere no matter how far

>>341779
>>341780
>Fucking hell, this board is too full of eurofags who cannot into population density and rural distances.
Jesus, again with the assumptions, i'm not a eurofag, i've never been to Europe. I'm an american just like you and I guess i'll specify California because otherwise you'd assume something else i'm sure.

>That's the way to go, encourage alternative transportation as much as possible, and in the places where it's actually the superior alternative you'll see a difference.
>>Implying oil companies aren't fighting alternatives and haven't convinced the average Republifuck that advocating solar is advocating Joseph Stalin rising from the dead and forcing all old people away from their houses into re-education camps.
Also, the situation is more urgent than can be addressed by telling people that alternative energy is a good thing.

>The answer to global warming isn't to revert to pre-industrial revolution standards of living.
Not my intentions at all, i'd rather have High-Speed Rail running all across the country taking me wherever I wanna go in less time than a car possibly could.

>The biggest contributors to the problem are industrial polluters, and as far as personal automotive ownership, as I've stated the best bet is to encourage alternative transportation, and also to discourage unnecessarily inefficient vehicle decisions.
You should read up on certain statistics such as how many people drive per day and how much a car pollutes per mile, even if industrial polluters come close to the overall daily pollution of car traffic, getting rid of cars would significantly reduce pollution overall.

Try reading up the thread before i'm assumed to be an evil socialist eurofag as you imagined me to be. I'm looking at the problem from within the US and seeing where the problem is.

>>339332
that's funny because here in Montreal I am faster than any car from A to B (within the island of course). I think as long as you do not live far from your work/school you SHOULD have and use a bike. say 15 miles. That's something I think is reasonable and also healthy..

p.s. CAPTCHA: running softly i lol'd

sure cars should be banned, at least in big cities

>>341777
Basically you have to force people to do what you think they should, and that's a denial of freedom and isn't acceptable. In europe fuel prices are ridiculously high, and people still drive, it's often cheaper or only slightly more expensive than public transport. Alternative-fuel cars will become economically viable as fossil-fuel prices increase, and that's what people will transition to, not public transport.
Eurofag, btw, before I get told off for being American.

>>341780
I agree entirely and I'm a eurofag. This is what I've been saying, the solution is better alternatives to car, and alternative-energy cars, not trying to force people to accept a downgrade in living standards. Depriving people of their liberties is not an answer.

>>341793
I could come up with a list of all the things you're asking people to give up, but I'll settle for pointing out that us regressing to a pre-car society wouldn't do much as private cars don't actually account for a huge percentage of emissions and as China and India etc. develop they'll cancel that out anyway. We need technological solutions, not government-enforced reversion to dependence on public transport for all but the super-rich.

>>341799
Cars will run on electricity in the future. It's that simple. Batteries are becoming more efficient and cheaper every day.

>>341796
>>341797
>>341799
>Basically you have to force people to do what you think they should, and that's a denial of freedom and isn't acceptable.
I guess you're right, slave owners were done an injustice when forced to give up their slaves.

>>dat neoliberalism
>>I want change but only if it's okay with the majority of the population, I don't want to offend anyone.

>>341826
>Defend my right to own and drive a vehicle
>hurr slavery neoliberals durr

Oh and to me
>I want change but only if it's okay with the majority of the population, I don't want to offend anyone.
is rather better than
>I want change but I'm in a minority, but it's OK for me to ignore the majority and force others to do what I want
So basically so long as you think you're right nobody else has a valid opinion.

>>341830
I'm really hoping you're a UKfag because less than 3% of the 13 original colonies' population supported the American Revolution initially, but guess what, they won.

>So basically so long as you think you're right nobody else has a valid opinion.
No, EVERYONE has a valid OPINION, there is only one set of FACTS. Also, you missed the point, i'm not comparing car ownership to slavery, i'm just using slavery as an example of the mass populace having to give up something popular for the better of everyone. Are you mad bro?

>>339416
It's "c'est la vie," you dumbass.

Fuck cars and fuck drivers.

Getting a licence should be much, much more scrutinizing. I've had only 7 near misses in the past 2 years, and that's not too bad, but here's the thing, none of them were my fault. They were all because people turned into my bike lane without signalling or looking nearly hitting me, overtook me and turned because they were in a rush nearly hitting me, nearly t-boned me at a crossing because they didn't signal as I was going over the bicycle path, I'm so sick and tired of shitty drivers.

I know a ton of you faggots are going to say "You should have been more prudent!" There isn't a road cyclist/commuter more attentive and defensive than me, so fuck you. There is simply no helping that perfect little moment where some bumblefuck's timing is SO shitty he can't help but nearly take your fucking life out despite being behind a megaton insured vehicle he was evaluated and tested to be able to operate.

I don't think anything should be banned, but I think drivers should be put under more scrutiny before they can get on the road and I think people should look into alternative methods of transportation. They don't, because they're fucking lazy, self interested ass heads though.

>>341802
Cars can run on ground magic unicorn for all I care, the main problem with cars is not the fuel use.

Cars use a whole lot of space. This space puts a hard limit on how dense a city can become. You can't fix the space needs without making the car, well, not a car. Even if you can pack cars in arbitrarily large underground automated garages, you're wasting perfectly good street space in a abysmally inefficient manner: Pedestrians and mass transit each reach up to 20 000 trips per lane where cars can fit 2 000.

As such, there's no rational reason to provide for anything beyond essential utility vehicles in a city. You should be limiting city growth by livability, not traffic: traffic hurts livability.

>>341837
Nope, Ohiofag here. I'm still not sure why you've decided to start derping away about the Revolution and slavery. For reference, the slaves were humans who had a right to be free, the slave owners weren't being asked to give them up for the benefit of "everyone", it was for the benefit of the slaves themselves.

As for the Revolution... what did that start over again? Oh yeah, people opposed having unjust taxes levied on them by an unaccountable government. And here you are suggesting that hey, screw democracy, who needs the consent of the governed anyway, government should just listen to a bunch of climate fanatics then turn round and tax all the regular folk out of our cars (ie. our property). You might want to think about how that works again before arguing for taxation and government interference without accountability or consent.

Am I mad? I am a bit, I get that way when someone says that because he has decided that he knows best he can just come along and interfere with my liberty and my property. But that's OK, I can defend myself and my property. As is also my constitutional right. I find it sad that so-called "liberals" can't understand liberty.

>>341840
>stricter licensing, harder tests
>get shitty drivers off the road
As a cyclist, driver and car enthusiast, I can agree with this 100%. I have driven and cycled in Europe and the US, and in general the standard of driving is much lower in the US. The conduct of drivers to cyclists is disproportionately bad, the aggression by some assholes is a problem but almost worse is the total failure of many drivers to even notice cyclists. It's like they've been conditioned not to see objects smaller than a car.

>>341863
>the slave owners weren't being asked to give them up for the benefit of "everyone", it was for the benefit of the slaves themselves.
Right, because universal basic civil liberty isn't something valuable to everyone.

>You might want to think about how that works again before arguing for taxation and government interference without accountability or consent.
I never said anything about taxation, keep your money, you'll need it to pay for my big government transportation, mwahahaha!

>Am I mad? I am a bit, I get that way when someone says that because he has decided that he knows best he can just come along and interfere with my liberty and my property.
I feel the exact same way so when I call up my homeboy Obama and get a squad over there to burn your car, i'm going to have them take one of your daughters as my property which i'm armed to defend.

The rightwing christian zealot teafucks that can justify browsing 4chan, lol, My Face always Goes.

>>341845
>Cars use a whole lot of space. This space puts a hard limit on how dense a city can become.
If there's clean-fueled cars, why does it matter if people commute from the suburbs and need space for parking? There's no need for density in that case, you can just let people spread out and have a bit more space rather than cramming everything within walking/cycling distance. Have nice big underground carparks with big spaces of urban parkland above. Even if you live in a city it's nice to have a car so you can just go out and visit the countryside when you feel like it. That and grocery shopping without a car is a pain in the ass.

As I suspected, it's not really the pollution that upsets some people about cars, it's the idea of people having independent transport when you'd rather we were having to use public options.
>pic related, green on the outside, red on the inside.

>>341866
>I never said anything about taxation, keep your money
Yeah, but the posts you were responding to were the ones arguing against people who wanted to spend huge amounts of tax dollars on public transport and then increase gas prices to force people to use it. So, yeah, you need to work on your attention span.

>the rest of your post
Uh, OK, whatever. I hope you have the excuse of being stoned or drunk, because now you seem to be just throwing random words together. If you've run out of arguments it's probably better to just say nothing.

>>341867
The thing that upsets people about cars is how they force us to build our cities in huge sprawling messes where it takes forever to get somewhere due rapidly increasing congestion.

>>341871
Doesn't bother me, I like living in a low-density environment with big gardens and big driveways, and a decent commute to listen to music and have some time to myself. Difference is I don't have any objection to you choosing to live in a tiny overpriced apartment in the middle of a city.

>>341870
>Yeah, but the posts you were responding to were the ones arguing against people who wanted to spend huge amounts of tax dollars on public transport and then increase gas prices to force people to use it. So, yeah, you need to work on your attention span.
Actually, the fact still stands, I said nothing about taxation, nice try though, I can understand your eagerness to change the subject and argument altogether when you're wrong and it truly shows in the following that you said:

it's probably better to just say nothing
Oh, wishful thinking, you teafucks really have no brains whatsoever.

>>341877
*>it's probably better to just say nothing
Glad I get to see that again actually, it's so fucking funny.

>>341877
No the way it went was this: I (and others) objected to people suggesting tax increases etc. You used some slavery analogy to say that I wasn't justified in my objection to that. That ties you to the pro-tax position. Sorry man but that's just the way logic works. If I'm objecting to something and you argue against my objection, you are implicitly associating yourself with the original proposition.

The actual argument we were meant to be having is whether it's OK for a minority to impose its will on the majority because it believes that it is acting for the greater good. I object to that, you appear to consider it reasonable.

However, there's no need to resort to insults. Just to reiterate, "it's probably better to just say nothing" was a response to the following passage:
>I feel the exact same way so when I call up my homeboy Obama and get a squad over there to burn your car, i'm going to have them take one of your daughters as my property which i'm armed to defend.
>The rightwing christian zealot teafucks that can justify browsing 4chan, lol, My Face always Goes.
Which, even when combined with
>Oh, wishful thinking, you teafucks really have no brains whatsoever.
Doesn't really constitute much of an argument, I'm afraid.

yes. Why not bicicle and public transport.

>>341897
>You used some slavery analogy to say that I wasn't justified in my objection to that. That ties you to the pro-tax position. Sorry man but that's just the way logic works.
No, it's not, this is the wishful thinking i'm talking about, I never said shit bout taxes and even specified that I was not comparing car ownership to slavery, you brought that up. You're hoping I don't continue to call you out on that but I will, you are incorrect to assert that I wish to impose taxes, I am only in agreement with banning cars, I have mentioned diverting existing tax funds from useless military funding to fund public transportation(inb4 they're protecting you) but that has nothing to do with increasing taxes and destroying liberty. Marijuana is banned in most states yet you conservashits never say that ban should be lifted. Your political stance is very hypocritical, against big government, for military and police(enforcers of government), etc, etc, oh and if you're wondering how I can say that you believe all these things, it's because you made a remark against liberals, therefore I can group you with every popular conservative belief in adherence to your "logic".

>>341907
>can't into logic
>wants to ban cars
>implies banning something is less intrusive than taxing it, lolwut?
>bawww about drug abuse being illegal
>opposes military expenditure
You know I wondered earlier if you were a troll but now I have you confirmed for buttdevastated teen liberal.

G'night, /n/, it's been fun!

>>341916
Haha wow, you must have no idea what you wrote means in english, you make about zero sense. So since you can't into arguments, have a nice rest you silly conservative hick fuck. I'll be voting for Obama in 2012 btw, have fun being my slave bitch, i'll be on the good list.

>>341920
Not American, I lied.
:D

>>341933
Don't worry Obama will find you and rape you for me with his nigra cock.

>>341867
No, you see, a very dense city is as nice as a good suburb you so long for if you just do away with cars. You wouldn't even notice it, except that there's always a whole crowd of people around you, sitting down in outdoor cafes, having a picnic, shopping along the street, walking their commute, going to have a nice night. Nobody goes anywhere, because they're already there. Why have a car when you have nowhere to go?

Your problems with shopping is you doing it wrong. Shop little, shop often. Everything is within walking distance. Everything else can be delivered.

Not saying that you must move to city and be FORCED to just be there, walk around and take transit. Just that you shouldn't have a say in how other people like the city. The city is not a glorified suburb. The car is tolerated at best.

OP, I may not be anywhere near the right except in the gun debacle, but that would be too big of government control that I would oppose even though I don't even have a driver's license.

>>341998
>No, you see, a very dense city is as nice as a good suburb you so long for if you just do away with cars.
well, nope. if you did away with cars, most of the people in the city wouldn't be there.

There is only two ways to reduce urban commute issues, and both are practically unworkable. One is to force people who have a job in the city, to live in the city. The other is to force businesses in the city to move to the suburbs.

The problem of #1 is that some people can't find a place to live (that they can afford) in the city, and building more housing would take up space, that would push businesses to the suburbs,,,,,,, causing urban sprawl (that city-lovers hate so much)... Other people simply don't want to live in the city, for whatever reason, and there's no way forcing them will make them happy. They will just get a job in the suburbs--so, urban sprawl there too.

The problem of #2 is that it directly causes urban sprawl.

The problem of traffic congestion in cities can't ever be 'solved', any more than you can get rid of chickens and still have eggs.

>>342009
You treat the need to commute long distances as invariant. Along with that the city can't be inexpensive.

It's true that sprawl is ideal for long distance commute, but it does so by only allowing long distance commutes. In sprawl, there is no near. You always go far. And you treat going far as ideal. In the city, there's a massive amount of jobs and places near within walking distance, much more if you can stand urban transit services.

It's true that property values in sprawl are much lower than in the city. It has large part in how cities are becoming massively popular and suburbs are decaying. Not so much with inherent cost: there's always a tradeoff between squeezing an apartment in the middle of where you want to be and plopping a massive mansion in the middle of nowhere.

>>342012
>You treat the need to commute long distances as invariant. Along with that the city can't be inexpensive.
because it is invariant and expensive, as long as people and businesses have any input involved.

the reason that cities have rush hours at all is because most people (even in the city) cannot possibly live near where they work, even if they wanted to.

and any time you have a high demand for land in a limited area, the market price for that land goes up, and that alone is enough to drive businesses to locate outside of the city.

all solutions lead to more sprawl. and the reason for this is that sprawl is more economical than density is.
in very poor countries, most people do not live in large cities, because there aren't large cities. People in such circumstances only live in dense populations if there is a geographically-limited resource that they want to be near, such as a well in the desert.

the efficiency of cities is a myth. ancient civilizations only built cities after they had evolved the economics necessary to PAY for cities.

>>342020
Hahaha no. You know what cities borne from? Specialization. Nowhere else but a city could you make a living without spending the majority of your awake time farming. Building superior tools for farmers. Creating clothes. Creating luxurious novelty items. Creating art and culture. Trading these things with each other and in return for food. This was, until the advent of car, at all possible within walking distance. In a city.

Sprawl is only efficient if the people living there do away with these everyday special items. And return to tending their land with primitive tools. If there's any arable land left after the massive residences and roads, that is. Because to bring these items there, you need to first have a city to make them, then painstakingly transport them all the way to each and every household. That's a lot of transport.

Why do people get so buttmad about other people's cars? My money, my choice, stay the hell out of it. I don't advocate the banning of bicycles, piercings, or tofu. And provided pedestrians and cyclists obey the rules (and the majority do), I'm courteous and considerate toward them.

Also obesity is caused by people eating too much. Eat less = lose weight, it's impossible not to unless you're somehow immune to starvation. Oh and you can own a car and also fit some exercise into your day, you know.
>inb4 fapping in traffic

no

>>342024
People are getting buttmad by mere *proposals* of being able to live in a largely car-free environment. Nobody is getting their car taken away. Nobody is getting forced to move to these environments. There are enough voluntary demand.

>>342028
>Do you ever wish cars were banned (other than commercial vehicles)?
>wish cars were banned
>banned
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: The city council banned billboards on most streets. See Synonyms at forbid.

Troll harder.

>>342030
Cool dictionary bro. Too bad it doesn't convey reading comprehension.

>>342031
Nope, I'm pretty sure that interpreting a call to ban cars as a call to ban cars is better comprehension than interpreting it as "voluntary". The clue is in reading the words.

>>342033
The people in here trying to change the meaning of the OP are just scared neo-liberals, I openly support banning things that the upperclassmen capitalists enjoy that are unnecessary for sustainable living.

How about just restricting normal drivers to cars weighing no more than 2000 lbs?

>>342218

lol holy shit. auto-related deaths would octuple overnight.

>>342219
And that's a bad thing?

No really, do you mean that everyone in 2000lb+ cars drives terribly? It seems like it would level the playing field. If you are worried about people crashing into trees, well, that's sort of a different story. Maybe <2000lb cars and <600 cc's.

I'm still a little pissed after finding out that Kei trucks aren't street-legal in the US. Pathetic. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why.

>>342219
Lolwut

Lighter cars on the road = less energy = less potential for destruction. The only sense in which heavier cars are "safer" is in the competitive sense; i.e. in a collision between two cars of dissimilar mass. The fact that you're driving a fucking tank only makes driving "safer" for you, but makes it more dangerous for EVERYONE ELSE on the road.

If nothing else, it would reduce the number of deaths due to senile drivers plowing through convenience stores, as well as making cars lighter, more efficient, and just all around far more sensible for the way the typical motorist uses them.

OP, I found your paradise:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island

>>342251
>>OP, I found your paradise
I doubt it.
>There'd definitely be a whole lot less obesity.
>an island and resort area
Fuck's the whole concept with obese people on recumbent bikes from the resort area.

When it comes to traffic jams, remove one lane.
If there was only one lane, make the street pedestrian/bicycles only.
//won't work in most of USA's cities, because they were built with only automobile infrastructure.

>>342254
That's effectively a ban as one madfag pointed out, see >>342030 . Would be funny as fuck if cities just repainted all the car lanes, making them into bike lanes and put up barriers that only bikes can get through, you'd see 8-lanes suddenly become like 24 separate lanes with maybe 0.1 bikes per lane at first.

>>342256
> with maybe 0.1 bikes per lane at first.
The situation will turn upside down when car drivers will understand that bike is more efficient and fast way to drive around city center.

>>342263

And then the cycle lanes get filled with fat fucktards wobbling around at 5 mph because mummy never taught them to ride a bike.

And then electrically assisted bikes become all the rage.
>fat fucktards everywhere, getting fatter
>all of my rage

>>342268
Well, while were pretending it's at all possible to ban things that allow people to go to work a ways away from where they live to earn wages that go to corporations that run governments of the world, let's go ahead and ban those too. Fuck, let's ban war and capitalism too, i'm sure such a ban would be acknowledged by everyone.

>>342254
Well infrastructure can always be repurposed.

It's nothing uncommon to find a good downtown district that's already viable as a pedestrian area and fence that off from general-purpose traffic, making those arriving by car transfer to local transit or walk to their destination at perimeter parking facilities.

It's not much of a difference to present due to how terrible downtown traffic is anyway. The people who have to go downtown will go to downtown, transfer or not.

Meanwhile the entire area becomes way more attractive to spend time in for the delight of local business. In the absence of traffic, transit speeds up significantly too: people can actually move around faster than before.