I hate cars. Ban them!

[Natapoc]

I can fit 5 days worth of food for myself in my backpack and I am not a light eater.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I can fit 5 days worth of food for myself in my backpack and I am not a light eater.

Anecdotal evidence FTW.

[Leistung]

Okay, so the mother with four kids has to cart groceries for the whole family from a supermarket in the city to her rural house?

How is she getting it right now? Does she have a job where does she work? Is no one else able to help her?

Erm...she drives to the supermarket and picks up groceries?

If she takes the train to her job and back, she can't get groceries. If she walks, she can't get there and back quickly enough. If her husband is gone, and she has no one else, then what? And even if she did have someone else, how would they get the groceries?! Do you mean to tell me that you're actually NOT joking? You honestly believe this could work in today's society?

[Vesser]

I can fit 5 days worth of food for myself in my backpack and I am not a light eater.

Well good for you.

So, because of something you can do, a mother must do the same thing? And children aren't light eaters as well, if you could guess that.

Most people usually load up the same amount of food in their car. You know, the thing you want to ban. It's quicker and more efficient. If you could go back to the 1850s, and ask the people if they'd rather walk to the store / spend a majority of their day picking crops (something illogical in more northern, rural places, such as Maryland or Maine), or hop in a car and drive there, they would most likely pick the latter.

[Natapoc]

Okay, so the mother with four kids has to cart groceries for the whole family from a supermarket in the city to her rural house?

How is she getting it right now? Does she have a job where does she work? Is no one else able to help her?

Erm...she drives to the supermarket and picks up groceries?

If she takes the train to her job and back, she can't get groceries. If she walks, she can't get there and back quickly enough. If her husband is gone, and she has no one else, then what? And even if she did have someone else, how would they get the groceries?! Do you mean to tell me that you're actually NOT joking? You honestly believe this could work in today's society?

No. So she has no one who can help her? Do you know that car ownership is not ubiquitous and that even now not all single mothers with 4+ kids have cars? they manage to get by somehow>

[Leistung]

Okay, so the mother with four kids has to cart groceries for the whole family from a supermarket in the city to her rural house?

How is she getting it right now? Does she have a job where does she work? Is no one else able to help her?

Erm...she drives to the supermarket and picks up groceries?

If she takes the train to her job and back, she can't get groceries. If she walks, she can't get there and back quickly enough. If her husband is gone, and she has no one else, then what? And even if she did have someone else, how would they get the groceries?! Do you mean to tell me that you're actually NOT joking? You honestly believe this could work in today's society?

No. So she has no one who can help her? Do you know that car ownership is not ubiquitous and that even now not all single mothers with 4+ kids have cars? they manage to get by somehow>

Help her how? How are they going to get the groceries to her house?

And by the way, single mothers with four kids living in rural settings, or even the suburbs, have cars. This is a fact, not an opinion.

[Vesser]

Okay, so the mother with four kids has to cart groceries for the whole family from a supermarket in the city to her rural house?

How is she getting it right now? Does she have a job where does she work? Is no one else able to help her?

Erm...she drives to the supermarket and picks up groceries?

If she takes the train to her job and back, she can't get groceries. If she walks, she can't get there and back quickly enough. If her husband is gone, and she has no one else, then what? And even if she did have someone else, how would they get the groceries?! Do you mean to tell me that you're actually NOT joking? You honestly believe this could work in today's society?

No. So she has no one who can help her? Do you know that car ownership is not ubiquitous and that even now not all single mothers with 4+ kids have cars? they manage to get by somehow>

Generally, they do, or they live very close to the store they frequent. Cars aren't owned by everyone, but a lot of people can afford at least one car, especially if you have no other way to support yourself.

If you can ride your bike 5 miles back and forth carrying groceries, congratulation's, you're in good shape.



It's just to impractical for most mothers, or even most people, to consider doing that.

[Nateistan]

If we ban cars, what will we tip over during riots?

[UNIverseVERSE]

Ok, maybe not cars, probably the gasoline/diesel engine. Flight, space flight, cars...

How about paper or glass or electricity?

[Vesser]

Ok, maybe not cars, probably the gasoline/diesel engine. Flight, space flight, cars...

How about paper or glass or electricity?

Electricity is a good contender.

Paper was invented by the Egyptions some 5,000 years ago, and glass was invented by the same people around the same time.

Not really modern if you ask me.

[Leistung]

Let's go to a different point for a moment.

Exxon-Mobil employs approximately 80,000 people. Now, let's try to imagine the cuts from that company alone as a result of banning cars. I'm not even counting the car companies themselves, or the rubber companies, or the refineries, or the fast food restaurants that would have 0 income from the drive through, or idk, just about everyone whose clientele would be unable to reach them anymore.

[Flameswroth]

If we ban cars, what will we tip over during riots?

Well certainly delivery vehicles will still exist. I think by and large it's the end user, consumer application for the combustion engine that is truly under fire. They likely outnumber commercial vehicles on the road considerably.

So...we can tip over UPS trucks or something!

[Natapoc]

If we ban cars, what will we tip over during riots?

Garbage bins. And we can light them on fire for barricades!

[Natapoc]

Let's go to a different point for a moment.

Exxon-Mobil employs approximately 80,000 people. Now, let's try to imagine the cuts from that company alone as a result of banning cars. I'm not even counting the car companies themselves, or the rubber companies, or the refineries, or the fast food restaurants that would have 0 income from the drive through, or idk, just about everyone whose clientele would be unable to reach them anymore.

Imagine the wonderful and diverse benefits the the economy having 80k people working on new and interesting technologies and industries will have. Keeping a dead technology alive just for the sake of jobs is counter productive.

[Leistung]

Imagine the wonderful and diverse benefits of a world where 80k people can find work instantly.

[Bafuria]

The diesel/petrol engine can go.

But the car is a HUGE part of our infrastructure. Without it: "Bye, bye western civilization!"

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

In case anyone was wondering, the latest figure of pedestrian deaths from Neesika's NTSB-related source puts pedestrian deaths related to automobile incidents in the year of 2006 at 99, which is about a third of homocide-related deaths that Neesika referred to in the OP. A cursory glance at the statistics provided in the report show that it's about the mean value of deaths per year in LA, though an increase from 83 in 2004 and 96 in 2005.

If that report shows me anything, it's that local governments need to step up and design better roads that increase visibility to the driver between the hours of 6pm and 9pm.

[New Ziedrich]

Let's go to a different point for a moment.

Exxon-Mobil employs approximately 80,000 people. Now, let's try to imagine the cuts from that company alone as a result of banning cars. I'm not even counting the car companies themselves, or the rubber companies, or the refineries, or the fast food restaurants that would have 0 income from the drive through, or idk, just about everyone whose clientele would be unable to reach them anymore.

Imagine the wonderful and diverse benefits the the economy having 80k people working on new and interesting technologies and industries will have. Keeping a dead technology alive just for the sake of jobs is counter productive.

The automobile is not a dead technology. Certain elements of it (fossil fuels) are long in the tooth, certainly, but the basic concept of the automobile is still sound and fully capable of further refinement.

[Natapoc]

I really don't know where to start with this, being as I honestly thought the OP was satire at first. Reading through last night I think I saw someone get cheesed off at being called a "luddite," which sounded silly to me; if someone who wants to ban cars isn't a luddite, I don't know what is. I would imagine after thirty pages most angles have already been covered, but just in case they haven't:

That was me. It is funny that you would call a 100+ year old technology "progress" such that my opposing this specific technology makes me a luddite. Actually it is not funny. It is a pathetic attempt at an ad homonym.

I support technology I just don't support the 100+ year old piece of technology that is holding us all back because a large percentage of the population seems to equate it with freedom or progress.

[Natapoc]

Imagine the wonderful and diverse benefits of a world where 80k people can find work instantly.

Ironically this is quite literally the argument used by the actual luddites.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I really don't know where to start with this, being as I honestly thought the OP was satire at first. Reading through last night I think I saw someone get cheesed off at being called a "luddite," which sounded silly to me; if someone who wants to ban cars isn't a luddite, I don't know what is. I would imagine after thirty pages most angles have already been covered, but just in case they haven't:

That was me. It is funny that you would call a 100+ year old technology "progress" such that my opposing this specific technology makes me a luddite. Actually it is not funny. It is a pathetic attempt at an ad homonym.

I support technology I just don't support the 100+ year old piece of technology that is holding us all back because a large percentage of the population seems to equate it with freedom or progress.

...

Then why would you call an even older form of transport "more progress"?

[Leistung]

Imagine the wonderful and diverse benefits of a world where 80k people can find work instantly.

Ironically this is quite literally the argument used by the actual luddites.

The entire economy would collapse...oil and gas companies would fail, hospitals would have no way of getting sick patients in, the postal system would cease to exist, every single mechanic specializing in cars would be useless, the car companies would fail, any retail store that required a constant stream of customers would fail, pharmacies wouldn't be able to cater to their prime customers (the elderly) because they wouldn't be able to walk there, anyone with a disability would be essentially confined to their house, and I can go on, if you'd like.

You can either throw around historical terms or you can come to grips with the fact that you're just wrong. How do you think we're going to recover from half our nation being out of work?

[Natapoc]

I really don't know where to start with this, being as I honestly thought the OP was satire at first. Reading through last night I think I saw someone get cheesed off at being called a "luddite," which sounded silly to me; if someone who wants to ban cars isn't a luddite, I don't know what is. I would imagine after thirty pages most angles have already been covered, but just in case they haven't:

That was me. It is funny that you would call a 100+ year old technology "progress" such that my opposing this specific technology makes me a luddite. Actually it is not funny. It is a pathetic attempt at an ad homonym.

I support technology I just don't support the 100+ year old piece of technology that is holding us all back because a large percentage of the population seems to equate it with freedom or progress.

...

Then why would you call an even older form of transport "more progress"?

Modern trains are not the same as older trains. We also have far superior devices to move humans around now.

Cars now serve as a detriment to invention. Society is so focused on cars they are unable to see anything else that gives real improvement to peoples lives unless it looks and acts like a car.

[Natapoc]

Imagine the wonderful and diverse benefits of a world where 80k people can find work instantly.

Ironically this is quite literally the argument used by the actual luddites.

The entire economy would collapse...oil and gas companies would fail, hospitals would have no way of getting sick patients in, the postal system would cease to exist, every single mechanic specializing in cars would be useless, the car companies would fail, any retail store that required a constant stream of customers would fail, pharmacies wouldn't be able to cater to their prime customers (the elderly) because they wouldn't be able to walk there, anyone with a disability would be essentially confined to their house, and I can go on, if you'd like.

You can either throw around historical terms or you can come to grips with the fact that you're just wrong. How do you think we're going to recover from half our nation being out of work?

Put them to work designing and setting a new superior transportation infrastructure. The same argument was made of the horse-drawn carriage industry...

Now cars, step aside and slow down progress no more.

[Leistung]

For the record, the government banning something does not encourage progress. Find out who Joseph Schumpeter is and come back to me.

EDIT: A 50 year old mechanic has the experience to do that? Really?