I hate cars. Ban them!

[The Tofuberg]

How about paper or glass or electricity?

Or, slightly earlier, use of tools, fire, cooking, clothing, and agriculture.

Not really modern if you ask me.

And?

What was stated was "most important discovery ever, not recently".

[Sdaeriji]

I couldn't agree less! Banning cars is like banning penicillin, you do that and your kicking humanity in the throat and taking away the most important discovery ever.

The printing press is the most important invention in human history. Mass dissemination of knowledge is what has made every single thing since possible.

[Leistung]

I couldn't agree less! Banning cars is like banning penicillin, you do that and your kicking humanity in the throat and taking away the most important discovery ever.

The printing press is the most important invention in human history. Mass dissemination of knowledge is what has made every single thing since possible.

The printing press is 100+ years old. Stop slowing down progress Gutenberg, you old fool!

[Vesser]

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.

...

So this is equal to this, yet this is far superior to this.

What the fuck.


Logic does not compute.

[Tkdkidsx2]

Just don't wear ugly neon biking pants please.

Well how else am I to show off my shapely toned backside? Also, lower air resistance and friction makes it easier to cycle.

I disagree, until there is an efficient alternative.

As has already been explained, trains.

I honestly did not see are a more efficient transportation system than cars.

[Sdaeriji]

I couldn't agree less! Banning cars is like banning penicillin, you do that and your kicking humanity in the throat and taking away the most important discovery ever.

The printing press is the most important invention in human history. Mass dissemination of knowledge is what has made every single thing since possible.

The printing press is 100+ years old. Stop slowing down progress Gutenberg, you old fool!

And the printing press is largely a dead technology today, as numerous advances in the field have rendered it obsolete. Sort of goes against your intended point.

[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"?

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.

Modern cars are not the same as older cars. I could only list the numerous improvements we've made.

If you want to know why people use cars more than they do public transport, don't just look at convienience - look at how much it costs each individual and how long it takes them to complete a trip. It's what transportation engineers do. We use linear regression models. We don't just go "Oh, people like using cars, so if we design a traffic system like $trafficsystem, it'll work better than public transport."

[Leistung]

I couldn't agree less! Banning cars is like banning penicillin, you do that and your kicking humanity in the throat and taking away the most important discovery ever.

The printing press is the most important invention in human history. Mass dissemination of knowledge is what has made every single thing since possible.

The printing press is 100+ years old. Stop slowing down progress Gutenberg, you old fool!

And the printing press is largely a dead technology today, as numerous advances in the field have rendered it obsolete. Sort of goes against your intended point.

So is the Model T. The point is, old technology isn't necessarily bad.

[Sdaeriji]

I couldn't agree less! Banning cars is like banning penicillin, you do that and your kicking humanity in the throat and taking away the most important discovery ever.

The printing press is the most important invention in human history. Mass dissemination of knowledge is what has made every single thing since possible.

The printing press is 100+ years old. Stop slowing down progress Gutenberg, you old fool!

And the printing press is largely a dead technology today, as numerous advances in the field have rendered it obsolete. Sort of goes against your intended point.

So is the Model T. The point is, old technology isn't necessarily bad.

The Model T is an automobile. It may be an early automobile, but it's still the same technology. The printing press, the actual technology called the printing press, is more or less completely dead, having been replaced with computer technology like the printer. Non-analogous.

[Natapoc]

So is the Model T. The point is, old technology isn't necessarily bad.

Exactly. So I won't call you a luddite for supporting cars if you won't call me a luddite (and defend me when an individual who has red text for a name chooses to call me one) for supporting the newer adaptations of things like trains (and other technologies). Deal?

[Doitzel]

Ironically the public bus system in Orlando is enormously inconvenient because traffic is so terrible. Walking anywhere is downright dangerous, too.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

i don't like cars that much either but i understand the necessity of them.
previous experience of car crash, scary driving (by me and while being a passenger of a scary driver, and seeing scary driving) add to this dislike.
However my flatmate probably hates them more than i do, seeing as she was hit by a car head-on, she was on her bike. her collar bone was broken. The driver didn't look where they were going.


Despite all this, and the extortionate cost of having cars (UK remember, high petrol prices etc) i don't see any viable alternates. They are a very important source of income for economies of all Modernised (or perhaps more fitting) mechanised nations.

having said that i'm hoping nanotech can provide an interesting fuel alternative in the distant future.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8556656.stm

I have often chatted to my friends tongue-in-cheek about banning cars, or having a car free day. i'm lucky in the city i live the air isn't too badly polluted. as opposed to say the nearest large city to me (edinburgh) where the air is disgusting.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Or, slightly earlier, use of tools, fire, cooking, clothing, and agriculture.

Arguable.

Not really modern if you ask me.

Modernity was not a requirement of the original post. If you insist on modernity, then the computer.

[Natapoc]

Ironically the public bus system in Orlando is enormously inconvenient because traffic is so terrible. Walking anywhere is downright dangerous, too.

Ban automobiles! Make Orlando safe! If I lived there I'd vote you for Mayor if you ran with that slogan.

[Doitzel]

Ironically the public bus system in Orlando is enormously inconvenient because traffic is so terrible. Walking anywhere is downright dangerous, too.

Ban automobiles! Make Orlando safe! If I lived there I'd vote you for Mayor if you ran with that slogan.

I'd rather get a fucking metro. They were talking about a statewide one before the economy went to hell in a handbasket... We really need to do something to get people off the roads. Especially the 80+ year olds.

[The Tofuberg]

Arguable.

I'm pretty sure that it is, at least, more important then the car, even if it's not the absolute most important.

[New Ziedrich]

Ironically the public bus system in Orlando is enormously inconvenient because traffic is so terrible. Walking anywhere is downright dangerous, too.

Ban automobiles! Make Orlando safe! If I lived there I'd vote you for Mayor if you ran with that slogan.

I'd rather get a fucking metro. They were talking about a statewide one before the economy went to hell in a handbasket... We really need to do something to get people off the roads. Especially the 80+ year olds.

Would some kind of elevated rail be feasible?

[Sibirsky]

And it is cheap now? The government spends $800,000 per mile of highway on maintenance. Not only that, non car users are forced to pay for it as well.

What a ridiculous sum of money. I wonder if there's a breakdown of that cost somewhere readily available...

I have no idea. I got that figure from a documentary.

So, no real fact, just a documentary? Should I start quoting Capitalism: A Love Story?

I still need to get around to watching that. You should tell us all how you are going to build this great rail project. It sounds like fun Have any details worked out yet?

I'll go to sleep now and when I wake up I'll see what you say.

It involves the demolition of several major cities, and the complete restructuring of society.
I KEED I KEED.
Anyways, that's nice, dear capitalist overlord, but they won't not charge money. (See Mexico)
They see a major thing going on here, that being, everyone needs roads. They're going to put tolls there.
Here's my compromise. Let's build the monorail system, and you can privatize the roads.

You can't use Mexico as a comparison. They have far fewer car users. They have far fewer consumers. The consumers have less money to spend. There is less consumer culture. That would decrease advertising revenue (if it was used as a revenue source) and increase the cost per user (since they have less users to absorb the cost) on a comparative basis.

Oh yes, I forgot about that whole profit-motive thing. Which actually would make them put a toll on their roads, ALONG WITH advertisements. I wonder how they'll charge a month for that gas station and restaurant, too?

Oh yeah, I forgot that Google is a charity. No wait... They do have a profit motive. They do an excellent job at generating that profit ($8.3 billion in 2009) and a regular person who uses the Google search engine spends not a penny to do it. Damn capitalists and their evil profit motive.

Google is a search engine, not a privatized road. You can't compare the two.
Google does MANY things, and you don't even have to use it. A road, on the other hand, is something that you HAVE to use.
Now, I was saying the profit-motive would make the road owner do what ever they can to squeeze that last bit of capital out of it. That's why I said they would put a toll on it.

The hell I can. Google is a business with a profit motive. So would be the road owners. Google may or may not charge it's users for the use of it's property. Just like the road owners. Google is not unique. Local broadcasting is not a paid service either. And it is funded by advertising.

If I was a road owner I would not charge tolls. More people would use my roads. That would increase advertising revenue (more eyes on the ads) and lease revenue (businesses increase revenue based on increased traffic). More than likely it would cause the competing road owners to lower their tolls, or to even abolish them all together. I like free. And businesses hand out free stuff all the time. Usually with strings attached, to guarantee revenue. Doesn't mean a service cannot be available for free. You can get a free cell phone and a free DVR. Sure, without the services both are useless, but your cell phone service provider, and your cable or satellite operator did not manufacturer them, and did pay for them.

I should mention, google is a single search engine. Not a road, which there are many of. You have to use a road, not google. Google has competition, wherein a road, generally doesn't (the driver is going to use the quickest road, not the road that has the smallest toll. Plus, there are many roads that have very few people driving on them, meaning no one would pay for the advertisements.)

So? There's many competing search engines just as there would be many competing roads. Tolls would change behavior. All things being equal, I will take the cheaper road. Roads with few people driving on them require less maintenance and don't need high advertising revenue.

[The Tofuberg]

Sibirsky, could you trim that quote pyramid please?

It's to the stage where I get like 2-3 words per line in the middle.

[Neesika]

Yes, basically. It's all about priorities. If you want to ban cars because a minute percentage of kids get cancer, I suspect the implications of acting on that number are probably more extensive than you realize. I don't see how such a small number justifies a radical and far-reaching "solution" like banning cars. Cutting emissions via alternative energy sources or what-not is probably a more prudent (and feasible) solution than "OMG BAN CARS."

Oh! So you didn't actually read either. Where I suggested multiple times that there be a shift towards mass transit, and that any automobiles remaining be as clean as possible. That we would absolutely need emergency vehicles and ways to haul freight off of trains and into where the goods are needed. Instead of reading that, you apparently have gotten stuck on the 'ban cars' thing to the exclusion of all else. Your 'argument' now makes more sense. It's based on an agenda I don't have.

There are bigger problems that kill far more children on this planet than automobile exhaust. If you're really that concerned about their well-being (as opposed to mindlessly pushing an agenda), focus on them.

You mean like supporting smoking bans? Don't worry, already do. You mean like advocating for the best universal healthcare possible? Yeah do that too. I also support child protection services, education, and so on and so forth. Don't patronisingly tell me to focus on something 'more important'. I can multitask. The auto industry doesn't clean up it's act on it's own.

And don't you remember ranting at people during at least one anti-smoking thread that we should worry more about car exhaust than second hand smoke?

I think it's fairly safe to assume that there will be accidents. Nonetheless, I chose my words carefully: I said it's possible that they could be similar. Of course I don't know what the precise rate would be, but 'OMG leading cause of accidental death' is still a slippery slope no matter what justifications you fabricate for it. My point isn't necessarily that rail or air fatality rates would be as high as automobile fatality rates, simply that railway accidents would likely climb (if not top) the list of causes of accidental death, which by your logic amounts to a reason for banning the cause.

'OMG accidental death' wasn't the argument. The number of deaths was. Focus.

That's fine, but you shouldn't have to ban cars to do it. I don't see anything wrong with promoting rail travel, but it simply won't be practical in many situations. If you live ten or twenty (or fifty...) miles away from the nearest train stop, how do you get there? Cutting emissions by promoting rail travel and banning cars shouldn't be mutually inclusive. I can understand (in urban areas) the appeal of rail travel and what-not, but banning cars altogether? Get real.

Good thing I never argued for a full out ban. Which you'd know, had you even read the first three pages of this thread. Or hell, the OP itself. Hint...it's right there at the bottom.

Yeah, so pointing out that you're freaking out over 300 deaths per year in a country with 11 million children is "not compelling," but banning cars because they're the leading cause of accidental death is? Please. If you're going to advocate banning things on this basis, I suspect you're putting more on the table than you realize. Where do we draw the line? What's an acceptable rate and what isn't? Kids choke to death on hotdogs and marshmallows all the time, and about ten thousand children under the age of 15 are treated in ERs for asphyxiation every year. Do we work to decrease the rate, or ban the cause?

You don't seem to get it. I'm not looking around going, oh wow, cars kill a lot of people, therefore out of nowhere I'm going to be against them. I'm against them for so many reasons. Pollution, air and noise. Accidents. The auto culture's influence on urban sprawl and oil dependency. Road rage. Consumerism. Etc. I do not buy into the idea that there is no other way than what we have. I think we can solve these problems, and I think that if you're simply going to take 'total numbers' or whatever to make your decisions then that's just fine. I look at the bigger picture, and overall I think the way we use automobiles right now is unsustainable, and needs to change. Now.

I provided stats because these are some of the main reasons I dislike cars, but the wider car culture pisses me off far more than the outrageous number of traffic accidents alone.

[Vesser]

Oh! So you didn't actually read either. Where I suggested multiple times that there be a shift towards mass transit, and that any automobiles remaining be as clean as possible. That we would absolutely need emergency vehicles and ways to haul freight off of trains and into where the goods are needed. Instead of reading that, you apparently have gotten stuck on the 'ban cars' thing to the exclusion of all else. Your 'argument' now makes more sense. It's based on an agenda I don't have.

Let me re-iterate my previous post.

To be fair, Neesika isn't calling for a complete ban on "cars"

I hate hydrocarbon burning vehicles. Hate. With a passion. As with many 'causes' I suppose my hatred of cars stems from personal experiences and/or selfish desires. So let me come clean and explain what I hate about cars, and why I think we should ban them. Outright.

lolwut

[Neesika]

lolwut

Lolwut, apparently you can't read past the first line.

I'm aware that our current mode of living means we cannot in one fell swoop eliminate all motor vehicles. We need transport so those of us in urban centres don't starve to death, and so on. But I do not believe we need anything near the amount of vehicles that are currently on the road, and not nearly enough is being done to shift us away from vehicular dependency.

Then for more information, for those of you who are apparently too lazy and need things spoon fed to you:

viewtopic.php?p=1635926#p1635926
viewtopic.php?p=1635942#p1635942
viewtopic.php?p=1636145#p1636145
viewtopic.php?p=1636205#p1636205
viewtopic.php?p=1636300#p1636300
viewtopic.php?p=1636528#p1636528
viewtopic.php?p=1636542#p1636542
viewtopic.php?p=1636564#p1636564

Here are just a handful of my subsequent posts, all of which (you'll note) discuss ways of creating less dependence on personal vehicles.

But if you, and the other people who keep popping in this thread with no intention of actually discussing anything, want to keep pretending this thread is all about a ban on cars, full stop, then feel free to be absolutely, unequivocally, proveably wrong.

[Sibirsky]

Sounds like a recipe for only the rich to have cars. Why do you hate poor people?

Na, I'd regulate that shit up the pooper and paint those bastards such ugly colours that not even rich people would want to use them as status symbols.

And how about letting the market determine prices, and letting the buyers pick their cars, including the color?

Oh yeah, the idiots have too much freedom already.

[Sibirsky]

Sounds like a recipe for only the rich to have cars. Why do you hate poor people?

Na, I'd regulate that shit up the pooper and paint those bastards such ugly colours that not even rich people would want to use them as status symbols.

The Pride of Socialism.

People waited in line for twelve years or more just to get one of those. I don't think you can make cars sufficiently awful to make people not want to buy them.

Such cars only exist on a relative basis. Would I want a Trabant instead of a BMW? No thanks. Would I want a Trabant instead of a bicycle? Hell yeah!

[Neesika]

In the OP, Neesk suggests that cars (I'm speaking very generally here) ought to be banned because automobile fatalities are the leading cause of accidental death. If being the leading cause of accidental death is a reason to ban something, then she would be obligated to advocate banning anything that happened to be the leading cause of accidental death. I know that sounds silly, but if that's her reason for wanting to ban cars a consistent application of that principle could lead to, say, banning stairs if falling down them should happen to become the leading cause of accidental death. So yes, it is a slippery slope. Sorry.

This is almost Jocabian in how far from the truth it is. Motorvehicular deaths are only a portion of the reason I want to see a metric fuckload less cars on the road, right now.