[veritas_veritad]

false dichotomy- there exists a world in which cars are not the normal mode of transportation because everything you could possibly want is within walking distance and intra-city travel is something you do only occasionally.

[Tade0]

Does there though? I personally would be interested in living in a 1mln+ city that's 99%+ car free.

[veritas_veritad]

would be or would not be- I'm confused by your statement

[Tade0]

I wanted to say that while I would like to live in such a world, I can't think of an example.

[core-questions]

I couldn't possibly want to leave the city, drive down a logging road, tour around, and enjoy my personal freedom, right? Why would anyone want that, when someone might possibly have a small chance of dying because of it?

[veritas_veritad]

it's not just the small chance of dying, though- it's the very real and cumulative effects of driving cars in general. We have laws around being able to pump raw sewage into rivers and lakes as well as laws around leaving depleted uranium anywhere remotely possible of causing harm (and even then it probably still isn't great)

You're welcome to leave the city via some means that doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Walk, bike, etc. It's really whiney of you to feel so incensed that you can't just do whatever TF you want because "mah freedoms" when those activities are contributing to a degradation of the livability of the planet.

Yes, we as a species have reached the point where there are things we _can_ do that we _ought not_ do. Sucks I guess?

[jodrellblank]

If you demand your personal freedom in that way, why do you live in a city at all? You can't park on a street at night and blare loud music, you can't shoot pigeons on the rooftops with a rifle, you can't fly a drone over people or around other's property without permission, and those won't even kill people.