[TulliusCicero]

> Anyone is welcome to move to a low-pollution low-vehicle area and live a no-car life. There's a whole lotta such space in the US.

No there isn't. In fact, I can't think of a single one. Living in rural areas means being super dependent on cars. The center of major cities are less car dependent, but still there's plenty of cars around in every city in the US. There's nowhere in the US like Amsterdam or Copenhagen or Tokyo.

> They also improve life, making the lives of hundreds of millions possible & prolonged.

Hardly anyone wants to get rid of cars entirely. But you can look at societies with substantially fewer cars and they have higher lifespans, and generally higher quality of life.

Almost like it's better to have options, rather than America's extreme car dominance.

[Mirioron]

>Living in rural areas means being super dependent on cars.

You say that because you're unwilling to give up the comforts that car use provides. Do you think that people elsewhere didn't have to give up anything when they decided against car use? You might think that it's fine to mandate bikes, buses and walking instead of cars, but pretty much everybody would rather have a car during a cold winter.

[TulliusCicero]

> You say that because you're unwilling to give up the comforts that car use provides.

Nope. I don't have a car. For a family of 3.

> You might think that it's fine to mandate bikes, buses and walking instead of cars, but pretty much everybody would rather have a car during a cold winter.

I'm not mandating anything; you are. I want options that make not-driving viable, while you're for the side that wants to force everyone to drive.

I don't even mind driving, I just hate being required to drive, which is the case in most US cities, because they were designed to make everything else worse.