[kewrkewm53]

Cars and private car ownership are not a problem. Cars using fossil fuels, and unnecessary private car traffic in large cities are. Electric vehicles solve the first problem, better public transport the second.

For the vast majority of people living in the countryside car ownership is a necessity, at least as long as city dwellers aren't willing to pay for government public transport to rural areas.

Thus, being anti-car is idiotic since cons of cars outweigh the pros only in certain contexts.

[hexedpackets]

Electric cars still generate a massive amount of pollution. Brake pads and tire wear in particular are large sources for every type of car.

[mwint]

Tire wear yes, brake pads no. I drive a Leaf and use the friction brakes so infrequently that they get sticky if I don’t switch to neutral and do a hard stop now and then. Regen braking is amazing.

[thefr0g]

> at least as long as city dwellers aren't willing to pay for government public transport to rural areas

Why can't the rural population pay for that themselves? If each of them can afford a car shurely they could collectively fund public transport themselves?

[harpersealtako]

Public transportation is more expensive for rural areas than urban areas because they are more spread out. At some point it becomes impractical, either because the service is unreliable/slow by necessity or because it's not practical for a bus to drive 10 extra miles down the road to get service to everybody.

On another note, I'm still waiting for the hardcore anti-car people (the ones who want to ban car ownership and think rural people don't need cars, which I recognize are a loud minority) to tell me how I'm supposed to go public land deer hunting without a car/truck.