[bee_rider]

Car analogies aren't intrinsically bad, they are just the go-to analogy when someone wants to jam an analogy where it isn't needed. Analogies in general should be used sparingly, and only in an explanatory setting. Instead people use them as a rhetorical device in arguments, which usually reduces the argument to arguing about the analogy (and you can usually shuffle around the parts of an analogy to flip the meaning somehow).

Here it is fine I think, the writer of the comment is just explaining their point of view.

[drewcoo]

> Car analogies aren't intrinsically bad

What can I say? They get me from claim A to claim B.

So are you saying that analogies should only be used like secondary steering wheels?

[bee_rider]

Analogies should only be used like trains: An efficient, well thought out path from point A to B on a vehicle that is piloted by a pro. Car analogies look appealing -- they look more flexible, but this can also lead to people taking overly circuitous routes to get to the point... maybe the driver just doesn't know what they are doing, maybe the road system is poorly optimized because it needs to hit lots of points, or maybe the driver is like a sneaky cab driver that intentionally takes an inefficient path to increase the fare.

The wider availability also leads to a situation where cars are mostly piloted by random people with no particular qualifications other than a basic license. This can result in lots of car crashes. Of course, it is also possible for a train to get derailed, but this is a rare occurrence. On the other hand a derailing can result in more damage... ah... hmm, I forget where I was going with this...

[aeonik]

They only get you from claim A to claim B when there is enough traffic to invest in roads and if people follow the rules.

A more versatile set of analogirs are of course ATVs, Aircraft, or even the humble legs.