[generalizations]

> Societies don't need to ask citizens to choose a given mean of transport; they can route their choices them by making some means more convenient and other ones less.

I'm reading that as, "we don't need to ask, we can just make them do it." Which to me is pretty arrogant.

[sagarm]

Society has made the choice so far to make owning a car as convenient and inexpensive as possible, while allocating almost no resources to other options. And no, usage fees including gas taxes don't cover the cost of roads -- let alone the land usage, externalities, and supporting infrastructure like drainage.

[landemva]

> Society has made

Big eu cities are expensive to park cars. Not inexpensive. Some cities such as Stockholm are banning commuter cars.

[michaelteter]

HN has a pretty strong majority of US readers, I think. And as I'm American, I recall that many other Americans have little idea what life is really like outside the country. (What goes on day to day, or how life works, in other countries is just not well understood.)

From the US-centric view, society (or rather, energy and automotive companies and their lobbying) has made the decision to put all the focus on cars, and to even put intentional negative spin against public transport.

It seems to be slowly changing in some states or a few cities within some states. And yes, it does seem to be very different depending on which way an area leans politically. The "red" (Republican) areas are vehemently against public transport and frame it as the government trying to take away people's rights to go where they want (in their own cars).

Unfortunately for the areas trying to put energy into public transport and non-car alternatives, there is a vast amount of corporate finance and influence that works against it at all levels of govenerment.

[pizza234]

> I'm reading that as, "we don't need to ask, we can just make them do it." Which to me is pretty arrogant.

It was never "asked" in first place; there was a large discussion on HN around the article about automakers driving the policies (https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history).

It's also not forcing anybody; it's a shift of conveniences. In a hypothetical situation with fantasy metrics, making a city 2x as comfortable for sustainable means (bikes, motorbikes, public transport) and 0.5x as comfortable for cars will not force anybody to use the former - people who love their time in the cars will still be able to.

(I stress that this applies to cities where logistics make a restructuring possible, which is not the case everywhere)

[abenga]

The US already "makes" commercial and residential building developers dedicate large proportions of their lots to meet minimum parking requirements in order to make it easier for people who want to drive do so. Is this "pretty arrogant" as well?