Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by narrowtux 1215 days ago
Nobody is talking about taking away cars from people who live outside of cities. Yet this argument always comes up when problems with cars in densely populated areas are discussed.
2 comments

This probably occurs because people and governments love one size fits all solutions. There’s a good chance any rules about cars made in the city will spill over and cause issues for people in the country, it happens all the time in regards to other things so why not this?
Open your eyes and look at the "one size fits all" solution that we have today. Cars upon cars upon cars.

Alternatives such as public transport, walking and cycling have always been gimped in favour of car traffic, lest the car driving populace complain.

That's because the tone of "problems with cars in densely populated areas" and those discussing them tend to completely ignore the significant part of the population that the argument is redundant for.
They don't ignore that part of the population. It's just exhausting to always have to equivocate when it is the obvious.

Yes, obviously, cars are a necessity in more remote places. Nobody's taking away your cars.

Maybe this needs a shorthand. Just preface every discussion with "*not about you, fur trapper!"

Yes, talking about adding bike lanes in cities and improving public transportation should really infuriate the rural demographic that continually think everything is about them and their way of life. These ideas must all come from the cult of anti-car that wants to come into every tiny city and change everything overnight apparently. It’s typical status quo paranoia that always tries to halt any progress in these areas.
the rural demographic that continually think everything is about them and their way of life

Rubbish, these articles are nearly always written by and supported by the dominant voice in the mainstream media - young, liberal city-dwellers, who seem to have no concept that there is a huge part of the population who are funding their "progress", often at the expense of their own infrastructure and quality of life.

I mean, sure, that is in fact the ridiculously paranoid narrative that keeps that argument afloat. Those damn city slickers.