[p0w3n3d]

I live in Europe. If I even tried to commute with my children to music school using public transport it would take me additional 3 hours a week.

That's why I am asking, is really car equal to cancer? Or is it this "I cannot see other people's needs if they are different than mine" or maybe "I will use law to ban other people from thinking otherwise" attitude?

[lwansbrough]

In North America, motorists generally believe that any place not accessible by car is inaccessible. When you have a culture so deeply attached to driving, it reinforces the need to drive. This is why I call it a cancer. Motorists cannot live in a vacuum while also demanding that they be able to drive everywhere out of "convenience". That, and the fact that cars produce a huge number of carcinogens for people living in cities.

Here's how the needs of drivers usually work: I want to live outside the city center, therefore I create the need to drive because I chose to live away from transit. This problem is mostly self inflicted out of a privilege of choice. So I am not particularly empathetic towards it.

As far as using laws to ban natural human behaviour, what are your thoughts on: jaywalking? pedestrians crossing against red lights when there is no car traffic in sight? people walking on the shoulder of highways (sometimes the only infrastructure available)? Mandatory use of sidewalks? Parking minimums when building a house? There are laws governing all of these in the US (and some apply in Europe too) which ban the free movement of pedestrians. If cars are so dangerous that we have to enforce laws around simply walking in order to maintain safety, there's something wrong.

[pandaman]

>In North America, motorists generally believe that any place not accessible by car is inaccessible.

This sounds more like a projection than actual fact. Do you seriously believe that motorists generally believe that Hawaii is inaccessible? Puerto Rico? England? Japan? China? Or do you mean on a smaller scale - ski slope tops, trails, parks, and other pedistrian-only areas in the cities? How did you figure this?

[lwansbrough]

Mostly referring to ie. public access parks that are closed to cars, streets that have been closed to traffic, temporary bike lanes. Drivers feel as though these are punishments foisted upon them simply because they exist and do not serve them as motorists.

These are my observations as a pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist.

[pandaman]

I have never seen motorist expressing these feelings. On the other hand, cyclists complain about lack of bike lanes all the time (e.g. on this very site), they become livid when the existing bike lane is removed. They are actually quite upset when the existing lane is merely obstructed by, say, a parked car. Projection, as I suspected.

[Mawr]

Wouldn't it be nice if the only other car traffic on the road was there because of use cases similarly niche to yours? Public transportation is great at eliminating the need for using a car for completely overkill trips like commuting and basic shopping.

Having said that, given good cycling infrastructure, chances are you could either bring your kids along on a cargo bike [1] or they could just ride there themselves [2].

[1]: https://youtu.be/rQhzEnWCgHA?t=84

[2]: https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?t=18

[snerbles]

It is very much the latter, fueled by self-righteous conviction that is indignant at the mere idea of nuance.