[alias_neo]

I've already pointed out that may have been the wrong phrase, but, I'm not suggesting anyone's winning, but plenty are losing by stupid decisions consistently being made, that disproportionately affect the under-privileged.

I'm not talking about drivers vs cyclists, or whatever, I'm talking about people who _need_ to drive for their livelihood; it shouldn't be reserved for those of us who can afford the annual insurance increases, nice new or electric cars and what-not, UNLESS something is being done to replace the need to drive, and it just isn't.

I'm not pro-driving and drivers, I'm pro not making stupid moves from a position of privilege while others are left in the dirt. "War on drivers" was just the catch-phrase that came to mind, and I failed to elaborate my point, that was my mistake, but it seems everyone has latched onto those three words and missed the forest for the trees, or just made some other assumption like I'm hating on cyclists or something that is sometimes associated with that phrase.

[panick21_]

I dont disgree with you on some points.

But using 'war on drivers' is very politocally charged slogen that stands for opposition the pretty much anything to with anything other then 'more highways'. Its literally a far right wing slogan.

I agree that there are lots of unneed subsidies for rich electric car buyers. And investment for those people.

Parking however geneally should be far more expensive, they are massive actually gigantic subsidy that drivers have been benefiting from for decades.

Insurance increases could be reduced by having less accident in total, meaning slower streets, better road design, more bycicles. Not sure what else governments should do about insurance. The NHS is already a huge subsidy for drivers over people who use public tranist or walk.

Better public bus networks are prettu urgent, and thats something even the tories realized. That can do a lot for making people need to drive less.

In terms of infrastructure funding, road networks and highways get a lot and have been getting a lot continiously for 50 years. Its just infrastructure that degrades very fast.

I am not against maintaining existing roads and highways but absolutly no new highways should be built. And new roads only in a few exeptional circumstances.

I would say things like low concetion zones, road diets, bike lanes and change like that are actually good for drivers.

These are all things 'war on cars' people normally are against.

I would suggest that we make it so cars are far more expensive if they are large and heavy. And that includes EVs. Poor people should be encouraged to drive small cars even if they are not EVs.

What things do you think should be done (or not done) for poor drivers?

[alias_neo]

> Its literally a far right wing slogan

Well today I learned something; and I'm about as far from far right as one can be.

> What things do you think should be done (or not done) for poor drivers?

What you've said makes sense, and I agree with it all. As for poor drivers, a quick thought would be: We make public transport so good they don't need to drive, and for those who must, perhaps subsidise some purpose-built EVs (small vans, milk floats etc) that enable them to work (and in many cases provide an important service).

None of that is a short term goal, but I don't see any progress towards it, even in the medium term, try not to make driving for work unaffordable, but perhaps restrict the driving of "problem" vehicles to work-only; not everyone can cycle or get a bus to work, and not everyone can work from home.

It seems to be the status quo in this country (and probably others) to push on with banning/restricting things that are bad, for brownie points, without actually doing anything about replacing the purpose they serve.