[Metacelsus]

Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged?

- Motorists are provided with massive road construction subsidies

- Motorists are provided with government-mandated parking spaces

- When a motorist hits and kills a cyclist or pedestrian, punishments are usually laxer than for other forms of manslaughter

- Public spaces and shopping areas are designed with motorists in mind

- Zoning layout of cities and suburbs presumes car ownership

- Environmental costs of driving are paid by society at large

I am all for a good drive at NASCAR, but surely the way we treat motorists is unreasonable?

[_feus]

Not at all, try to support the US economy on a bicycle? Without zoning laws and motoring infrastructure you will have a city of Florence, walkable - sure, but you are in a crowd of cars, pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds, etc.

[ascorbic]

Careful because if you don't build lots of roads you might end up with one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

[dima55]

Is Florence terrible?

[_feus]

Depends on if you enjoy being on time.

[Symbiote]

It's easier being on time in a walkable city, because the number of pedestrians and cyclists required to cause 'traffic' is extreme.

(I assume you mean Florence/Firenze in Italy, if there's an American city called Florence known for its lack of cars I'm unaware of it.)

[dima55]

Would you rather live in Phoenix, or something?

[_feus]

Why, do cyclists in Phoenix don't run red lights and yield to pedestrians?

[dahart]

In many locales, bikes are legally allowed to run red lights, if there’s no cross traffic coming. Bikes do have to yield to pedestrians, I’m not sure why you think otherwise.

[CodeWriter23]

Wow. Way to not even recognize how you personally benefit from road subsidies. I assume you buy groceries at a grocery store, for example.

[fooblaster]

Well said!