[bslalwn]

>The prices of cars have “skyrocketed” because the price is now closer to what they actually cost. Meaning, less is being externalized.

This is false. There are no “externalities” that are now getting paid. You don’t pay for the right to drive upfront, you already have a permit for that, and that permit is what pays for road maintenance, etc. Maybe the current price is not fair, but that permit hasn’t increased in price. The reality is that Europe let all manufacturers buy one another so they don't have to compete anymore. So they can do whatever they want with prices.

>Cars are inequality-creators because the drivers offload the cost to everyone, including those who don’t drive.

Which wasn't a problem when everybody could afford to drive before Europe ruined everything.

[const_cast]

> Which wasn't a problem when everybody could afford to drive before Europe ruined everything.

It was still a problem, because a lot of those people died or had reduced quality of life. The reality is driving is very dangerous. In the US, it's the primary cause of death for many age groups.

And the pollution kills. And it kills pedestrians. And car-dependence is a lot like heroin. You depend on cars, so you build things further, so you must drive more. It's a self-eating beast.

Once cars started becoming less polluting and less deadly, i.e. _less cost was externalized_, they got more expensive.

If you truly think Europe is "ruined" because morbidly-obese people aren't puttering around in stinky automobiles for 2-3 hours a day, then I don't know what to tell you. To me, it's nice to have beautiful cities were people can walk. It's nice to go to work and not have a sudden urge to kill yourself.

These people can always move to the Land of the Free, of course. Suburban concrete hellscape after suburban concrete hellscape. I'm referring to the US, of course. The land of varicose veins, fatty liver disease, suicide and smog. Ah, beautiful.

[bslalwn]

There isn’t a single sentence in your comment that isn’t hyperbolic.

[const_cast]

It's only hyperbole because you have a car-centric point of view. From an objective point of view, there are A LOT of problems with cars.

It's not hyperbolic to say that cars kill people on the scale of tobacco and alcohol. It's literally true. Again, the primary cause of death for a lot of demographics in the US is driving. You would, literally, have a lower mortality if you walked to work and smoked a Capri methanol on the way.

We just don't view driving in this way because, unlike tobacco, it is a necessary evil. As soon as you dismantle the assumption that it's necessary the rest falls into place.

There is a direct link between car-centric infrastructure and most things that are killing you and making your life worse. The fact you choose to ignore it does not mean it doesn't exist. And, to be fair, ignoring it is good practice. If I had to come to terms with my own mortality before every commute I'd probably kill myself. Ignorance is bliss.

If you simply look at the places world-wide associated with higher quality of life you'll notice a common denominator. More greenery, more walking, fresher food, more public transit, and less cars. It's not a coincidence, it's pretty obvious when you sit down and put the pieces together.