• otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 days ago

    I’m generally in support of this. The car allows for more freedom in certain conditions, though:

    • Better for people with physical handicaps
    • Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather
    • Doesn’t leave you as hot and sweaty, especially when going to work
    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      7 days ago

      Better for people with physical handicaps

      At least the people with handicaps that can still drive.

      It actively makes the transportation landscape worse for those without hearing or sight or a mobilty reducing handicap that disallows driving.

      • Beastimus@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yeah, reducing car usage would be much better for all handicapped people (those who can drive get better traffic.)

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 days ago

        And there small low power cars for people with disabilities that can drive that are still safe for people around them. In some countries like Netherlands they can even use the bike lanes.

          • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 days ago

            I mean we already have people who clearly can’t drive/can’t afford a car riding rascals around but they have to ride them on shitty uneven sidewalks or in the gutter because America

    • rImITywR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 days ago

      Someone addressed your first point. But the second two are only true when your city is so spread out to make room for huge roads and parking lots between everything. Not to mention zoning laws that make it illegal to build denser housing, or to build a grocery store near where people live.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        the second two are only true when your city is so spread out to make room for huge roads and parking lots between everything. Not to mention zoning laws that make it illegal to build denser housing, or to build a grocery store near where people live.

        That’s all definitely true! Sometimes people just live in areas that weren’t designed well, or they live in a different place than where they work by preference or availability.

        If someone normally cycles to work in 20 minutes, it might be worthwhile to have a car available as a backup for days that are extra hot or extra blizzardy.

        • rImITywR@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Even if someones neighborhood wasn’t designed well, changing zoning laws to allow for more density may make it more viable to put transit there. Then this hypothetical person’s normally 20 minute cycle could become a 5 minute walk + 10 minute tram ride on extra hot or extra blizzardy days.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yeah, definitely. The post was about bicycle vs. car though, so that’s what my comment was based on. When we add public transit into the equation, it becomes a bigger and more wholesome picture.