I'm not a victim of car infrastructure, I'm a beneficiary of it. I'm glad we have roads I can drive on to get to stores and work and interesting venues for entertainment. I live in a nice rural area with woods surrounding my house. All this discussion about "car centric" everything seemingly assumes that city life is the only life from the start, and that's not the case. I would never want to give up my awesome rural life for a stifling crowded city.

[–] chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

No one is really suggesting we get rid of cars for fully rural areas; it's completely impractical, and the cost-benefit ratio is abysmal. It's more about allowing people in cities and suburbs to experience what you already do; being able to go and walk around the area in which they live, have easily accessible green spaces, and unpolluted air to breathe.

This is something that can easily be accomplished without removing your ability to drive around your rural area; interfacing at railway stations or park and rides still allows access to urban spaces for car users.

Transit between distant rural areas could also be accommodated under a public transport system with car share schemes like co-wheels at either end.

It's not about taking away people's cars; it's about making it so the majority of people don't have to own one, so that we can have a more efficient, less polluting transport network.

[–] ToxicHyena@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

no one is asking you to. at least I'm not, but the fact of the matter is people in cities are just that, people. people who deserve and are entitled to clean air and the ability to travel within their homes. obviously rural areas require a car because the infrastructure isn't there for public transit and that's okay. look at other countries with robust public transit, people in rural areas still have cars and roads to accommodate whereas people in cities can get anywhere they need to without the use of a private vehicle