Hacker News Reader

Comment by FridayoLeary | Hacker News Reader

I think that's a terrible idea. It's just a negative. What about when we need to get somewhere?

The implication of these pipe dreams includes the doubling down of public transit infrastructure.

Improve public transport then take away my car. But what they can do is get rid of all those useless, oversized, bloated SUV's. A car doesn't need to be a status symbol, and in approximately 99.99987% of use cases it does not need to be a Mercedes G-Wagen amg. (there are millions of drivers out there, so i'm not sure if i put in enough 9's)

If you improve public transit you don't need to take away people's cars.

Nobody is enduring a car commute into Boston, NYC, London, Paris, etc, unless their other options are downright terrible.

Smart cars for everyone. Statistically that's all anyone should need.

Sounds really like a leopard-ate-my-face moment, TBH. It's fine when they come for the things you don't like. Just wait...

> Smart cars for everyone. Statistically that's all anyone should need.

That's not how statistics work.

Public transportation, bikes, Uber, walking

Allow denser construction so the places you need to get are within walking distance.

There are other forms of transportation besides cars.

you had me until "Uber". those are.... cars.

Taxis are worse because they will be spending time driving around without a passenger. In the worst case they will be doing twice the mileage of a personal vehicle.

Public transit, walk, bike, ... Nobody bats an eye if you can't get somewhere easily by public transit but the prospect of not being able to drive somewhere is incomprehensible?

You use public transport. Which implies huge infrastructure developments, of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com