Hacker News Reader

Comment by easytiger | Hacker News Reader

> It is an ambitious idea, but city officials obviously feel that the personal motorcar does not fulfill a function that walking, biking and taking public transport cannot.

Except fucking over the people who actually live there for the benefit of people who exist there transiently.

View on HN

'easytiger, when HN voters can't comprehend your writing, they downvote. While it's pretty clear to this somewhat-experienced reader of English-language online fora that "fucking over the people" is an action you ascribe to "the personal motorcar" rather than to "walking, biking and taking public transport", most respondents (thus, presumably, most voters) seem to have whooshed. Often we must be more verbose than we'd like, to communicate with those who are not in the habit of thinking while reading.

or you could just not mind the downvotes whether they are misunderstood, accidental, or random.

Can you explain? I live in the middle of a city and have no car, and would feel delighted, not fucked over, if cars were banned (or made to pay extremely steep usage fees) in the city center.

> I live in the middle of a city and have no car, and would feel delighted, not fucked over, if cars were banned

That doesn't seem to contradict the parent claim. You're saying you would be fine with banning something that you already don't use. A more relevant criticism would be if you did have a car in a city but still wouldn't mind cars being banned.

Perhaps we should allow Abrams tanks to be operated in the city as well because some people think it might be a more convenient way to get around?

Cars are awesome - they really are! So are helicopters. That doesn't mean one should have to drive a car just to buy a quart of milk.

I can make a similar argumentum ad absurdum, but on the other side. I don't like chocolate ice cream. I never eat it anyway, so I have absolutely no problem with it being banned.

When chocolate ice cream kills over 30,000 innocent people a year in the US, and about half a million around the world, every single year, that will become a valid argument. The point is that huge, heavy, and fast metal machines should not be permitted to operate in cities without substantially greater restriction.

The fact that you eat chocolate ice cream doesn't affect my health, only yours.

The fact that you drive a car affects the health of everyone living in the city, takes a huge amount of public space, and makes cities ugly and less habitable.

I guess you can understand the difference.

I understand the difference, but the argument I'm criticizing is insufficient.

Do you use to down-vote opinions that differ from yours?

What about the people who live in a city but regularly need access to a rural area to visit relatives. At least in the UK mobility in the rural areas is effectively impossible without a car. If one has a life entirely in the city there is no option but to own a car in the city, say London, and use it to traverse the city to get out.

In London at least, during a normal working day 95%+ of traffic is commercial in nature. You can't stop that kind of traffic without stopping the ability of the city from functioning.

I live in Dublin, not London, but the situation you describe is why I use gocar on a pretty regular basis.

I own a car in the city, and would be thrilled if it (along with everyone else's car) was banned. Whatever benefits the car gives me would be far outweighed by the lack of all the other cars.

I assume they'd give me a chance to sell it, right?

I have two cars. I'd be happy to see them strongly discouraged in the city in which I work. It'll be less convenient for me personally, but I think the city would be better off if street parking were seriously limited.

What? The plan provides car-free routes between desitnations, how does that fuck anyone over?

Who in this case is the one living there, and who is the one existing transiently?

Seems more likely that cyclists are local and motorists are not, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com