- cross-posted to:
- micromobility
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- micromobility
- [email protected]
If your solution to anything is “make it worse for [other people]” then you probably aren’t approaching the problem from a healthy place.
Would you feel better if it said “stop heavily subsidizing driving” instead?
In an unbalanced system, rebalancing looks like “making things worse” if you’re one of the people who currently benefits from the imbalance. “If all you’ve ever known is privilege, equality feels like oppression”, as the saying goes.
The status quo is not balanced, equitable or fair. Motorists are routinely harmony pedestrians, cyclists, asthmatics, people who don’t want diabetes, people who don’t want Alzheimer’s, the climate, etc etc etc. Because our streets are currently arranged to place motorists ahead of people who don’t create danger and pollution, it’s reasonable to make things “harder” for motorists if we want a world that is safer and greener.
deleted by creator
My point is that if you yourself are looking at it as though making things worse for others is the solution, rather than looking at solutions which make things worse for others incidentally, then you aren’t in a good head space for solving problems.
I think that the way to think about this is “available space”. It totally makes sense that it is impossible for everyone working or living in Manhattan to own a car and commute there, because several million cars won’t physically fit in there. It’s the same with other cities - you just can’t fit tenthousand cars into a medieval city center. So it makes sense to prioritize other options like public transit, because they have a chance to work.