Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rural areas are served by publicly-owned roads. Why not also publicly-owned vehicles? Does the fact that the roads are publicly-owned inhibit your travel? If not then why would publicly owned vehicles too?
But this is why I included option 2 of the poll. If you can show a need, you could still get a permit to own a private vehicle. I am not averse to reasonable compromise on these things.
I agree, and here's how we handle to rural folks. You figure out the longest wait for the most rural person, and apply that across the board.
If the longest wait in rural Montana for public transportation is 45 minutes, we make a 45 mandatory wait across the borad for everyone to ensure equality.
So, for those living in NYC for example, once you arrive at the subway stop, you check in, and after 45 minutes, you can then board a train.
Doing this will guarantee that some areas are not receiving special treatment and it will encourage efficiency throughout the entore country.
The real issue is that our lifestyles are designed in such a way that that we are too reliant on vehicles.
The way cities are designed in the U.S. make driving mandatory while public transit is terrible.
Cars were a symbol of freedom but now most people are slaves to their cars because of how terrible everything is designed.
Best way is to change how cities are built. Even suburban areas. Make it so you can have an option of walking/driving/using transit.
Learn from our mistakes and change the fabric of our cites and suburbs.
No one needs to surrender their cars. Just give people more option for getting around than just cars.
There is nothing sacred about being able to own a car. It's not in the US Constitution.
In this era of mass transit, Uber, Lyft, etc. the private car is on its way to being obsolete. All that is needed is a good legislative kick in the pants to send the privately-owned vehicle on its way.
The benefits would be multifarious. We would not need to have scores of different models and makes. Young males would no longer feel a need to have a model that can do 200 MPH to impress the ladies. It would generally eliminate the 'keeping up with the Joneses' problem when it comes to vehicles. Instead, automobiles could be engineered for maximum environmental friendliness.
We have already as a country seen fit to highly regulate cars. Airbags, seatbelts, etc. are now mandatory. Police spend much of their time issuing tickets for driving violations. This would just be taking the next step.
I am not an engineer, but it seems obvious that when autonomous vehicles come along, it will be much better if today's non-autonomous vehicles can be eliminated. The AVs will be able to readily able to communicate with each other, as machines, but the non-AVs will present a problem. They will be like beetles in an ant colony, causing nothing but problems. What do you think?
You are introducing two different arguments. Well, maybe three.
If non-autonomous vehicles can become successful, that still does not remove a need or desire for them to be privately owned. Totally separate argument.
It would become feasible, maybe even desirable, if a person could order the vehicle type of his choice at any time of his choosing and have it arrive at his door. So if on Saturday I want to go to Home Depot and pick up a load of fence posts and concrete mix, I call and a few minutes later an autonomous pick-up is at my door. The next day I'm going to my daughter's wedding, so I call in for a limousine and a few minutes later, there it is. Then Monday I'm going to work as usual, so my usual sedan shows up at the curb.
If that can happen, I'm sure fewer and fewer people would bother buying their own automobiles.
If you build it, they will come. But you've got to build it first.
The real issue is that our lifestyles are designed in such a way that that we are too reliant on vehicles.
The way cities are designed in the U.S. make driving mandatory while public transit is terrible.
Cars were a symbol of freedom but now most people are slaves to their cars because of how terrible everything is designed.
Best way is to change how cities are built. Even suburban areas. Make it so you can have an option of walking/driving/using transit.
Learn from our mistakes and change the fabric of our cites and suburbs.
No one needs to surrender their cars. Just give people more option for getting around than just cars.
Next, we can make laws limiting the size of people's homes.
I agree, and here's how we handle to rural folks. You figure out the longest wait for the most rural person, and apply that across the board.
If the longest wait in rural Montana for public transportation is 45 minutes, we make a 45 mandatory wait across the borad for everyone to ensure equality.
So, for those living in NYC for example, once you arrive at the subway stop, you check in, and after 45 minutes, you can then board a train.
Doing this will guarantee that some areas are not receiving special treatment and it will encourage efficiency throughout the entire country.
When you say something intentionally absurd on the Web, you're supposed to use Poe's Law tags. That's because so many people say things on the Internet that are unintentionally absurd that the intentionally absurd should identify their intent:
There will be a day when car companies no longer sell cars to the public, but will sell subscriptions to ground transportation. You pay a monthly fee to say Ford, and they'll house a huge warehouse of automated cars in a central location. You schedule whenever you need a pick to and from work or where ever else you are going and the car that is automatically driven will come pick you up and take you where you need to be. It'd be like Zipcar, which already exists, but automated. When you're done the car drives itself back to stock yard. Most people won't be able to wrap their mind around it, but most people back in 1982 never would have been able to wrap their brain around the fact that we'd eventually could have access to virtually every single fact and piece of information recorded in human history in our pocket that'd be on an index card sized phone.
I've been reading science fiction since the early 60s.
Yes. And I already have. Never owned. Low carbon foot print. Too bad all aren't as enlightened or non-entitled.
Let me guess, you live in an urban setting, right?
If so, when a person living in a rural setting says people should be growing their own food by using composting and explains how it reduces pesticides into the environment and removes the carbon footprint transporting, are you going to insist people grow their own food at home?
None of us have ice delivered to our ice box, not becaouse the government forced the switch to refrigerators, but due to market innovation and capitalism.
Next, we can make laws limiting the size of people's homes.
Big homes in areas that make sense..
Thats called zoning btw
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
