What a ridiculous premise. Luckily someone else already replied far more eloquently than I would have:
Valor Bronson @BronsonValor
Replying to @the_transit_guy
A vehicle increases the distance you can travel, increases how much you can take with you, decreases the time to get there, and requires significantly less effort on the user's part to get there.
I see the point you're trying to make, I just can't agree with it.
Great for when I travel to see my parents 6hrs 2-3 times a year. Terrible almost every other day of the year.
Cities are designed to be spread out, which means ridiculous amount of space set aside for parking (there’s still not enough parking space). There is an entire laundry list of problems associated with car-based infrastructure, its inability to scale for high populations, and the ridiculous amount of cash required to be functional in society as a result. $20k required investment before someone can even consider hiring you because otherwise how are you going to get to a mcdonald’s 15 miles away from where anyone lives?
The whole “fuck cars” thing is a bit of an annoying meme, but there’s legitimate points to criticize how american infrastructure has been designed.
On a charitable take, user who replied completely missed the point. On a less charitable view, user maliciously decided to ignore, it's not about the functionality enabled by the car. Instead, is about its inefficiency compared to similar transport means, like train and other means of public transport.
Funny thing is that where I grew up everybody is much willing to use public transportation where possible, while nobody has so much hate for cars like North America liberals do in recent 10 years.
It is just an inconvenient truth to point out US public transportation is in such a bad shape that driving in a lot of cases is the only option. At least it is much safer.
US public transportation isn't necessarily the problem, and neither is cars themselves; the root cause is US zoning/infrastructure.
When everything is built with cars in mind, nothing is walkable and everything is super far apart. (Because, after all, you're supposed to use your car to get there!) In a properly-designed area you don't even necessarily need public transit.
North American liberals? I live in a neighborhood that I would call liberal--it has a pretty high density of BLM and "We Believe" signs. But it probably averages better than two cars per household.
Better in what sense? Actually I just want to point out "the US public transportation is just bad thus it is considerably more dangerous than driving if you don't regularly DUI". You can not promote public transportation by just saying car is inefficient, because that's not even the problem here.
You want to walk in downtown Brooklyn at 10pm or drive through? You want to take MARTA or drive in Atlanta after 7pm? Have you tried BART? If you don't even know what I am talking about, you probably have never really lived in a place in US that mass transit even exists.
"Better" in the colloquial sense of "more than"; my neighborhood averages more than two cars per household, or so I estimate. I am simply pointing out that it is very possible to be liberal and not hostile to cars.
I don't know downtown Brooklyn, but within the week I walked in Park Slope about 10 at night. Many years ago I was regularly on public transportation after 11 pm.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says that there were 36 deaths in 34 crashes in Washington, DC, during 2020, for what that's worth.
Valor Bronson @BronsonValor Replying to @the_transit_guy A vehicle increases the distance you can travel, increases how much you can take with you, decreases the time to get there, and requires significantly less effort on the user's part to get there.
I see the point you're trying to make, I just can't agree with it.