It's not a bus, it's a public limousine. Music used: pastebin.com/wvy1vWfr Sources: pastebin.com/TXPQENHh Follow me: / _britmonkey Patreon: / britmonkey Merch (US): crowdmade.com/collections/bri...
I'm Dutch and I always cycle everywhere I go, even if I have to cycle one hour to go to school and another to go back. It's good to exercise and it's completely free, aside from the bicycle of course.
@@TBMVD hell yeah 👍 here in Indonesia, roads are most highly dangerous and the public transportations are all suck. We both living dangerously by driving or even just walk along the pedestrian 😅 bike? Don't even think about it
Considering how many people die trying to navigate two dimensions in a regular car, it's a good thing we don't have flying cars with an extra dimension.
@@crazystupidbeanye but ain’t no one gonna drive like that. And it hurts because officials are gonna go like, “oh, ain’t nobody using these painted gutters, guess we don’t need this bike lane after all!” and just merge it all to make more space for cars. I so wanna bike to get to school because I don’t believe I’m responsible for a car. And yet these streets are so dang dangerous that I’m practically forced to drive to get anywhere
I live in New York where cars essentially are second class citizens, and when I’m leaving work at around five there are hour long traffic jams to cross a 3000 foot bridge, meanwhile I zoom through it on the subway. So by that point I don’t really care about being on crowded train bc I get home almost half an hour faster then a coworker who lives near me
If we're banning cars, we need more mixed use spaces, too. I won't ever feel the need for a car if I could work, shop, and live in an area where all three are within walking distance of one another.
As a European the fact that is not the standard seems crazy to me, like who thought it would be a good idea to seperate all these things? Oh, wait the car industry did. (And the people building highways, too.)
Auto industry are the ones who benefit, and want to keep urban sprawl happening. R1 (single family homes) zoning is the the reason you can't live and work in the same place. Most cities in the US have like 70+% R1 zones. Nothing commercial can be built. Not even a coffee shop.
A frightening thing I noticed when going to New York was that the ambulance couldn't get around. There were too many cars. Imagine if we could have empty ambulance routes.
I've watched people get outta the way for an ambulance and somebody goes "ohh!! Y'all moved just for ME???? Awww thank you " and pull in front of the ambulance and not go a fast speed. Also yesssss first responder routes!!!
Given how much damage the cars and private jets in Dubai (plus the rest of the world) are doing to our climate, you'll get to do your driving at 55 degrees Celsius all too soon and then it won't matter what you want, since the city shuts down permanently. It's kind of a pay now and pay later kind of thing, but the only way out is to STOP USING greenhouse gasses as we always have, even if it's inconvenient.
My favourite part of this video as someone that is learning Chinese was your joke about bikes being foot-powered cars, which is the literal translation for bike in Chinese :)
Can't tell if this video is serious or not, it's so mentally deranged that it seems like a joke video, but at the same time it's missing the most important component of a joke video, the funny
You don't have to ban cars. It just needs to be possible to not be dependent on one. Basically: 1. Copy Japanese zoning laws which allow small shops, barbers, restaurants etc. to be build around residential areas within walking distance. 2. Build cycling infrastructure like they do in the Netherlands, especially in areas where public transport is cost-prohibitive. That's it. As long as you can easily access daily necessities without a car, the majority of people stop using them on their own because they're so expensive. Even more interestingly, car enthusiasts should actually want this because the small percentage of people who will still have or want to drive would experience less traffic and less road rage. Would also improve the economy because products get faster from A to B. Also allows ambulances and other protective services to move around more quickly. Everyone would win, well, except those who profit from the current horrible infrastructure.
People keep thinking that people driving are idiots. As a father of 2 whenever i need to haul the small bastards around the main issue with NOT using a car is the sheer inconvenience of it all. Whenever I am on my own or just travelling with my daughter it is easy to take the bus, but if we need to have the stroller for the baby and my wife is also coming it suddenly makes more sense to just pack everyone in the car and get moving. When public transport options are actually good the car doesnt move. For instance I used to work in a different city where I had to drive there on a Monday, and between then and Friday when i would drive back to my home town the car would just stay parked and I would be on a subway. People really dont LIKE paying for cars but there are good reasons for why they do and it has more to do with how the cities themselves are being run than the individual himself.
@@axelfiraxaplenty of bicycle trailers on the market are capable of carrying kids that cost substantially less than a used car AND aren't significantly less convenient for short trips. Once the kids are old enough for their own bicycles it is already pretty common for children in the US to have bicycles. I don't find helmets less convenient than seatbelts, and using properly designed bicycle infrastructure is significantly safer than driving.
@@TechConnectDaily i dont think it costs that much to keep up car infrastructure in cities. Also it wouldnt happen instantly and there would be a period of months to years of neither good public transport nor car infrastructure. I just think improving public transport first is better
That is true, you need to slowly transition from cars to public transit so there isnt any public outcry, and to the "it doesnt cost mutch to maintain car infrastructure in cities," its true, but people driving around makes the air very smoggy, makes cities noisy and dangerous, and drives people away which indirectly adds to its cost. good stuff tho :)@@choty7066
With the capitalist oligarchy here in the us, the infrastructure won't be built. We need a complete transformation to the next political economic system: communism.
@@TechConnectDaily It'll take a few or more years to improve public transportation dingus. Renewing a shitty public transport to a better efficient one is costly. It won't improve overnight.
I’m an European student. I pay 50€ for a bus card every September, it lasts a year. I spend 50€ a year to take a vehicle, with air conditioning, seats and a driver, which would be almost the same as getting carried around by my parents. The difference is that I can take the bus wherever and whenever I want to.
...Wherever and whenever your wishes are scheduled by the transport services... I mean... there are places where you could only go twice a week taking the bus at 9:00 and paying what they tell you to pay.
@@antonioalonso2986 that's not quite the case for me, my city is almost entirely covered buy bus stops to the point that it's hard to be farther than 200m from a bus stop.
@@Iknowthismeme that's it: it is not your case... but I think it's an error to legislate from particular's point of view without considering the necessities of the rest of the society. Now our authorities consider car owners are evil citizens that use cars to have fun carelessly to polute and damage everybody... and happily pays what goverments want them to. But... be careful what you wish because it may turn real... I mean taxes leived to cars have a good thing that is they are only payed by those who use cars... but... if no cars... our governments wont reduce their budgets for sure so they'll increase any other to compensate, so people will end up paying more for "living" in places. Another thing I'll like to add is that it's very easy to record damage and polution (I wont discuss this, as it's true they damage and polute)... but it's very difficult to record the beneffits they contribute to society, or at least few people care for those stats, but I'm sure the do more good things than allow personal movement freedom. Regards
@@antonioalonso2986ofc cars will always be needed for people who live in really low populated areas, but here in my country we have these park&ride places where there are massive parking garages with a dedicated tram,bus and sometimes even train stops. It’s for people who want to go to another city so that they can still drive if they need to but once you enter the suburbs of that city you’ll have a easy transfer to multiple tram/bus lines most that come every 5-10 minutes
Banning cars for cities seems like a good first step because I cant imagine banning cars for rural areas any time soon, its almost a necessity over there.
Exactly The needs of the countryside man are different to those of the city. transportation, living, even personal security, are primarily reliant to the individual rather than the public, as everything is very far from us. Transitioning to public transportation in the city centers and adjacent areas? Yeah, totally doable, even like it is now. Transitioning to public transportation in the countryside? Not happening
@@riograndedosulball248 Roads are heavily subsidised, as well as all the other facilities that need to be extended to reach low-density areas. If people who lived rural actually paid for these costs most of them would move and you'd probably only have farmers left
For Americans, it's difficult to go carless (at the moment that is) because of the gross zoning and land use practices. You can't drive to the store without having to drive all the way there. You can't just walk down a block, pick up a few things that you need, and go back home. And that's why it's so hard to give up cars in the US then Europe; where a lot of older cities have mixed zoning and land use. To begin on limiting the use of cars (I think banning is extreme and takes away personal freedom of choice) Americans need to fix how the land is used and zoned. Only then will we be able to walk to the hardware store and nail a civil engineer to a cross.
fuck freedom, shit has too many downsides lmao- banning cars, guns and forcefully taking *fully tested* vacines might take away your sum of your freedom but it would save millions of lives... but that would be too hard for you would'nt it :((( your fReEdoM is more important than millions of lives innit. also i get your point with the zones btw- i was'nt rlly talkin specifically too you just ventin to all the twats out there lol
@@monkeyman321 100%, as long as your humanity is'nt takin away, you can be a indevidual, you can choose from many careers and everyone is treated equally. its all about balance
Banning isn’t extreme when cars cause to much damage to human life and the climate. What’s extreme is not helping humanity prosper and not addressing climate change. Cars can’t be banned everywhere due to how terrible US infrastructure is but I believe it’s needs to start being banned the urban centers of the largest cities in the US and build from their public transportation and over time more areas will ban cares and become pedestrian/bike friendly, which gives more space, better quality air, and help many small businesses.
@@Matt_JJz The clean air point is so stupid. Theres a guy on RU-vid called Brown Car Guy who went around London with an air quality meter, the same type of meter used by professionals (scientists, people working for the health service etc.) and the air in one of londons "most polluted" areas was more than perfectly safe according to the device. He then tested the meter in the tube and it flagged up as dangerous. People still seem to be under the impression that car exhaust emissions are solely responsible for the air quality, however, modern petrol cars have pretty much eliminated most of the harmful gases such as NOx and carbon monoxide, and with a little time and a little funding, the internal combustion engine can be made even cleaner, although in my opinion, the main problem with cars these days is the sheer size of the things, as well as the self-righteous middle class leasing brand new electric cars every three years thinking that they're saving the planet. The greenhouse gases produced during the production process of one EV is the same as one petrol car being driven for 90,000 miles Lets say for instance they did ban cars right now. The government would be losing a fuck tonne of money from tax. They tax us on V.E.D., fuel, even luxury car tax on cars costing over £40,000. Where would the money come from to support the public transport system? Public transport as it is at the moment is shockingly underfunded to the point where it is completely unusable in some areas, and the large majority of buses in my area tend to be around 10-15 years old which are the only vehicles I tend to see on the roads emitting large clouds of smog.
We don't need to ban cars. Just minimize car dependency Edit: seens like i accidently started a war. Yes you can live somewhere non car dependent, but let's face it, you STILL NEED a car for daily jobs like buying groceries or taking someone to the hospital on emergencies ( its a much more available option if you live in a country where you have to PAY for an ambulance) So yea, car dependency is bad but we must be very careful about how we're supposed to fix it
@@durece100AND logistics, I can see how they are delivering my brand new wardrobe with tram. I actually love trams and other public transport and use it in Poland all the time, they are amazing and like only 20 bucks per month to travel as much as I want here in Krakow
Car’s should definitely have way less dependence, but it would have to be done precisely considering many rely on cars to reach far away jobs, and need cars during the winter
"buying a bus ticket twice a day" Well, here is one of your problems, a price model that actively discourages public transportation utilization. Here in Budapest you can get a monthly ticket for a flat price with unlimited utilization (for about 60% price compared to 2 line tickets every work day). Also we have a bike rental service for about £11 _a year_ where the first 30 minutes of every journey is free. Yeah, everything is crumbling here, but at least the public transportation pricing scheme is figured out!
Malta is a counter example to all of the measures you mentioned: - we added bike lanes and cars keep increasing - we made public transport free everybody stopped using it - they took out one junction the average commute timea doubled - they added more buses, buses themselves started causing traffic jams - they banned parking and it just moved the problem to somewhere else
As a cyclist that lives on the countryside, this is stupid. We share an electric car in our household, and the time it takes for me to visit our family in the city is around 50 minutes by car, and around two and a half hours by train and bus. No one in my household has been in a car crash in the last 15 years. We get our electricity for our car from windmills. "GuYS CArs KiLL." Cars are a means of transport. If people are morons and don't follow the law whilst driving, how is that the car's fault? A knife is a tool that can be used for cooking, but also a weapon that can be used for killing. This is mostly dumb.
Cities for sure, but ownership should be voluntary. Banning cars or enforcing arbitrary limits on things is not very liberal in the slightest. Say no to eco-fascism.
@@gurumage9555 "Less people will be saved"??? I don't know if you're in favour of regs or not hahaha... Anyway.. Regulations are already strict enough. Regulation stifles innovation to the point you get no improvement. There are very efficient engine designs that likely won't see the light of day and Porche's SynFuel and Konningsegg's Freevalve tech that won't see widespread use because of such things. EVs are a scam. Only good for buses and taxis in cities. Good quality fuel with LPG/CNG and Hydrogen internal combustion as other options (especially for road haulage and plant machinery) is the _correct_ way forward. But no no, it makes too much sense for politicians to do such things. Improving city transport links would take cars off the road voluntarily, reduce car idle times (decreasing wear) and mean you can reduce road volume and size over time in a gradual and slow change. Bringing down the ban hammer on something because Gretta said "HOW DARE YOU" and Elon offers you some weed is asinine and crippling.
For me, the biggest downside to not having a car is that it limits how much it is to comfortably carry with you. Luggage, musical instruments, other kinds of equipment etc. Otherwise I'm pretty happy about living without a car.
With a cargo e-bike you can carry as much as you could in your car. You can travel on your own and leave whenever you want with a simple bike or with a high frequency transport network. Plus do you really need those things on an everyday basis ? Cars can do the most, but most of the time it's like destroying a sand castle with a bulldozer.
@@Mrrraaou Yeah, a smaller vehicle makes more sense if you don't need a car on a daily basis - and I don't. Renting a car on the occasion I need it would be an option if I had a license.
i agree as a car enthusiast. this means i got less idiots on the road and i can enjoy my nice cars and the ACTUAL joys of driving. This also means i dont have to worry about someone smashing into me
Uhh, he is banning cars, meaning you wont be able to use a car aswell. Dont get me wrong, I agree with him on banning cars, but your reason for agreeing with him has flaws
“But cars are fun to drive”. Yeah for a lot of people building cars and driving them is fun. And has always been a thing. Same with planes, and bikes, and motorcycles, and go karts. Purpose built areas for these vehicles have existed since the beginning of their creation. “What about off roading or camping?” Same thing. A little more freedom to drive like they did 100 years ago - that still exists today.
“But deliveries!” Hmm special logistics vehicles using preplanned routes to local businesses centres that transport those goods to your door by foot, bike, scooter, delivery bus, train, plane, helicopter, drone. Highways specific to commercial travel was the main reason the highways were built in the first place.
For people who say "I lived in the middle of nowhere and the nearest shop was 1 hour of driving". This video pretty much says to reduce car usage within urban areas and cities. Cars used in desert areas like this are not a problem at all, it's the huge largely populated suburban areas with thousands of cars and constant traffic that are the problem
Europeans clearly do not know what it is like to live in an American or Canadian city if they think this is a valid criticism. Less than 15% of people in a N.A. city can get rid of their car and rely on public transit, and most of those who can are rich people who live downtown and are always going to own a car anyway "just in case". For the other 85%, the only way transit makes sense is if they can afford to spend 2-3x longer commuting than the 0.5-1.5 hours they already spend, and if they'd actually save enough on parking and gas to use transit for their daily to-and-from-work commute.
For what it's worth, when I went onsite to a customer in Germany, I actually loved the convenience of walking / tram / train compared to literally having to drive everywhere despite living in a significant American city. Way less stressful. Lost a bunch of weight without trying. And no one trying to run me over on a daily basis.
I'm a car guy, I'm one of those guys the EPA hates. Ironically while I like a loud or fast car every now and then, I would rather live in a community similar to the Netherlands, where car speed is limited with smarter city planning, and driving is less of a requirement, but more of a want and desire.
Car ownership in rural areas (assuming EVs only) is fine as long as car owners are actually willing to pay their fair share. The problem is making car owners pay the real cost of all the infrastructure they require would make it so that many people would not be able to afford cars anymore as we excessively subsidize road infrastructure. I think in the future cars should be banned within city limits, be extremely limited in suburban areas, and allowed in rural areas, BUT car owners will have to pay large ownership taxes & property taxes on those who live rural would be raised to cover their infrastructure costs. If car ownership really does come down to "I want to own one because I like it more even if I have other options" then it shouldn't be the government's job to fund that hobby.
@@oscardighton8580 True, but cyclists could also use a vastly cheaper (to build) bike road and they don't wear down the roads. The difference in insurance makes sense since cyclists don't have the same propensity to kill people, nor are there so many other externalities for them to cover.
@@oscardighton8580 You should look up the stats to maintain cycling paths - Wearing of asphalt is not linear with weight and the cost of servicing cycle infrastructure barely even comes close to the billions and billions spent on maintaining the highway systems. So no cars don't subsidize cycling infrastructure( Also you need to remember it isn't "cars" subsidizing anything, it's the government that chooses where funding goes and that money comes from taxpayers' pockets).
Me too! Where I live they removed the train when cars started to get popular… however they did convert the entire line into a bicycle path so that’s a positive!
I’m not a big fan of commuting by public transportation 40 miles a day. Especially with the crimes, drugs and tripped out crazy homeless peeing and vomiting all over said public transportation.
@@americancapitalist9094Looks like you have a homeless problem. No shelters, no support programs, no food and housing. Also looks like you have extreme poverty problem. And a drug problem. And a mental health epidemic. Wait. Let me guess, USA?
This is a big problem, all the politicians who speak about "no cars in 2050" and so on totally forget about all the people living on the countryside. Like how am I supposed to be able to get food and other necessities when the closest store is many miles away, and if there even are busses the closest stop is very far away and the busses are very infrequent, like 1 in the morning and 1 in the evening. Cars are still needed, there is no way they'll be able to build railroads or bus lines to satisfy the needs of people in very rural areas in the coming decades
I think I have the solution for the rural population. The hovercraft! We can get rid of all roads. We will be left with hovercraft gently gliding over untouched idyllic landscapes
"long stretchy car" earned you a subscriber. I'm not a full on "ban cars" guy, and I know the title is semi-clickbait, but driving should be an option and not a necessity
@@Maxzes_ Dubai is a fucking joke of a city. Sheikh Zayyed Road is the dumbest shit I have ever seen, a 10 lane highway down the middle of the city??? And all that black asphalt actually raises the local temperature. That shit needs to just flat out gotten rid of and replaced with a competent transport system. Obviously Dubai couldn't ban cars tomorrow, first they need to build the infrastructure to support it. But they're fucking loaded so I don't see why they can't
As a Danish student I have like most of my friends had a driver's licence since I was 18 because that was the norm to get one, but I have never used it for anything other than driving my sister around or picking up my grandma at the hospital. Within the city I live in I bike everywhere to school to work to the shops, when I want to go visit my parents or friends there is a perfect thing called a train that conveniently picks me up and drops me off in the center of the city and I don't have to think while this is happening and can sleep or do work it's almost like magic.
Herude på landet landet er det ret lækkert ikke at skulle GÅ 9 kilometers få at komme i Rema... For så at gå 9 kilometer hjem igen med tunge poser fyldt med mad.
@@missa2855 Idk jeg cyklede 8km til og fra skole igennem de første 2 år af gymnasium det var en meget frisk cykeltur at starte dagen med, men ja hvis man skal tage det store indkøb med hjem så kan det blive noget af en tur.
@@TheSteinbittmost people still live in cities, so it doesn't matter. Cars still have utility for people living in the countryside and we will never ban all cars.
As someone who doesn’t live in a city my first thought was, that would be literally impossible for me, but I hate traffic with a passion haha. Better public transport is needed
It's such an ironic situation that public transport is so _inconvenient_ where I live that I never consider it an option. Taking the bike and car are thus my preferred options. And said public transport won't change until a forceful decision is made to change this status quo.
And when there's only public transport and the fares go beyond inflation no one will be able to travel and we'll all be back in the Dark ages. Enjoy that people.
130 years ago, my city (which then had a population of only about 25,000) had one of the best urban trolley systems in the state. It was destroyed in the 1930s to make way for... cars. Every time they do major road construction in the older parts of the city, they seem to keep finding sections of those pesky tracks buried underneath the asphalt that yearn to be used again. If those trolleys had been kept in use, I could literally take the trolley from school to work, and then straight home. If we Americans can stop using cars (mostly) in my lifetime, then I will do everything in my power to bring those trolleys (or a like alternative) back to my city.
Where I live, there used to be trolleys as well. I have a few books about the history of my area somewhere, with pictures in em, and there are photographs of the trolleys back when they were in use. Frankly the roads looked a _lot_ nicer than they do today. The trolleys looked so convenient. They dismantled the trolleys around I wanna say the 1920's. Ofc back in those days there was hardly any traffic around, each town had a population of maybe 1000 people max, so it was viewed as an upgrade. These days the area I live in even though it's somewhat rural, it has like 5 colleges closeby, so now each town has a population above 10,000, and now the roads are getting so congested all the goddamn time. Topped with the fact there is always fucking construction somewhere. Just being a _passenger_ in a car gives me mad anxiety. I'm seriously considering moving.
@@Jiji-the-cat5425 My city is now rapidly approaching 100,000 people. We also have a sister city just across the river that is home to one of the best universities in the country, so the population of the greater urban area is almost 200,000, and it feels like it. Traffic is horrible in some inconvenient places. Traffic on the university side of the river is much worse, though. A trolley system would come in mighty handy these days...
as someone who lives in the middle of nowhere my quality of life has gotten so much better since i got a car i can see friends it also gives me great autonomy and im a much happier person then i was before car bans are feesible in places like Amsterdam and maybe even London but when you are out of that its a lot less feesible
I'm in a small UK city out in the suburbs and it's quite easy to go car free here. Buses are every 10 minutes at the worst day time frequency or every 6 minutes on busy bus routes. Buses to the hospitals are free too. Then you get our tram system that can take you from one side of the city in an hour or 20-30 minutes from any end station to the centre, which is about the same as a car but you don't have to pay $3 an hour for parking. The cycling lanes are getting better too but need some work.
Good thing I live in rural areas where you actually need one. I’m willing to get ruby ridged for my race car. I agree 100% car based infrastructure is bad but banning them entirely is not the answer. That’s a slippery slope to living in a pod and eating ze bugs
Actually I think it’s more of a plateau. If done just right it could be incredible. Go too far to one side and then it’s a sharp drop to hive cities out of Warhammer.
@@BrowncoatGofAZ an outright ban is a bridge to far. Anti car rhetoric like this makes me afraid of people coming for my favorite hobby which is sports cars.
@@Detah_ so the outright ban would be the edge of the plateau. Idea: what about having parking garages on city perimeters (probably near highways) and connecting those to public transit stations for intra-city transportation? Also urban areas could have biofuel refineries so nobody would point fingers at rural areas for pollution (tangential).
@@BrowncoatGofAZ you can't just completely dismantle the road system of a city. Making all cities 100% walking is impossible. it would require basically tearing down the whole city and rebuilding it. Yes trains and buses exist but there's no way in hell I'd get on a bus or a train because I don't like being around people. There has to be a happy medium. All this sounds way to radical
I crashed my car three months ago and only got it back a month ago after it took forever to get parts for it. Anyway, in those two months that I didn't have it, I had an electric scooter subscription, used public transport and used ridesharing for weekly shopping hauls, etc. I also walked more, feeling healthier and saved money. Since having my car back, it's just a glorified shopping trolley and used for work sometimes, I now much prefer walking, scooting and public transit.
Of course yes, with almost infinite capacity and higher speed, but only if transport demand is higher than 500 peoples per hour, ideally more than 10 000/hour (like most subways) , totally breaking down with less than 100 peoples per hour… That’s how public transport works More passengers = cheaper tickets= even more passengers= more money = more faster trains = even more passengers…
@@sadqqwwqeq4175 the Netherlands is a very small and densely packed country. The us on the other hand is large and sprawled out. It would cost obscene amounts of money and take decades to build rail lines to replace cars
@@k00lkidz4 We have so many abandoned railroads that we haven't used since the gilded age. America built a transcontinental railroad within a 6 year frame. The problem is the railroads have been confiscated by the government. I'm sure there would be a lot of companies that'd love to gain access to those railroads and start fresh and a lot of jobs would come from it. There is 0 excuse for not having railroads.
THANK YOU! Our car-centric transportation system will go down in history as humanities greatest mistake. Unfortunately our culture has developed around the car, and people can not see outside of it. I have commuted with The Electric Wheel for the last 3 years. It has made my life awesome in everyway. I enjoy my commute now and save thousands every year. I have absolute independence on when and where I ride. I am FREE from a toxic, broken transport system. I can go 90 miles per charge and I usually cruise around 20 mph. When one does not have to stop at a hundred stop lights and signs, 20 mph gets me anywhere in my sprawling city in a reasonable amount of time, enjoyably. Thank you for discussing this because it is the biggest problem we face that no one wants to address. Everyone has had devastating events happen to them or someone they know because of the car transportation system. No one is safe from this! It pollutes our air/ water and runs over our pets even if we do not use it. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!! We must change to survive. Micro-mobility and public transport could literally save us ALL.
"Wherever cars have been banned, nobody wanted them back" Here in my city, the city centre is built in a grid. Not too long ago, there was a road running right through the central square. It was removed in order to make more space for the people and well, the cars could also just go around. And people whined. Later they banned cars all together from the main road, and left it open for buses and trams, solving all the traffic problems.
obviously "get rid of all cars" would not include every mobile vehilcle. we still need buses and trucks. also banning cars wound never work in rural areas. the best approach is to begin transitioning from a suburban-dominated society to urban-dominated society. rural areas will still need to exist. trucks will still need to transport goods.
Yeah, cars are great for recreation but there's too many of them driven by people who don't care about that. Cars should be relegated to being owned by responsible car guys and driven on race tracks during weekends.
I would have added “in cities” because honestly, in the countryside, there is no way to replace cars (and I tried). On the other hand, cities can do car packs outside centers and not have cars inside cities at all. Plenty of other ways to go around there anyways…at least in Europe!
Countrysides still need cars, but at least the usage of car is far less than that in cities so there won't be traffic jams in the countrysides. So, I think you have a good point!
I am a car guy, and I strongly support this. For any car guys around. 1. There will be less drivers around. When we do drive were we can, it will be much more comfortable. 2. Those that will choose to drive, presumably will do so because they enjoy it. Hence, better drivers around. 3. Who actually enjoys driving in big congested cities? We can drive outside cities and on circuits. 4. We get all the benefits that non-car lovers get.
I agree. I like driving too but you know what completely depletes the experience? Traffic. This solves the traffic problem. And let’s everyone get to where they need to faster, even if cars are rerouted and need to drive more/further. It does benefit everyone it loads of ways.
Having a car myself( Lexus is200), and being a car guy I rarely use the car to go anywhere, in my region public transport is 20€/Month for everyone under 26 and is 6€ a month for everyone over 65 and I can go anywhere by train ,metro, bus and tram. Everyday when I go to college instead of spending 45 min in my car having to pay attention to the road, i spend 45 minutes in a bus where I can sleep,or see the phone. I use my car to chill at night where I can't sleep l, take my friends to dinner or cinema and go to some car meets and I enjoy the car a lot.
I'm not saying you're wrong those would be great things, but I think you're naive if you don't at least consider those eco-facist cunts won't try to ban or tax cars away.
@@kersacoft If your logic is: We should not do something we agree would be beneficial to almost everybody, including ourselves, because it will then be more likely that the law will go to far, then we should be talking about political reforms or leaving to go abroad. Because such a fear is nuts. If something must be done, it is done. I don't see how Eco-fascists will take over, at least in my country. Which for all it's problems, is at least good at preventing any one political group of pushing laws without consent of most of the population. Btw, a tax on cars should almost by definition exist. I don't think there is one microeconomics book that doesn't use cars as an example of negative externality that should be internalised. These taxes already exist, so maybe tax on cars may increase of a small degree, a complete ban however is absurd. Cars will still be necessary, at least for the foreseeable future, to travel to any rural area, and still to perform many jobs within and outside the cities. I doubt delivery guys will ever use public transport. They will continue to speed in Vespas around the cities.
@@leonardodavid2842 I'm not saying our hobby should be above the common good of mankind, just that I doubt once most people won't need cars anymore that they'll let us exist in peace, many people don't support freedom they don't use. Eco-fascist was just an insult.
and that's exactly why he's careful to make his claims about cities, not rural areas. The only remark he makes on rural areas is that highways arent that great. He makes no statement that people in rural areas shouldnt drive.
When you said 'Ban Cars' I was put off, but when you said 'from our cities and suburbs' you now have my complete support. Anyone should be able to own a car, and it helps in rural areas due to wide spaces between, but in cities it is more space efficient to remove roads and use trains. In suburbs due to low traffic and being the border of city and rural, one car width roads should suffice for use in pedestrian travel and the occasional bus heading city ways or of the occasional car going rural ways, much like the image of a Japanese suburb. Cities are meant to be dense and cars hinder that, and rural lands are not dense and cars help with the expansiveness.
People really dont value the use of a car but as someone who lives in new york and has no car i can tell you its a horrible thing imagine going shopping and having to take a train or a bus carrying a big or pricey purchase also add the fact you have to take it home from the bus or train stop which is like 4 blocks away carrying a big tv. Thankfully we got cabs but the problem with that is paying 12 to 24 bucks to go shopping which is the usual if the cab driver isnt trying to rip you off from my place to the shopping mall or supermarket. Simply cars are a huge benefit so dont wish for that cause youll regret it. Edit Also add the times you cant get a cab or they aren't available to pick you up and your basically stranded cause you have too much of a load and walking and public transportation is out of the question.
@@stargamer7576 So a car for large items, public transport or a bicycle for everything else. Here in the Netherlands, a lot of people carry their groceries by bicycle, me included. 2 trips a week on the way home from work to pick up my groceries. It only takes half an hour longer than normal to get home and I don't have to waste my time going out specifically for groceries. And that is with me taking a longer way home to pick up my groceries instead of learning the layout of a much closer supermarket. If you have a family, add in a weekly or bi weekly trip by car if needed. Oh, and then there is of course the option of having large items delivered to your home. You know, the thing that a lot of people already do.
@@stargamer7576 I just pick up some things coming home after work, this way it is so spread out I never have to carry a lot of things. During rona I had to switch it up a bit and bought a bike trailer and went shopping that way. With my bike I can easily transport 20kg+ even uphill.
@@PhilfreezeCH still buying a car but good for you also i am not a fan of 2 wheel vehicles I've had very bad experience with them i rather have 4 wheels also i can pick up more things and carry my tools in a car and not worrying about other stuff. But just understand that having only bikes is just not gonna happen in our world cause it's really not a convenience specially when you bring others in a car i cant fit multiple people in a bike that's not the case and traveling with a car you can actually leave the city and go explore the us you can literally drive to Canada yes you could take public transport but how you'll go to a place that doesn't have that simply cars are necessary and unless your alternative checks all people's issues and demands it's just not going to happened i could take a plane or a tranin but do you think I want to deal with the TSA, IDs and rude customer service i rather drive and have a nice road trip. Also not to mention the cost which as I said it ain't going to happen cause of corruption.
@@rendomstranger8698 simply I'm done arguing cause I got to the point I don't care I prefer cars cause of the benefits of going where I have to go, the space in it, the safety in driving in a big vehicle and yes I'm aware accidents happen but so can bikes heck your literally the structure of the bike a car at least can take some of the shock unless your speeding, also don't forget the comfort and final why should I be limited to my area i cant freely take the train to a place that has no train and no I'm not biking to that place specially in hot weather. This world is huge. But lastly i just don't like people telling me how to live my life if i prefer a car why should I change that for someone else.
I've been to a lot of citites around the world, and I've noticed a kind of "universal rule" of cities: the more car friendly a place is, the shittier it is to be. A park is a better place to be than a parkway, but it works at every stage in-between as well. There is almost no place that can't be made better by making it less car-friendly.
This is probably the sole reason why I was so socially dysfunctional as a kid and even now as an adult, and also why I've been dealing with so many health issues growing up as well. I grew up in suburbs and not having anything fun within reasonable walking distance kinda forces you to stay inside all day, so as a result I've been largely sedentary my whole life which I'm pretty certain is why I'm pretty messed up physically now too.
@@weirdwalrus5757 they would probably be safer and have more fun if their street was a pedestrian only street that actually looked nice and not like a dystopian hellhole
I’ve always wanted a train station that connected to different states in America as I would think it to be more faster and enjoyable then driving to said destination
they already exist taut they are expensive and no one used them. cars are way better because you can stop at any moment without having to wait for stops.
@@covfefe1787 That ain't really a plus though nor is it particularly true. If you were going long distance why would you want to stop really? Only reason you may in a car because driving a car long distance sucks, it is boring and tiring. They are only expensive because we already poured massive amounts of money on car road networks which attracts more cars. This creates less demand so to make money it has to be more expensive. Cars are not in demand because they are better in any way but rather we just have the roads already. Needing to stop in Chicago on your way to Milwaukee to pick up more passengers isn't a con, you still in the green of time saved. Even if it took the same amount of time or even more time because of stops that still isn't a problem. On a train or even a bus to a lesser extent you are not driving, which means you are free to pass the time by working, playing video games or watch a film. It is similar to something like a dishwasher. Sure you may be able to wash you dishes by hand faster but the dishwasher allows you to not have to wash dishes. There will always be people living in population sparse regions traveling from one village to another that need to drive.
@@SirNarax the freedom of movement is the point if someone wants to stop to check out something in the middle of nowhere they can with a car. also cars prevent things getting stolen from you. in crowded trains people have gotten away with rape and even murder. who couldn't hack the metro system and destroy the entire economy for a few hours or what about terrorist attacks like bombs on a train? its happened in Japan before. it doesn’t happen now because more people use cars and cars cant get hacked. Im also against self driving cars I prefer to captain my own ship.
@@covfefe1787 As if you couldn't travel freely if you wanted if trains took over as the primary long distance and short distance transportation? Nobody is seriously suggesting making a car illegal just illegal to drive in certain areas and de-emphasize the car nation wide. Also the idea that trains and buses are bad because crime CAN happen on them is frankly and objectively, stupid. Fact: Crime happens in cars as well, a lot. Minor and viollent. And if you were worried about crime, crime in a car is easier. With a train you have to smuggle a weapon, the car can be a weapon. Cars can also be a source of crime in a way a train can't. It is well understood that more cars in one place = more road rage. Road rage can be anything from insults to outright assault, there isn't an equivalent on a train. The danger of "but sometimes". But sometimes people may assault you on the train. But sometimes people might cut you off and press the break and get away with insurance fraud. But sometimes trains might get hacked and this may sometimes have an effect. But every year 40,000 people in the US die from car crashes and only 1,000 die on a train, pretty much all of which from crossings not on the train itself. Funnier or sadder depending on your perspective and sense of humor. De-emphasizing the car actually is STILL a benefit to you even as someone who would choose to drive. It would make driving much safer for you and in many areas reduce traffic. I live in a village in the middle of nowhere, I know some people need a car and I understand that some people just want a car. Most people don't care and this would be a benefit to everyone.
As someone who lives in the rural area, I really don't mind driving to a city where I park and have to use public transportation (if it was funded more and is everything you said). I really HATE driving in cities!! Hate hate hate.
Yes 😌☝️ and people using cars out in Bozeman Montana probably don't have a massive carbon footprint 🤷♂️😭😂 and you REALLY do need a heavy, big SUV im certain parts of the country. I grew up on an Indian Rez amd I get why people NEED trucks and SUVS. But now I live in NYC, and there is no reason for people to be having cars just because the way they do. 😒 it's 2md rent just to park them here in NYC
I live in a city during college. I try not to use my car unless necessary I hate driving and drivers are insane. When I go home I have to drive (rural area) and it’s much easier because I’ll go miles without seeing another car.
When I went to Japan in 2018 I got terrified from the train network, then on my way back to my hotel room in Iidabashi after shopping in Shinjuko I realized how this massive sprawling city was more connected than any other city I have ever lived in.
Lol Japan shuts down every night . Even shinjuku shuts down. Trains cannot operate 24/7, even the self driving JR trains shut down for maintenance of rails and trains.
@@henrylo6773 Not necessarily, you definitely don't want to be running multi car trains when the demand is just not there to fill them. But you can easily run single car trains or you know just the rubber tire equivalent of a single car train ie a bus. If it was not for the still considerable night time demand being taken up by taxis simply because travellers are not given a choice there would be more than enough demand for night busses.
Unfortunatly bikes and busses don't solve the transport problem. Delivery is nice for new stuf - but people also need to move their own stuff on their own time for example for plumbers and other handymen who bring all their tool and all the shops need to be delivered to, too, you know.
A world where cars are a privilege for enthusiasts and only a necessity for low density and rural areas, and everywhere else can be reached via walking or public transport is a world I wanna live in. Clean air, dense, quick and easy to navigate cities. Electric cars for people that need them. ICE cars only for enthusiasts. I think it's a much more attainable goal over here in Europe than in the Americas, and we've seen Japans real-world success with public transport. I'm saying this as a car and motorcycle enthusiast.
Thats basically saying "fuck you" to poor people who want a car. Also haven't the pandemic teach anything regarding how fully relying on public transport is bad thing. If public transport are better, people will use it more than they use cars like in Japan and china. Banning things is just psychopathic bootlicker argument. Why the hell would I want to be on the same train with junkies, fat smelly people, pick pockets and robber when I can use my car?
@@sunshineskystar did *I* say anything about banning them? No. I don't agree 100% wholesale with everything said in this video but I agree with the idea of better planned walkable cities, and reliable public transport. So that people feel less reliant on cars. Like I said before, ICE cars for enthusiasts, but EVs (and hydrogen in hindsight) for people that need them. As in that is ideally, who would have what. I did not mention price point of any of the vehicles so I don't understand how that is a 'fuck you' to poor people specifically. Point is, if public transport and city planning was better, less people would feel reliant on cars in the relevant areas, therefore saving space, easing congestion, and being better for the environment. More people either on public transport, or walking.
@@sunshineskystar as someone who is in the poorer class ig i disagree. he literally said in the video that riding a bus is less expensive overall then owning a car. with a car you have to pay insurance, gas/petrol, etc etc. busses and trains are just objectively better in my opinion. if you don't wanna ride around with other people that's a you thing. cars are just straight up bad for the environment with all that gas emissions and car crashes.
problem with not having a car though is what happens when you wish to go somewhere not in the city? camping holiday? festival? trip out for a walk in the lake district? you are literally a prisoner of the city without a car
As a proud resident of "Rural Ass Place, Pacific Northwest, USA", this actually sounds not that bad. Seattle and Portland suck ass to travel through. It really irks me that the highways go right through them. Also, trains do have a serious coolness factor, which makes up 50% of my agreement with this video.
Ironically, I watched this video after learning to drive a car for the first time. I do think driving for the sake of getting around car dependent areas and driving for leisure, especially for car fans, are very different things though.
Absolutely, Im totally willing to give up driving in the cities if it makes cities more pleasant and I can drive my classic car and my sports car everywhere else
Lol I am still taking driving lessons as well good luck dude. Those guys don't understand you can't do anything productive without personal vehicle in the countryside.
I sold my car 3 months ago and it felt great being able to save $500-$600 a month (bi weekly payments, insurance and gas altogether). I get some exercise walking to the train station or bus stop and I only pay $110 for a monthly transit pass. I dont miss having a car at all
I think this movement away from cars will take hold in the next 30-100 years and will be a distinguishing feature of the era. Places like Amsterdam, Tokyo have already shown us a peak into the future.
The big divrence is that people in Tokyo are quiet and well behaved on public transport where in the New York subway some random homeless guy throws his shit around and people blast music
Agreed, I think America is very young and arrogant now, because it has never really seen suffering like other older civilizations have. It is a wisdom born of necessity and experience, both of which seem to be missing in America today.
@@LennartBiesel The thing is that if you actually invest and care for public transport, it will become attractive to well "normal people". But if public transport in your city is terrible and inconvenient, then the entire middle class will skip it, thus leading to the target audience becoming societys worst which fill the trains and busses (and as a result even more people will avoid them)
As much as I love cars, even I can agree that car dependency has gone way too far. I think cars should only be used for long-distance travel, like going into another city, state, or country. You shouldn't have to rely on almost getting t-boned by Dale's Suburban and Ron's Explorer 20 times a day (because yellow means speed up at a traffic light to Americans) just to get groceries.
For intercity travel there's buses and trains and they are more enjoyable than being inside a car for hours and I could even socialize with other passangers. But I think for trips to rural areas that aren't served by rail or intercity bus then yes a car is needed. And driving in the countryside is far more enjoyable than in a city.
Yes I think there is a time and a place for cars, but inside cities of not one of them. Especially for everyday travel like getting to work or school, a car shouldn't be necessary.
That would make jobs like mine really really hard I work for a shipping company our work starts at 3 in the morning tell me where the public transportation is at 3 in the morning in America
@@redneck6570 in this theoretical world where American cities put policies in place to reduce car use, I am sure that public transport would be more frequent and go for more hours of the day
A car ban lives and dies on good public transportation system, not on the car ban itself. Many cities nowadays have shitty public transportation, and because of that a car ban will never happen. First the public transportation needs to get better, than people will start opting it instead of a car, than a car ban can happen. Until then, I'd rather sit in my car in trafic for an hour with AC on than on a crowded hot sweaty subway where I have to smell the armpit sweat of the 15 people around me
Even with improved public transportation, there are areas in which it wouldn't work. I live in a small city with the bare minimum of shops. As soon as I need new shoes or new electronics I have to drive 30 mins to the next bigger city. A bus only drives once every hour. Just sending 30 buses and hour instead wouldn't solve any problem since the majority would go empty. Even if we don't care that public transportation is mostly empty.... How should I get a new TV, new furniture etc. from the shop to my home ? Banning cars isn't the solution at all
@@nico3064 yes, just give options other than cars, and people will use those optiions when its viable, and cars when it is viable, reducing overall car trafic without overall banning cars.
I'm a huge car guy, and I support this. I wouldn't mind commuting by public transport or bicycle All of the car fun is outside of the cities anyways, there's no joy in commuting by car and standing still in traffic, and the cities get more liveable and cleaner
Yea! Ban cars but also make more tracks for track day! woooooo! Racing on public roads is dangerous and almost nobody actually wants to have to race around on them. Build up a nicer car culture out in the country-side for all the people who love em and repurpose some of those massive highway sections for racing.
You can’t ban them all together. Some places are inaccessible by public transportation for example a large part of the countryside. Also cars can be useful when several people are travelling together. I bike to school everyday, and it’s faster than going by car. But cars can be very useful too sometimes. Banning them all together is kinda stupid, pushing people to diversify their transportation modes tho can be a good idea.
Public transport is inaccessible in some rural places but that's going to change as time goes on. There's already testing of demand responsive buses for rural areas that would do a better job of serving rural neighbourhoods compared to current rural bus systems.
@@kev2034 Yeah that's true. But it's not a good solution for the main transportation mode of people living in the countryside - it's important to develop bus networks as much as possible (the limit being the point where it becomes ecologically useless and not profitable). In cities where there's an important concentration and similar commute dynamics (people coming from the suburbs and going into the city in the morning and back to the suburbs at night), it's great to develop public transportation, as it would reduce commute times and also be good for the climate, and allow to free up some road space to allow to build bike lanes or more public transportation (trams, bus lanes, stuff like that). But in the countryside it's different, as the dynamics are not the same for everyone and there's less concentration. People would have to walk much more to get to the bus stop from their house, but also to where they are going, and it's also complicated to make busses go everywhere people would want to go as it's in a larger space and people are all going to different places, unlike in a city where many people are commuting to a business district for example. So I would also push for the development of private transportation like bikes and motorcycles.
@@durece100 You've been trolling around a bunch, saying "BAN CARS BAN CARS BAN CARS" to everyone, without ever actually giving a good argument for it, even when replying to well-written comments that explain their position. GTFO
@@durece100 it doesn't make sense why would you? Limit them, push for alternatives, there's no point in banning them as they're useful in many situations for many people.
I live in Houston Texas and I need my car to do basically anything. The sidewalks are super old, dilapidated, dangerous, and a lot of times completely nonexistent. It’s crowded and the city and companies here cut corners that most places in the USA could not get away with; which is why we constantly flood. We have no pride in the city because there are no clear boundaries between city and the “areas” around that city that would normally be towns in any other part of the country. Plus we are all so busy working with nothing to do but drink alcohol and watch our sport teams lose. We do not value or even acknowledge any of the nature there is here and we heavily pollute our bayous and drainage ditches, and even our drinking water. If we had a motto it would be “corruption, crime, all for a dime”. I just made that up now but it’s actually true. What you are talking about in this video sounds so foreign to me, that my first instinct is to disagree with you, even though you’re completely right. If you look on Google maps with no labels, Houston is a grey blemish on the face of the planet. A sprawling spiderweb of concrete. Since we are one of the fastest growing areas in the country, I hope they at least implement the concepts you have presented here, and hopefully we can start doing the right thing if we can’t fix what we’ve already done.
Yep, Houston is entirely built around cars. The city is filled with car centric infrastructure with little walkable areas or public transportation. It’s truly one of the worst planned and ugliest cities I’ve ever seen.
I'm Italian and have been in Houston in 2015, it didn't look so much grimy, if you really want to see a city with the most ineffecient public transport and worst architectural urban sprawl I would invite you to see Rome. Roads are naturally tight and mostly occupied with parked cars, sidewalks and streets alike are riddled in craters, bike lanes are mostly non existent, people generally drive erratically and park in illegal positions, worsening the traffic aspect, in the worst hours you can literally take hours to travel a dozen of miles. There are no freeways cutting trough the city, forcing the traffic to drive trough every residential area. On top with this the public transport company is like hundred of millions dollars in debt, and the only thing keeping it from defaulting is the City giving them taxpayer money, despite them having a legal monopoly. There are only two main subway lines which don't connect many parts of the city, and the bus service is laughably disfunctional, buses almost never arrive on schedule and are mostly dirty or falling apart, many times in this years Buses have been literally burst into spontaneous combustion. On top of all this the Workers Union (which unfortunately in Italy are far more powerful than in any other country) protest and refuse to work almost once or twice a month. Rome is literally a quarter the size of London or Paris and it feels like living in the worst part of Shangai for how much ridiculously hard is to live here...
@@BeanDar It happens because our form of government is even more fucked up than yours. Basically the tax burden on the economy is 45% of the GDP and the Public Debt is at 160% of GDP instead. In this scenario add that Italy's political power is fractioned in Countless Territorial autonomies and Governmental subdivisions. We have the Regions, provinces, Prefects, Comunes and municipalities, each of them have their own bureaus and tax fees. Now consider that every public service is a state monopoly managed by the most lazy and incompetent bureaucrats and useless public employees; who are impossible to fire because sustained by Workers Unions who have incredible political power upon political parties. Add very high levels of corruption and Criminal Organizations, a complicated mess of codes, laws and regulations, and a electoral system who takes power away from the citizens to give absolute legislative power to TWO chambers of Parliament. Then if you want to change a law the two chambers have to do *twice* the same job, making the process of ratifying laws twice as slow... Let all this sink in and understand why public transport is at third world efficiently levels...
I agree that certain things about cars are dangerous, but for someone who lives in the middle of nowhere, it's not necessarily a viable thing to give up. I can see how major cities that might be a benefit, but in the countryside there is no viable way to get rid of cars. EDIT: I want to just add that I drive over an hour to go to work I use the turnpikes and highways for efficiency. If they did not exist, my drive to work would be over 2 hours. That isn't happening. I got a tesla and a eco boost truck. I am fine with just that.
I live in a not so big town (240k ppl) and one of my frustration with my city is that both the roads and the bus system kinda sucks. But we could get a good bus system if the prefecture actually invested in it, but no one cares about this around here. My country (Brazil) has an infrastructure ENTIRELY based on road ways. There are barely any trains and public transportation is pretty bad everywhere. The mindset here is still pretty car-friendly because we have this old fashioned notion that more cars = more Progress, and that having your own car is essential and it shows your status.
We REALLY need to work more on transportal devices: you know, rather than teleporting bodies (which runs the risk of irreversible body damage and death, much like cars), we create devices that open connecting portals between two places across time and space at point zero, just smoothly pass through the portal from spot A to spot B, and close the portal when we're done, just like Doctor Strange.
this was not only seriously entertaining but it now makes me wanna go down a rabbithole of finding more examples so I can use it in a class with my students. thanx!
If public transport was accessible enough, even people with disabilities, like me, wouldn't need any car to move around a city. But the sad truth is that, at least in my hometown Bratislava, Slovakia, this is still a big issue. So car is more comfortable for me atm.
Weirdly enough I always found the public transportation there to be pretty good, especially for a city that's almost 20km across. Bus line 21 is the goat
Ofc 😭☝️ i think in cases like yours an allowance should be made. I feel like everyone else having to use mass transit would also make it much cheaper for people who REALLY need cars to buy them. ☝️ theres also parts of America where people genuinely need trucks and other large, robust, offroad vehicles to safely live and work.☝️🤷♂️ If everyone who can, HAS to give up their car, I feel like the people who need to have one won't be a problem and I think 🤔 there'd be too few people driving to cause the same problems w cars as before
Sadly with the US, we need to first remove our policies surrounding zoning. Because of these policies even if we wanted to do this it would still keep jobs so far away from our homes.
@@josephang9927 because they think industrial zones means factories when in fact it means stores and restaurants, and shops. Heavy industrial zones are the factories and deserve to be zoned
@@josephang9927 lol not even bruh, it's not a party problem both of them do it, it's more of a nimby issue, like here in CA dems are trying to do zoning and housing reform to alleviate the housing crisis but fucking nimbys keep blocking the bills, i mean I understand why Republicans do it right? Because it goes with their belief system but democrat nimbys do it too like fucking hypocrites, they literally want to have their cake and eat it too. So in my experience it's a class issue, because here the democrat government is trying to do actual reform but it almost always ends up being blocked by nimbys who don't want poor people living next to them.
We should do this, with the exception of a few things. 1. emergency vehicles should have avenues to operate on. 2. Cargo transportation cannot be achieved without motor vehicles. Ever tried to haul a piano with a bicycle? Good luck. 3. Add what you think should be added by replying.
It's funny to see how so many people here are brainwashed into thinking of cars as the solution rather than the problem that they may generally like the idea but still highlight that one first gotta take care of alternatives. Ironically, alternatives immediately pop up the moment you ban cars.
My mother always complained about how much i would spend on catching the bus. I paid £120 a month to get a bus pass that covered most journeys i needed to make. So i bought a car. The insurance alone costs more per month than my bus fare
@@Zed-Corps I'd rather take the bus because I can relax while traveling and you don't have to worry about fuel. The buses are frequent so I don't need a schedule, and if I need something big I'll get it delivered online.
@@thetimelapseguy8 in my area bus services are getting worse, they recently remove a line that directly goes to my job and near many markets. They claim not enough riders were use it, which is nonsense since every time I rode it was always packed. Got my self a decent vehicle for that reason.
To be honest, I still find that very expensive for public transports, not to mention the example he gave in the video, I can only deduce that public transports are indeed very expensive in the UK. Where I live in France I can take all public transports in my city with 40€ per month (it's 25€ for students and 10€ for unemployed people...), but I guess it's probably state-funded.
As a Dutchman I highly advise the use of every form of transport besides cars. I've known lots of people, including myself, who are well over the age of being able to get a drivers license but still haven't even bothered to get one. Because apart from laziness, there's no real need. I bike everywhere, and if it's too far there's always a bus, train or metro that goes to my destination somewhat directly. There may be a spare kilometer or two left, but traversing that by foot is quite nice as well. The no-car diet is actually pretty damn good.
i live over 30 Kilometres away from the nearest town, and 50 kilometres away from the nearest city, and i have no public transport or rail access in my village of 300 people
Ok but that doesn’t work when you travel in the opposite direction of civilization for at least an hour and then 30min up back dirt road out of service range that i guarantee no bus could travel to go run a big diesel guzzling excavator.
