Imagine wandering down your local high street on a Summer's evening and being able to find diverse market stalls, alfresco eats, as well as live music.
The podcast premise is born in false equivalence of Australian cities to the NY and other utter massive cities. That’s straight out of the gate. I stopped there.
“Failing to provide a good argument “
There is NO argument to be had here, but hey I will keep it simple, people die when roads are closed. It is blatantly obvious why it’s bad for Australia and this ideology perpetuates a very dangerous delusion. But hey rule ban dissent away.
It is, for obvious username colour. You can see where this group devolves this discussion into, outside this thread from “ban cars in cities” to: “ban cars outright”. It perpetuates an ideology born for very high density and very high populations with functional, accessible, affordable, public transport. A fictional triad in Australia & really fictional to cities “in whole”. As a result it spreads the ideology that removing transportation isn’t dangerous which it very much is why city planners have heart attacks closing roads. The net effect of removing “cars”: people die.
The reason I called you out was because you didn’t give an argument, not because I disagree, or it goes against the “popular view”. Are you arguing that you have been unfairly targeted?
“Are you arguing that you have been unfairly targeted?” No, it was a borderline response. However very intentional as the alternative is proven where any “discussion” degrades to in the other thread with OP as I noted above would happen. OP has no interest having any discussions on the merits of closing one street for a market as does this podcast. It’s disingenuous to achieve one outcome: ban all cars.
I am aware that the OP has an anti-car and pro-cyclist stance, they’re entitled to their opinion. That other thread (I assume you’re referring to the one branched off of this one) is rather unpleasant to read. And the problem is you are arguing over what you both assume your arguments to be immutable facts, when in reality neither of you are posting any sources to back up your claims making conversation impossible.
Personally, I believe that we are at least 10 years away from being able to realise a mostly car-free city in Australia, since we need infrastructure to catch-up as well as places outside the city e.g. Eight Mile Plains Bus station south of Brisbane where people commuting from semi-rural areas (like me) can park to get a bus or a train which is faster than sitting in traffic for an hour. We need services to be fast, often and reliable so people use them due to actual benefit.
It’s far simpler than that. Where is it in place, why and how right now (ignoring effectiveness). None apply to Australia, we will never have both the population or geographical size/density required for our cities to implement this in any meaningful manner within the next generation
Your argument seems to be that if it hasn’t been done anywhere in similar conditions, it’s not something worth pursuing. That is how we avoid any progress as a society, science would not exist and education would be wasteful. I’m really confused about your logic here, you don’t seem to be interested in reducing congestion in cities beyond adding more lanes to roads encouraging inefficient forms of transport. I don’t want there to be no cars in the city but I want there to be substantially less and the only way forward is better public transport and more pedestrian friendly areas.
Your argument that people die without cars is confusing also, doesn’t congestion on main roads make it difficult for emergency vehicles to get to their destinations in time to stop a fire from spreading, apprehend someone committing assault or rush someone who is dying to hospital. Furthermore, many deaths occur on the road.
we will never have both the population or geographical size/density required for our cities to implement this in any meaningful manner within the next generation
Why is size a requirement? Also wouldn’t it be smart to get ahead of future growth by creating sustainable habits now rather than leaving it for someone else to clean up in the future?
You ignored everything I said to make up a straw man. Cool story.
Population size and density are utterly dependent on reaching serviceability. Australia will never get to this point as being claimed here. Why does the rural regions not have pumped water, public transport, garbage collection ect same reason further up the scale. Are we anywhere near the idealism of NY and wont be for a very very long time.
The podcast premise is born in false equivalence of Australian cities to the NY and other utter massive cities. That’s straight out of the gate. I stopped there.
“Failing to provide a good argument “
There is NO argument to be had here, but hey I will keep it simple, people die when roads are closed. It is blatantly obvious why it’s bad for Australia and this ideology perpetuates a very dangerous delusion. But hey rule ban dissent away.
Is that not an argument?
It is, for obvious username colour. You can see where this group devolves this discussion into, outside this thread from “ban cars in cities” to: “ban cars outright”. It perpetuates an ideology born for very high density and very high populations with functional, accessible, affordable, public transport. A fictional triad in Australia & really fictional to cities “in whole”. As a result it spreads the ideology that removing transportation isn’t dangerous which it very much is why city planners have heart attacks closing roads. The net effect of removing “cars”: people die.
The reason I called you out was because you didn’t give an argument, not because I disagree, or it goes against the “popular view”. Are you arguing that you have been unfairly targeted?
“Are you arguing that you have been unfairly targeted?” No, it was a borderline response. However very intentional as the alternative is proven where any “discussion” degrades to in the other thread with OP as I noted above would happen. OP has no interest having any discussions on the merits of closing one street for a market as does this podcast. It’s disingenuous to achieve one outcome: ban all cars.
I am aware that the OP has an anti-car and pro-cyclist stance, they’re entitled to their opinion. That other thread (I assume you’re referring to the one branched off of this one) is rather unpleasant to read. And the problem is you are arguing over what you both assume your arguments to be immutable facts, when in reality neither of you are posting any sources to back up your claims making conversation impossible.
Personally, I believe that we are at least 10 years away from being able to realise a mostly car-free city in Australia, since we need infrastructure to catch-up as well as places outside the city e.g. Eight Mile Plains Bus station south of Brisbane where people commuting from semi-rural areas (like me) can park to get a bus or a train which is faster than sitting in traffic for an hour. We need services to be fast, often and reliable so people use them due to actual benefit.
It’s far simpler than that. Where is it in place, why and how right now (ignoring effectiveness). None apply to Australia, we will never have both the population or geographical size/density required for our cities to implement this in any meaningful manner within the next generation
Your argument seems to be that if it hasn’t been done anywhere in similar conditions, it’s not something worth pursuing. That is how we avoid any progress as a society, science would not exist and education would be wasteful. I’m really confused about your logic here, you don’t seem to be interested in reducing congestion in cities beyond adding more lanes to roads encouraging inefficient forms of transport. I don’t want there to be no cars in the city but I want there to be substantially less and the only way forward is better public transport and more pedestrian friendly areas.
Your argument that people die without cars is confusing also, doesn’t congestion on main roads make it difficult for emergency vehicles to get to their destinations in time to stop a fire from spreading, apprehend someone committing assault or rush someone who is dying to hospital. Furthermore, many deaths occur on the road.
Why is size a requirement? Also wouldn’t it be smart to get ahead of future growth by creating sustainable habits now rather than leaving it for someone else to clean up in the future?
You ignored everything I said to make up a straw man. Cool story.
Population size and density are utterly dependent on reaching serviceability. Australia will never get to this point as being claimed here. Why does the rural regions not have pumped water, public transport, garbage collection ect same reason further up the scale. Are we anywhere near the idealism of NY and wont be for a very very long time.
lol what a lazy troll. No they don’t. Fewer people die when you take away one of the biggest killers.
And please don’t come back at me with the obvious troll response here. You and I already both know how much of a blatant straw man it is.
Thanks for proving my point, dangerously delusional
Cars kill hundreds of people every year.
Pedestrians and cyclists kill zero.
Pretty simple maths, for anyone who graduated from primary school.
nice straw man, even more dangerous ideology
If you can’t face facts man, you should probably stop arguing with people who use them. You’re just making yourself look a numpty.
Zagorath “Facts”: “road closures have zero impact on the lives of people”
Cool story straw man
Try again troll.