• NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Okay, then advocating for better urban planning and less urban sprawl. Unless you live in a rural area, you shouldn’t be required to go into debt to pay for a multi ton machine to be able to buy food. It’s odd that only in the last hundred years humans have stopped being able to function day to day without vehicles.

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        You all talk a big game, but I’ve been to about 20 countries so far in my life. Distributed all over the world. They ALL have traffic led by cars. I guess I haven’t been to Mumbai…

        Your assumptions are wrong, and you live in fantasy. Get over it.

        • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          I’m not sure what your point is? I never said cars weren’t leading traffic. I think we’ve both kind of lost the plot here but my point was that cars aren’t a requirement to live. If they are in your city or area (outside of rural), then you should advocate for better transit and urban design.

          Also note that I never said cars should be outright banned or anything of that sort

          • credo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            My point is the point I made up in my first post, which was to argue against the idiotic point that everyone could just use motorbikes, to which you continued to argue with. Here, in case you forgot:

            People don’t even need car tbh. Motorbikes everywhere please. Zip zip, less traffic, everyone pays attention to road or falls and dies.