Cars are pretty much luxury items depending on marketing to sell them. The most basic transportation for anyone that needs it is a van. But that's clearly nonsense because it's too tall and too wide for our roads.
What's leading you to think I'd be happy with that? Let's take it step by step and see if we can reduce your confusion.
It's what you think they are doing, based on some muddled ideas you seem to have. We can't pin down the flaws in your thinking unless you explain your reasoning clearly. We can tell that you haven't thought things through from your U-turn on your initial hasty claim.
I'm not making any claims about what they are doing or why. On the other hand, you are making an outlandish claim about the consequences of their actions, but dodging my request to explain the reasoning behind that claim. I wonder why that is? Readers can come to their own conclusions.
I'm surprised no-one has slashed my tyres yet, although they did get the shit punctured out of them while they were throwing up those flats in Hackbridge.
metro.co.uk
I would never slash that car's tyres. I'd just do a shit on the roof instead.
Where have you got the impression that "de facto restrictions on people's freedom of movement" are being imposed?
From the fact that people (and, yes, motorists are people) will effectively be prevented from making journeys - including route and mode of transport - that they were previously able to make. I understand the intention, but, as noble as the aim might be, the state imposing such measures seems like a the wrong way to go about it.
By that kind of logic we should never build any new roads, or railways or schools or hospitals, on land that is currently traversible on foot. And of course we should never implement any public transport that means drivers have to take a different route. We shouldn't convert any roadspace to cycle lanes. No pedestrianisation should ever take place. These would all be coercive measures imposed by the state that restrict people's freedom of movement.
What's being proposed sounds more significant than those measures. As I understand it, it's a pilot, so it'll be interesting to see what effect it has, and whether or not the people of Oxford want it to continue - at the moment it sounds like most aren't keen.
The state currently says where you can drive to, how you get there, where you park your car etc. Towns being built or mangled afterwards purely for motor traffic is a big part of the problem.
I thought you were talking about some hypothetical place but if you're talking about Oxford, do you really view it as a place without viable alternatives to private car travel?
"Motor traffic" is people going about their lives. They want to be able to do so, and, generally, that's been the public consensus hitherto, because, on balance, people feel it adds to the quality of their lives. It'll be interesting to see if that changes in Oxford as a result of this pilot.
No. I don't know if there are any; I've not looked. But, even if they're aren't, it doesn't mean there can't be.
I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives that suit some people. Others find e.g. public transport unpleasant and inconvenient, or bikes dangerous. I'd rather the alternatives were made better, such that people want to use them, rather than force them to do something they don't want to. That would be a win-win for everybody, no?
