Yes it is ideological: cars kill cities, kill communities and are bad for everyone involved. They are dangerous to drivers and non drivers alike and are deeply anti social. We need less cars everywhere period.

Putting cars in cities was also deeply ideological. It was about segregation and as a way to extract as much resources from people as possible. The imposition of cars was about turning people into consumers who only point was to purchase goods and services.

We didn’t choose cars- they were pushed on societies through a decades long propaganda campaign.

▲

nxm a day ago | parent | next [-]

No - we chose car as we were offered a way to not have to live in shoeboxes and having freedom to drive and explore not on anyone schedule.

	▲	rimbo789 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Look up the history of the interstate system - cars were very much imposed.

▲

nonethewiser 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>Yes it is ideological: cars kill cities, kill communities and are bad for everyone involved. They are dangerous to drivers and non drivers alike and are deeply anti social. We need less cars everywhere period.

You lost me at"We need less cars everywhere period." Not everywhere is a dense city.

▲

rimbo789 2 days ago | parent [-]

Why should rural areas be punished with having to use cars?

	▲	mitthrowaway2 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're getting down voted but it's actually a reasonable question. Car infrastructure is much more expensive than bicycle or walking infrastructure, and population densities in rural areas are lower and less able to pay for it, while meanwhile rights-of-way and land for things like bicycle paths are much cheaper to afford. Obviously rural areas still need roads for work vehicles like farming, logging, mining, and so on, but there's no reason personal transportation should be car dependent.