Nah, I saw some kids stealing a bike in town the other week, and they did it in a few seconds maybe 3 or 4 metres from a security guard. Smart kids, they acted in the moment I walked between them and the guard with pit crew-like efficiency - two steadying the bars, one cutting and removing the lock, and the last getting on the bike - so by the time the security guard called out they were already riding and running away. You can steal a car fast, but not that fast, and not in the middle of a crowded city centre.
The cops definitely don't give the slightest shit, but it's not the only reason.
Nobody's proposing banning ambulances. You should be able to take the metro to the club. You should also be able to take it outside of the city and you can figure out the remainder of your journey from there. Reclaiming land from cars would also allow more space within cities for parks and such and decrease the need to get out of the city to escape dickheads leaning on their horns.
How would ambulances work in a car free city? They seem kind of bulky for a city built for bikes. Unless we're assuming those cities will still have huge roads to drive on?
Probably need two in case multiple emergency vehicles need to be on the scene. Imagine a bombing - you need ambulances, fire trucks, police, etc. That's easy with huge car-based infrastructure but a bike-city seems complicated.
Unless you just build huge roads everywhere despite the lack of cars, which would be sad.
what the other guy said and, to be honest, i really don't see us just destroying all of the infrastructure our predecessors built. itd be a waste not to convert, say, a city street to a light rail track or something or other.
What if the wheels fell off every single car in the world at the same time? I can come up with ridiculous hypotheticals too.
What about all the ambulances that no longer have to pick up to traffic collision victims? What about the ambulances being able to transport people faster due to the roads being clear of traffic? It's not just a ridiculous hypothetical, it's one that's much more likely to happen with cars around.
If you need to go to the hospital, you can call an ambulance that will be able to quickly and easily reach you due to there not being any car traffic. (The utterly ludicrous cost of US healthcare is its own separate problem)
Going to the countryside? Take a bus to the outskirts, or even out into the country itself, and cycle to a particular spot. Going to or from a club? Take the metro, take the bus, maybe even (depending no the strictness of 'no cars') a taxi, which you can afford on special occasions with the literally tens of thousands of dollars you'll have saved by not needing to buy, insure, repair and fuel a car.
You have to also understand that for a car-free society to even be on the table, a number of other social changes will have to have been made too. So just arguing that going without cars is impossible due to the limitations of the car-centric society that currently exists is just circular reasoning. There SHOULD be ways to do the things you've listed without using a car, and the reason there aren't is BECAUSE of cars.
What if an ambulance gets stuck in traffic? What if a road's blocked by an accident? Or because it's being repaired or relaid because of all the car traffic over it?
What if all the ambulances are occupied tending to one of the ~2,500,000 people injured in car accidents each year?
Skill issue
Skill issue
True, but a bike costs a fraction of a car, so it's also much less of an issue if it happens
Skill issue
I'm gonna say I disagree. The only reason a bike is easier to steal is because the cops give even less of a shit about it.
Nah, I saw some kids stealing a bike in town the other week, and they did it in a few seconds maybe 3 or 4 metres from a security guard. Smart kids, they acted in the moment I walked between them and the guard with pit crew-like efficiency - two steadying the bars, one cutting and removing the lock, and the last getting on the bike - so by the time the security guard called out they were already riding and running away. You can steal a car fast, but not that fast, and not in the middle of a crowded city centre.
The cops definitely don't give the slightest shit, but it's not the only reason.
Removed by mod
Nobody's proposing banning ambulances. You should be able to take the metro to the club. You should also be able to take it outside of the city and you can figure out the remainder of your journey from there. Reclaiming land from cars would also allow more space within cities for parks and such and decrease the need to get out of the city to escape dickheads leaning on their horns.
How would ambulances work in a car free city? They seem kind of bulky for a city built for bikes. Unless we're assuming those cities will still have huge roads to drive on?
The roads are huge because of multiple lanes in two directions with street parking on the side. An ambulance only needs one lane.
Probably need two in case multiple emergency vehicles need to be on the scene. Imagine a bombing - you need ambulances, fire trucks, police, etc. That's easy with huge car-based infrastructure but a bike-city seems complicated.
Unless you just build huge roads everywhere despite the lack of cars, which would be sad.
Fine, two. Two-lane, no parking roads are still only a third of the size of four-lane roads with parking on both sides.
Eliminating parking space for cars would be huge.
Might be able to cheat a little with the gravel shoulder, so it's "two lanes" but only if vehicles on the left and right dirve half-off the road.
what the other guy said and, to be honest, i really don't see us just destroying all of the infrastructure our predecessors built. itd be a waste not to convert, say, a city street to a light rail track or something or other.
ambulance
shut up, those aren't remotely urgent. Get on your bike.
Removed by mod
What if the wheels fell off every single car in the world at the same time? I can come up with ridiculous hypotheticals too.
What about all the ambulances that no longer have to pick up to traffic collision victims? What about the ambulances being able to transport people faster due to the roads being clear of traffic? It's not just a ridiculous hypothetical, it's one that's much more likely to happen with cars around.
What if pens got hot?
If you need to go to the hospital, you can call an ambulance that will be able to quickly and easily reach you due to there not being any car traffic. (The utterly ludicrous cost of US healthcare is its own separate problem)
Going to the countryside? Take a bus to the outskirts, or even out into the country itself, and cycle to a particular spot. Going to or from a club? Take the metro, take the bus, maybe even (depending no the strictness of 'no cars') a taxi, which you can afford on special occasions with the literally tens of thousands of dollars you'll have saved by not needing to buy, insure, repair and fuel a car.
You have to also understand that for a car-free society to even be on the table, a number of other social changes will have to have been made too. So just arguing that going without cars is impossible due to the limitations of the car-centric society that currently exists is just circular reasoning. There SHOULD be ways to do the things you've listed without using a car, and the reason there aren't is BECAUSE of cars.
Removed by mod
What if an ambulance gets stuck in traffic? What if a road's blocked by an accident? Or because it's being repaired or relaid because of all the car traffic over it?
What if all the ambulances are occupied tending to one of the ~2,500,000 people injured in car accidents each year?
What happens more often where you live -- ambulances reach capacity or somebody gets run over and dies?