Defending the use of cars should be treated here exactly the same as defending carnism.
I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining why people use cars. It's important to understand the "whys" of an issue in order to deal with it. People do not use cars because they are bad or evil or hate other commuters. They use the car because it is the most convenient mode of transportation. Going "DESTROY ALL CARS" does nothing to address the underlying issues that make people use cars. It's also a poor trick to turn the discussion from "don't do donuts on a dirtbike in a place where a bunch of people are living, you are annoying" to a discussion of "you have fundamentally misunderstood basic urban planning principles."
If you wish to discuss urban planning instead of common decency, educate yourself on urban planning. Good urban planning is not "You should be allowed to ride a dirtbike everywhere at all times, and any impedement to this is bad."
If you really really need that carlike range, which most people, even in amerikkka, don't, get a motorcycle.
People have a need to transport themselves. This need is not fulfilled by a motorcycle if you also need to do things such as: Transport children, transport groceries, transport furniture or other large items, travel without being subjected to the elements.
A motorcycle is a good mode of transportation for some, but not all. However a motorcycle has a lot of the same underlying issues that a car has. When people are against car-centric infrastructure, they are not arguing that the infrastructure should still exist, but just be for motorcycles, they are arguing against a society that structures itself around individual motorized vehicles as the common mode of transport.
: https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1800249657018458443
I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining why people use cars. It's important to understand the "whys" of an issue in order to deal with it. People do not use cars because they are bad or evil or hate other commuters. They use the car because it is the most convenient mode of transportation. Going "DESTROY ALL CARS" does nothing to address the underlying issues that make people use cars. It's also a poor trick to turn the discussion from "don't do donuts on a dirtbike in a place where a bunch of people are living, you are annoying" to a discussion of "you have fundamentally misunderstood basic urban planning principles."
If you wish to discuss urban planning instead of common decency, educate yourself on urban planning. Good urban planning is not "You should be allowed to ride a dirtbike everywhere at all times, and any impedement to this is bad."
People have a need to transport themselves. This need is not fulfilled by a motorcycle if you also need to do things such as: Transport children, transport groceries, transport furniture or other large items, travel without being subjected to the elements.
A motorcycle is a good mode of transportation for some, but not all. However a motorcycle has a lot of the same underlying issues that a car has. When people are against car-centric infrastructure, they are not arguing that the infrastructure should still exist, but just be for motorcycles, they are arguing against a society that structures itself around individual motorized vehicles as the common mode of transport.