Last month the New York Times’ Kashmir Hill published a major story on how GM collects driver behavior data then sells access (through LexisNexis) to insurance companies, which will then jack…
You get rid of cars and you stop designing society to accommodate the one edge case where someone lives 100miles away from a city that they have to commute by car to everyday for some reason.
People can’t afford to live in the city precisely because so much of it is designed to cater to cars. For example, adding parking requirements to an apartment can easily increase the effective square footage by 50% (800 ft2 2-bedroom apartment + 2 parking spaces = 1200 ft2). Then the price goes up even more than that because parking deck is more expensive per unit area to construct than actual living space.
Me, with no bus with a route from my bumfuck nowhere town to my work a 20 minute backwoods drive in some equally Fuckwoods, Nowhere town:
Ever maybe think that maybe… JUST MAYBE!!! some people don’t actually want to live in a 10000 person/mile area and want a different life with trees or fields around them instead of more endless asphalt?
For those people, vehicles are the bridge between wanting to live around nature and not starving to death.
If you’re commuting from Bumfuck to Fuckwoods, you should drive*. Nobody cares! There are so few people like you that it doesn’t fucking matter what you do!
The issue is that people like you need to quit pretending your snowflake exceptions are an excuse to fail to solve the problem for the vast (80%!) majority of people who live in metro areas and are therefore not like you.
(* Actually you should just move to Fuckwoods, but that’s not the point.)
You get rid of cars and you stop designing society to accommodate the one edge case where someone lives 100miles away from a city that they have to commute by car to everyday for some reason.
Thank you for your well educated and nuanced opinion that takes people who can’t afford to live in a city into account, very cool!
People can’t afford to live in the city precisely because so much of it is designed to cater to cars. For example, adding parking requirements to an apartment can easily increase the effective square footage by 50% (800 ft2 2-bedroom apartment + 2 parking spaces = 1200 ft2). Then the price goes up even more than that because parking deck is more expensive per unit area to construct than actual living space.
Me, with no bus with a route from my bumfuck nowhere town to my work a 20 minute backwoods drive in some equally Fuckwoods, Nowhere town:
Ever maybe think that maybe… JUST MAYBE!!! some people don’t actually want to live in a 10000 person/mile area and want a different life with trees or fields around them instead of more endless asphalt?
For those people, vehicles are the bridge between wanting to live around nature and not starving to death.
If you’re commuting from Bumfuck to Fuckwoods, you should drive*. Nobody cares! There are so few people like you that it doesn’t fucking matter what you do!
The issue is that people like you need to quit pretending your snowflake exceptions are an excuse to fail to solve the problem for the vast (80%!) majority of people who live in metro areas and are therefore not like you.
(* Actually you should just move to Fuckwoods, but that’s not the point.)
Literally the definition of an edge case, but consider this, if you never had a car you would have never been in that situation to begin with.
I live 100 miles away because I never want to deal with city slickers like you.
So you don’t need society designed to accommodate your presence in a city, then?
So why drive into the city?