- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- fuckcars@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- fuckcars@lemmy.ca
Not the first time this has happened either, here’s another similar case in Atlanta: https://abcnews.go.com/US/mother-boy-killed-hit-run-driver-probation-community/story?id=14158040
your intent is NOT clear.
restricted in your ability to travel is totally normal and not tyranny. Drivers licences are smart, Pilot license make sense, dang are speed limits tyranny?
15 minutes cities is just a concept that all or most of the typically important services citizens need to survive and thrive should be within a 15 minutes of where they live without REQUIRING a car. Modern car dependent culture is the tyranny if anything, and 15 minute cities idea is a response to that
Removed by mod
@nanook @aeischeid No one capable of basic logic thinks 15 minute cities have anything to do with restricting travel. Either you’re being disingenuous, or you’re sorely lacking in the logic you think you possess.
I have literally never seen the idea of a 15 minute city being restrictive anywhere other than the ravings of Alex Jones tier wingnuts. Everybody who actually pushes the concept just thinks you should have a grocery store, a doctor’s office, a library etc. near your house.
Edit: and don’t get it twisted, nobody is saying you should be forced to relocate either, it’s a guideline for urban planning.
Has anyone ever actually said, “I think we should have all services within a zone of 15-minute travel, and we should restrict people from leaving their zone, and this is called 15 Minute Cities and I support that idea”?
“Having services readily available” is the entire idea. “You’re not allowed to go to another area” is nonsense that someone else tacked on to the concept to make people hate it.
Removed by mod
I looked this up and found this information about it:
First, the article says it was separate. Nobody said, “We are blocking everybody’s access to this road because the goal of 15-Minute City is to restrict people and forbid them from leaving their zone.”
Second, it was just traffic-calming. They put up some planters blocking roads to vehicles to encourage access by bike, pedestrians, etc. That’s not restricting access, that is INCREASING access. By bikes.
They decided that a different, busier road was more appropriate for cars. How on earth does that equate to restricting access? So your car had to drive further, using a big busy road instead of a local quiet street - boo-hoo! This, to you, was a sign that the government wants to confine you to a 15 minute area and never let you leave?
Are the following measures, to you, a sign of nefarious “restricting access”?
All of those technically “restrict access” by your seeming definition. Well, at least by vehicle. Is it your assertion that private vehicles reign supreme, and if the government does anything to slow down, discourage, or increase the cost of vehicle travel, it means their future goal is to create walled mini-cities that folks can’t leave?
Edit: also, you say that people threatened to hang the city council to get them to renege - are you proud of this? Your “side” is threatening to murder people if they don’t govern the way they want, and that’s just “being vigilant”? To prevent planters from being placed on a street? What the hell?
Removed by mod
I don’t see it as a cage at all.
I know my comment was long, but you haven’t answered:
If you want to believe in a conspiracy, why not look at the ways in which the auto industry has suppressed other modes of transport, from inventing the term “jaywalking” to suppressing electric trams to building giant highways through poor neighbourhoods?
@sthetic Answer 1) Because I think the latter is their goal, and offering convenience is just a way to try to achieve it.
Thanks for answering.
“I don’t have any evidence, I just think so, and I’m old” is enough for me to understand your mentality.