>>1998526>Has to cheery-pick one of the least common uses for automobiles: Transportation of goods that would otherwise be impossibly to transport by carrying on foot, on a bicycle, cart, barrow, trailer etc.ITT: One forced argument after another, in between fallacies.
Per ejemplo:
>>1997018Historical argument. Somehow the past situation is an indicator for what is objectively better now ?
>>1997030Appeal to authority. Also bilding and maintaining the same infrastructure but banning private use of cars by (potentially) healthy and able bodied people and capping the pace of all cripple-mobiles to walking pace and outfitting those with all sorts of collision avoidance tech would not be 'anti-bike' in any way.
>>1997053Yeah sure. Sitting in the middle of the street. Sure
>>1997018 was actually all about his right to sitting in the middle of the street.
>>1997054Collectives. Wow. Is the collective now objectively relevant too ?
>>1997055Parks do not span from place A to place B and this guy knows it.
>>1997061Nothing is as infuriating as people (cagers I presume) using bicycles on a sidewalk. It is called sidewalk for a reason. This is literally on par with motorists, it kicking downwards. Also many streets do not even have sidewalks and a sidewalk is for the expressed purpose of following the road parallel, its useless for crossing, turning left etc.
>>1997072This has nothing to do with density. It's not even about 'space'. And anon here knows that. The issue is that the cager inclusion zones cut right through public spaces. Sure
>>1997018did simply ask for 'more space to walk and sit', right ? Because OP simply wants to walk far, aimlessly in a possibly big circle, right ? This is about getting to places safely, prefferably without detour and having to cover unnecessary distance.
>>1997087Its equally degenerate to use trains. But its probably obvious to anon here that the point made was that trains are alot more space- or traffic-efficient.
