-
The problem with this argument is saying "we're currently operating under the legacy of our own history" is basically saying "we've always done it this way why should we change" when the need for radical change is clearly apparent.
As for demonising car owners and users: I'm not sure how much I care about that. They are adults who have and can make their own decisions. The fact is that really most car users know that their choice is selfish and unsustainable, but they don't care. Everyone else does it so why shouldn't they, and they don't feel they are paying a price for their convenience. I do sympathise with this, to a degree - I'm not a car hater, in fact I'm regularly tempted to buy one myself - but most won't even engage in thinking about it or debating it.
Fox-
The problem with this argument is saying "we're currently operating under the legacy of our own history" is basically saying "we've always done it this way why should we change"...
No it isn't. It isn't saying that at all. That is actually getting pretty close to the opposite of the argument that I've been making.
The argument that I have been making is that we need to start making some radical changes so that we can end this legacy that has caused the necessity of motor vehicles. I'm not sure how you conflated that as not doing anything at all but that really isn't what I've been saying at any time at all.
And it may well be that you aren't concerned about whether drivers feel demonised. However, that opinion of yours is basically irrelevant. It's been borne out time and time again that the most efficient and effective way to bring about social change is to engage people in the changes you want to make. You reckon most people won't even engage in thinking about it or debating it. I say you aren't trying to engage them in the right way. Ranting about how you don't care, that's definitely the wrong way.
The_Seldom_Killer
The point isn't that these things magically make cars sustainable and good. It's that at the moment we're currently operating under the legacy of our own history. Waving your arms and shouting the effects of cars on our society and environment doesn't in itself change that we have inherited the burden of cars not as a functional choice but as a functional necessity. Demonising cars is effectively demonising car owners and users. Be in light of that necessity, that isn't really a fair application of morality. That morality really does vary depending on where you live and what you do. It's a spectrum not a binary.
The effects of cars absolutely should guide how we make decisions about the design and implementation of infrastructure, both future and remedial. But until we address this legacy we've inherited, then blanket demonisation is frankly ridiculous.
As for rights and privilege, those isn't thing that will change. Until cars are proscribed, then the right of ownership remains as it does with any other physical object. Until the methods of licensing are changed, the system privilege to operate a car will continue as it does today.