People are easily manipulated at scale ( No one is immune to Propaganda ). Fear marketing is more powerful to those who are anti-social, and car centric infrastructure perpetuates an anti-social society by sprawling people out and segregating them in transit through a car, and segregating them in their homes based on class.
Most people go for whats cheapest, and many trucks have been dropping in price, compared to their more regulated counterparts. Everyone in the US needs a car, whether they want one or not.
He definitely could’ve parked better, but the greater issue at hand is if driving was a requirement in the US but instead a luxury, The privilege of driving would be restricted to those who can pass a more rigorous driving test. But since in the US, public transportation has been designated as being for the poor and the desperate, their upkeep and social understanding of them has reflected this.
No one wants to ride the bus or take a train in the US because “Ah it’s dangerous, everyone gets stabbed, shot and bludgeoned there!!”. The reason for this is deceptively simple, if you designate something as only being for a class of people that is known to fall into violence as a result of their material conditions, then that thing as well as everything else that they use will reflect that negative connotation.
But similarly, should cars and trucks not have a similar reputation? As cars and trucks are in frequent accidents and so many complain about bad drivers. Road rage, and police chases. Why don’t cars have the same negative connotation as public transportation? Because you, me and most people who are not in the “poor and the desperate” category use them. If any negative issues come to light at all, the solution isn’t to avoid driving, the issue is to improve the driving experience, hence all these absurd massive tank trucks.
The “reason” I alluded to that was deceptively simple earlier, is not that if something becomes associated with bad events and behavior it will become undesirable. the deceptively simple reason is In-Group/Out-Group bias.
Because those with middle-class wealth all the way to the richest all use Cars, naturally this form of transportation sees the most improvement. But since public transportation is only used by the poor and the desperate, it sees neglect instead of improvement.
Sorry but your wall of text is immediately invalidated by the very wrong assertion that trucks are cheaper than other vehicles. They most certainly are not.
I will concede, my value on trucks was incorrect, but that does not invalidate an entire argument, especially since the entire argument did not depend on that detail.
Literally nothing in your meandering comment addressed the sentiment that motivated the one you were responding to. Id est, lots of people with large trucks do not need large trucks and could do just fine with a smaller truck or even a sedan.
People are easily manipulated at scale ( No one is immune to Propaganda ). Fear marketing is more powerful to those who are anti-social, and car centric infrastructure perpetuates an anti-social society by sprawling people out and segregating them in transit through a car, and segregating them in their homes based on class.
Most people go for whats cheapest, and many trucks have been dropping in price, compared to their more regulated counterparts. Everyone in the US needs a car, whether they want one or not.
He definitely could’ve parked better, but the greater issue at hand is if driving was a requirement in the US but instead a luxury, The privilege of driving would be restricted to those who can pass a more rigorous driving test. But since in the US, public transportation has been designated as being for the poor and the desperate, their upkeep and social understanding of them has reflected this.
No one wants to ride the bus or take a train in the US because “Ah it’s dangerous, everyone gets stabbed, shot and bludgeoned there!!”. The reason for this is deceptively simple, if you designate something as only being for a class of people that is known to fall into violence as a result of their material conditions, then that thing as well as everything else that they use will reflect that negative connotation.
But similarly, should cars and trucks not have a similar reputation? As cars and trucks are in frequent accidents and so many complain about bad drivers. Road rage, and police chases. Why don’t cars have the same negative connotation as public transportation? Because you, me and most people who are not in the “poor and the desperate” category use them. If any negative issues come to light at all, the solution isn’t to avoid driving, the issue is to improve the driving experience, hence all these absurd massive tank trucks.
The “reason” I alluded to that was deceptively simple earlier, is not that if something becomes associated with bad events and behavior it will become undesirable. the deceptively simple reason is In-Group/Out-Group bias.
Because those with middle-class wealth all the way to the richest all use Cars, naturally this form of transportation sees the most improvement. But since public transportation is only used by the poor and the desperate, it sees neglect instead of improvement.
Sorry but your wall of text is immediately invalidated by the very wrong assertion that trucks are cheaper than other vehicles. They most certainly are not.
I will concede, my value on trucks was incorrect, but that does not invalidate an entire argument, especially since the entire argument did not depend on that detail.
Literally nothing in your meandering comment addressed the sentiment that motivated the one you were responding to. Id est, lots of people with large trucks do not need large trucks and could do just fine with a smaller truck or even a sedan.
Whether a truck or a small truck or a sedan. A poor park job is done by a poor driver. And Poor driver doesn’t need to have a license.
But in a world where automobiles are your only means of transportation, the need to make Driver’s Licenses easy access increases.