The most cynical thing about this kind of manipulative political tactic is that it pretends that cars haven’t been powerfully prioritized since the 1960s, and still are today. Relatively minor attempts to bring things closer to balance and provide more choice are framed as “anti-motorist.” As anyone who actually understands how cities work knows, this approach will hurt everyone, including drivers.
@BrentToderian the only road to smoother journeys and easier parking is to give people the option to get out of the driver's seat. Or, economic decline and people leave, is the other way to ease congestion.
@enobacon@BrentToderian#Detroit chose the second option. Don't be like Detroit.
(There are many lovely things about Detroit, the infrastructure is not one of them)
@BrentToderian Wow, pretty tone deaf on Rishi's part. "Unfair enforcement"? Is that like actually enforcing driving laws that drivers don't like? It would have been more impressive if he said, "For many a car is a lifeline, that's a single point of failure we can't afford." If we make it so that cars are "nice to have" but not essential, EVERYONE benefits.
@ChuckMcManis@BrentToderian The real problem here is that it's not tone-deaf. Awful, dreadful, unrealistic, sure, but he's speaking to a specific audience — not you or me — which remains only too happy to have a vague sense of unease around ULEZ, petrol prices, traffic jams, and progressive policies validated by a cynical politician.
Add comment