Yay i'm first here for once

"youre just a socialist idiot" seems to fit way more

so glad I just found this channel

HAHA YOU DELETED YOUR OLD COMMENT

straw-man argument

funne moments

memtally derange ye

@@Oppen1945 car bad foot good unironically

@@Oppen1945 ur sooooo unironically ironically ironical unironically 🙄

Wait, you think that car good, foot bad? Welcome to Amerika!

We spend tremendous resources on highways and wonder why we have no flying cars

One thing is for surten cars will not be band for 3 to 4 years in the usa (as of 2021)

Considering how many people die trying to navigate two dimensions in a regular car, it's a good thing we don't have flying cars with an extra dimension.

That's good, actually

GOOD!

that’s why bike lanes need to be better. if people cycled more instead of driving the government will be forced to make biking lanes better.

As a European the fact that is not the standard seems crazy to me, like who thought it would be a good idea to seperate all these things? Oh, wait the car industry did. (And the people building highways, too.)

It's because countries in Europe are pathetically small.

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Because the US is a big country you can't have working cities... I see.

Auto industry are the ones who benefit, and want to keep urban sprawl happening. R1 (single family homes) zoning is the the reason you can't live and work in the same place. Most cities in the US have like 70+% R1 zones. Nothing commercial can be built. Not even a coffee shop.

@@Miguel-yx9zg Capitalism thinks differently.

Well, it kinda is. Im dutch amd i really do not need a car

I'm Dutch and I always cycle everywhere I go, even if I have to cycle one hour to go to school and another to go back. It's good to exercise and it's completely free, aside from the bicycle of course.

@@TBMVD hell yeah 👍 here in Indonesia, roads are most highly dangerous and the public transportations are all suck. We both living dangerously by driving or even just walk along the pedestrian 😅 bike? Don't even think about it

Just as patriotic as using the trains hell yeah

But you know it's true :D

Nice

...Wherever and whenever your wishes are scheduled by the transport services... I mean... there are places where you could only go twice a week taking the bus at 9:00 and paying what they tell you to pay.

@@antonioalonso2986 that's not quite the case for me, my city is almost entirely covered buy bus stops to the point that it's hard to be farther than 200m from a bus stop.

@@Iknowthismeme that's it: it is not your case... but I think it's an error to legislate from particular's point of view without considering the necessities of the rest of the society. Now our authorities consider car owners are evil citizens that use cars to have fun carelessly to polute and damage everybody... and happily pays what goverments want them to. But... be careful what you wish because it may turn real... I mean taxes leived to cars have a good thing that is they are only payed by those who use cars... but... if no cars... our governments wont reduce their budgets for sure so they'll increase any other to compensate, so people will end up paying more for "living" in places. Another thing I'll like to add is that it's very easy to record damage and polution (I wont discuss this, as it's true they damage and polute)... but it's very difficult to record the beneffits they contribute to society, or at least few people care for those stats, but I'm sure the do more good things than allow personal movement freedom. Regards

@@antonioalonso2986ofc cars will always be needed for people who live in really low populated areas, but here in my country we have these park&ride places where there are massive parking garages with a dedicated tram,bus and sometimes even train stops. It’s for people who want to go to another city so that they can still drive if they need to but once you enter the suburbs of that city you’ll have a easy transfer to multiple tram/bus lines most that come every 5-10 minutes

Exactly The needs of the countryside man are different to those of the city. transportation, living, even personal security, are primarily reliant to the individual rather than the public, as everything is very far from us. Transitioning to public transportation in the city centers and adjacent areas? Yeah, totally doable, even like it is now. Transitioning to public transportation in the countryside? Not happening

It’s insane I ain’t using public transport in my own city when I can just drive my own car what’s happening to this world

@@riograndedosulball248 Roads are heavily subsidised, as well as all the other facilities that need to be extended to reach low-density areas. If people who lived rural actually paid for these costs most of them would move and you'd probably only have farmers left

@@m.f.3347 if people had to pay for roads everyone would live in a village lol.

Even banning in cities can be a problem. Restrictions seems like a better idea

Wish he would specify. At least in the point of the video I'm in he has not mentioned rural areas.

the thing is, train.

Europeans clearly do not know what it is like to live in an American or Canadian city if they think this is a valid criticism. Less than 15% of people in a N.A. city can get rid of their car and rely on public transit, and most of those who can are rich people who live downtown and are always going to own a car anyway "just in case". For the other 85%, the only way transit makes sense is if they can afford to spend 2-3x longer commuting than the 0.5-1.5 hours they already spend, and if they'd actually save enough on parking and gas to use transit for their daily to-and-from-work commute.

Yeah cause the cities are built FOR cars. Fix your city fix your dependency.

@@theredscourge you are assuming that there wont be any improvement in infrastructure lmao.

@@kullingen6909 Wtf is that grammar lmfao you were wrong in like four different ways Just say they, it's easier

or just say she as men dont give a f about ya fkn pc shti@@Spin793

@@kullingen6909 bot

​@@pucknhusker9426Are you insulting me? 🤖🤖🤖

so you’re fare evading?

Then tell Not Just Bikes that, cause he uses the Dutch's love of Cycling as a way to show how stupid North America is, which is not a good way to get a point across

@@coastaku1954 You can do that yourself. There is nothing wrong with your ability to witte apparently. You even might get a reply.😉 By the way: it's not the love of cycling, it is the love of efficiency and the love for having choices in the means of transport that defines Dutch urban planning. Finally: the Dutch also love being direct. Maybe the maker of not just bikes is becoming more Dutch? It happens to more American expats apparently. He is probably tired of all the lame excuses made by Americans. When it comes down to urban planning: at university the American school of urban planning was much revered 20ieth century. In today's curriculum it's more of an example how not to design cities. It's views are becoming more and more obsolete. In short: making mistakes in urban planning is not stupid. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time is...🙂

@@coastaku1954 And to be clear: totally banning cars like in this video is also very unwise. Even NJB is not advocating that.

@@user-vw4ui5gz6bNJB still pisses me off cause he's always so insulting to the way I was raised which is just awful and out of touch

@@coastaku1954 what exactly makes it insulting for you? He's not telling you not to love your country or nation imho. As far as I remember I don't think he even calls Americans stupid. He calls the car centered view stupid I believe. But I really hope your identity consists of more than just cars. Just like the Dutch identity is more than bikes (and windmills, clogs and tulips).

yea lets forget about police and fire department services

@@Perambulous for them too, of course

Empty ambulance routes are a thing in Europe :)

I've watched people get outta the way for an ambulance and somebody goes "ohh!! Y'all moved just for ME???? Awww thank you " and pull in front of the ambulance and not go a fast speed. Also yesssss first responder routes!!!

@@HorpheuNurbem uhh, where in europe? my country sure doesn't have them

Aaand... We have a problem on Horses waste in Urban areas. But not a problem in Rural areas.

@@rykmak2432 aye man if you invest in sth might as well be prepared for inconvenience that comes along with it

69 likes 🤑🤑

They have too high maintanence, someone has to clean the shit of the road and they are harder to controll

@@YellowEvoV110 but have you considered: they can be petted. Now you cant do that with a car can you?

Indeed if they banned cars Im going to stop living in this world

No. Cars need to completely banned, except emergency vehicles.

@@durece100AND logistics, I can see how they are delivering my brand new wardrobe with tram. I actually love trams and other public transport and use it in Poland all the time, they are amazing and like only 20 bucks per month to travel as much as I want here in Krakow

@@durece100 Lol, you car haters are funny. Completely laughable hahaha.

Car’s should definitely have way less dependence, but it would have to be done precisely considering many rely on cars to reach far away jobs, and need cars during the winter

haha yeah

or the channel owner is a 15 year old and put his father to talk 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Cities for sure, but ownership should be voluntary. Banning cars or enforcing arbitrary limits on things is not very liberal in the slightest. Say no to eco-fascism.

@@S.ASmith More people will be saved from sickness and deaths if we make stricter mandates. That is not fascism that is welcomed regulation.

@@gurumage9555 said hitler while banning warming up the water with the crab inside.

@@S.ASmith your package is arriving soon, courtesy of uncle Ted

@@gurumage9555 "Less people will be saved"??? I don't know if you're in favour of regs or not hahaha... Anyway.. Regulations are already strict enough. Regulation stifles innovation to the point you get no improvement. There are very efficient engine designs that likely won't see the light of day and Porche's SynFuel and Konningsegg's Freevalve tech that won't see widespread use because of such things. EVs are a scam. Only good for buses and taxis in cities. Good quality fuel with LPG/CNG and Hydrogen internal combustion as other options (especially for road haulage and plant machinery) is the _correct_ way forward. But no no, it makes too much sense for politicians to do such things. Improving city transport links would take cars off the road voluntarily, reduce car idle times (decreasing wear) and mean you can reduce road volume and size over time in a gradual and slow change. Bringing down the ban hammer on something because Gretta said "HOW DARE YOU" and Elon offers you some weed is asinine and crippling.

Not like it's possible to kill such a large industry without a huge backlash.

As a car enthusiast this comment relieved my madness

People keep thinking that people driving are idiots. As a father of 2 whenever i need to haul the small bastards around the main issue with NOT using a car is the sheer inconvenience of it all. Whenever I am on my own or just travelling with my daughter it is easy to take the bus, but if we need to have the stroller for the baby and my wife is also coming it suddenly makes more sense to just pack everyone in the car and get moving. When public transport options are actually good the car doesnt move. For instance I used to work in a different city where I had to drive there on a Monday, and between then and Friday when i would drive back to my home town the car would just stay parked and I would be on a subway. People really dont LIKE paying for cars but there are good reasons for why they do and it has more to do with how the cities themselves are being run than the individual himself.

@@axelfiraxaplenty of bicycle trailers on the market are capable of carrying kids that cost substantially less than a used car AND aren't significantly less convenient for short trips. Once the kids are old enough for their own bicycles it is already pretty common for children in the US to have bicycles. I don't find helmets less convenient than seatbelts, and using properly designed bicycle infrastructure is significantly safer than driving.

@@robbieaulia6462 Sure, there will be some backlash. Tell these people to shove their complaints up their asses until the projects are completed.

You can move out

I hope that public transport has air conditioning and that the co2 emissions (contributed by cars) don't become a major problem after we ban cars.

​@@Tony-theGreat the entire population of the middle east where it's hot just can't "move out." move where?

In 2020 322 people died on public transport in the US, compared to 42,795 people who died from car crashes. Enough said

same in Athens you can easily get your phone or wallet stolen in the metro or the buses

@@krokuke but how many robberies and pickpockets inside trains and buses ???

@@Steve1766 In Tokyo 12% of people commute by car and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And you're putting things of material value over human life.

@@krokuke adjust that for the ratio of people taking public transport and the people who use cars regularly

Yeah but are you breathing in those emissions while you're riding?

@@CaptainAlliance you assume someone is in a car 24/7.

@@aidanlutz8106 and you disregard the fact that public transportation is a vector for disease.

@@CaptainAlliance no, I’m pointing out irony.

Lol what? Being in a car on a street won't harm you, but when you're susceptible to disease standing next to an infected person can kill you.

fuck freedom, shit has too many downsides lmao- banning cars, guns and forcefully taking *fully tested* vacines might take away your sum of your freedom but it would save millions of lives... but that would be too hard for you would'nt it :((( your fReEdoM is more important than millions of lives innit. also i get your point with the zones btw- i was'nt rlly talkin specifically too you just ventin to all the twats out there lol

The American way of freedom is overrated. We humans are animals and need a proper set of rules to act responsibly.

@@monkeyman321 100%, as long as your humanity is'nt takin away, you can be a indevidual, you can choose from many careers and everyone is treated equally. its all about balance

Banning isn’t extreme when cars cause to much damage to human life and the climate. What’s extreme is not helping humanity prosper and not addressing climate change. Cars can’t be banned everywhere due to how terrible US infrastructure is but I believe it’s needs to start being banned the urban centers of the largest cities in the US and build from their public transportation and over time more areas will ban cares and become pedestrian/bike friendly, which gives more space, better quality air, and help many small businesses.

Or like Japan virtually not zone at all.

Uhh, he is banning cars, meaning you wont be able to use a car aswell. Dont get me wrong, I agree with him on banning cars, but your reason for agreeing with him has flaws

@@user-iz5pd7tj6q no no, hes got a point

No. Cars are retarded. We need to kill them all.

But it is less dramatic

obviously "get rid of all cars" would not include every mobile vehilcle. we still need buses and trucks. also banning cars wound never work in rural areas. the best approach is to begin transitioning from a suburban-dominated society to urban-dominated society. rural areas will still need to exist. trucks will still need to transport goods.

yes, but click bait

Yeah, cars are great for recreation but there's too many of them driven by people who don't care about that. Cars should be relegated to being owned by responsible car guys and driven on race tracks during weekends.

And that you have to travel with others, and you can't leave when you want. It's extremely impractical

With a cargo e-bike you can carry as much as you could in your car. You can travel on your own and leave whenever you want with a simple bike or with a high frequency transport network. Plus do you really need those things on an everyday basis ? Cars can do the most, but most of the time it's like destroying a sand castle with a bulldozer.

@@Mrrraaou Yeah, a smaller vehicle makes more sense if you don't need a car on a daily basis - and I don't. Renting a car on the occasion I need it would be an option if I had a license.

@@taxtengo7427 in the ideal future, we would live in a car free city with some rentable cars, which can drive by themself.

Car sharing is the solution. Renting a car the rare cases you actually need it

hot air balloon

then if you ban cars public transport imrpoves automatically as a huge amount of budget is freed

@@TechConnectDaily i dont think it costs that much to keep up car infrastructure in cities. Also it wouldnt happen instantly and there would be a period of months to years of neither good public transport nor car infrastructure. I just think improving public transport first is better

That is true, you need to slowly transition from cars to public transit so there isnt any public outcry, and to the "it doesnt cost mutch to maintain car infrastructure in cities," its true, but people driving around makes the air very smoggy, makes cities noisy and dangerous, and drives people away which indirectly adds to its cost. good stuff tho :)@@choty7066

They don't

Of course yes, with almost infinite capacity and higher speed, but only if transport demand is higher than 500 peoples per hour, ideally more than 10 000/hour (like most subways) , totally breaking down with less than 100 peoples per hour… That’s how public transport works More passengers = cheaper tickets= even more passengers= more money = more faster trains = even more passengers…

@@sadqqwwqeq4175 the Netherlands is a very small and densely packed country. The us on the other hand is large and sprawled out. It would cost obscene amounts of money and take decades to build rail lines to replace cars

then you never went by german train. or public transport in general.

@@k00lkidz4 We have so many abandoned railroads that we haven't used since the gilded age. America built a transcontinental railroad within a 6 year frame. The problem is the railroads have been confiscated by the government. I'm sure there would be a lot of companies that'd love to gain access to those railroads and start fresh and a lot of jobs would come from it. There is 0 excuse for not having railroads.

I agree. I like driving too but you know what completely depletes the experience? Traffic. This solves the traffic problem. And let’s everyone get to where they need to faster, even if cars are rerouted and need to drive more/further. It does benefit everyone it loads of ways.

Having a car myself( Lexus is200), and being a car guy I rarely use the car to go anywhere, in my region public transport is 20€/Month for everyone under 26 and is 6€ a month for everyone over 65 and I can go anywhere by train ,metro, bus and tram. Everyday when I go to college instead of spending 45 min in my car having to pay attention to the road, i spend 45 minutes in a bus where I can sleep,or see the phone. I use my car to chill at night where I can't sleep l, take my friends to dinner or cinema and go to some car meets and I enjoy the car a lot.

I'm not saying you're wrong those would be great things, but I think you're naive if you don't at least consider those eco-facist cunts won't try to ban or tax cars away.

@@kersacoft If your logic is: We should not do something we agree would be beneficial to almost everybody, including ourselves, because it will then be more likely that the law will go to far, then we should be talking about political reforms or leaving to go abroad. Because such a fear is nuts. If something must be done, it is done. I don't see how Eco-fascists will take over, at least in my country. Which for all it's problems, is at least good at preventing any one political group of pushing laws without consent of most of the population. Btw, a tax on cars should almost by definition exist. I don't think there is one microeconomics book that doesn't use cars as an example of negative externality that should be internalised. These taxes already exist, so maybe tax on cars may increase of a small degree, a complete ban however is absurd. Cars will still be necessary, at least for the foreseeable future, to travel to any rural area, and still to perform many jobs within and outside the cities. I doubt delivery guys will ever use public transport. They will continue to speed in Vespas around the cities.

@@leonardodavid2842 I'm not saying our hobby should be above the common good of mankind, just that I doubt once most people won't need cars anymore that they'll let us exist in peace, many people don't support freedom they don't use. Eco-fascist was just an insult.

Emotional argument goes crazy

Why are you staring directly at people on the bus? Fair play if you just don't like using the bus, I don't either, but you're the weird dude on the bus staring people down here.

@@kev2034 What an annoying reply. You didn't ask if I currently ride the bus. I haven't been on the bus since 2016.

@@aboxoftentacles1395 In 2016 you were the weird dude staring at people on the bus then, better?

But not in the town square

Banning cars in any place where free people live. NOOO!

How am I supposed to hook up in my backseat like we’re in a cheesy 90s movie if I’m taking a public bus???

@@Sohavemore like YEES!!!

​@PanzerkampfwagenVITigerIAusfE I prefer to have the freedom of choice and not artificially manipulate and dostory markets

@@tommykirk3403 "forcing"

As a rural dude,I agree

As a Rural, we already use Cars less than people on cities, so, is just kinda fair.

This is a big problem, all the politicians who speak about "no cars in 2050" and so on totally forget about all the people living on the countryside. Like how am I supposed to be able to get food and other necessities when the closest store is many miles away, and if there even are busses the closest stop is very far away and the busses are very infrequent, like 1 in the morning and 1 in the evening. Cars are still needed, there is no way they'll be able to build railroads or bus lines to satisfy the needs of people in very rural areas in the coming decades

They have horses lol

now i just imagine you in a shiny new bus driving through a crumbling city like: "this is fine"

@@Helperbot-2000 lol, but the bus isn't shiny or new either, just cheap.

@@rustkitty oof

I think most cities have a monthly or weekly pass option

The point of the example was a worse case scenario for the bus and what people in car centric places would use for a reason against banning cars

in villages will never work

and that's exactly why he's careful to make his claims about cities, not rural areas. The only remark he makes on rural areas is that highways arent that great. He makes no statement that people in rural areas shouldnt drive.

true

u haul or moving companies worst case scnario u can rent one

this is about essential services.

Nice to see you here! Love your videos about the Netherlands. I've recently started a study regarding mobility :D

@@letheas6175 Nederland laat zien dat er alternatieven voor auto's bestaan zonder de auto's totaal uit te bannen.

shut up i love v12 cars and i dont care

Nice to see you here!

madhavi v lmao then you’re a loser

@@Kirill-er9gv It's the exact opposite, the whole point of car free cities is to save time.

@@Kirill-er9gv It's TEXAS bro, don't ask a logistics and transportation expert for what a cowboy will know- horses are better than cars.

@@Kirill-er9gv Trains. Also you haven't watched the video fully, you'd understand the general consensus for rural areas if you did.

Not to mention how much of an eyesore cars are

@@Kirill-er9gv Have you ever heard of regional Trains?

trains, subways

ye ok, train to Llanddewi Brefi please!@@milenatomanic951

Its called walking biking and transit

I live on the boarder of the Brecons and regularly cycle to Llanelli and Swansea, do need a car for a short 40 mile round trip. @@SocieteRoyale

the problem here is that public transit currently sucks in the us not that its flawed in itself

However, I don't know if banning them altogether is a good move

​@@darthgroot9130 In cities, probably. In rural areas it's a different story

"DUDE SUBURBS ARE HELL BRO I HATE COOKIE CUTTER HOUSES BRO" go live in a commie block then

r we living the same life?

This is probably the sole reason why I was so socially dysfunctional as a kid and even now as an adult, and also why I've been dealing with so many health issues growing up as well. I grew up in suburbs and not having anything fun within reasonable walking distance kinda forces you to stay inside all day, so as a result I've been largely sedentary my whole life which I'm pretty certain is why I'm pretty messed up physically now too.

@@claykh not true, most children in suburbs will make friends in said suburbs and will play with them on the streets

@@weirdwalrus5757 they would probably be safer and have more fun if their street was a pedestrian only street that actually looked nice and not like a dystopian hellhole

yeah, cars in inner cities shouldn't really be a thing, but in rural and suburban areas is where they belong in my opinion

Car ownership in rural areas (assuming EVs only) is fine as long as car owners are actually willing to pay their fair share. The problem is making car owners pay the real cost of all the infrastructure they require would make it so that many people would not be able to afford cars anymore as we excessively subsidize road infrastructure. I think in the future cars should be banned within city limits, be extremely limited in suburban areas, and allowed in rural areas, BUT car owners will have to pay large ownership taxes & property taxes on those who live rural would be raised to cover their infrastructure costs. If car ownership really does come down to "I want to own one because I like it more even if I have other options" then it shouldn't be the government's job to fund that hobby.

@@benw3864 to be fair cyclists don’t need to pay road tax or insurance, If anything car drivers are subsidizing them

@@oscardighton8580 True, but cyclists could also use a vastly cheaper (to build) bike road and they don't wear down the roads. The difference in insurance makes sense since cyclists don't have the same propensity to kill people, nor are there so many other externalities for them to cover.

@@oscardighton8580 You should look up the stats to maintain cycling paths - Wearing of asphalt is not linear with weight and the cost of servicing cycle infrastructure barely even comes close to the billions and billions spent on maintaining the highway systems. So no cars don't subsidize cycling infrastructure( Also you need to remember it isn't "cars" subsidizing anything, it's the government that chooses where funding goes and that money comes from taxpayers' pockets).

You could enjoy your hobby better without so many cars on the road, which is what less car dependent infrastructure would provide. The whole "ban 100% of cars" thing is an exaggeration and not actually pushed by anyone lol

F*ck your hobby

⁠@@aloedg3191A reasonable reply! Too bad that your PF is a cartoony villain, and yes HAVING to drive cars alongside normies kinda ruins the hobby for many folks.

@@MAL1GNANTMust be nice not having hobbies, but it’s very easy to do when you live in your mother’s basement. At least it’s easier to “relax” with the ladies without you.

@@MAL1GNANTbro, You’ve been commenting under several of these comments dismissing people legitimate questions and concerns. Get out of your mom’s basement, and feel the vitamin D burn your skin. If you want to convince people to your argument, Use data.

Or maybe better city design

It's such an ironic situation that public transport is so _inconvenient_ where I live that I never consider it an option. Taking the bike and car are thus my preferred options. And said public transport won't change until a forceful decision is made to change this status quo.

And when there's only public transport and the fares go beyond inflation no one will be able to travel and we'll all be back in the Dark ages. Enjoy that people.

@@Bonzman seems good to me

@@Bonzman I've been told that's "the free market doing it's job". Working as intended, right?

Switch to a scooter at least. (Where I live public transit is good so I have no excuse to do that and I love scooters).

Great you’ll have to pay . You think the globalist want you there nope you’ll be moving to a box in the sky and you’ll fucking love it 😂😂😂

Me too! Where I live they removed the train when cars started to get popular… however they did convert the entire line into a bicycle path so that’s a positive!

I’m not a big fan of commuting by public transportation 40 miles a day. Especially with the crimes, drugs and tripped out crazy homeless peeing and vomiting all over said public transportation.

@@americancapitalist9094Looks like you have a homeless problem. No shelters, no support programs, no food and housing. Also looks like you have extreme poverty problem. And a drug problem. And a mental health epidemic. Wait. Let me guess, USA?

24 and still has no license it's the same if an 24 year old wears diapers or not know to walk

Where I live, there used to be trolleys as well. I have a few books about the history of my area somewhere, with pictures in em, and there are photographs of the trolleys back when they were in use. Frankly the roads looked a _lot_ nicer than they do today. The trolleys looked so convenient. They dismantled the trolleys around I wanna say the 1920's. Ofc back in those days there was hardly any traffic around, each town had a population of maybe 1000 people max, so it was viewed as an upgrade. These days the area I live in even though it's somewhat rural, it has like 5 colleges closeby, so now each town has a population above 10,000, and now the roads are getting so congested all the goddamn time. Topped with the fact there is always fucking construction somewhere. Just being a _passenger_ in a car gives me mad anxiety. I'm seriously considering moving.

@@Jiji-the-cat5425 My city is now rapidly approaching 100,000 people. We also have a sister city just across the river that is home to one of the best universities in the country, so the population of the greater urban area is almost 200,000, and it feels like it. Traffic is horrible in some inconvenient places. Traffic on the university side of the river is much worse, though. A trolley system would come in mighty handy these days...

most american non tire using public transport was bought and closed by tire manufacturers.

People still just blame other people for the car use and forget about the bad city planning that made cars mandatory for a lot of people

where you live mate?

Where do you live?

@@amac2612 Tha's an OSINT challenge for you two (I left this comment two days ago, seems like it got removed)

@@turtleb01 Madrid?

@@mba849 No

Train

@@GuyWithInternet. Tell me you know nothing about logistics without telling me you know nothing about logistics.

Do you think trucks don’t need any logistics at all? Highways? Do you think it’s as simple as truck drive to store get stuff buy stuff bomm?

@@GuyWithInternet. No, but it is still much simpler than having to transfer the cargo from trucks to train cars and then to trucks again, rather than just drive the truck. Majority of warehouses are not accessible by train and never will be.

@@snookiewozo 40% of long distance cargo transportation in the US is already done by trains buddy, despite them being underfunded as shit

Dubai would collapse in under 30 seconds with this law being applied lmao

@@Maxzes_ Dubai is a fucking joke of a city. Sheikh Zayyed Road is the dumbest shit I have ever seen, a 10 lane highway down the middle of the city??? And all that black asphalt actually raises the local temperature. That shit needs to just flat out gotten rid of and replaced with a competent transport system. Obviously Dubai couldn't ban cars tomorrow, first they need to build the infrastructure to support it. But they're fucking loaded so I don't see why they can't

@@m.f.3347 > why they can't Rich people like driving their sports cars down massive 10 lane highways

@@Maxzes_ Good.

THAT I agree with - if it becomes an option NOT a necessity. Car AND public transport. Better choices - not just more prohibitions.

Herude på landet landet er det ret lækkert ikke at skulle GÅ 9 kilometers få at komme i Rema... For så at gå 9 kilometer hjem igen med tunge poser fyldt med mad.

@@missa2855 Idk jeg cyklede 8km til og fra skole igennem de første 2 år af gymnasium det var en meget frisk cykeltur at starte dagen med, men ja hvis man skal tage det store indkøb med hjem så kan det blive noget af en tur.

Denmark is totally flat and tiny, so it’s well suited for cycling and building trains. Norway is the opposite, so I guess it really depends.

​@@TheSteinbittmost people still live in cities, so it doesn't matter. Cars still have utility for people living in the countryside and we will never ban all cars.

@@RedbadofFrisia If a city is built on the side of a hill or feature hilly terrain, almost nobody rides bikes unless it’s electric.

public services dont need to make a profit. Thats why your case is not anything special, its just rare

​@@saptaksarkar30468 Yea, just a fun fact 🤣

People really dont value the use of a car but as someone who lives in new york and has no car i can tell you its a horrible thing imagine going shopping and having to take a train or a bus carrying a big or pricey purchase also add the fact you have to take it home from the bus or train stop which is like 4 blocks away carrying a big tv. Thankfully we got cabs but the problem with that is paying 12 to 24 bucks to go shopping which is the usual if the cab driver isnt trying to rip you off from my place to the shopping mall or supermarket. Simply cars are a huge benefit so dont wish for that cause youll regret it. Edit Also add the times you cant get a cab or they aren't available to pick you up and your basically stranded cause you have too much of a load and walking and public transportation is out of the question.

@@stargamer7576 So a car for large items, public transport or a bicycle for everything else. Here in the Netherlands, a lot of people carry their groceries by bicycle, me included. 2 trips a week on the way home from work to pick up my groceries. It only takes half an hour longer than normal to get home and I don't have to waste my time going out specifically for groceries. And that is with me taking a longer way home to pick up my groceries instead of learning the layout of a much closer supermarket. If you have a family, add in a weekly or bi weekly trip by car if needed. Oh, and then there is of course the option of having large items delivered to your home. You know, the thing that a lot of people already do.

@@stargamer7576 I just pick up some things coming home after work, this way it is so spread out I never have to carry a lot of things. During rona I had to switch it up a bit and bought a bike trailer and went shopping that way. With my bike I can easily transport 20kg+ even uphill.

@@PhilfreezeCH still buying a car but good for you also i am not a fan of 2 wheel vehicles I've had very bad experience with them i rather have 4 wheels also i can pick up more things and carry my tools in a car and not worrying about other stuff. But just understand that having only bikes is just not gonna happen in our world cause it's really not a convenience specially when you bring others in a car i cant fit multiple people in a bike that's not the case and traveling with a car you can actually leave the city and go explore the us you can literally drive to Canada yes you could take public transport but how you'll go to a place that doesn't have that simply cars are necessary and unless your alternative checks all people's issues and demands it's just not going to happened i could take a plane or a tranin but do you think I want to deal with the TSA, IDs and rude customer service i rather drive and have a nice road trip. Also not to mention the cost which as I said it ain't going to happen cause of corruption.

@@rendomstranger8698 simply I'm done arguing cause I got to the point I don't care I prefer cars cause of the benefits of going where I have to go, the space in it, the safety in driving in a big vehicle and yes I'm aware accidents happen but so can bikes heck your literally the structure of the bike a car at least can take some of the shock unless your speeding, also don't forget the comfort and final why should I be limited to my area i cant freely take the train to a place that has no train and no I'm not biking to that place specially in hot weather. This world is huge. But lastly i just don't like people telling me how to live my life if i prefer a car why should I change that for someone else.

Given you crashed your car, I think being put off driving is a good thing for you....and everyone else's insurance premiums.

Crashing a car can happen to anyone shut the fuck up

But you cant drift a scooter

@@ballsacksniffer420 not with that altitude

@@sipe254 It can, if said person doesn't pay attention. If a crash isn't your fault that's one thing, but if it is your fault then you're a moron.

realmente es hermoso :DD

The big divrence is that people in Tokyo are quiet and well behaved on public transport where in the New York subway some random homeless guy throws his shit around and people blast music

Agreed, I think America is very young and arrogant now, because it has never really seen suffering like other older civilizations have. It is a wisdom born of necessity and experience, both of which seem to be missing in America today.

My city in america is suppost to get a thing from 1 city to another cant remember what its called

We don't really have 30-100 years 😔

@@LennartBiesel The thing is that if you actually invest and care for public transport, it will become attractive to well "normal people". But if public transport in your city is terrible and inconvenient, then the entire middle class will skip it, thus leading to the target audience becoming societys worst which fill the trains and busses (and as a result even more people will avoid them)

True

Countrysides still need cars, but at least the usage of car is far less than that in cities so there won't be traffic jams in the countrysides. So, I think you have a good point!

That's what trains and buses are for.

Yeah, train and bus line trying to connect every rural and suburban area would be a mess.

As long as it is between two cities (even minor ones) it should be possible to have a Railway go trough villages

they already exist taut they are expensive and no one used them. cars are way better because you can stop at any moment without having to wait for stops.

@@covfefe1787 That ain't really a plus though nor is it particularly true. If you were going long distance why would you want to stop really? Only reason you may in a car because driving a car long distance sucks, it is boring and tiring. They are only expensive because we already poured massive amounts of money on car road networks which attracts more cars. This creates less demand so to make money it has to be more expensive. Cars are not in demand because they are better in any way but rather we just have the roads already. Needing to stop in Chicago on your way to Milwaukee to pick up more passengers isn't a con, you still in the green of time saved. Even if it took the same amount of time or even more time because of stops that still isn't a problem. On a train or even a bus to a lesser extent you are not driving, which means you are free to pass the time by working, playing video games or watch a film. It is similar to something like a dishwasher. Sure you may be able to wash you dishes by hand faster but the dishwasher allows you to not have to wash dishes. There will always be people living in population sparse regions traveling from one village to another that need to drive.

@@SirNarax the freedom of movement is the point if someone wants to stop to check out something in the middle of nowhere they can with a car. also cars prevent things getting stolen from you. in crowded trains people have gotten away with rape and even murder. who couldn't hack the metro system and destroy the entire economy for a few hours or what about terrorist attacks like bombs on a train? its happened in Japan before. it doesn’t happen now because more people use cars and cars cant get hacked. Im also against self driving cars I prefer to captain my own ship.

@@covfefe1787 As if you couldn't travel freely if you wanted if trains took over as the primary long distance and short distance transportation? Nobody is seriously suggesting making a car illegal just illegal to drive in certain areas and de-emphasize the car nation wide. Also the idea that trains and buses are bad because crime CAN happen on them is frankly and objectively, stupid. Fact: Crime happens in cars as well, a lot. Minor and viollent. And if you were worried about crime, crime in a car is easier. With a train you have to smuggle a weapon, the car can be a weapon. Cars can also be a source of crime in a way a train can't. It is well understood that more cars in one place = more road rage. Road rage can be anything from insults to outright assault, there isn't an equivalent on a train. The danger of "but sometimes". But sometimes people may assault you on the train. But sometimes people might cut you off and press the break and get away with insurance fraud. But sometimes trains might get hacked and this may sometimes have an effect. But every year 40,000 people in the US die from car crashes and only 1,000 die on a train, pretty much all of which from crossings not on the train itself. Funnier or sadder depending on your perspective and sense of humor. De-emphasizing the car actually is STILL a benefit to you even as someone who would choose to drive. It would make driving much safer for you and in many areas reduce traffic. I live in a village in the middle of nowhere, I know some people need a car and I understand that some people just want a car. Most people don't care and this would be a benefit to everyone.

@@covfefe1787 trains have cabins and security, also you can stop at some intermediary station if you want to go to the middle of nowhere...

What?

@@jojosiwasbizzareadventure4743 04:44

but if no one had cars the gov wold put money into cleaning the public transport from the money they get from not having road upkeep

@@36reaper I dont think so. In addition, the money for road maintenance comes from the taxes contained in the fuel that car drivers buy. Fewer cars means less money.

@@36reaper One more thing. In my country, there is about 48% tax on the price of each liter of fuel. The government will not give up such money, so the ticket prices in public transport will be significantly increased. Banning cars and relying only on public transport is absurd.

dont care

@@36reaper I also dont care about public transport

Vaping was invented recently and it’s not illegal

Yea! Ban cars but also make more tracks for track day! woooooo! Racing on public roads is dangerous and almost nobody actually wants to have to race around on them. Build up a nicer car culture out in the country-side for all the people who love em and repurpose some of those massive highway sections for racing.

hey look its another person who doesn't live in arizona

Same im not enjoying driving or the price here

AYO HE SPITTIN

@@spoonikle 🤣 I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea. We still need to transport good by trucks.

As long as enthusiasts like us are still allowed to go out for a drive in the hills, I'd be fine with an urban ban on cars.

Thats basically saying "fuck you" to poor people who want a car. Also haven't the pandemic teach anything regarding how fully relying on public transport is bad thing. If public transport are better, people will use it more than they use cars like in Japan and china. Banning things is just psychopathic bootlicker argument. Why the hell would I want to be on the same train with junkies, fat smelly people, pick pockets and robber when I can use my car?

@@sunshineskystar did *I* say anything about banning them? No. I don't agree 100% wholesale with everything said in this video but I agree with the idea of better planned walkable cities, and reliable public transport. So that people feel less reliant on cars. Like I said before, ICE cars for enthusiasts, but EVs (and hydrogen in hindsight) for people that need them. As in that is ideally, who would have what. I did not mention price point of any of the vehicles so I don't understand how that is a 'fuck you' to poor people specifically. Point is, if public transport and city planning was better, less people would feel reliant on cars in the relevant areas, therefore saving space, easing congestion, and being better for the environment. More people either on public transport, or walking.

He wants to ban motorways and rural highways too. I cannot imagine that fun windy mountain roads will be granted exemption.

@@sunshineskystar as someone who is in the poorer class ig i disagree. he literally said in the video that riding a bus is less expensive overall then owning a car. with a car you have to pay insurance, gas/petrol, etc etc. busses and trains are just objectively better in my opinion. if you don't wanna ride around with other people that's a you thing. cars are just straight up bad for the environment with all that gas emissions and car crashes.

Especially with trolleybuses and Electrified suburban rail

I actually tend to favor trams (streetcars, LRV) over trolleybuses. In fact, if you are going to use buses, the battery-powered buses that are used nearly universally here for local service are an excellent solution and don't require the expense or ugliness of the twin-conductor trolleybus supply system.

And that where PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMES IN, BABY!

@yishaizukkol3099 Incorrect. That’s where freight trains comes in my guy

lmao this

To get people to use public transit, lets make our cities a living hell for car drivers. The way he said it was what did it for me. 8:20

@@michaelbujaki2462 that's exactly what a carist would say,smhing so hard rn.

@@GreenGoblinCoryintheHouse I happen to like driving.

@@michaelbujaki2462 okay sure you do bud

yo mama fard

@@swordman3564 transition

@@jonasrugebregt343 done

I was grooving to the Weathercast track 10 and then bam hit me with Midnight Rendezvous. Wonderful.

YES, good job with that!

“But deliveries!” Hmm special logistics vehicles using preplanned routes to local businesses centres that transport those goods to your door by foot, bike, scooter, delivery bus, train, plane, helicopter, drone. Highways specific to commercial travel was the main reason the highways were built in the first place.

God people on youtube don’t understand hyperboles. You’re almost as bad as an instagram commenter.

yeah and if parking your cars in or around cities was safer. too many thieves

@@skeetus Exactly. Whatever leads to a safer experience, I'm with it.

Same here lol

Yes 😌☝️ and people using cars out in Bozeman Montana probably don't have a massive carbon footprint 🤷‍♂️😭😂 and you REALLY do need a heavy, big SUV im certain parts of the country. I grew up on an Indian Rez amd I get why people NEED trucks and SUVS. But now I live in NYC, and there is no reason for people to be having cars just because the way they do. 😒 it's 2md rent just to park them here in NYC

I live in a city during college. I try not to use my car unless necessary I hate driving and drivers are insane. When I go home I have to drive (rural area) and it’s much easier because I’ll go miles without seeing another car.

Sounds great I guess but I still can't wrap my head around it. What would I do with my car?

@@titusjames4912 sell it and get a cool bike I guess lol

@@yua7469 "SELL THEM TO WHO BEN? FUCKING AQUAMAN?!"

@@warweasel2832 This is, and always has been, one of the best comebacks on the internet.

Portlands public transport is actually really damn good

also i would really like to hear where all the money needed to improve transport to rationalise banning cars?

The infrastructures is paid through general taxes, I don't live in a city I live in rural Wales and don't need a car for 99% of travels.@@PenguinRisk

I'm in a small UK city out in the suburbs and it's quite easy to go car free here. Buses are every 10 minutes at the worst day time frequency or every 6 minutes on busy bus routes. Buses to the hospitals are free too. Then you get our tram system that can take you from one side of the city in an hour or 20-30 minutes from any end station to the centre, which is about the same as a car but you don't have to pay $3 an hour for parking. The cycling lanes are getting better too but need some work.

@@kev2034 im in the sticks and buses run every 2 hours if you are lucky lmao

Replace “since I got a car” in your comment with “since I got a tram stop next to my house and a nice bicycle” and I agree completely!

a concrete jungle that grew faster than wood based jungle

Lol Japan shuts down every night . Even shinjuku shuts down. Trains cannot operate 24/7, even the self driving JR trains shut down for maintenance of rails and trains.

@@henrylo6773 but they maintain it very quicky sydney trains shuts down and... we still have annoying weekend trackworks

@@yukko_parra They shut down usually from 1-4 AM. which esentially kills the night clubs and bars if applied to America.

@@henrylo6773 Not necessarily, you definitely don't want to be running multi car trains when the demand is just not there to fill them. But you can easily run single car trains or you know just the rubber tire equivalent of a single car train ie a bus. If it was not for the still considerable night time demand being taken up by taxis simply because travellers are not given a choice there would be more than enough demand for night busses.

im so jealous of the netherlands i wanna live there for these reasons 😢

Your the most densely populated country on earth. Your public transport and biking is just not viable in most countries that are more spread out.

Man y’all lucky it takes 2 hours to bike to the nearest town where I live

Have fun riding a bike 4 miles in Las Vegas when it’s 118° outside

@@communism_is_wrong7167 Walk? Or just don't travel if it's that hot

It is and don't worry, they can't take this right away from us

yes

For intercity travel there's buses and trains and they are more enjoyable than being inside a car for hours and I could even socialize with other passangers. But I think for trips to rural areas that aren't served by rail or intercity bus then yes a car is needed. And driving in the countryside is far more enjoyable than in a city.

EXACTLY

Yes I think there is a time and a place for cars, but inside cities of not one of them. Especially for everyday travel like getting to work or school, a car shouldn't be necessary.

That would make jobs like mine really really hard I work for a shipping company our work starts at 3 in the morning tell me where the public transportation is at 3 in the morning in America

@@redneck6570 in this theoretical world where American cities put policies in place to reduce car use, I am sure that public transport would be more frequent and go for more hours of the day

Nah.

​@@MAL1GNANThypocrite, you dont tell others about their personal choices, stay in ur lane vegan...

@@rathanam-wv4bo Not a vegan, cars are just bad.

@@rathanam-wv4bo It's not just a personal choice, keep being emotional when it's proven cars are bad.

​​@@MAL1GNANT nobody has proven cars are bad Lmao, if they are bad government would make them illegal to use and they wouldn't exist.

Take for example, literally every war in existence. What’s the first thing they do? Block the tracks. Sure, with a highway you aren’t moving large quantities of said military equipment faster and more efficiently (in terms of fuel or labor) but it will still be able to get to where it needs to be during battle

​@@deezcapybaraman75 It also allows us to transport troops across the country without completely stopping their movement using a single, well placed bomb or destruction of the rails. It's much harder to destroy a road. For a single bridge, you're basically not going to destroy it with missiles ever and you'll have to physically place explosives to destroy it. For rail bridges, missiles become viable again as you do not need to destroy a large section of the bridge to completely stop traffic. The deformation of the rails when a missile hits it can be enough to just derail a train. Prevention of this is expensive. Cars can drive over holes whereas trains can't.

@@DR-54 Trucks with giant tires can go over even larger holes

god I hate college kids, south park had it right on the dot hoooooly shit

It would solve pollution issues, the gap between the rich and the poor (due to lower expenses for the average person), traffic, high healthcare costs due to car accidents, and open up a ton of space for human habitation in cities. It would quite literally drastically improve city life in every way. Why they decide not to is beyond me but how society views it, but that can change.

Same, I’m a college student as well. Was recently in a car accident and other than the pain, PTSD and other associated shit, the idea of being free from a car payment and gas prices feels amazing. I can actually start saving some money instead of being in a constant stalemate financially.

@@DivertingTales the only point you provided is a concern that isn't really applicable anymore: the pandemic. Having lunatics on trains is frankly less concerning than in a car. Cars are weapons on their own, even more detrimental than on a public train, which can easily have security measures in place to hinder any notable harm. Consider the high death and injury tole of car accidents proportional to public transportation. It's a staggering comparison in favor of public transportation. Please elaborate as to how public transportion benefits the rich only and is an illusion to the poor. How are vehicles, which the poor already can't efficiently afford, comparatively more beneficial than public transportation (which they already are forced to use but at decreased quality due to lower funding)? It's curious to note that the rich are then benefited by using cars whereas the poor are forced to use public transportion. The thing is, that is already the case, so it is an irrelevant point.

"I can't afford this car so nobody should"?

Well the positive is you can choose any destination without waiting for a bus and carry a lot of goods and supplies to home in a single go.

@@Zed-Corps I'd rather take the bus because I can relax while traveling and you don't have to worry about fuel. The buses are frequent so I don't need a schedule, and if I need something big I'll get it delivered online.

@@thetimelapseguy8 in my area bus services are getting worse, they recently remove a line that directly goes to my job and near many markets. They claim not enough riders were use it, which is nonsense since every time I rode it was always packed. Got my self a decent vehicle for that reason.

@@Zed-Corps You're right to get a car in that case, that was a shitty thing for the bus company to do.

To be honest, I still find that very expensive for public transports, not to mention the example he gave in the video, I can only deduce that public transports are indeed very expensive in the UK. Where I live in France I can take all public transports in my city with 40€ per month (it's 25€ for students and 10€ for unemployed people...), but I guess it's probably state-funded.

Preserving it could still work. I think he means don’t use it, not outright destroying/removing it

Got some good powerpoint97 vibes

Nuh uh, I present to you overnight sleeper trains. The sleeping compartments over the perfect environment for sex with chicks like a car but the best part is you will still be moving towards your destination rather than having to be parked to do so.

Tesla owners are massive dumbasses. Thinking that regenerative breaking means that they next have to replace their brakes.

Lithium mining rapes the planet and not to mention alot of the energy used to power EVs comes from fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Diesel vehicles are by the cleanest in my opinion

the first i can agree the rest no

@@nimnim3311 bro do your research electric vehicles are just moving the pollution somewhere else sure E.V. might not produce CO2 but the electricity that power those cars do along with lithium mines being very polluting I'd be cool with electric vehicles but there main selling point is a clean environment when it actually does the opposite

@@tommycarrizal1656 i agree but they do look nice and not all of them are bad drivers

Have fun being stuck in your city for the rest of your life

Then take your free dose of diseases people in the bus might have

What car did you drive

@@mergat2970 2013 Hyundai Veloster

@@bellotaco damn public transportation must be nice

I can't go without my daily road rage funny moments

Agreed, we just need more alternatives. Not that hard to do

Perhaps you could just refrain from buying one!!

@@buddhikathambugala3472 say it to rich people xD

Except those atrocities are used by the extremely wealthy, which are the ones making the law...

ships are crazy efficient so it isn't exactly that much-needed

@@ranjitsharma5811 yachts and cruise ships aren't efficient

Funny how the same party that pushes for zoning also complains about suburbs.

@@josephang9927 because they think industrial zones means factories when in fact it means stores and restaurants, and shops. Heavy industrial zones are the factories and deserve to be zoned

@@josephang9927 because suburbs are shit

@@josephang9927 lol not even bruh, it's not a party problem both of them do it, it's more of a nimby issue, like here in CA dems are trying to do zoning and housing reform to alleviate the housing crisis but fucking nimbys keep blocking the bills, i mean I understand why Republicans do it right? Because it goes with their belief system but democrat nimbys do it too like fucking hypocrites, they literally want to have their cake and eat it too. So in my experience it's a class issue, because here the democrat government is trying to do actual reform but it almost always ends up being blocked by nimbys who don't want poor people living next to them.