I’m getting a lot of ‘but my car is more convenient’ arguments lately, and I’m struggling to convey why that doesn’t make sense.

Specifically how to explain to people that: Sure, if you are able to drive, and can afford it, and your city is designed to, and subsidizes making it easy to drive and park, then it’s convenient. But if everyone does it then it quickly becomes a tragedy of the commons situation.

I thought of one analogy that is: It would be ‘more convenient’ if I just threw my trash out the window, but if we all started doing that then we’d quickly end up in a mess.

But I feel like that doesn’t quite get at the essence of it. Any other ideas?

  • @[email protected]English
    2•7 months ago

    The NL is decidedly a small country, but has decent public transport even in the middle of nowhere.

    Eastern Europe used to be decent at availability, not so much at service, (if for nothing else, not many people had cars) but it is getting worse. There is a ton of rural cyclists though still.

    That said, I’m fine with my view mostly being applicable to cities only, since cars are less of a problem in rural places. If you live in or near a city, you should be able to do without a car though. As in the country has the option to make you comfortable not owning a car.

      • @[email protected]English
        2•7 months ago

        I’ve got nothing against people buying cars to travel the Alps. I’ve got everything against people buying Dodge Rams just to not be able to park it in this whole country and block the road.