Comment on Health gains of low-traffic schemes up to 100 times greater than costs, study finds
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 months agoI’ll be frank. I don’t seem to understand the justification for policies whose primary purpose appears to be a malicious desire to make life harder for those people still lucky enough to be able to drive. Smug, paternalistic articles about how preventing people from doing what they want to is actually for their own good don’t help.
tillimarleen@feddit.de 3 months ago
Would you drive less, if it was inconvenient to you but for the greater good of society? If the decision would be really up to you.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
I suppose it depends on what the “greater good” is. If I was doing significant harm or likely to do significant harm in a way that could only be prevented by not driving (for example, if I was a dangerous driver due to some disability) then I would feel a moral obligation not to drive. If, however, I was simply causing a very small part of a much bigger problem (such a pollution) then I would be open to paying a tax or fee to compensate for the harm I was doing, but I would still drive. I think I contribute to society and therefore I do feel entitled to use a fair share of society’s resources. If I was merely offending the sensibilities of people who think that a society with fewer drivers is better in some unquantifiable moral or aesthetic way then I wouldn’t feel any obligation to cooperate with them.