▲ 576 ▼ City roads should be ‘ripped out completely’ to fight pollution, says government adviser (www.telegraph.co.uk) submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world 218 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where does it say all roads? I think it's pretty clear in context that they're not suggesting that permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themusicman@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And? I mean, sure it could technically be interpreted that way, but with only three words of the original quote, "all roads" is a pretty unkind reading IMO. More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity to stoke exactly the outrage you exhibit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) sure it could technically be interpreted that way How else would you interpret it (within the constrained context of this particular article, and not including anything from your pre-existing personal opinions)? More likely the article has deliberately introduced ambiguity Then why is this article here, and received positively by this community? the outrage you exhibit. projection, or else hyperbolae permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them as opposed to closing them to vehicle traffic but still leaving the roads. Especially with that second quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ripped out completely as in actually remove them Yes, that's how I read it also. That is an impractical idea because even if you can build a city that supports 95% of personal transit needs with public infrastructure, you will still need independently powered vehicles for logistics roles - so you will still need roads to drive them on. That is my whole point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Not all the roads go away, but some subset are ripped out completely. permalink fedilink source parent