this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
177 points (97.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

12317 readers
1337 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

more than absolute space, what is the population density

Come on. Google is a click away. You knew the answer already.

Uttar has a population density of 829 / Km^2. Hong Kong is 6800 /Km^2. That makes Hong Kong 8.5x more dense. And land is owned in Hong Kong, Japan and even the US. When roads are built, the owner is given market rate money for the land.

There is no excuse.

[–] tetrislife@leminal.space -2 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

HK population-dense And yet, they prioritized roads? Car brain right there?

... given market rate for the land diverted Why should anybody agree to give up their land for roads? These might not be empty lands possessed decades ago, it might be ancestral family land for centuries. I don't like that those lands are uncultivated, but putting down asphalt liberally everywhere is car-brain.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Why should anybody agree to give up their land for roads?

Transportation of some sort is needed. It doesn't matter if it is for bikes, trains, or cars. Land must be used for the good of the people. Absolute ownership, no matter the cost to society is capitalist-brain.

[–] tetrislife@leminal.space -1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I think your ire is misdirected, but I agree with the ire. The problem is the elevated road there! It serves car-brain, and that space could have been put to good use for the "low income" people as somebody put it, instead of catering to the "high income" people zooming above in cars.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago

Transportation is necessary. Roads existed long before cars. You didn't even watch the video. The problem was the road couldn't handle a bus turning.