this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
1020 points (98.5% liked)

Anarchism

2872 readers
21 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

People need cars to live where I am. There is no public transportation and cycling is far too dangerous, no one even tries. They give up their homes before their cars. Tons of people living on UBI would be living in their cars.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In a political climate where you could actually implement UBI, you would also be able to implement walkability policies.

Also, e-bikes. E-bikes is where it's at.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Yeah e bikes aren't even allowed on the roads for now. The walkability problem is a matter of the billions and billions of dollars it would take to essentially redo every road in the county. Some zoning changes could help a little but we're generations of work away from being walkable

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

I'm being speculative, right?

In a political climate where you could actually implement UBI, you would also be able to .....

[–] Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The trick is to implement temporary measures at first. Like turning a lane into a sidewalk and a bike lane, by placing planters. Then when it's time to renew the road anyway, the status quo only has one car lane in each direction.

In that situation there will be both the money and the will to build a grade separated sidewalk and bike lane.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Our roads are already only one lane in each direction. No shoulder, no sidewalks. Sometimes they're marked as narrow and only one car can get through at a time. It's a ditch in the side, not grass. People get killed on these roads all the time. Widening the roads means imminent domain land seizures, adding underground waste water runoff capability, and adding all of the infrastructure you're describing. I won't see 5% if our roads fixed before I die.

[–] Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sometimes they're marked as narrow and only one car can get through at a time.

That should be the case every 200m or so, if there is no sidewalk. It's really effective at slowing drivers down.

With a speed limit of around 10km/h streets like that can be safe and pretty comfortable for pedestrians

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 1 points 1 month ago

These are roads big trucks drive at 100kkmh on all day long. Hilly roads with blind curves. No one goes anywhere without a car here.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah not in rural areas, we need cars.

Now, im all for banning bro trucks and crossovers over 3500 lbs. If you cant get by with a miata or a wagon, you have to get a special license for a bigger vehicle and pay more because youre damaging the road and endangering others 10x more in your 10,000lb f350 diesel.

[–] Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

Housing in rural areas is usually dirt cheap.

So you can probably afford a car and a rural apartment for the cost of a transit pass and apartment in a well-connected town

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Rural areas, sure. Suburban and urban where the majority of humans live, no.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

yeah, reminder that even the USA has an 80% urban population! (below is per-state percentages)

Half the US population lives in these counties:

And
Two out of three people live in the 100-mile border zone