![[meme] Being forced to drive isn't freedom — it's a government-mandated lifetime subscription to oil](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/13b1a771-76a5-4af4-b41f-4c22fc9165a4.webp){kind=link}
Image transcript:
The “what if you wanted to go to heaven, but god said ____” meme template, but here it says, “What if you wanted to walk to get groceries, but city planners said DRIVE”. The last panel is an image of a massive freeway full of cars.
Image transcript:
The “what if you wanted to go to heaven, but god said ____” meme template, but here it says, “What if you wanted to walk to get groceries, but city planners said DRIVE”. The last panel is an image of a massive freeway full of cars.
See, there’s alot of major inconveniences with rejecting getting a car or other road legal motor vehicle. Not everyone lives in the city, therefore trying to walk or bike to places while living in a rural or even sub-urban area is not necessary ideal (if even practically possible). Having a car or bike or whatever to get you on the road efficiently lets anyone go wherever they need to go with practically and ease. Now yes I know public transport exist, but one: you are one their schedule and two: not many areas other than mainstream and urban and areas have full access to public transport.
You can have both. You can have a car and still be able to walk or bike to do small daily groceries, go to the pharmacy, get bread etc. I mean, not rural middle of the fields, but small rural villages where I lived in Germany were like that.
Only in the USA do you have to pick. The suburban sparwl with strict zoning is an abomination. All for the sake of property values.
As usual this has become yet another tribal issue where you either defend the car or defend walking and biking.
You can do both without your head exploding. I know. Shocker.