No Cars!

I absolutely see the good sense that the OP is alluding to.

As a good way to achieve this, I propose upholding the value of human (and animal) lives in legal liability issues over the newly-invented "rights" of motorists to drive.
In Germany, the 1909 "Law on Motorised Traffic" paved the way; it is often primarily seen as an early regulation IOTL, but what really changed things back then was § 7, in which the car driver's liability for the damage of goods and animals, the hurting and loss of human lives was excluded in cases in which the accident was caused "by an unforeseeable event, which was not caused by an unsuitability of the car [...] and against which the driver had taken any reasonable precautions".
This was later taken to mean that if you walk around on that part of a street which was now reserved for motorised traffic, it was your fault if you got hit. (Same with your cows, sheep etc. who wander onto a street.)
Scrap this, and have jurisdiction converge on the view that, whenever someone is killed or harmed by a car without unequivocal intention of suicide or self-harm, or something is damaged by a car without it being hurled into the car's pathway with malicious intention, the driver is fully and exclusively liable for negligent homicide / assault / material damage, and motorised traffic is going to be too risky to become anything other than a flamboyant hobby of the wealthy in reasonably populated areas - which at the same time doesn't preclude the widespread use of internal combustion engine-driven vehicles in areas where accidents are much less likely, like tractors or combines on fields.

I think you have the right of it. Self propelled vehicles are useful and perhaps inevitable, but any vehicle that is travelling faster than a cantering horse or a scorching cyclist should, like a train, have its own exclusive right of way so that it does not mix with slower traffic. There is another simple way to restrict the impact of motor traffic on normal roads and streets - ban ths use of googles and windshields.

Exclusive rights of way would of course be prohibitively expensive, especially when high-speed motors are still rare. Perhaps some enterprising cities might experiment with running dual-mode tramcars on and off existing tramways, evolving eventually into something like the BladeRunner concept?

IOTL the motor manufacturers felt entitled to usurp the existing road system because they were the same people who had lobbied for its improvement when they were bicycle manufacturers. See Roads Were Not Built For Cars
 
I don't think goalieboy82 was talking about *all* springs, just those for vehicles.
all springs (and i was trying to be funny) with no cars i thought of No Springs (see the short)
Coily_7705.gif
 
I generally agree this is improbable, but let me offer a slight variation: many more bicycles (which were the vehicle of choice before cars, & helped pioneer the good roads cars needed, as well as many manufacturing techniques the car industry copied, includiing assembly line). Add to that, the motorcycle: no cars may mean more motorcycles & tricars, which could do many of the jobs cars did (do).

That said, how you absolutely avoid somebody producing a motorized quadricycle, as Benz did, IDK...
removing the car as a consumer technology is going to make rural areas poorer.
Probably, but I can't help wonder if there aren't alternatives we've overlooked.
I agree that land use policy is probably the biggest part of the issue here. A system that discourages car use rather than outlawing it or pricing people out is going to be more fair.
If you want to discourage cars, once they exist, that's a start, but there are a host of "harassments" that might be placed on owners (& dealers): licence fees, special owner taxes, special dealership taxes, special sales taxes, owner/driver licencing requirements (beyond those OTL)...

There are also road maintenance costs that could be passed on directly to car owners, instead of borne by all local/federal ratepayers, through the gas tax (which could be raised a great deal higher).
We know we can write such land use policies in theory- inclusive zoning codes that emphasize walkability and transit, that insist on diversity of housing stock in price and form, that promote the active use of shared public spaces, etc.

We've arrived at these by a system of trial and error that has spanned at least the 20th century- and of course they're still being refined.
Agreed. If the goal is to be hostile to cars, then city planning that emphasizes narrow, crooked streets, no street parking, high parking fees (& rigorous enforcement), & so forth, would be a big help. (OTL, cities, & especially 'burbs, are so car-friendly, they're actively pedestrian-hostile.) Add to that taxation changes that would discourage 'burbs, or at least make pedestrian-friendly ones more attractive: force developers to pay for street paving (so narrow streets), or higher overall tax rates (to make 'burb area smaller, so more pedestrian access-friendly).
Having some visionary arrive at modern day conclusions and be taken seriously by the world back in, say, 1880, would be unlikely.
Not necessarily. Streetcars were already promoting the growth of 'burbs, & urban parks were becoming a Thing. How big a step is it to want "people-friendly" 'burbs? There were 'burbs like it planned in the '30s (IIRC). Can we get somebody to combine the two goals?
with fewer suburbs and more call for produce closer to cities, more agriculture will take place in what would become OTL suburban and exurban belts.
You'll need to fix the crazy tax system, first. See, agricultural land on the border of cities is taxed as if it's undeveloped property, which makes agriculture on it too costly & makes it very attractive to development. So, too, the tax subsidy to developers to build out: streets, sidewalks, & sewers are all paid for by ratepayers at large, not by the developer, which makes 'burbs attractive. That also makes them attractive to buyers of bigger houses, because taxes are lower--& to fix that, you need help with income inequality, which drives demand for bigger houses by everybody.

If you cah do it, tho, you may seriously slow urban sprawl,:cool::cool: & the congestion & pollution that go with it.:cool: (If you add in income levelling, you can add in reduced crime & other things, too.:cool::cool:)
 
Last edited:
The easiest method I can think of to eliminate nearly all cars would be a geology ASB: NO fossil fuels at all; given the technology of the time this would limit cars to electric
It actually wouldn't. It'd be dead easy to substitute olive oil, canola/sunflower oil, or other grain or seed oil, or ethanol/methanol, to name the ones that come to me off the top.
lot fewer synthetic materials such as synthetic rubber for tires (which would hurt the adoption of electric cars further) or many kinds of plastics
I do wonder if it doesn't lead to more cellulose-related plastics, instead. Synthetic rubber might not arise, but what about subsituting increased production of natural rubbers from different sources, such as (frex) Euphorbia? And can synthetic rubber be made from other oil sources?

Dyes need not be from coal tar, either, & maybe the chemical industry starts with wood, & develops a cellulosic ethanol process a century sooner than OTL.

On electricity production, you're right, & that would seem to limit industrial development. It might, OTOH, lead to earlier demand for things like tidal power or OTEC, or better windmills.

I'm not clear how cars cause unwanted pregnancies...:confounded:
 

DougM

Donor
I propose that the sequel to this topic should be “WI No Wheel” it is about as likely and it has the side effect of accomplishing this topics idea as pure side effect....
 
blimp.jpg__422x480_q85_crop_upscale.jpg

"It's quite simple: women see men with cool cars, and it arouses their lust and leads them into unprotected sex."
In case the picture doesn't give it away, this post is not meant to be taken seriously.
I'm grateful for the disclaimer, since I have no idea who he is.
 
I believe it's 'Colonel Blimp' a cartoon character created by Sir David Low. Reverse imagine search programs are bloody wonderful things. Probably wound have been better to give a better annotation though.
Col Blimp i've heard of. (I honestly never thought to search the image...:oops: ) Thx for clearing it up. And for naming the artist, who I confess not to know about.
 
Top