• perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    You’d typically hear this in the context of Dutch-style city planning, where direct routes through cities are only available to cycles and buses, and only indirect routes are available to cars.

    So cars and other vehicles such as ambulances, furniture-removal vans etc. can still drive to every house from the ring-road, but it is no longer convenient to get from one place to another within the same city by car (which is obviously the design, as it promotes cycling and bus use)

    People who drive within the city and would be inconvenienced then suddenly discover a newfound interest in the rights of, for example, disabled people, as they search for counter-arguments.

      • perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’m sure the transponders needed to access/cross the city centre would be given to any city or emergency vehicles that needed them, same as the buses - the point was more that every residential address is still accessible by road for those special cases such as deliveries, garbage collection, trade vans, emergencies, etc., even when you block roads to prioritise transit and cycling

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Emergency vehicles generally have unrestricted access as far as I know, which also makes car-restricted infrastructure far superior to regular car infrastructure, on account of not being congested by cars.