fit2rule said it a little brashly, but there&#x27;s truth, beyond the fact that commuting in a car is just a drag. Cars have ruined the city, in very profound ways. There&#x27;s the noise &amp; pollution of course, but cars also made the city unsafe for children and seniors.<p>The difference between a city that&#x27;s been given to cars, and a city that has resisted it is incredibly stark. Even America&#x27;s &quot;walkable&quot; cities, like SF, NYC and so on, are ever so inhuman, due to the cars. The young and poor tolerate it, and the rich can buy nice things to make it tolerable, but a city where cars have taken over pretty much half of the public realm is profoundly flawed.<p>Required anecdote: I&#x27;ve lived and worked in Europe for a while in a city that&#x27;s mostly pedestrian, and whatever traffic there was, was incredibly slow. It was basically an environment that was fully build-up, no nature-proper for miles, but it felt natural, human, and, well, &quot;cultured&quot;. I stepped out the door in a place that was made for me, a feeble 6ft meatbag.<p>Looking back at it, I find the feeling incomparable, and I miss it. I live in a US city now, in a verdant, central area of town. Mobility is never an issue. It has many of the same qualities you&#x27;d attribute to attractive urban neighborhoods, like stupendous architecture, lush gardens, good walkability, a variety of things close-by. But the streets are for cars. And it is jarring. They don&#x27;t belong. They are too fast. The asphalt ribbons are ugly. The noise is out of place.<p>Cars do have their place. They&#x27;re very useful, for longer trips, hauling things, having a fun leisurely drive in the country. So I get why a family would want one or more. But cars are poison to cities, and it&#x27;s been a terrible mistake to either have them take over our older cities, or design our new cities around them.