I mean the challenge was that “most people don't need a car”. I’m not saying don't ride a bike and reduce your car dependence… that’s awesome. I’m saying that cutting usage in half doesn't support the “most people don't need a car” angle. Most people still need a car.
I think that is a touchy angle. The statement is probably better as "most people shouldn't need a car"
The touchy part is be ause the logic often goes, because 100% can't get off cars, the necessary infrastructure to allow the 20% who could, won't be built.
It's like public transit, it sucks due to shoe string funding, ridership is low because it sucks, funding is then reduced because ridership is low.
There are about 1.1 billion passenger cars in the work and over 8 billion people. Thus most people don’t need a car.
The requirement for “most people need a car” depends on the definition of most people. Live in a small town in Arizona? Sure you need a car. Live in TriBeCa? You don’t need a car.
