Only because the car companies made it that way through lobbying and stifling mass transit efforts.

I live in Chicagoland. Nothing is stifling it except state government itself. I don't want to get on my high horse, but I actually have a choice and it is bad enough now that I opt to drive on a highway. And that is the 'good' mass transit example.

FWIW, I originally came from an old EU country. Mass transit was the way to move around and let me assure you that the government is not better there. The issue is more cultural than anything else.

I would argue that it's cultural specifically due to the decades of lobbying and back-room deals. Yeah, the government isn't helping things because it's beyond their ability now. It would take a similar decades-long approach to shift course, and cost gobs of money.

What is cause and what is effect, and which of those do people can control?

Eh, I guess I am talking to militant anti-SUV people.

Allow me to rephrase:

- Your environment imposes restrictions upon you - Even if you can control your actions, optimal choice is to move within those restrictions - Doing things that attempt to move outside those restrictions are not optimal - Some people choose the optimal path - Some people are upset that the optimal path is chosen

Good grief, why am I bothering with nonsense so early?

> Doing things that attempt to move outside those restrictions are not optimal. Some people choose the optimal path.

Optimal for what?

> Some people are upset that the optimal path is chosen.

Person A chooses the "optimal path" (according to whatever definition of "optimal" A has) for their benefit. Their "optimal path" puts person B at risk and forces them to deal with unwanted costs and changes their environment. Do you think that person B is wrong to be upset about the choice of person A or not?

<< Optimal for what?

Optimal for the environment I am living in.

<< Do you think that person B is wrong to be upset about the choice of person A or not?

Oh boy. I am not responsible for you. By this tirade, you only demonstrate to me you are willing to make suboptimal choices so that you can feel better about yourself. That is cool, but don't drag me down with you.

By your logic, each time you breathe out CO2, it forces me to deal with unwanted costs and a change to my environment. Can you hear how ridiculous that argument is at its core?

Can you hear yourself and realize how ridiculous your reduction ad absurdum is?

Let me help you: taking your analogy to the other extreme, and it seems like you shouldn't be mad at anyone if they decide to light up a cigarette in an elevator.

I am not mad. At best, I am disappointed as I let the someone go by themselves as I don't get on the elevator. For every choice, a consequence. It is absurd that you think your response was a reduction at all.. Honestly, if you are on my side, please stop. You are explicitly not helping.

> disappointed as I let the someone go by themselves as I don't get on the elevator.

Ok, so you think that people are expected to just step down and be quiet about it. Others would certainly complain and rightly so.

Also, while you might feel okay about taking another elevator, we can not tell people "if don't like your pedestrian-hostile and accident-prone environment just go move away, or stop being a pedestrian".

<< we can not tell people

Allow me to restate what you are saying:

"we can not tell people:" <something I don't like> we can force people to: <do anything I like>

No dice.

I say "people are justified about being upset, because they end up facing the consequences and bearing the risks of the choices made by others" and you somehow imply am I saying this is an argument about "forcing" anything?

That is a seriously bizarre conversation. Peace out.