I am curious, did you perspective regarding the freedom cars grant change when you got older and, if you had children, follow that development? I find that most people use the "for the children" argument online, even though cars hurt everyone who lives in a city, just children disproportionately.

Well, it's difficult to completely separate the two...

Mainly the sheer annoyance of increasing delays and gridlock. Which of course correlated with my ageing, as it's increased over the years. The journey to work being an increasingly unpredictable journey, timewise. The fun of the increasingly rare empty road remained, as did like of motorbikes, or the fun of a track day. We use the car less and less, despite the intentional political neglect of public transport.

We did a fair few trips with the kids by train. I don't believe they ever got a car journey to school wherever we lived - they walked. Luckily the street they grew up until around 12, was traffic calmed with no through traffic, so they got to play out plenty, kick a ball around the road etc. Other places made that far more difficult. Playing out today on the street _I_ grew up and played on at similar age would be suicide.

You make general conclusions based on your non-general results. For many the car is not expensive, is not a pain, and their roads aren't constantly full. What trends you might want to reverse may be based on an even narrower view of reality than what makes them persist.

I am interested where this place you are talking about where cars are not expensive. Where I am in a smallish city, cars are a massive expense with the purchase cost, registration and insurance, fuel, maintenance and for a lot of people parking costs.

What is and isn't expensive is subjective. That's the whole point of my comment, don't make generalizations on what other people think about convenience or cost using your own opinion. My vehicle is not expensive in my view compared to its utility.

I would think expensive would be in terms of the cost of other transport options. A car is very very expensive when compared to public transport, cycling, motorbikes, walking.

Other than air travel, a car is probably the most expensive transport option there is.

A car is often cheaper than other alternatives when you consider time or convenience.

Few US drivers seem to appreciate how "subsidized" parking is (and by consequence, driving). The fact that most places in the US have parking minimums means that, for example, I end up paying $100-$200 more per month for rent than I would otherwise (as I recall based on a study), because I don't use the parking my apartment provides me.

> Miles of twisty roads with just a few roadblocks to navigate around.

Roadblocks? Why were there roadblocks?

Other drivers. ;)

> Not any more. Now a car is an expensive pain in the ass and aside from in the early hours, roads are pretty much constantly full.

But it doesn't have to be this way. I think that depends on the particulars of the city. Seattle, for example, has been very drivable until the city enabled a large population influx in the last 5-10 years, undertook significant upzoning, and simultaneously purposefully degraded driving infrastructure (unnecessary reductions in speed limits, for example). I would say medium-density cities can be very car-friendly rather than frustrating, if they avoid trying to make one large city-center and instead aim for something more distributed with several smaller centers.

> The sooner we get back to streets safe for children to play in, the better.

I feel they already are on neighborhood streets, which are almost always limited to 25 MPH in the US. Highways and arterials are not where children are expected to play.

> I won't play tit-for-tat with equally emotive and useless links to stories about people having watches and wallets lifted at lights etc.

While I do not have data on hand, I'd wager that watches/wallets lifted at lights are rare compared to robberies/assaults/harassment at bus stops or on subways. I've personally heard public transit horror stories from friends several times, but never something similar in their car.

I've lived in Seattle for a long time. Many decades. It was never 'very drivable'. The geography has always made getting in and out a challenge.

> I feel [children] already are [safe] on neighborhood streets

Much of Seattle's neighborhood streets don't even have sidewalks or traffic calming devices. 25mph is a suggestion, at best, when people are trying to get around the lights on Aurora, for example.

> I've personally heard public transit horror stories from friends several times...

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. You already seem to dislike public transit, and may surround yourself with people who feel similar. Could also be confirmation bias.

Maybe it doesn't have to be, but I haven't seen anywhere that seems to get it right. Sure, if I could shop at 3am, the convenience and speed would be real, but at 3pm it becomes hindrance.

TL;DR driving would be lovely but for the other vehicles. :)

> limited to 25 MPH in the US

I'm more thinking of traffic calming such that there is planting and chicanes to ensure no line of sight, equal priority, and drivers naturally tend to dawdle at 10 or 15mph along like they might if driving through a town pedestrianised high street.

A city centre night out or shopping trip is far nicer when the streets have been pedestrianised, and there's no traffic except the odd service vehicle and public transport. Sitting outside with a coffee is much more pleasant without the taste of fumes.

> Highways and arterials are not where children

No they're not, but you have to get to them, which is where a lot of problems arise. At that point I may as well get to the railway station instead of the highway. Except thanks to lobbying and politics, that's comparatively neglected, so not as appealing as it should be.