See? That's the precise problem with car advocates. How many times in your _life_ are you having a baby? How many times in your _life_ is your mother dying?

Just take the car in these situations, that's not the problem. The problem is people justifying 90% of the car usages (which could be replaced by bicycle or public transportation) by being snarky about the remaining 10% (and I'm being generous with 10%).

You're missing the point.

People have emergencies, and everyday people have dire emergencies like that. Trains do not fit those cases, which happen ALOT, every second.

You want to change everything without having a solution to fill the void.

How does any of this justify the amount of people taking the car to work every day driving for upwards of 45min-1h to and back? Of course transport of goods and emergency situations need to be accounted for. Your pretending that any of what I said dismisses this is incredibly dishonest.

That should be solved. Cities have noone else to blame but themselves for poor public transportation (see California's train).

It really is a waste to have people commuting like that, it's a city problem though, not a car problem.

Yes, cars should be limited in your cities, and yes you need better public transportation, but that doesn't mean getting rid of cars everywhere.

You need to structure around roads because you need to connect goods and services to the last mile, but you also don't need to have every citizen in your congested city driving to work. I don't see why you're conflating those two.

I'm not, you are.

Buses, ambulances and delivery trucks are not cars.