Advocacy & Safety - Does pro-bike always equal anti-car

I've been thinking about this for a while and it seems like a lot of people on here are anti-car. Maybe it's just my bad perception, but I don't think the two necessarily have to equate. Sure, I prefer a bike to a car, but I don't think that we should ban cars. Hopefully this will start a discussion.

I think there is a need for cars, obviously: millions live too far from work and have no public transportation available to them. Others are elderly, disabled, make multiple trips per day, ferry kids and others around, etc., etc. I am against irresponsible car use, however: using a car for every trip when a bicycle, walking or bus would be sufficient, as well as those who drive for recreation and leisure. Most motorists make little or no attempt to reduce their driving and many of those people are decidedly anti-bike. We would all be alot happier, safer and healthier if there were only a third as many cars on the road as there are and that can be done if those who don't NEED to drive didn't.

We can share the roads. I'm not anti-car; I'm anti-inconsiderate / aggressive drivers.

Your perception is sound. Many folks on this forum are anti-car. Others are anti-only certain types of cars. Others look at it like I do and are not anti-car, just pro-bike.

I see the value of a car as being directly related to it's potential utilitarian value. If I have a job that I can't do on a bike, will the car be able to step up to the plate? Is it a car I can carry my fishing rods in without having to stick them out the window? Can it tow a trailer? Can I throw a load of firewood in the back without having to worry about depreciation? What about a dead deer? Can I fit a bike inside without having to take it apart?

I take into account all the peripheral issues that have
shaped, denegrated etc, our society by virtue of our
choosing to be an autocentric society and I am very
anti-car :)

I take into account all the peripheral issues that have
shaped, denegrated etc, our society by virtue of our
choosing to be an autocentric society and I am very
anti-car :)

That's right, my friend. It's not that I'm anti-car, just that I think they should be junked and recycled. :rolleyes:

Only kidding, but they should...

1- get smaller (in America at least)

2- be used for longer distances

3- phone and other gadgets should be banned

4- require a more strict license

5- be found guilty when hitting a bike without witnesses...

And again, I'm not suggesting that everybody on this board is anti-car, just a lot of them. But I do agree there should be a lot more biking.

I think there is a need for cars, obviously: millions live too far from work and have no public transportation available to them. Others are elderly, disabled, make multiple trips per day, ferry kids and others around, etc., etc. I am against irresponsible car use, however: using a car for every trip when a bicycle, walking or bus would be sufficient, as well as those who drive for recreation and leisure. Most motorists make little or no attempt to reduce their driving and many of those people are decidedly anti-bike. We would all be alot happier, safer and healthier if there were only a third as many cars on the road as there are and that can be done if those who don't NEED to drive didn't.

Actually, in my town I've encountered few anti-bike people. While I wouldn't consider the town very pro-bicycle, I haven't had the horror stories that i've read about.

I've been thinking about this for a while and it seems like a lot of people on here are anti-car. Maybe it's just my bad perception, but I don't think the two necessarily have to equate. Sure, I prefer a bike to a car, but I don't think that we should ban cars. Hopefully this will start a discussion.

I tend to agree with others... I am not anti car, but pro people. The funny thing is that when I tried to introduce pro bike concepts in the past, John Forester would always slap them down as being anti car.

I think we have done our nation a terrible disservice by becoming nothing but auto drivers... we have forgotten to walk... and our health shows this.

The reality is that many of our little day to day tasks can be accomplished by either walking or cycling... but the nature of our neighborhoods is such that both walking and cycling are discouraged. But to change that is viewed as anti car as the result generally means limiting the car in some manner. I believe it is more gaining balance... we have become far too dependent on the auto for everything... at the exclusion of mere walking... therefore we are not being anti car, but simply seeking balance where the pro car attitude has simply gone too far.

When I'm in my car, I'm anti-bike and anti-pedestrian.
When I'm walking, I'm anti-bike, anti-car.
When I'm biking, I'm anti-car, anti-ped.

When I'm on bikeforums...

When I'm in my car, I'm anti-bike and anti-pedestrian.
When I'm walking, I'm anti-bike, anti-car.
When I'm biking, I'm anti-car, anti-ped.

When I'm on bikeforums...

I think you are mentally confused and should stay indoors until you finally figure it out. :rolleyes:

I love driving. I also love watching TV and eating burgers. The thing is, too much of any of those things will make you fat and stupid.

I think anti cyclist car owners are the bigger target among bike lovers. Very few of us don't also have a car. And w/0 a car, we'd find it would negatively impact our cycling. At least a couple times a year, i have to resort to a car to get my bike to where I need it to be.

Actually, in my town I've encountered few anti-bike people. While I wouldn't consider the town very pro-bicycle, I haven't had the horror stories that i've read about.

This being the internet, I think more horror stories get reported than actually happen.

The sad thing is, as a cycling advocate, I've encountered traffic planners & DOTD engineers who were openly anti-bike. :eek:

So, yeah, I come across rather aggressive, ummm, make that assertive in my stance for cyclist accommodations & rights.

Responding to my environment, I guess.
:notamused:

I'm not anti-car, I'm anti-waste. It's just that most car journeys are extremely wasteful.

That said, is being anti-car so bad?

During the Eisenhower administration when the US was in the post WWII era of suburbanization and the development of the interstate highway system Dr. Paul Dudley White, noted cardiologist, predicted that over dependence on the automobile would lead to increases in obesity, heart disease and other illnesses related to a more sedentary life style- he was right.

Social theorists predicted a disenfranchisement from the natural environment and that by closing ourselves off in metal boxes we would lose basic connections to one another on a social level- I happen to think they were to some degree correct.

In the 1960's and 70's environmentalists began to predict an over dependence on fossil fuels, increases in carbon emissions and airborne pollutants associated with the use and manufacture of the automobile- I think they were correct.

Economists saw it as an opportunity to create new jobs, income and a new industry and they were right but it also created a gross dependence on the auto industry to such an extent that it fostered an industry that went out of control with it's own self promotion and led to a dominance of our landscape and cities.

That said I, too, own a car. But I, for the above reasons and the fact that I love riding my bike, limit the use of my automobile. Does that make me anti-car? Does it make me anti-car that I support policies that might make automobile's more efficient? Less polluting? Or less dominant in our urban environments?

Anti-car? I don't know you tell me.

I just think they're overused and we've forgotten that it's a privilege, not a right, that we have them and that the whole planet shares in the consequences of their use.

a third of americans do not or cannot drive;

if we seek to accomodate this substantial portion of the population with transit options other than automobiles, it could be misconstrued by gashuffers like jon forestor as being 'anti-car' but that mischaracterization is distinctly pro-car.


does pro-bike equal anti-car?

....only to the car lovers intent on continuing to perpetuate autocentricity on american rights of way.

I'm not particularly anti-car, but I am anti bad driver. In practice, that means that I'm anti-50% of the population who clearly have no business being behind the wheel of a car :-)

...
Economists saw it as an opportunity to create new jobs, income and a new industry and they were right but it also created a gross dependence on the auto industry to such an extent that it fostered an industry that went out of control with it's own self promotion and led to a dominance of our landscape and cities.

No doubt we created a monster. And now look where it's got us. The domestic auto industry is an ugly ugly scene, and now it is holding the entire economy hostage. In the bailout frenzy they suck up 25 billion and are back at the trough begging for more. Without constant infusions into these bankrupt companies, possibly hundreds of thousands, millions? of jobs will be lost. It cannot live and it cannot die. It is Zombie Industry.

1- get smaller (in America at least)

2- be used for longer distances

3- phone and other gadgets should be banned

4- require a more strict license

5- be found guilty when hitting a bike without witnesses...
1,2 I don't care.
3,4 I agree with you
4a Stricter enforcement of the laws.
5. What!? Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? If the government cannot prove that the car driver was at fault, then the driver should not be found guilty.

I tend to agree with others... I am not anti car, but pro people. The funny thing is that when I tried to introduce pro bike concepts in the past, John Forester would always slap them down as being anti car.

I think we have done our nation a terrible disservice by becoming nothing but auto drivers... we have forgotten to walk... and our health shows this.

The reality is that many of our little day to day tasks can be accomplished by either walking or cycling... but the nature of our neighborhoods is such that both walking and cycling are discouraged. But to change that is viewed as anti car as the result generally means limiting the car in some manner. I believe it is more gaining balance... we have become far too dependent on the auto for everything... at the exclusion of mere walking... therefore we are not being anti car, but simply seeking balance where the pro car attitude has simply gone too far.How many recent post have you made which included the subject of cars being banned from the city core?:rolleyes:

So to you, gaining balance, is banning cars from the city core!

...does pro-bike equal anti-car?
Are you really pro-bike when you are willing to accept any bike lane, no matter how dangerous it is to cyclist?

Are you really pro-bike when you are willing to accept any bike lane, no matter how dangerous it is to cyclist?

At least we're not talking fourth-graders trying to ride VC down arterials.

The sad thing is, as a cycling advocate, I've encountered traffic planners & DOTD engineers who were openly anti-bike. :eek:
So, yeah, I come across rather aggressive, ummm, make that assertive in my stance for cyclist accommodations & rights.



I'm not anti-car, I'm anti-waste. It's just that most car journeys are extremely wasteful.
That said, is being anti-car so bad?

.....
Da Tinker.. Anti Cyclist. Start with the U.S. Secretary of Transportation- Mary Peters.
Allister.. Its not the car, its the car culture and the waste of resources for journey's in which less intense energy consumption is possible. That, and the manners that auto culture has put upon our people when the frustrations of gridlock , etc. makes us a little crazy.

How many recent post have you made which included the subject of cars being banned from the city core?:rolleyes:

So to you, gaining balance, is banning cars from the city core!

Sure why not, as automobiles have intruded in so much of our lives everywhere else... and huge chunks of our real estate have been devoted to the service of the automobile. Perhaps gaining balance IS limiting auto access in some places.

BTW lest you think I am banning people, I am not... I envision parking structures outside of and around that city core, with the center area a large mall where people can walk, shop and congregate, laugh, entertain and mingle.

I envision shopping areas through out the city were stores line the complete streets where indeed cars are permitted, and cyclists are welcome as well as pedestrians... where sidewalk cafes with open seating invite people in tree lined lanes. Where the first thing you encounter is NOT a huge open sea of a parking lot, but the actual shops. Parking is in the rear, or underground. Walkways between shops permit access to shopping. But the main focus is on people, not cars.

Yeah, I call it balance. 'Cause what we have now is more like "dependence." Try to keep in mind that we are "addicted to oil."

Are you really pro-bike when you are willing to accept any bike lane, no matter how dangerous it is to cyclist?

THAT'S a gross mischaracterization of my platform. He aha ke ano?

Fellas like cbhi stand exemplary of bicyclists that are anti-populist and operate with a 'cars first and foremost' attitude towards public space design.

Exactly the type of person i described in my first post.......


"(pro bike equals anti-car)...only to the car lovers intent on continuing to perpetuate autocentricity on american rights of way."

I am against irresponsible car use, however: using a car for every trip when a bicycle, walking or bus would be sufficient, as well as those who drive for recreation and leisure.

There, I disagree with you. I am pro bike, I feel we need more bike lans, and we need stricter licensing requirements and drivers training for cars.

That said, I don't think using a car for recreation or leaisure is irresponsible. For example, is driving an RV to a camp site irresponsible (I don't do that, I like my camping in tents, but many folks like the comforts of an RV) How about car racing? I'm an avid participant in NASA (Nat' Auto Sport Association), and I use my car as a participant in time trial racing and high performance driving events. Thats my choice to do so, using my money to pay for gas and maintenance and resources.

And yet, I am still pro bike, but certainly not anti car. I commute 16 miles one way 4-5 times a week, I go on leisure/training rides on the weekend, and I try and educate drivers and cyclists about responsible biking and sharing the road.

So, yeah, I think you can be pro bike without being anti car.

There, I disagree with you. I am pro bike, I feel we need more bike lans, and we need stricter licensing requirements and drivers training for cars.

That said, I don't think using a car for recreation or leaisure is irresponsible. .

There is a greater need to license cyclists. The behavior of the majority, including some with the fancy bikes is reckless and oblivious to the rules of the road.

I've towed an RV to many places through out the US and Canada to bike. I didn't jet there, I drove there and I don't feel the least bit immoral. I plan to do it again.

What's irresponsible is people trying to run my life with the half-baked political "science" of CO2 global warming. I've been an engineer/scientist for many decades and the CO2 "evidence" is laughable.

I vote for bike lanes.

Al

I've been thinking about this for a while and it seems like a lot of people on here are anti-car. Maybe it's just my bad perception, but I don't think the two necessarily have to equate. Sure, I prefer a bike to a car, but I don't think that we should ban cars. Hopefully this will start a discussion.


To me one of the greatest weapons cyclists have in their arsenal is to make sure, when THEY are driving in their cars, that they treat cyclists with respect, give them their 3 feet (or the entire lane, if it is called for); drive in a calm and courteous fashion, and in general try and be an antidote to the road hysteria that has crept up all around the USA. By promoting the health and fitnes aspects of cycling, I don't think we have to view cars vs bicycles as hostile or a tradeoff.

Yes, cycling has its anti-car/global warming/whatever luddites, much like any environmentalist group does. And given the publicity generated by our 'friends' such as critical mazzholes, many cyclists are unfairly stereotyped. It is our responsibility as cyclists to stand up to these meatheads in our midst, just as much as we have to stand up to own-the-road cars and buses.


roughstuff

I am both pro cycling and anti-car. Though I drive over ten thousand miles a year, I'm anti-car because of the suburban mess we have made of our cities in the United States and the effects of internal combustion engines on our planet.

There is a greater need to license cyclists. The behavior of the majority, including some with the fancy bikes is reckless and oblivious to the rules of the road

the freedom to travel by bike without licensure is a fundamental right that has be reiterated and supported by over 100 years of court precedent.

any talk of 'licensing cyclists' is distinctly anti-american and an attempt to violate my right to travel the public spaces of this country under my own power. the US SUPREME COURT opined over 70 years ago MOTOR VEHICLE operation was attendant with such dangers to the public licensing was permitted, and the wear and tear of MOTOR VEHICLES on highways that licensing of vehicles was permissable.

bikes are free to travel sans licensure. any 'bicyclist' that promotes licensing has a gross misunderstanding of the rights of travel in this country and how they have been defined in courtrooms across this land. that stance on licensing us is distinctly 'anti-bike' and pro-car.

blech.

For me it is stressing appropriate transportation; walk a mile, bike 5-10 miles and use a car for longer trips. Mass transit should be stressed as well in densely developed areas and along major commuter routes. If this thinking is not ingrained in planning then it does not manifest in society so we end up "stuck" as the car has become the only viable form of transportation and the over use of cars is a major source of social ills.

So in order to regain balance, statements that demonstrate over use of cars and less use of cars can also be perceived as anti-car.

I can't say I'm anti car at all. I can't drive friends to the airport on my bike (or can I?) - but at the same time I'm not going to take my car 2 miles to the post office to send off a package (for some reason the majority of people today probably would do that though).

The fact is most Americans would drive to the corner store less than a 1/2 mile away... whether for a pack of smokes, a 6 pack or a 1/2 gallon of milk... the idea of walking or biking is just that foreign to them.

Imagine having to ride 40 miles in -4 weather....or biking your kids to school in a pouring rain. How about taking a vacation 400 miles away. Bikes have their place, cars have their place. I own both and will continue to do so. I've never figured out how to tow my jeep the Tellico with my bike.

the freedom to travel by bike without licensure is a fundamental right that has be reiterated and supported by over 100 years of court precedent.

any talk of 'licensing cyclists' is distinctly anti-american and an attempt to violate my right to travel the public spaces of this country under my own power. .

It's not anti-American, just anti-you. The reason for licensing is the need for education and training before folks are allowed on the road to mingle with automobiles. I don't know any other way to accomplish that.

I'm a gun ownership advocate, but I think before one can own a gun, he should be licensed. Not the gun, the owner. That's the basis of the right to carry laws. In Florida, you go through an outstanding gun-safety, gun law, self-defense and on the range training before you get you're right to carry license. The same approach for bikes might be a good thing.

On the other side of the coin, auto driver's license should require education/training on the rights of cyclists before they are issued.

It's easy to blame the other guy (car driver) for the accidents, but like Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.

Your rights end where my begins, so it's all a big compromise.

Al

The fact is most Americans would drive to the corner store less than a 1/2 mile away... whether for a pack of smokes, a 6 pack or a 1/2 gallon of milk... the idea of walking or biking is just that foreign to them.

Why is it that bad habits are the hardest to break? :(

Walking is a habit kids developed going to school. Now they ride buses.

Biking is a habit kids developed while playing outside, but now they have the internet.

I am surprised, given the therapeutic benefits of walking and/or cycling to people of middle age and up to maintain healthy joints, moderate weight, and lower blood pressure, that folks don't walk more. Even with health insurance premium benefits, its like pulling teeth!

roughstuff

Imagine having to ride 40 miles in -4 weather....or biking your kids to school in a pouring rain. How about taking a vacation 400 miles away. Bikes have their place, cars have their place. I own both and will continue to do so. I've never figured out how to tow my jeep the Tellico with my bike.

Ritepath, I sincerely think you've hit the button on why drivers and cyclists will remain in conflict over infrastructure goals since their desired outcomes are nearly the antithesis of one another. In a cycling-oriented city (a few exist in the United States, and plenty worldwide) you wouldn't "have to ride 40 miles in -4 weather". In a town that was designed for cyclists as compared to automobiles this sort of distance would be absurd, but land use in the United States has been built around sprawling city designs and as such distances are often nearly insurmountable to cyclists. Yet we see cyclists commuting year-round in frozen cities such as Oulu, Finland - because these cities were well-designed with infrastructure and distances appropriate for cyclists.

Infrastructure is everything.

Imagine having to ride 40 miles in -4 weather....or biking your kids to school in a pouring rain. How about taking a vacation 400 miles away. Bikes have their place, cars have their place. I own both and will continue to do so. I've never figured out how to tow my jeep the Tellico with my bike.

Sure, but the point is that most Americans can't imagine riding 4 miles in 70F weather. Or riding with their kids to school, much less letting their kids get themselves to school on their bikes. It is literally abnormal thought in this society.

.... In a cycling-oriented city (a few exist in the United States, and plenty worldwide) you wouldn't "have to ride 40 miles in -4 weather". ........

Yet we see cyclists commuting year-round in frozen cities such as Oulu, Finland - because these cities were well-designed with infrastructure and distances appropriate for cyclists.



Well, all this says is that cities and their adjacent suburbs are really the only places where cycling is a realistic mode for transportation. In the country you can forget it. I am not surprised that countries which artificially raise the cost of fuel (through taxes) find that people reduce fuel use (through cycling and shanks mare).

To me the ideal is to find that mix of transport which minimizes costs. Trains, trucks, planes, buses, cars, and yes, even bikes have a role to play.

I say bring back coolies and rikshaws!

roughstuff

The reason for licensing is the need for education and training before folks are allowed on the road to mingle with automobiles. I don't know any other way to accomplish that.
...but like Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.

Your rights end where my begins, so it's all a big compromise.


And who will determine the necessary education and training requirements before cycling "folks" are allowed on the road to mingle with automobiles? You? Or other experts like you who fabricate a need for cycling "folks" to get education and training to fit their own agenda.

Keep your "needs" to yourself, and speak for yourself about who is your "enemy."

Sure, but the point is that most Americans can't imagine riding 4 miles in 70F weather. Or riding with their kids to school, much less letting their kids get themselves to school on their bikes. It is literally abnormal thought in this society.

We have schools that are built where kids are prohibited from walking or biking, and this is considered an acceptable practice over making the school safe to walk and bike to. Anther factor is the recommended minimum exercise has become the maximum people can do. Recently they just upped the minimum recommendation http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/10/20081007a.html but still I have to question what could be read as 10 min. a day is the max you need (1.15 hours per week / 7 days per week.) I'll assert that healthy people can go for an hour or more at a time and this needs to be stressed. How often people need to go for an hour or more to be healthy I don't know but only being able to go for 10-15 min. before you fall over from exhaustion is not good at all. And to me the 15 min. exercise barrier has to be corrected.

Being pro-bike certainly does not mean being anti-car. There's plenty of room for all road users.

I do agree with genec about restoring the balance (like Western Europe and some parts of the US enjoy), with routine accommodation for bikes and pedestrians.

Unfortunately, bike advocacy attracts too many misfits and left-behinds, and people with attitude problems. Thus the anti-car (anti-establishment) atmosphere. Not only does this set us all back, it discourages the smart and capable people from ever being involved.

How many recent post have you made which included the subject of cars being banned from the city core?:rolleyes:

So to you, gaining balance, is banning cars from the city core!

Sure why not, as automobiles have intruded in so much of our lives everywhere else... and huge chunks of our real estate have been devoted to the service of the automobile. Perhaps gaining balance IS limiting auto access in some places.
So when you use the term "limiting auto access", you really want to ban motorist. Is it any wonder John calls you anti-motoring.

There, I disagree with you. I am pro bike, I feel we need more bike lans, and we need stricter licensing requirements and drivers training for cars.

That said, I don't think using a car for recreation or leaisure is irresponsible. For example, is driving an RV to a camp site irresponsible (I don't do that, I like my camping in tents, but many folks like the comforts of an RV) How about car racing? I'm an avid participant in NASA (Nat' Auto Sport Association), and I use my car as a participant in time trial racing and high performance driving events. Thats my choice to do so, using my money to pay for gas and maintenance and resources.

And yet, I am still pro bike, but certainly not anti car. I commute 16 miles one way 4-5 times a week, I go on leisure/training rides on the weekend, and I try and educate drivers and cyclisrhapsts about responsible biking and sharing the road.

So, yeah, I think you can be pro bike without being anti car.

Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning of recreational or leisure driving. Driving an RV to a camp site would hardly be described as recreational driving; it is driving out of necessity. While I also used to be a big car-racing fan, I have come to recognize how stupendously hazardous car racing is; not so much due to the pollution created by the race-cars, but by the thousands of fans who all drive to the event whether it's out in the country or in the city core. Cruising the main drag on Friday and Saturday night and unnecessarily polluting the air is irresponsible leisure driving. Going for a Sunday afternoon drive in the country is unnecessary destruction of the environment.

Far too many unnecessary car trips are made. Almost every report on urban traffic reflects this fact. Flks drive less than 5 miles to shopping, theatres and restaurants when reliable bus service often exists, particularly here in Toronto where folks are movie-mad, restaurant-mad and shopping-mad. The thing is, once folks have bought a car, they feel obligated and compelled to use it for every single trip whether near or far and never consider using public transportation, a bicycle or their feet, just their car. And of course they want it as near to the door as possible so they have to walk as little as possible.

Are you really pro-bike when you are willing to accept any bike lane, no matter how dangerous it is to cyclist?

THAT'S a gross mischaracterization of my platform. He aha ke ano?Sure it is Bek!:roflmao2: You never have answered the question of: What specific bike lane design would you oppose and fight against?
"He aha ke ano?" Literally translated, "What is the kind?"
Bek, you Lolo *****! Your trying too hard to be Da Kine Kamaina.:roflmao:

We have schools that are built where kids are prohibited from walking or biking, and this is considered an acceptable practice over making the school safe to walk and bike to.
At least we're not talking fourth-graders trying to ride VC down arterials.Saving Hawaii, at least our kids are not prohibited from riding their bicycles to school.:p

It's not anti-American, just anti-you. The reason for licensing is the need for education and training before folks are allowed on the road to mingle with automobiles. I don't know any other way to accomplish that.

Anti American, anti-common sense, anti humanity. Also, keep the government out of
my affairs. Regardless of who you might think the 'enemy' is, cars do the most
damage for a provable, quantifiable viewpoint. People are mean, people are stupid.
People hate bikes. In the USA it will never change.



I'm a gun ownership advocate, but I think before one can own a gun, he should be licensed. Not the gun, the owner. That's the basis of the right to carry laws. In Florida, you go through an outstanding gun-safety, gun law, self-defense and on the range training before you get you're right to carry license. The same approach for bikes might be a good thing.


This is insane ! :eek: Florida is a savage criminal haven. More gun fights than
Detroit. From the gangs to the shootouts at tollbooths on the turnpike, Floridians
suffer / commit more gun crime than probably 98% of the rest of the country.
Proof that 'education' and government meddling dont mean a thing in the real
world.

So when you use the term "limiting auto access", you really want to ban motorist. Is it any wonder John calls you anti-motoring.

No, I don't want to ban the motorist. Just the car. And frankly none of this was part of the discussions I had with John.

My reasons for banning the car (in such limited amounts) is that the car has been thrust into so much of our lives as it is... give it a rest... there needs to be balance... there needs to be places where people can congregate without having the intrusion (the smell, the noise and even the use of space) that a car brings.

Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill... I am only suggesting that city cores could have car free areas. Oddly enough, many cities do just that for special events. So there is precedent.