The immediate point that you are obviously ignoring is that no one you are replying to has even suggested anything that you seem to be arguing against.
It looks like you are responding to someone saying "ban all cars, anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up, regardless of any extenuating circumstances"
What was actually said was "LET people run errands by foot and by car", and "I'd like more awnings"
Basically - make places more walkable. "Low hanging fruit" meaning focus on making nearly walkable places into very walkable places.
I am a parent with small children. We walk to school. With a baby, I would walk to the supermarket, no one got ill any more than the occasional sniffle. Combining a pram and a backpack meant I could easily bring home the weekly shop, much easier than I can now that I have to carry everything.
It's also about places that are wantonly and deliberately hostile to pedestrians. Don't make people drive between adjacent destinations, don't force people to walk 2 miles to get somewhere half a mile away.
If you live in a village with a baby and an elderly parent and your nearest city is Timbuktu or Nuuk, this is not about you.
I also don't buy that "once you have kids you need a car". I have 2 little kids and neither me nor my wife ever had a driver's license. We use transit and bicycle. When our kids were smaller we used a cargo bike, now they each have their own bicycle (kids here start cycling at age 3-4). We also walk a lot. It works out fine.
That's not all they were saying in either this or their other comments.
The comment I replied to had this in response to someone's question about walking in "sweltering heat":
> (talks a lot about personal experiences and hardships and then concludes with...) So I'm not especially impressed by such arguments. I don't think they have much, if any, merit.
The entire tone of the comment is "if I can do it, anyone can". While it's not as strong as "anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up", there is definitely an implication of something along those lines.
The "sweltering heat" comment was, itself, a bad-faith "Ha! you didn't think about this edge condition" kind of comment, in response to a comment saying this:
> Take the gains you can access instead of quibbling about "But that doesn't work for everyone!"
The tone of that you describe as "if I can do it, anyone can", I read as "yes I did think of that, because this is my relevant experience, and people living somewhere hot isn't the massive 'gotcha' you think it is"
But the point still stands, this is about reducing car use by making places more walkable, and your reaction read as a response to reducing car use by banning cars.
Many places in North America are actively and unnaturally hostile to pedestrians, so that even those who want to walk end up driving. This is what needs to change first.
Moaning that Oklahoma gets so hot so you can't possibly install pedestrian facilities in suburban Philadelphia, or that some people need to drive along this road, so you can't possibly provide a way for pedestrians to get across it is ridiculous.
Improving walkability also improves drivability, because it reduces traffic and parking demand.
Quibbling about not working for everyone is precisely what you and the "sweltering heat" comment are doing. Take the easy steps and the harder ones can follow.
Moreover, I don't think you are really considering the reality of getting around with small children, just trying to win another gotcha. My kids hated getting into the car as babies. A pram ride along a nice tree-shaded, low-traffic Street would be far more preferable in all but the most ridiculous summertime-midday-in-the-outback heat.
I am very specifically highlighting how it's not all in the motivation (I said as much in my very first comment), but that instead we need to work on developing walkable areas at the same time. You might have an argument that the GP was not saying that, but then you continue to argue something I didn't say either (if you disregard my point of motivation not being the only issue for people to drop cars, the rest of my comment doesn't follow).
As with everyone else here saying they've got kids and no cars, it's obvious you are already living in walkable areas.
You are instead taking my comment in bad faith: nowhere did I mention banning of cars. It seems it's fine to consider individual cases in support of your view as proof of it, whereas counter examples are "edge cases".
I've got small kids, and my baby hates both the car and a pram. If I want to get somewhere nice, it's faster with a car.
It looks like you are responding to someone saying "ban all cars, anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up, regardless of any extenuating circumstances"
What was actually said was "LET people run errands by foot and by car", and "I'd like more awnings"
Basically - make places more walkable. "Low hanging fruit" meaning focus on making nearly walkable places into very walkable places.
I am a parent with small children. We walk to school. With a baby, I would walk to the supermarket, no one got ill any more than the occasional sniffle. Combining a pram and a backpack meant I could easily bring home the weekly shop, much easier than I can now that I have to carry everything.
It's also about places that are wantonly and deliberately hostile to pedestrians. Don't make people drive between adjacent destinations, don't force people to walk 2 miles to get somewhere half a mile away.
If you live in a village with a baby and an elderly parent and your nearest city is Timbuktu or Nuuk, this is not about you.