Podrzucam link do artykułu traktującego o fenomenie i patologii motoryzacji. Rzecz jest z.... 1973 roku i nie tylko nic nie straciła na aktualności, wręcz przeciwnie dramatycznie zyskała. Można ów tekst potraktować jako sui generis manifest/prognozę, która się w bardzo dużym stopniu spełniła.
Już wówczas autor artykułu zwracał - na przykład - uwagę na to, iż samochody zawłaszczają przestrzeń innych użytkowników ruchu drogowego, w tym pieszych i rowerzystów. Przypominam, iż w Polsce do 1983 roku, regułą było, że samochody nie mogą parkować na chodnikach. Od tamtego czasu regułą jest że mogą - ze skutkami oczywistymi dla pieszych.
Ciekawa jest też i jakże aktualna konstatacja już wówczas sformułowana, że w bardzo wielu wypadkach używanie samochodu prowadzi do marnowania czasu zamiast jego oszczędzania.
Zainteresowanych problemem odsyłam do podlinkowanego materiału.


"This means of transportation at first seemed unattainable to the masses—it was so different from ordinary means. There was no comparison between the motorcar and the others: the cart, the train, the bicycle, or the horse-car. Exceptional beings went out in self-propelled vehicles that weighed at least a ton and whose extremely complicated mechanical organs were as mysterious as they were hidden from view. For one important aspect of the automobile myth is that for the first time people were riding in private vehicles whose operating mechanisms were completely unknown to them and whose maintenance and feeding they had to entrust to specialists. Here is the paradox of the automobile: it appears to confer on its owners limitless freedom, allowing them to travel when and where they choose at a speed equal to or greater than that of the train. But actually, this seeming independence has for its underside a radical dependency. Unlike the horse rider, the wagon driver, or the cyclist, the motorist was going to depend for the fuel supply, as well as for the smallest kind of repair, on dealers and specialists in engines, lubrication, and ignition, and on the interchangeability of parts. Unlike all previous owners of a means of locomotion, the motorist’s relationship to his or her vehicle was to be that of user and consumer-and not owner and master. This vehicle, in other words, would oblige the owner to consume and use a host of commercial services and industrial products that could only be provided by some third party. The apparent independence of the automobile owner was only concealing the actual radical dependency."


uneveneart(*)cial-ideology-of-the-motorcar/