We are against this motion by the way, that is we stand against the idea of a private transportation ban.

Ask Dodgey

What next, skateboards?

I don't agree with powerful weapons ownership (guns/grenades/atom bombs etc), which is another story. Ironically, some of the arguments for it i do agree with, and apply them to everything else - people should be able to have pretty much anything they want. Sure, a ballpoint pen can be used as a weapon but the argument is assisted by judging things on the purpose in which they were intended.

People should be able to have their own train if they want. Just abide by the signals. It annoys me that i can build a unique motorcycle from scratch, but then i'm not allowed to ride it...

There was once a time people had freedom. They don't now. It would be helpful if people would stop handing over what freedoms they have left, by supporting the banning of everything, as if heavy legislation is somehow a good thing...

Why is there even a debate over if private cars should be banned or not?

Granted theres pollution vs convenience. In every modern country ppl lean towards convenience.

Cos hongkong i ocquepied by china and china is a dictator ship any how if u can oford tae bie a car then u should have the rite tae do so

You could argue that a ban of private cars in a congested commercial area such as Hong Kong could rather be a solution to much of the inconvinience. Private transport already causes mass-traffic congestion in an already dense city where 90 per cent of daily trips are made on public transport anyway. (One of the highest rates in the world)

You could further argue that the public transportation system is already sophisticated enough where extensive passenger rail networks 93 metro stations throughout the territory. The issue of pollution is a genuine concern as the more private cars there are, the more number of people there are suffering from respiratory diseases, adding to the fact that Hong Kong also has a a universal public healthcare system that is funded by tax revenue, and treatment is subsidised. on average, I think 95 per cent of healthcare costs are covered by the government.

The higher the number of people with respiratory and health issues arising from increased pollution, the more burden there is on the health system oweing to an already gargantuan population.

Ok so you have those ideas, rather strong points, but youre asking the forum for ideas?

Nice.

I am in the opposition, not for the ban of private cars.
I'd consider the opposition's possible arguments in the text above.

Where you stand personally shouldn't be of great relevance.

Anyway, if 90 percent use a competitive public transport system, then market forces are already doing their job.

Also, cars are cleaner than ever - and public transport pollutes terribly. Perhaps if the truth were thrown about instead of bias when it comes to the pollution issue, then the 10 percent using cars/bikes wouldn't be unjustly bullied...

Without implementing a comprehensive and sustainable transport policy, it would only deterriorate air quality and cause other grave issues, if public transports continue operating as they do and private transports remain unregulated.

Private cars account for some 70 per cent of all registered vehicles in Hong Kong, yet they carry less than 12 per cent of the daily passenger volume on a weekday, oweing to the fact that the number of private cars rose 40 per cent last year, compared with a 3.6 per cent rise in the number of buses and minibuses.
The latter by contrast, carry approximatelty 71 per cent of total daily road-based passenger boardings, but account for only 5 to 25 per cent of total traffic on major roads. While private cars are comprised of more than half of total vehicles on all major roads. Clearly this results in increased road-side emission and thus contributing to an already gravely unsustainable society.

Perhaps regulation is key, if better yet not for an outright ban until a sustainable method is found that is both utlitarian and environmentally friendly.