Technology

It's a fair guess, but my guess is the opposite. Prevention is far cheaper than repairing.

And technological advances almost always comes out on top in terms of costs in the long run.

And this is saving money for the government, not some CEO.

So, I'm not the previous commenter, and I'm not about to suggest we should ban cars outright (there are quite obviously situations where cars are needed... I mean, anyone who lives in an isolated place literally has no better option)... That said, I would love to see cities free of cars entirely.

Buses are more damaging to roads, yes (although I'm confident that your 10,000 number is hyperbole, I found a source which suggested than an empty bus does ~170 times the damage of an SUV, or 1,700 times the damage of a compact), even per passenger - which is surprising. But the benefits are quite significant in other regards - energy, pollution, road space, safety, etc. Plus, you can in fact design busses which are less damaging to roads by giving them more wheels!

Road damage is a relatively small part of why people like me want to see cars be (where practical) a thing of the past. There is a place for busses in that world, alongside other less damaging forms of transit - especially bikes and trams within cities where busses would be the competition. Certain routes are too far for a bike to be practical and too sparse to warrant a tram, so busses make sense in that case.

I swear the “fuck cars” crew are completely deluded from reality.

I see people say what you're saying (bus vs car road damage elasticity) in "fuck cars" communities, I don't really see why you've decided to attack them collectively. But it's a pop-community, they're going to be wrong every now and then either way, please give them some slack. Their purpose is to make an average person aware of car dependency and that it's generally a negative thing, so that actual urban planners with technical knowledge have an easier time arguing for and implementing realistic solutions, and they'll take into account the variables you bring up. Think of "fuck cars" like a form of lobbying except it's done by common people with good intentions - similar to how Japanese coops lobbied for better food safety standards decades ago - rather than wealthy corporations.

I swear the "fuck cars" crew are completely deluded from reality.

A lot of them are, and it's really annoying.

I want fewer cars on the road too. I want cities without constant traffic and road noise. Not to mention to environmental and health benefits. We need a reduction of cars.

But some people in the "fuck cars" camp are just in their own little bubble. Privileged people who live where public transport is good, they're healthy and able-bodied enough to cycle, they don't work overnight where public transport isn't accessible.

They're completely separate from reality. Some of us live in isolated communities where a train service obviously won't ever happen for obvious reasons, and buses aren't a feasible solution either.

Some of us have mobility requirements and can't cycle 20 miles to work along a damp, dreary motorway.

bAn aLL cArS is utterly unrealistic for a slew of practical reasons, never mind the politics of a government coming along and saying "hey plebs, we plan on taking your cars away, sucks to be you, right?"

The number 1 priority should be pedestrianisation of city centres and addition of bus links, then taking it from there. Calling car drivers evil while chanting ban cars is just stupid.