DRM has absolutely nothing do to with this.

Their existence is far more constant than heavily urbanized areas.

Certainly not. Moderately urbanized areas are a historical footnote. They came into existence less than a century ago, with the emergence of automobilism and cheap fuel.

Heavily urbanized areas have existed for millenia.

This is highly unrealistic. Most people do not want to be packed in tighter with other people, they want more space not less.

The alternative is that they stop existing altogether when personal automobiles become too expensive for the average consumer to own and operate.

I’m talking about moderately urbanized places (which there are a lot more of).

Such places exist as a direct consequence of car culture. Their existence is not a universal constant; they can and must be turned into heavily urbanized areas.

What kind of vehicle do you think usually pulls up to a loading dock?

Grocery stores inside cities do not have loading docks. Their goods are typically delivered by this type of vehicle to curb-side offloading sites during off-peak hours.

18 wheelers are not last mile delivery vehicles and have no business being in cities to begin with.

Compare the top 10% of that cohort against the rest

Top 10% emit 22 tons of CO2 per year per person [1].

8 billion * (10% * 22 tons - 1% * 50 tons) = 14 billion tons of CO2 per year, excluding the top 1%.

Share of total emissions:

Upper middle class (top 10% excluding top 1%): 39%

Lower middle class (top 50% excluding top 10%): 38%

when you create a graph like that without putting values on the axis it’s inherently misleading

No, it’s a common way to present data in a popular scientific context.

the issue here is disproportionate impact from the minority.

No, as the graph shows, the issue is the disproportionate impact from the richest half of the population. Even without the top 1%, the remaining 50-99% percentiles emit far too much. Even without the top 10%, the 50-90% percentiles still emit far too much.

The downvotes on this post just goes to show that lemmy is overrun by a new generation of climate change deniers, denying not the phenomenon as such, but their own culpability in it.

But they’ll get what’s coming to them.

Top 1% emit 50 tons of CO2 per year per person [1].

That’s 8 billion * 1% * 50 tons = 4 billion tons per year.

Total annual CO2 emissions are about 35 billion tons [2].

Share of total emissions:

Ultra-rich (top 1%): 11%

Middle class (top 50% excluding top 1%): 77%

Poor (bottom 50%): 11%

Graph looks about right.

Putting peope in prison was not the point of my original post; preventing repeat dangerous drivers from harming more people was. I’m absolutely open to alternatives to incarceration.

Do you have some examples of what could be done to minimize harm to victims and, in particular, prevent future crime?

You’re contradicting yourself, immediately above you say mandatory prison sentence.

For driving after permanent license revocation. That could perhaps have been clearer; consider it clarified.

Let’s start from first principles and see where we disagree:

1. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
2. That privilege, if repeatedly abused, should be removed permanently.
3. Once removed, further driving must be disincentiviced, and if necessary, punished.
4. The disincentive/punishment must apply to rich and poor alike.
5. It therefore cannot be purely monetary.

If you disagree with any of the above, I’d like to know which, and why. If you agree with them all, what disincentive/punishment do you suggest, if not incarceration?

The three strikes would not lead to a prison sentence, just permanent license revocation. If the driver in question continues to drive at that point, they have demonstrated that they are a danger to society and must be removed from it for the safety of others.

Further, just imposing fines for unlicensed driving would effectively make it legal for rich people to drive recklessly. That, if anything, would be reactionary.

He pleaded guilty to hit-and-run, his third such offence

Three strikes policy must become a thing for reckless driving and related offences. After your third conviction you never get to drive a car again in your life.

“They’d just drive anyway”

Mandatory prison sentence and vehicle confiscation, regardless of who owns it. Unless it’s literaly stolen, it’s the owner’s responsibility to ensure the driver is legally allowed to drive.

“But not being able to drive is undue hardship”

Tough.

I mean, have you seen the rush hour traffic on Coruscant?

Is that the one about the guy who was so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life?

For convenience, the wagon could be motorized. Perhaps even have a nice, comfy seat or two.

Consider being less unpleasant.

When one of them has nothing to do with the other three, splitting them into separate paragraphs is good practice to avoid confusion.

Forklifts […] are operated in pedestrian heavy areas much more frequently [than cars].

???

What are paragraphs?

listening to the people your actions, or the actions you’re at the very least enabling, harm

What harm are you referring to?

No, they’re not. Retirement is not an age, it’s having enough money that you don’t need to work anymore.