In what seems like an insane and couldn’t-possibly-be-real post, one BuzzFeed writer has called for cars to be banned in big cities in the wake of the attack in New York.

The lesson here is never underestimating the insanity of the progressive mindscape of government solutions. The other lesson is, of course, remembering that quality journalism and Buzzfeed are two words that do not go together.  Written by Jessie Singer, the article postulates that it is time to simply ban cars from big cities such as New York, or Boston.

The article is not satire either. It reads quite seriously, stating “Cars don’t belong on the streets of big cities, and we should do everything in our power to get rid of them.” For leftists who care about people and feelings, this does not seem like a particularly safe course of action. For one thing, buses and subways, particularly in New York would become incredibly overcrowded and aren’t they already overcrowded? The proposal aims, just as gun control does, to punish the majority of car owners, for the actions of one person.  Singer believes you can simply reduce the number of people allowed to drive. But it is already incredibly complicated and expensive to get your license in New York City.

Singer does acknowledge that this would be impossible to implement overnight and changes do need to be made to the public transporation system. But that still won’t solve the problem of insane people choosing to kill someone. Nor does it address the underlining economic issues.

Exactly 10 years and 11 months ago, a different man steered onto the same Manhattan bike path that Sayfullo Saipov did this week. He also accelerated for a mile, and then he killed my best friend. My friend’s name was Eric Ng, and he died on the same block as Saipov’s first victim. The drunk driver struck Eric so hard that he was knocked out of his sneakers.

This happened in the middle of the night, but if that drunk had been a day-drinker, I have no doubt the death toll would have been as high as it was on Tuesday.

After Eric was killed, the city of New York put up a few plastic bollards along the bike path, as though this was not a car problem, but a bollard problem. On Tuesday, Saipov drove right over those plastic bollards.

The issue, clearly was not the vehicle, but the irresponsible drunk who got behind the wheel and killed Singer’s friend. This is a tragedy and truly sad. Her main reason for being able to just force people into the mode of transportation someone else wants is simply because, while guns are constitutionally protected, cars are not. Of course, this goes back to Europe, because everyone has to be like Europe.

Oslo plans to ban all cars from its city center by 2019. Madrid has a goal of 500 car-free acres by 2020. In Paris and Mexico City, people are restricted from driving into the city center on certain days based on the age of their cars or the number on their license plates. Inside Barcelona’s superblocks, all car traffic that isn’t local is banned. Over 75 miles of roads in Bogotá, Colombia, close to traffic for a full day every week.

Now Oslo is much smaller population wise and already bolsters a large and great public transportation system. Madrid’s streets are fairly tight that sometimes it seems that drivers are Houdini’s. Mexico has plenty of problems and doesn’t ban cars for the sake of banning cars. South America, isn’t exactly the best example in general for convincing anyone of your plan.

As for Europe, with tighter streets and better public transportation, I can see the appeal. But banning cars takes away a person’s choice to make that decision for themselves. Improving public transportation and access of the disabled to the system could help to bridge the choice between cars by the consumer instead of the government. After all, that’s how the free market works. European drivers are scary. Anyone walking along the streets of Paris or Rome will attest. The answer is…maybe there should be better options to teach people how to drive properly, instead of just banning cars from Paris.

Singer also forgets that a lot of people, due to the cost of housing choose to live further outside the cities, thus having a car becomes a necessity, even if only to get to a metro stop, like many residents of Virginia do. The other issue is disabled drivers or people who simply feel more secure in the comfort of their own vehicle, as opposed to a cramped metro rail. It seems ludicrous to force everyone to walk or take public transportation because of the actions of one or a few people.

Terrorism is not predictable or preventable. But the threat of cars in cities is in our control. A hundred years ago, when cars first became an accessible purchase for city dwellers, and the idea of a pedestrian being killed by a car was still shocking, the City Club of New York published a “municipal murder map,” which exclusively listed locations where people had been killed by cars. Such a map would have been a service this week. It would have shown that on the same bike path where an ISIS sympathizer killed eight people on Tuesday, Olga Cook was also killed by a driver in 2016. Carl Henry Nacht was killed there in 2006. Later that year, so was my best friend.

Once again liberals fail to understand the fundamental flaw that if you start banning one thing you’d have to ban everything and that someone with a goal to cause harm to others will find a way to do it regardless of the obstacles in their path. Can’t get a car? Well, how about a motorcycle, or a bomb, or a sniper mounted on a building. You cannot ban everything.