motor vehicles

Since PRO has not posted any arguments in the previous round, I will not be rebutting anything and will jump straight into delivering my arguments in the hopes that he/she returns to the debate. Since PRO has not responded to my enquiries about the details of his model, I will be arguing under the premise of the 'one car per family' policy.ARGUMENTSP1) It is an unfair violation on consumer rightsThis entire policy of limiting the car ownership of one household to one car is based on the hollow assumption that each family will use both cars on a regular and frequent basis. It is also founded on the assumption that one car is enough to cater to the size and/or special needs of each family. What if, for example, a family has a normal family car that is used for everyday purposes (i.e. groceries, commuting to and from work), but the family also wishes to own a sports car as a prized possession to be used on special occasions? The greenhouse gas emissions from the cars of this family are presumably not a far cry away from other families who own and use one car, which echoes one of PRO's yardsticks of 'pollution levels'. Additionally, what if there was a wheelchair-bound member of the family? He/she would need a car to themselves for commuting, whilst the rest of the family, who would likely not be able to adjust their schedules to cohere with the wheelchair-bound person's schedule, would need another car.Even if we assume there are no such hypothetical cases, we can still come to the conclusion that this is an unfair and unjust policy. I as a consumer should have access to all products and services on offer in the market as long as I meet legal requirements. Governments can place heavy taxes on cars or limit supply for whatever reason, but blocking off a market or sector completely is a manifestation of the government overstepping their authority. It is not the fault of the individual aspiring drivers that the problems associated with an overwhelming number of cars has gotten so severe, it is a collective issue. To discriminate against consumers who wish to purchase a product simply because its repercussions have been magnified by the shear number of people purchasing said product is an biased and inconsiderate policy, simply because said consumer has no say in how many people will purchase this product and how big the industry is.P2) There are more equitable solutions out thereThere are an array of other options as opposed to stripping the rights of consumers and purchasers available for implementation. To solve the issue of road congestion, Singapore, for instance, uses Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) where certain roads in the most frequented and congested places of Singapore are toll roads and one will automatically have a certain amount electronically deducted from their bank account when they pass through these roads, thus disincentivising drivers to pass through these roads, keeps city entre less congested, and encourages public transport usage altogether. [1]To preserve fossil fuels and reduce pollution, governments can consider upgrading their public transport infrastructure and expanding its network and coverage, as well as enact subsidies and long-term reward systems for those who take public transport on a consistent basis. They can also place heavy taxes on all cars. Sweden, as well as many other EU nations for example, employ the solution that is the low emission zone (LEZ), where fuel inefficient and high polluting cars are not allowed to enter the city centre and places with relatively high population density, forcing drivers to upgrade their cars in order to access these places and thus cutting down on emissions and fossil fuel consumption. [2]SOURCES USED[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.theguardian.com...I await PRO's response.