Well.... this works because Amsterdam is a small city.

No, it works because Amsterdam has infrastructure in place to make it work. My "home" town is Bath in England - population of ~90000, and vastly smaller than Amsterdam. However, the transit infrastructure there is terrible. It's also worth noting that Amsterdam has not always been how it is today: in the 70s and 80s it was filled with cars.

Try cycling across LA...

Right, because LA is built for cars not people.

It was actually built for streetcars.

Yeah, LA has a lot of work to do to catch up.

What about it? I do it all the time. Faster than taking surface streets in a car during rush hour for sure.

The main difference isn’t the size, it’s the layout.

I’m in Berlin (metro area population 6.1 million compared to LA’s 13.1 million) and I don’t need a car or a bike because I have at least 22 food supermarkets (including 3 in a shopping mall), 2 household electronics stores, a building supplies store, a hacker shop, and countless bakeries and spätis [0] within 1.0 miles.

Judging by Google Maps search results, I’d say Amsterdam is similar.

I’ve explored a few American cities on foot, and if those places were representative of the rest, I can understand why Americans would regard cars as mandatory; but the model of large stores, few and far between, is not the only one.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spätkauf

By Berlin standards I'm in the middle of nowhere yet there are at least 3 stores in walking range and this is actually a very car dependent city. They just put stores near residential buildings. That's all there is to it.

At least for us Americans, there's more to it than practical disadvantage, though we do have to travel much longer distances much more often here. If I say we love cars because they represent freedom, I'm not sure that gets it across. For a century they have been a tool that allows the American to go when he pleases when he pleases. Everyone remembers the day his dad tossed him the keys to the car and the freedom that brought. We appreciate them on a much deeper level than is easy to communicate, and for that reason they will not go away, nor should they.

I suspect that, for the most part, this is advertising. Sure, advertising creates culture, but you're mostly communicating the result of what you're told by the media you consume.

That culture doesn't somehow make it sustainable or healthy to drive so much.

I get your hesitation, but it’s not advertising. You didn’t want your mom to take you and your crush to the movie theater. You didn’t want to wait 30 minutes until after practice to get picked up because your parents both work until 5.

(I’m afraid that, your worldview may be, more narrow, than you, may think.)

Youth here walk/hike/drive (with scooter) or go with public transport on top of car (if 18+). Obviously it doesn't work well if distances are huge. A car is useful in rural areas.

And every year, fewer people live in rural America compared to those in cities. :)

Oh, I assert all that land use happened because of advertising and regulatory capture! The movie theater was in walking distance before the massive interstate highway giveaways.

As an American, the only time a car represents freedom to me is on a road trip through rural areas, and it's perfectly easy to rent one for that purpose. The rest of the time, it's a massively expensive and dangerous anchor.

I can imagine the day dad tossed the keys to the car because in USA that is at age 16 while say drinking age is 21; so it comes first, as an earlier sign of recognition of becoming an adult. Its like a nod of responsibility. Here, you are allowed both when you are considered an adult (18). That's post high school. Students get to travel for free with public transport (either throughout the week or in the weekend, they have to pick either). How nice is that? Its great, unless you live in a rural area. Instead, kids here get proud when they get their first scooter (at age 16 when still at high school).

What you say about car freedom for rural life, sure. I wasn't on about rural life though. I don't know how good the public transport is in American cities (it is very good in Amsterdam, but also perhaps even better in say Berlin).

I'm curious about that (didn't get to use it when I was in USA). I would guess that someone who lives in New York City who doesn't own a car can rent one if they go to say Pennsylvania. But my guess would be, like in Amsterdam, they don't need one when they reside in New York City.

> it is very good in Amsterdam, but also perhaps even better in say Berlin

Oh, it’s fantastic in Berlin. Within 1.6 km of me, there are 18 tram stops, a similar number of bus stops, and 3 stops on the Ringbahn. The trams and the trains come roughly every 5 minutes.

I suspect one other big difference between American and European when it comes to the feeling of car-derived Liberty is the fact that, before the Schengen Agreement, Europeans needed passports to travel between countries (and European counties are about the same size as American states); and after the Schengen Agreement, air travel was cheap enough that it (rather than cars) represents the large scale freedom of movement.

At least, that’s how it feels to me.