In this vein, I saw a comment on Lemmy that speaks to this. I’m paraphrasing but it really woke me up. The person said that Americans choose on edge cases and not standard use case. I realized I felt that way about ICE cars vs EV and I am a cyclist. It is amazing how we can have blinders on.
PayPal sold for a billion bucks, the largest sale ever, at the time. Now it’s just integrated into eBay, which also isn’t going anywhere, so I have no idea what you’re implying. Did I miss something?
Autopilot turns off because the car doesn’t know what to do and the driver is supposed to take control of the situation. The autopilot isn’t autopilot, it’s driving assistance and you want it to turn off if it doesn’t know what it’s should do.
Sure, what meant though was that Tesla doesn’t have self driving cars the way they try to market it as. They are no different than what other car manufacturers got, they just use a more deceptive name.
If an incident is imminent within the next <2 seconds or so, autopilot must take the action or assist in an action. Manual override can happen at any time, but in such a duration it’s unlikely and only the autopilot has any chance, therefore it cannot turn off and absolve itself if liability.
It seems reasonable for the autopilot to turn off just before collission, my point was more in the line of “You won’t get a penny from Elon”.
People who rely on Full Self Driving or whatever it’s called now, should be liable for letting a robot control their cars. And I also think that the company that develops and advertises said robot shouldn’t get off scot-free but it’s easier to blame the shooter rather than the gun manufacturer.
I am doing this. I have to walk along a narrow pavement next to a road to get to the nearest bus stop. During a rain it has many puddles and I’ve been splashed on many occasions. Will be making a foam brick next week.
I saw a video a few weeks ago of a trucker who had to pull over on a fast road and he was holding a sharp pole in his hand. People usually reacted by giving him space, rather than driving inches away from him at 80km/h, like they usually do.
Looks to me like a lot of them are slowing down to see what kind of performance art he’s doing. Even the bus driver pointed at him in curiosity. Admittedly, there are also a lot of them swerving away from the puddle in a moment of sudden awareness, or just swerving away from him in a moment of fear.
There may be some aspect of attention-grabbing that would work no matter what was in his hand. People see so many umbrellas on a rainy day that it barely registers, but if you hold anything at all that’s eye-catching, you’ll pop up in their conscious attention and they’ll treat you like a person instead of a road hazard.
I mean, if it works it works, but I think it would be less effective if a lot of people did it. “Oh, I’ve seen this one, he never actually throws the brick.”
I mean, if it works it works, but I think it would be less effective if a lot of people did it. “Oh, I’ve seen this one, he never actually throws the brick.”
seems easily solved by having at least some people actually throw it when called for
That’s true, it wouldn’t take very many before people were always cautious.
EDIT: Wait, what am I saying. Drivers routinely just kill each other for a million reasons, and then never do anything about the reasons or use any caution whatsoever.
As a cyclist in NYC the complaint that bikes are weaving through cars is hilarious.
Of course they are. Cars are almost always stuck in traffic while bikes move faster.
I can make my 12ish mile commute in 45 minutes. Until the bridge I spend every mile of that commute passing cars.
That’s all besides the point though: there shouldn’t be personal passenger vehicles in NYC. Business vehicles sure. A few taxis are personal vehicles because of Uber - sure. But there should be 0 street parking and heavy restrictions on where drivers are allowed to go. We need to take back our streets.
Ahhh, I see the problem! … The car drivers feel like fools sitting around in their enormous polluting wastes of space and resources but not going anywhere! So naturally everything good must be destroyed in the name of making the wrong thing feel better.
Having been a motorcyclist in NYC this is true. They will try to hit you to keep you from doing something they can’t. I can’t imagine how much worse it must be for cyclists.
The only advantage we have is that we have an increasing number of bike lanes parallel to major thoroughfares. While there’s the prevalent issue of trucks parking in the lanes they are, for the most part, clear and in reasonable condition.
Yes. Yes, yes, yes. As a cyclist in NYC myself, the hate that I see bicyclists get is fucking absurd.
“That person is riding their bike in traffic! How dangerous!”
Like, motherfuckers, you’re the ones forcing us to ride in traffic. And it wouldn’t be dangerous without the car element. The danger is in the cars. A bicycle crash can hurt and cause damage, but with a helmet? You’re mostly pretty safe from deadly accidents. THE CARS ARE THE ONES CAUSING THE DANGER. Not the cyclists.
And then all this talk about congestion pricing being ridiculous. TAX THE FUCK out of them. Ban them. It’s a fucking addiction. And a crippling one. Why people take cars into the city is mind boggling. Like you said, it’s necessary, especially here, for there to be some traffic. Deliveries for businesses, cabs. That’s pretty much it. But, no. Every single road is full of parked cars, driving cars, double parked cars BLOCKING THE FUCKING BIKE LANES EVERY 100 GODDAMN FEET…it’s actual lunacy.
It’s such a bikeable city. Few hills, relatively short distances. But with cars creating so much traffic, it seems far because everyone sits in a car in stop and go traffic for 45min to get from the FiDi to the park. All these wasted resources with cops directing traffic UNDERNEATH FUNCTIONING STOPLIGHTS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS SO AGGRAVATED SITTING IN TRAFFIC THAG THEYLL ALL JUST BLOCK THE INTERSECTION BECAUSE THEYVE GONE THROUGH FIVE LIGHT CYCLES, the constant construction…it’s lunacy. There’s really no other word for it.
Calling him a “cocksucker” is frankly insulting to people who perform the act of sucking cock. Musk is way too selfish to perform the generous and loving act that is fellatio.
after paying him tens of millions, they did it again a thousand more times because thousands of tens of millions is billions. tens of thousands of millions of dollars. It’s an insane amount of money.
I keep encountering cyclists riding against traffic, on roads with no shoulder and around blind turns. It’s just about the most insane thing you can do on a bike, second only to sailing through red lights without looking. And it’s people of all ages doing it, not just young people like I would expect.
Actually, the closest I’ve come to colliding with someone doing this shit is when I was riding my bike - on the correct side of the road - and suddenly encountered a cyclist (a mom towing her two kids on a trailer, no less) head-on coming the wrong way around a blind turn. I was barely able to avoid hitting her; if I’d been in a car going 25 mph I almost certainly would have hit her.
It’s just fucking stupid because it’s contrary to other drivers’ (and cyclists’) expectations and gives them virtually no chance of avoiding the situation or reacting correctly, and it also happens to be straight-up illegal.
Unsafe behavior isn’t made okay just because the risk of death is minimal. The mother could have been concussed or had a broken bone, for all we know. If things go pear shaped and the trailer tips over, you could have the kids dumped out into traffic on one side, or down a ditch on the other, for all we know. This line of thinking, that it’s okay as long as it’s not equally dangerous as it would be in a car, makes no sense.
Sure, all other factors being equal, it would be less severe with everyone on bikes, but your initial post read rather dismissively to me. Rather than, “Well at least it wasn’t a car and they didn’t die,” it came across to me like “Nobody was in a car and it was unlikely to kill them, so it’s not a problem.” Perhaps that wasn’t your intent, but it’s certainly how I interpreted it. We can advocate for a safer mode of transit while also calling out dangerous behavior by people using our preferred mode.
An old lady at the hospital I used to work at was killed by a bike rider crashing into her at a high rate of speed. She hit her head on the pavement & fell unconscious - person on the bike bailed, when she was found after a few minutes it was too late.
It is far easier to protect pedestrians from 4-wheeled vehicles with simple measures such as concrete bollards and fences, but a 2-wheeled vehicle can go basically anywhere a pedestrian can, and now with EVs they can do it way faster without much effort.
Momentum is the biggest factor in the severity of the crash, and an ebike is never going to have as much momentum as a car. Severe incidents can happen with bikes and they should be sensibly regulated, but it is far less common than crashes involving cars.
Personally, I prefer a helmet mirror. Riding against traffic means that you reduce the reaction time for drivers. If you’re going 15 mph and the driver is going 30 mph, you are approaching at 45 mph. If you are both going the same way, the driver is approaching at 15 mph, giving three times more time to react. It also tends to place you in spots on the road where you are not expected. A helmet mirror isn’t as good as a straight-on view, but the tradeoffs are worth it.
Yeah, some of the e-bike circlejerk sounds like it’s from people who have never been in a major city where they get used by people with no regard for others. I’ve nearly been run down by app delivery drivers on ebikes and mopeds turning onto the sidewalk going the wrong way down one way streets at 30+ mph, people riding both acting crazy in the bike lanes, running red lights and cutting through traffic with no regard for their own safety or anyone else’s. You’ll have to excuse me when I lack sympathy for the guys on souped-up ebikes doing 30mph over a blind hill with no lights or helmet that get mad and start threatening me because they had to swerve to dodge since they were riding in the wrong lane.
Some of it could be app delivery drivers struggling to make ends meet while being subject to unreasonable and dangerous metrics, along with unlivable pay. I feel for them, but their struggle to earn a living doesn’t give them carte blanche to put other people’s lives at risk. On the other hand, a lot of people I see riding these tricked out ebikes and mopeds are the same people I know that were riding dirt bikes on NYC streets a few years back and moaning about how misunderstood they were and how the cops are picking on them just because they want to ride 40 deep down Third Ave and do wheelies while the streets and sidewalks are full of other vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
I’m all for encouraging people to use other modes of transportation, but people are being assholes and demonstrating why there’s going to be a need to regulate the ebike and moped industry more rigorously, and probably introduce some sort of licensing requirement to enable tracking dangerous riders and enforcing safety rules. You have people riding devices rigged up to go at highway speeds, being careless while riding and disregarding pedestrians, riding the wrong way, and just generally being reckless and putting other people at risk. This is also ignoring the issue of people being cheap and buying aftermarket batteries that cause some nasty fires.
If you’re on an ebike, scooter or moped that exceeds 25mph, I don’t think you have any business being in the bike lane. Yes, it’s riskier for those riders to be in vehicular traffic, but even ignoring the mass of the bike, just a person’s body hitting you at 30mph or more can do some serious damage. If you’re riding at a massively higher speed than those around you in the same lane, you’re a safety hazard to others in your lane, whether you’re on a moped doing 40mph in a 15-20mph zone, or in a car doing 70mph in a 45mph zone. People still need to be held accountable for putting others at risk with dangerous behavior, too, whether it’s a car driving erratically, ebikes going down one way streets the wrong way, cyclists taking blind corners at speeds that don’t let them stop for pedestrians, or even just pedestrians doing stupid shit like insisting on walking in the bike lane, rather than using a perfectly good sidewalk or pedestrian path right next to them. That said, they need to be enforced across the board, not just singling out people on ebikes or cyclists, while ignoring others.
Here if the ebike goes >15mph it is like any other vehicle (must have insurance and plate) and is not allowed on bike lanes.
Of course uber drivers and many others people use home made set-up on their bike which exceed legal regulations and drive recklessly but heh that’s an other problem.
There isn’t a federal standard, but there is a common state-level standard in the US with class 1, 2, and 3. Class 1 cuts out at 20 mph and must be assist-only. Class 2 also cuts out at 20 mph, but may also have a throttle that works without peddling. Class 3 cuts out at 28 mph and may or may not have a throttle. Technically there are laws around not taking class 3 e-bikes in some spots, but I have found with mine as long as I ride it like a class 1 (15-20 mph max), no one bothers me. However, none of them require a license or insurance.
Honestly it’s both. There’s shitty infrastructure combined with 2-ton passenger trucks. But you also have a society that while creating bike lanes, doesn’t create cyclists. Instead I see motorcycles driving down the bike lane, cyclists going against traffic, scooters cutting through shit like the end of world is behind them.
Really no one person is wrong, we’re kinda all wrong for not getting fucking organized.
The street doesn’t belong to anyone, it’s there to efficiently move as many people as possible, as safely as possible. That requires everyone to participate though.
As a cyclist for decades my shit is all about safety. So running heavy motorcycles through a bike lane is a big fucking deal to me.
But I’m also smart enough to realize the solution isn’t to ban cars nor is it to force cyclists into weird positions. Got to be something in between no?
Nah let’s ban cars. The petrol ones are polluters that are killing all life on earth, and the electric ones still have PM10 pollution that gives kids asthma and allergies, plus they’re destructive to communities
Serious question: are you concerned that banning all cars will negatively impact some groups more than others - for instance, people living with disability? Cars are a far more preferable mode of transport for someone who has a physical disability; someone who has autism and struggles with sensory overload; or someone who is morbidly obese and struggles to walk even short distances. What are your thoughts on how their needs can be accommodated if we take all cars off the road overnight tonight?
I think you’re full of shit. I have autism and I can’t drive a car. I struggle too much with sensory overload. I think there is a nuanced conversation to be had about this issue, but not with your bad faith ass telling me nonsense about my own disability. A car dependent society is ableist. And here’s you defending it while using me as your prop to make a point that harms me. My disability isn’t yours to weaponise. You’re not helping me, you’re harming me.
That’s a fair call mate, but I would like to remind you that Autism is a spectrum, and many different people have many different presentations and symptomatology associated with their conditions. I’m sorry that you’re not able to drive due to your condition, but many others are able to including some of my close family members.
My bad if what I wrote made you feel like a prop - it wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely trying to spark conversation about disability accommodations in car-free world.
You said cars are a preferable mode of transport for people with physical disabilities, and used a semicolon to imply the same for people with autism. That’s true in some cases, but the way you presented it is reductive and misleading, and it erases people like me and most other disabled people. Most disabilities benefit from public transit and walkability more than cars. Cars make elderly people lose their mobility faster. Cars cause obesity. It’s easier to ride the train in a wheelchair than drive a car. Wheelchair cars are expensive and hard to use. What you presented as absolute truth is false most of the time.
And I don’t think we should ban Dutch style microcars, which are great for disabled mobility and travel at bicycle speeds.
I see the confusion - my semicolon usage was to denote items in a list. Physical disabilities, Autism and obesity were three separate conditions that I was suggesting may be impacted by removing all cars from the road. My apologies if that was not clear. I included Autism in there specifically because my cousin recently got his licence and has been over the moon about how he no longer has to deal with the sensory overload shit he puts up with on public transport. It was an example close to my heart, and clearly it was close to yours as well.
I’m sorry that it seems as though I’ve presented concepts as absolute truths - that was not my intention. My intention was to list some circumstances where some people may be negatively affected as a starting point for discussion around disability accommodations in a car-free world.
Just to state - I personally do believe we need to reduce car usage as much as possible and seriously ramp up accessibility while removing all costs for high-quality public transport. I think cars are a blight on our society and we rely far too heavily on them. I just don’t know how to get rid of them without any negative unintended consequences. I was seeking a debate, or to be informed on how this could be done well. Instead it seems as though I’ve offended you, which was not my intention.
I know that understanding tone from text can be difficult at the best of times but I’ve honestly tried to be as genuine and non-combative as possible. I’m sorry there’s not more I can do to convey that I agree with your sentiment and am asking for help in how that can be put into place without accidentally harming anyone.
Amazing how the existence of a single person who (may possibly) need a car means that everyone gets to drive cars and there is nothing that should be done about cars. Man isn’t that convenient for you.
I think you might’ve made an unfair assumption about my position just because I asked a question. To clarify: I am all for reducing car usage as much as possible by implementing high-quality no-cost public transport solutions. I am however concerned that a blanket ban on all cars will negatively impact already underprivileged communities, and so a more methodical approach that limits and disincentivises car usage for those who don’t need it, while still retaining options for those who do, would better address the issue with the least unintended consequences possible.
A few other concerns that I have with a blanket ban are around implementation - if it’s done suddenly then public transport systems will be extremely overwhelmed and will underperform, leading to large losses in productivity across the economy. Do you think a staged approach or a fast approach is more appropriate, and what sort of timeframes do you think are feasible for enacting a ban?
You’re absolutely right - just about any action taken on a population-wide scale will have both positives and negatives, and they’re also not likely to be shared equally among stratified groups in that population. Just to be clear - I’m not discounting a car ban as an option entirely but rather trying to determine how it would actually work. In my utopia there would rarely be need for personal vehicles, but I’m not smart enough to know the steps to get there. I’m keen on discussing what those steps might be, and how we can engage them in a way that their impact on individuals is as equitable as possible.
In my opinion, people should change as quickly as possible, I think thats going to be extremely important for humans across the board moving forward.
That said, I dont know how to apply that thought societally, everyone has different tolerances. And also, most people I meet resist change without thought, so my guess is it would be incredibly slow as everyone would be mostly concerned with making sure its not an inconvenient solution.
Just giving it a few minutes thought here, I want to say this is a problem that should be solved by local government, as that would be the largest scale where you could vary the approach by specific population needs.
Maybe some farm heavy states are going to essentially need most of their vehicles, who knows.
Probably first we need to all agree on the problem though…
Edit: idea! Maybe use federal government to set the goals and direction we should be heading in, and let local governments handle the how and how much a d how fast.
I really like using federal government to set direction but pushing for local changes ASAP. Honestly that seems like the most logical way to cater to individual needs while moving as quickly as possible.
Obviously we also have to invest heavily in public transport, right? Not only do we need to beef up what existing but we’ll need to create new linkages in order to prevent transportation deserts. Part of the issue with that is it might require some compulsory acquisition of land. That’s always a super tetchy area because I don’t always ascribe to a utilitarian “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” view.
I think another area that needs to be looked at is mandating some level of working from home in roles where that’s possible. Travelling to and from work causes the most congestion both on roads and in public transport, and it’s just silly to be forcing people to travel when they don’t need to all the time. That’s something that will need another top-down approach - probably set down either at State or Federal level and mandated legislatively.
Can I just say thank you so much for your considered and good-faith reply. This is what I come to Lemmy for - the ideas and the opinions that really spark debate and discussion!
I’m going to address work from home first because I think its already settled. Whether companies want to admit it or not, the general public now sees work from home as a benefit that converts to actual money. What this means, is its become an expected benefit in certain industries and its never going back. Companies that force large groups to come onsite arbitrarily are finding the negatives far outweigh the positives, as they now need to hire massively. The one caveat is companies that just use return to office as a way to fire people.
Essentially, its a right we benefit from now, although shitty companies will continue to do shitty things.
For the rest, ive yet to see a single person explain exactly how a city built for cars with very limited public transport, can effectively be changed into a public transportation/biking/walking city.
I’m not an architect or anything, but dont we need to move buildings? Destroy massive portions of cities? I dont know the answer but my feeling is its not talked about much because there aren’t any good plans.
Maybe we need to essentially create new big cities so that we have the opportunity to plan their building without cars.
Maybe we could wait for people to abandon cities to the point they are vacant enough we can shuffle people around until renovations complete?
Edit: is it wrong for me to think the government should be negating the negatives of these transitions? For example with the shuffling idea, the government could cover the costs of forcing people to move, even if it still is relatively close by. Maybe even make it fun, can choose groups of temporary housing near friends and family or coworkers if you like them. Cash infusions?
Amazing how that didn’t address the question at all, and instead just dismissed it with your own preconceived notions for where this conversation might go.
Douches driving big trucks doesn’t preclude teens from doing stupid shit on ebikes. You don’t have to pick a side, you can recognize that there are multiple problems that need to be addressed.
You are right, banning private cars for only a few streets would be a great success for any city.
Lower hanging fruits would be to allow bikes to drive in both directions in one way streets, put some asphalt on cobble stone streets, get an inner city speed limit of 30 km/h, use many zebra crossings, design narrower streets (the narrower the street, the faster a driving person feels, without going faster), remove parking space in the inner city and make cars park outside of the center,…
Many many things that should be done before even starting to try to regulate ‘rude teens on ebikes’ with idiotic ideas presented here (driver license for ebikes?!)
The fast ebike problem would solve itself with an infrastructure that stops favoring cars and starts to seperate pedestrians and bikes with the gained space.
Sure, but I’m responding to a comment that is suggesting they aren’t a problem. We don’t have to turn a blind eye to all other problems just because we think one is biggest.
Awful aggro to someone just pointing out a simple fact. They never said we don’t need to address large vehicles, or even that they shouldn’t be the first thing addressed. They’re simply pointing out that these aren’t a perfect golden bullet to the issues cities plague, and we need to be aware of the downsides to any potential solution, and be willing and able to make the changes necessary to then fix THOSE issues. I don’t expect nuance, though, everything is a dichotomy online.
But jokes aside: I interpreted the comment like they put teens on ebikes and our car favoring infrastructure on the same level. Those two problems are so far apart, that I think that my response isn’t too harsh, or even ‘Awful aggro’ (That’s an awfully aggro interpretation of my comment, by the way).
When I saw the headline, I thought this was clickbait, since the headline and the linked article avoided quantifying how much CO2 the vehicles said they consumed vs the real world usage.
They are a less than full gas vehicles, but they output considerably more CO2 than they are tested and marketed to output.
Many people buy them because they believe they are a green form of transportation based on the marketing. But the real world pollution they cause makes them not very green at all.
This is a significant report, especially when you consider the source.
That and from what I understand of them they only cover about 25 miles. The reason to get a plug in hybrid vs a full plug in is generally because you need to drive more than that on average. I have a full electric from 2015 with a horrible battery, and on a single charge I can get ~50 miles at most in greater Atlanta area, GA, USA.
That’s mostly fine for me, but I once looked up the plug in hybrids for trios etc, and I sometimes forget to charge and have issues having to charge on the road. A plug in Hybrid would have saved me those minor problems, but not because of the electric part. I have a feeling anyone using a plug in hybrid is barely using the battery part of it. I get by because I mostly use the car for shopping, so on average it’s once or twice a week, all within 1 battery’s usage a day.
Sure, my comment doesn’t cover every use case, and apologies if it sounded like I was accusing anyone who had one. I’m just saying I know my limitations somewhat helps me decide not to do certain driving, and the ability to just drive without worry might have me drive more often beyond the 25. Even my own driving would often go beyond 25, as H-mart alone would eat 25 for me, so I’d make half my trip on gas everytime.
I don’t live in a car-dependent location, so forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t renting a petro car for those few times a year be cheaper and better for the environment to boot?
@SnipingNinja@delirious_owl city residents does the same, even with petro cars: they have small city cars, just to go cheap everyday, and rent bigger comfortable cars for long trips.
@SnipingNinja
Exactly, have a small electric car for everyday, and a few time you rent a car for the purpose. For example a pickup for carrying stuff, RV for the holiday, or something large and comfy for large distances.
So much cheaper and you always get a brand new car. @delirious_owl
The issue become, Can I get to a rental place? Do they have something to rent to me suitable for my use? Will they even rent to me? How do I get the vehicle back to the rental place? Can I afford the high cash outlay right now?
It’s not so easy to rent a car. There are lots of hoops to jump through.
Marginally greener when compared to the most environmentally harmful modes of transportation (I.e. other cars and trucks), but not even close to green when compared to alternative forms of personal and/or public transportation.
This is the problem, people who are nervous about charging, or unable to charge at night but want EVs think that a plug-in hybrid will somehow come close enough.
The plug-in bit is key though, otherwise you’re just lugging around a few 100kilos of dead weight.
from what i understand, the real world hybrid data is significantly worse than its WLTP test data. so much worse that it’s only a 25% improvement over petrol/diesel instead of the 75% improvement that would be expected given the WLTP.
Because if they are charged regularly then they’ll be operated in EV mode most of the time emitting 0% carbon. Plug in hybrids also usually do worse in mpg when in hybrid mode compared to standard hybrids, so if someone buys a plug in but doesn’t charge it, it’s actually worse than buying a standard hybrid.
This reminds me of that Chinese law about being personally responsible for all medical debts of a person you run over—incentivizing killing the person, rather than injuring them.
You’re right about the Snopes article. It does do a decent job of pointing out that a lot of this reporting is rumor based.
This first anecdote (also highlighted by Snopes) is amusing
Double-hit cases" have been around for decades. I first heard of the “hit-to-kill” phenomenon in Taiwan in the mid-1990s when I was working there as an English teacher. A fellow teacher would drive us to classes. After one near-miss of a motorcyclist, he said, “If I hit someone, I’ll hit him again and make sure he’s dead.” Enjoying my shock, he explained that in Taiwan, if you cripple a man, you pay for the injured person’s care for a lifetime. But if you kill the person, you “only have to pay once, like a burial fee.” He insisted he was serious—and that this was common.
So is it Taiwan or the mainland with these wild laws?
That rumor is so stupid it doesn’t even begin to stack up. Paying medical bills sucks, but killing someone even unintentionally puts you at risk of jail time. Vanishingly few people are going to choose a decade or more of hard labor in jail over paying a debt.
The only thing this whole rumor proves is that people will believe the most irrational things about China as long as it makes Chinese people look bad.
This about the dumbest post I’ve seen today. How dare these people exercise safety so that they can install the fucking safety barriers that you want for the bike lanes. Holy shit, take a step back and get a sense of reality.
You know how there’s dangerous assholes on the road that disobey all the rules, cause incidents, yell at other users, etc, just generally get around the place with zero regard for others and the idea that they’re always in the right?
Yep. Those people. Whether they’re in a car or on a bike makes zero difference. Everyone would love to see those people off the roads.
This post ooooozes that entitlement, rage, and disregard for anyone else. How else could someone be like this if not a complete asshole?
The point is that the teeny little barriers they’re installing which are supposedly adequate for cyclists’ safety are far less protection than the massive buffer they have as protection while installing them.
It’s not about blaming the people doing the installation, it’s about highlighting the government’s hypocrisy when it comes to cyclist safety.
I get the point. It’s just a shitty point. We can agree that the bike lane is not sufficiently safe, and you claim that those barriers are inadequate, but comparing the safety of bikers in the bike lane vs workers literally working in the car lane, and somehow correlating them shutting down that lane as hypocrisy is a shit argument. Apples and oranges.
Why didnt they barricade the car lane off and use that to install the bike barrier lane protectors from ? Use stop / go personell so cars can use the other lane.
They’ve blocked the entire cycle lane with what looks like a compressor up ahead as well (presumably to supply a pneumatic drill for the bolts)
Or here’s an idea, install concrete barricades from the back of a truck with a crane that actually project cyclists from being murdered.
That is an idea, but it has nothing to do with this post. You’ve taken my criticism of OP and spun it into something completely different. The post isn’t about the safety of the bike lane. It’s about the supposed hypocrisy of closing down the car lane while doing construction work in it. It’s asinine. You can piss and moan about the barriers not being enough, but regardless of the device being installed, closing off that section of the car lane (and bike lane for that matter) is the only prudent thing to do for the safety of those workers.
Look at the picture you shared. They are using the bike lane. They are also using the car lane. Obviously they need to block both or they would be idiots looking to get run over.
How often does one need to transport a sofa, table, or desk? That’s what delivery trucks are for, which is a legitimate use of that type of transportation.
The drugstore cowboys driving Dodge Rams clogging up the streets aren’t transporting anything more robust than a 12-pack of Mtn Dew and complaining about the price of gas
I bet a lot have worse opinions too, they literally conspired with oil companies to avoid fixing climate change and certain companies like vw actively put in measures to cheat emissions tests.
@SpaceCowboy@return2ozma ~60% of Tesla's profits come from the sale of carbon credits, which enable other massive vehicles that run on fossil fuels to be built. E-cars are not about "saving the planet" they are pure Greenwash which is saving the motor industry.
That’s more of a problem with how carbon credits are being regulated. Sure Tesla are being assholes for doing this, but it’s a corporation, I don’t expect them to be good guys.
But none of that changes the fact that some meathead buying a Cybertruck instead of the equivalent fossil fuel monstrosity is reducing CO2 emissions in a direct way. Spray paint the sign a Tesla corporate HQ, don’t damage a vehicle which will only have the result of someone driving a fossil fuel vehicle a little longer while the damage is being fixed.
You’re assuming unscrupulous companies wouldn’t find another loophole or just pay a fine for going over the limit.
Don’t get me wrong, Tesla is shit for helping with the loophole, but it’s a degrees of bad kind of thing. Getting fossil fuel vehicles off the road does reduce carbon emissions, but Tesla was exaggerating their numbers. They should be punished for doing this, but doubling up their numbers only works if the number isn’t zero.
But this is all getting away from the fact that damaging these vehicles has the net effect of people driving fossil fuel vehicles longer. It’s a net harm to everyone.
Undcrupulous companies in this case referring to every car manufacturer, they wouldn’t have a systemic incentive to foster an EV monopoly that is anti-consumer and actively stymies the growth of the local EV sector.
Even carbon credit companies that do their best aren’t always (are often?) not great. e.g. trees may be planted, but:
locals’ may have been misappropriated for the purpose
you might go back five years later and find all the trees were cut down
It seems like there is some progress with that technology that… throws gravel onto beaches or something, to be broken down by waves. Really hope it’s not total BS.
Yea, car congestion isn’t about industrial transport, it’s about personal transport. All of the people commuting to/from work etc in single person occupied tanks.
fuck_cars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.