FireRetardant @ FireRetardant @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

2,310

Joined

2 yr. ago

Walking and cycling should probably be right after buses and trams.

Sure we need bike lanes too, but we still need transit as an option for longer distances/faster travel, for when the weather is awful, and for people unable to bike. You could even bring your bike on the transit, maybe visiting another city and bringing your bike with you on that transit.

Been averaging 25-32 C the past couple weeks. I'm the top of 3 floors in a building with 8 units and I swear I'm the only one who even opens windows at night.

We have this attitude because we refuse to build any alternatives to driving that actually compete on a decent service level. Hourly bus service is not high quality transit nor is it competitive against driving.

People will come up with any solution so long as it still relies on roads. The parent comment to this thread is all about tire dust and this solution just replaces private tire dust with commercial tire dust. The system you propose would still be more complicated, energy and resource intensive than people just taking transit to the groccery store.

Corona isn't a perfect example as many places had restricted capacity and hours. There was also a significant precentage of the population minimizing their exposure to the outside world. Yes we should encourage work from home but my point is it won't be reducing car use nearly as much as it seems and even if everyone worked from home we still need alternatives to driving.

Some studies have shown work from home may eliminate the commute miles, but those miles are replaced with leisure and errands miles. So ultimately we still need transit to replace a lot of car trips cause be it work, grocceries, or a night out, people need to get places.

The article is about the best use of batteries, not the best environmental choice.

Not a perfect title, trains, trams and buses are larger than SUVs but far more effecient unless carrying just 1 passenger.

Regardless how you power it, private automobiles will always be ineffecient and have a massive resource cost. The EV isn't here to save the planet, it's here to save the car industry. This is part of why we need the conversation to shift to energy efficiency instead of just emissions.

People in north america pay top dollar to live somewhere where it is possible to live car free, partially because there are so few places. This causes only the wealthy to experience decent transit and walkability. So it makes sense that lower incomes oppose to it as they assume they'll be walking next to a 6 lane road because they've never been given anything else.

Plus you can choose to just not use the streets where the cameras are installed if you're that worried about a surveillance state. It is likely the state is already surveilling you in far worse ways than a stationary camera aimed at a roadway.

It costs millions to refurbish just 1 road to safer standards while the cameras costs thousands to operate. Rehabilitation when due for resurfacing is the most economically viable option, hopefully most of the revenue from the cameras is dedicated to making safer streets. I'll take the cameras in the meantime because speed is one of the biggest factors in roadway safety. Its not a perfect solution, but is far better than doing nothing.

Assuming those stickers weren't put on due to your friends death, I'm okay with them. Tow truck divers have to work on the side of highways and some have been struck and injured or killed on the job. Cars and their infrastructure suck, but we should still try to protect those who have to work on our roadways.

We can slow down and move over for both cyclists and tow trucks. It doesn't need to be exclusive.

If it collided with something that caused it then sure, but it could also just be called a rollover. The whole point is to avoid the word accident as it implies no fault when the fault lies between the drivers and the road design/ rules.

1. socially speaking, how is uber any different from a taxi? I'm not expected to share either of them with other passengers and both include a driver.
2. doordash offers delivery for many restaurants that dont have their own in house delivery, and again i don't see much of a difference socially speaking either way.
3. i find most people only use the self check out when it is actually faster, if the line is shorter i frequently see people prefer a cashier. I use the cashier the vast majority of the time as i tend to get items with expiring soon discounts that need employee confirmation anyway. I often see people with a similar amount of grocceries beat me time wise by using the check out.

Overall i don't think you are wrong and we are becoming less social with strangers, i just think some of the examples you used aren't great.

If that pod can be automated, the rail bus can be automated.

When dangerous design is inherent to the system and deaths are treated as the cost of doing business on the roadways, when does it go from accidental into societial negligence?

Guns may be a tool designed for killing, but cars are certainly able to kill as well and should be treated as such. Pointing a gun at someone is dangerous. Pointing a moving car at someone is dangerous. We are gentler on car accidents because almost everyone relies on them and they are so normalized.

People are downvoting you because your question is implying driver delays are not worth the increase in safety. Drivers are often protesting nearly anything that slows them down even when that thing slowing them down has been proven to save lives.

A bicycle has significantly less mass than a car or truck, so even if bicycles are traveling that fast regularly the risk is significantly lower in the event of a collision.