FireRetardant @ FireRetardant @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

2,357

Joined

2 yr. ago

Agreed, and with the design of some of our roads, maybe its a good thing to discourage certain pedestrian crossings. It isn't fair pedestrians may have to walk a significant extra distance to cross, but there are also some sections of road like curves and merge lanes that are more dangerous to cross illegally.

Only in the short term. In our current timeline we destroy our cities to pave new highways. By rebuilding our cities we can reduce sprawl, increase density and make the whole city more effecient while reducing the new land that gets developed.

Some smaller gasoline cars actually beat out the total impact (production, use, disposal) of oversized electric trucks or SUVs

Honestly it should first and we should be trying to maximize and prioritize active transport trips.

Do you have any proof that the cameras are communicating with cell phones? Do you have any proof that Canada is using these cameras to track plates?

Toronto can't seem to catch any of the vandals that are cutting down the cameras and i doubt the suspects leave their phones at home as photos of their destruction often make it onto social media.

It could also lead to abusive situations where a child is restricted from certain freedoms or punished for voting for the wrong candidate. Children could be coerced into voting for whatever candidate their parents want. Maybe dad thinks the cons are gonna give him a big tax break but the kid thinks the NDP will bring rent prices down by the time they want to move out for college.

The USA already buys a lot of electricity off of Canada so if we massively invest in green energy we could export the electricity to the USA. Given their current trade attitude the better plan would be invest in manufacturing our own green infrastructure and then export that stuff like windmill blades.

Also if Canada is serious about replacing all our cars with EVs but still won't build any transit, we are going to need A LOT more electricty for ourselves.

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.