At least they didn't use the victim-blaming language news outlets often use for pedestrians and cyclists: "Tanning shop struck in accident wasn't wearing a helmet". No mention of the driver, the car, who had the right of way, who was speeding, etc.
Require vehicle safety standards to test for pedestrian and cyclist survivability first and foremost.
Require a commercial license to drive large and/or heavy vehicles such as pickup trucks. Take it away when a driver gets caught driving unsafely.
Require vehicles to provide better visibility through the windshield, like Europe does.
Design street lanes to be narrow and winding, so that drivers intuitively choose to drive at speeds that are safe for people outside the vehicle. Raise pedestrian crossings at the same level as the sidewalk so that drivers habitually slow down when they see a crossing.
In other words, value the safety of the people outside the vehicle above the speed and convenience of the drivers.
It's my understanding that pilots don't get to choose their callsigns. Instead, it's their teammates who choose them, which is why they are often jokes at the expense of the pilot. E.g. the callsign of Ewan McGregor's brother was OB-2.
And not just build up: also allow businesses in the ground floor and basements. A residential-only neighborhood where you can't do basic stuff like buying groceries, bringing your kids to the nursery, or going to a cafe/restaurant isn't a great place to live without a car either.
I believe you should be free to do whatever you like, so long as it does not impact others
I am deeply offended by that statement. It has profoundly impacted my emotional wellbeing. Please be consequent with your own words and delete your comment.
We need to transition out thinking from "personal responsibility", which essentially puts the blame on individual people as if we existed in a vacuum, to "how can we improve the system so that this is less likely to happen in the future?". This applies to all sorts of societal issues, from homelessness, to pedestrian/cyclist deaths, to obesity.
Is that the best argument you can put forth against what I'm saying? I can give you some more ammunition: I'm queer, disabled, atheist, an immigrant and vote green. Or perhaps those are collectives that you don't feel comfortable discriminating openly.
For example, a “women’s only” group may be for a group of women who are healing from a sexually violent relationship, so they really don’t want to see men there.
"Maybe that whites-only parenting group could be healing from some trauma caused by POC and they don't really want to see POC there."
Do you see the problem? A POC causing you trauma is not a good reason to reject POC people in general, and a man causing you trauma isn't a good reason to reject men in general either.
A group dedicated to victims of domestic violence could easily encompass both men and women who have suffered from it, whether the perpetrators were men or women. Cis & trans, it bears saying.
A person who has a blanket phobia of people of a particular gender or ethnicity needs therapy to address their sexism/racism. "I don't feel safe around men" has the exact same energy as "I don't feel safe around black people".
Burning a book is a form of free speech. It’s often offensive to many people, but it’s still important - if for no other reason than it let’s the people doing the burning show their true colors.
Yes! That's something I have also thought about. When some angry folks burned the rainbow flag this summer, I was unhappy that they did, but glad that they showed their intolerance publicly so that we can learn about who they are.
I do not approve of burning holy books, but I think it should be legal.
What people shouldn't do and what should be banned are different things. I don't want to live in a place where what is not mandatory is banned. There has to be some room for freedom of expression, even for people expressing ideas we dislike.
If a public square wants to attract local people, and not just tourists who don't know better like Times Square, then the public square needs to be welcoming to local people.
That means no giant screens trying to distract us and no car traffic to drown our voices. It means trees for shade, benches and tables where people can meet, and places for children to play. You want to add a central area for events? That's fine as well after you have addressed the basics.
Burning a symbol to upset people is a shitty thing to do, but it should not be illegal.
Assaulting people, whether they burned a symbol you like or not, is a shitty thing to do that should remain illegal.
And yes, some people in my country have burned symbols that represent people like me recently. Nobody from my community assaulted the people who did it in response. Just the way it should be.
I invite you to re-read my comment. I don't see how it could have been more explicit:
[You] the yearly road trip vacation with the extended family
[Me]For a once a year event, renting is almost certainly cheaper than using a larger vehicle you don’t need for the rest of the year.
As for the rest, I will be happy to maintain a friendly conversation only as long as you return the favor. I will not get involved in angry internet arguments.
Your assumption behind don’t need the rest of the year - do you believe there are zero scenarios where the wife and I are both out and about? Perhaps… working?
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I was explicitly addressing road trips, not daily errands. Buy a smaller vehicle for dayly stuff and for a yearly road trip you can rent a larger vehicle than the one you use for daily errands. In the end it will save you money. What is the problem?
the yearly road trip vacation with the extended family
For a once a year event, renting is almost certainly cheaper than using a larger vehicle you don't need for the rest of the year. Another option is driving two vehicles during the trip.
I know they don't need a truck bed when it doesn't have a scratch on it because they are not using it. I don't know what they need, but a truck is clearly not fit for purpose in that case.
At least they didn't use the victim-blaming language news outlets often use for pedestrians and cyclists: "Tanning shop struck in accident wasn't wearing a helmet". No mention of the driver, the car, who had the right of way, who was speeding, etc.