@pathief@ProdigalFrog it's just physically not possible to build enough parking for everyone to always have a park. You have trouble finding a park because that's just the physical reality. Adding more parking (like adding more lanes) doesn't increase availability because of induced demand and the inherent inefficiency of cars.
Reducing parking won't reduce the parking available to you. Just as reducing the number of car lanes won't reduce your ability to drive places.
@Crazypartypony@glasgitarrewelt But if parking restrictions are enforced and people can't park and thus can't use cars then there will be political will for public transport. Public transport is cheaper to deploy than all the car infrastructure even for small townships.
@DLSchichtl@Iron_Lynx of course there are things that can't be delivered in bicycles and of course this only make sense with enough density.
But density is a goal of urbanism.
The places in the world that currently have success doing bicycle deliveries right now allow night time or off peak van/truck deliveries.
Most deliveries are small packages, especially the deliveries that are time sensitive and so are ideal for cargo bike delivery.
The 2-3 photocopier deliveries a week are done with a van at night.
@ChicoSuave@HiddenLayer5 you've got it the wrong way around. The anti-car/pro public transport/urbanism movement always has the goal of reducing the cost of transport and the cost of housing to make places that are livable for people on lower incomes.
Cars in rural areas aren't a concern because they're places where population density is so low that cars have fewer negative effects.
But rural public transport between townships and major cities can also make getting places quicker, easier and safer.
Building public transport in and to higher density areas doesn't stop you from driving your car in a rural area.
@zoe@frankPodmore Driving licences and traffic lights were invented because car drivers were too dangerous to safely mix with existing road traffic and we needed to restrain them. Bicycles have never been a significant danger to other road traffic. We don't require licences for people to ride bicycles for the same reason we don't require licences for pedestrians, it's a ridiculous idea that would do nothing useful.
@nicklockwood@TDCN@Showroom7561 no, it's just politically impossible to mandate speed limiters. Governments tried 50yrs ago and haven't tried again since. Car manufacturers want people to know they can speed. It's all over their marketing.
@TDCN@acs 5 out of 5 pedestrians will survive a collision with a car traveling at 20km/hr, only 4 out of 5 will survive a collision with a car traveling at 40km/h.
This doesn't include the large difference in level of injury.
So by speeding your taking a situation where nobody should die and making it a situation where someone might.
A 20km/h area is an area where there will be lots of people to hit so it's even more important to stick to the speed limit in that situation
@CorruptBuddha@emergencyfood A 20mph speed limit is based on momentum the human body can withstand without a high likelihood of death.
Every mph over the limit increase the likelihood of a human being dying in a collision.
Speeding in a 20mph zone is very specifically choosing to increase the likelihood of killing someone.