jessta

jessta, 8 months ago

@themeatbridge @sexy_peach Commuter driving has the same 'last mile' problem, but it's parking.

The photo doesn't include the $250 million worth of carparks for those 10,000 cars that has to exist at the other end of the highway.

jessta, 8 months ago

@blandy @frostbiker
In Victoria (Australia), the fine for using your mobile phone while riding a bicycle is the same as when driving a 2.6 tonne ute.

jessta, 8 months ago

@JasSmith @cerement @lysol Density is the panacea. Cycling is just what makes it possible. You can't have nice livable density with cars.

jessta, 8 months ago

@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.

jessta, 8 months ago

@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.

jessta, 8 months ago

@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.

jessta, 9 months ago

@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.

jessta, 9 months ago

@GBU_28 @TDCN In Australia we have a law that lets the police make you watch while they crush your car.

jessta, 9 months ago

@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.

jessta, 9 months ago

@NuPNuA @SoGrumpy you're underestimating the noise of your tyres at higher speeds, which for a truck with a lot of tyres is considerable.

jessta, 9 months ago

@CorruptBuddha I'd say "reckless indifference to human life"

jessta, 9 months ago

@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

jessta, 9 months ago

@nicklockwood @TDCN @Showroom7561 you're right. Mandatory speed limiters are a much better option. They're cheap, easy and avoid having to fine people.

jessta, 9 months ago

@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.

jessta, 9 months ago

@zoe @ramenbellic Level 1 charging is exactly that. Just a regular plug in to a regular socket. Level 1 charging overnight will fully charge many EVs (enough charge for a week of commuting). The average car sits idle for almost the entire day so slow charging is all most people need.

jessta, 9 months ago

@cobra89 @BandoCalrissian when you build infrastructure so only the bravest and most reckless people will cycle then you're more likely to see a higher amount of reckless behaviour.

A parent with 2 kids in the front of their cargo bike isn't running through red lights.

jessta, 9 months ago

@dudewitbow @JetpackJackson my concern with robo-taxises is specifically that they're not good at the edge cases. This means there will be a push to remove those edge cases, to simplify streets to match the abilities of the robo-taxises. We start to design our cities for the limitations of some software

jessta, 10 months ago

@cantstopthesignal @bumble does that work for people walking? If enough people walk in New York then they'll get walking infrastructure? Or does it only work for car drivers?

jessta, 10 months ago

@Princeali311 @buckykat bicycles and pedestrians got a long fine for decades before the invention of traffic laws

jessta, 10 months ago

@ME5SENGER_24 @bumble these behaviours in themselves don't cause injuries...are you sure you're not thinking about some other thing that is dangerous? Perhaps something that causes so much carnage that one way streets and red lights had to be invented?