Weird that the longer bars are worse. It’s a cognitive flip, even if what it may represent (carbon footprint, maybe? Fossil fuel expenditure?) is growing with the lower tiers. Oh, and whoever made the poster missed the fantastic opportunity to use Heil! instead of hell.
The design of the bars is borrowed from the European energy efficiency labels for electronics. On those labels, longer bars mean higher energy consumption. So it’s probably meant to reptesent either fuel use or general environmental impact here.
I think the main problem here is for folks forced to drive every day in the dervish of death that is rush hour.
If you can’t afford to live near where you work (as is often the case in the UK), and you’re already looking at a 1 hour commute both ways, current public transport isn’t an option. You can either give up on sleep, or you will have to drive.
A lot of these changes are coming in the wrong order - first you improve public transport, create affordable housing near city centers, and drastically reduce the price (and let’s be frank, increase the quality of) public transport, and THEN you hit car users to push them on to these options. In the current order, they just introduce further hardship to folks who already have a bad time.
Yeah, the current approach globally - at least it seems to be the same in Germany - is to make the “experience”, if you want to call it that, for car users worse to the point that it’s worse than public transport in order to force people onto it. There are some minor improvements being made to public transport, but it’s of course a lot faster to put up signs for a speedlimit everywhere or even blocking access to certain roads completely than to increase the capacity of a rail network. And as you said, this hits the already disadvantaged parts of the population more, since they more often than not have manual labor type job that requires going into the “office” everyday, that are living further from work, …
That's not some "approach" but a symptom of conservatives fighting change tooth and nails. And it's always easier to destroy something. So while one side is trying to improve public transport and create proper bike infrastructure at the same time, the other side is sabotaging.
Disadvantaged parts of population usually don’t have cars. For example in Moscow total amout of cars is about 20% of population, in regions it’s even less.
I agree here, a larger push towards remote working would definitely help, though such a move would likely come at the expense of privacy (teams is already a privacy nightmare as it is, with wider home work adoption no doubt Microsoft would implement more “features for employers”).
A lot of these changes are coming in the wrong order - first you improve public transport, create affordable housing near city centers, and drastically reduce the price (and let’s be frank, increase the quality of) public transport, and THEN you hit car users to push them on to these options. In the current order, they just introduce further hardship to folks who already have a bad time.
It might be a little different in the UK, but in North America step #1 needs to be “first you abolish the low-density zoning restrictions that displace almost everybody far away from the city center to begin with.” It’s not just that walkable housing isn’t affordable; it’s that it’s not even allowed by law to exist.
There is another substantial difference. In Europe you have private spaces to park your car and then roughly as many public parking spots as there are cars. In the US you have about 8 times as many public parking spots as cars exist. The amount of concrete wastelands just for potential cars is incredible.
You could basically scrap ¾ of your parking spaces to create walkable areas with small shops beside the big malls or oversized markets, then do some public transport to those areas (or still drive by car there), just to establich the idea of walking while shopping.
That's no replacement for getting rid of zoning regulations but a realistic start, where changing the zoning (even when the regulation vanish) would need a generation or more to change.
You 👏 can’t 👏 reduce 👏 the 👏 speed 👏 limit 👏 without 👏 also 👏 changing 👏 the 👏 street 👏 geometry! IT DOESN’T FUCKING WORK!
People don’t give a shit about the what the speed limit sign says; they drive at the maximum speed at which they feel safe and comfortable based on the lane width, curve sharpness, etc. If you want to slow people down, you HAVE TO physically change the road – narrow it, add chicanes, etc. – to make it “feel” less safe. It’s not fucking optional!
For some countries (looking at you, USA) it would have an additional benefit. Cops should do their actual job, not lurk in some corner hoping to catch someone speeding. That's something easily done automatically, so why waste man power for this shit...
To be clear, I’m not saying that the goal of reducing speeds is bad. I’m just saying that attempting to do so on the cheap by changing the rules instead of the built environment itself accomplishes nothing but to generate more lawbreaking. Well, that and potentially making the road even less safe than it was before because having a wider mix of speeds is even worse than having everybody at a uniformly too-high speed.
That seems more like an “and” than a “but,” since it’s a physical change to the road that makes it feel less safe. Anyway, nice find! I like how inventive and relatively inexpensive it is.
E-scooters and e-bikes don’t have speed limits that vary by street. In order to implement a governor capable of limiting a car to a 20 mph speed in certain areas while still allowing it to run at highway speeds in others, you’d need either a computer vision system to read the speed limit signs or a GPS paired with a perfectly complete and up-to-date speed limit geodatabase, and you’d need to give either such fallible computerized system control over the throttle (which could be a safety hazard in and of itself, for multiple reasons).
The difference between a e-bike governor and a car governor that can be set to something lower than 70 mph is like this.
Just have a 20 mph limit in the city, and no speed limit outside the city. This would also require moving all the highways outside the city, but I think that would be an improvement.
How’s that going to work? The car limits its speed on the basis of an onboard computer connected to the internet that knows your exact location? Kind of think we should be moving away from that kind of thing instead, cars that spy on you are creepy.
You don’t need the Internet, only gps. You can also design a system that only connects to the gps and internet network if you want to go over 20mph. That way the gps only tracks you on the highways or between cities.
But in general, driving a car is not a good option if you don’t want to be tracked, because you need to display an identifying number at all times. It’s common for police to use automatic license plate readers, and who knows how that data is stored.
The acoustic bicycle has been for a long time, and probably will be forever, the preferred vehicle for trouble making revolutionary types
I have a bicycle and use it more than my car but I still need a car and I don’t want my car to also be a computer. There is no way a feature explicitly restricting your behavior is going to be designed in a way that respects your privacy, most new cars already store all data and phone home unaccountably, and they’re obviously going to want to remotely upgrade where/what speeds are allowed in real time. Yeah there’s license plate trackers and those suck too but they aren’t always present everywhere or recording fine grain data to the same extent.
Until the people controlling the software can be trusted or the software/hardware is made entirely transparent IMO computers in cars beyond abs/transmission is bad and should be resisted.
They’re obviously going to want to remotely upgrade where/what speeds are allowed in real time
Thats a good point. I guess it would be a sacrifice to need to do an update every time the map changes. And probably cities will want to expand their slow zone and not want cars to speed. So an internet connection is probably necessary, at least to update the maps each time you turn on the car.
There is no way a feature explicitly restricting your behavior is going to be designed in a way that respects your privacy
I don’t see why this would be the case. Either way, you can think of this feature as a smart override to a dumb speed governor. Therefore, the software exists to expand your behavior.
I don’t want my car to also be a computer
That is a big ask. Particularly given the fact that the market inexplicably wants their cars to be a computer. It seems to be the case that people who want their privacy respected need to sacrifice some conveniences. So you probably will either have to struggle to maintain an old car, do a lot of modifications to a new car, or not drive a car at all, if you want your privacy respected in the near future, regardless of whether speed governors become mandated.
Given that this is c/FuckCars, i’d recommend not driving a car at all. Perhaps a DIY ebike is a good car replacement.
You acknowledge that an internet connection would be needed. There’s no chance these companies willingly make their software open source and if they did it wouldn’t help with the user adversarial goal of speed limiting so that’s an extra reason not to. So you’ve got an unaccountable black box with free reign to connect to company servers from your car, how do you expect that to go?
i’d recommend not driving a car at all
Yes, great, I’d love to, please give me the public transportation infrastructure I would need to make that happen. In the meantime let’s do the speed limiting low tech and outside of my car with bollards or whatever instead of making the experience of needing to drive even more hellish and dystopian.
Even if you try to simplify the system to “20 mph limit in the city, and no speed limit outside the city,” you still need an internet connection to tell you where the city limits are. This is especially true since they can change due to annexations.
Speeds should be set using the 85th percentile rule: the speed limit is whatever speed the 85th percentile driver goes.
The thing, though, is we should work backwards from figuring out a desired speed for pedestrian + cyclist safety and then build a road with the desired 85th percentile speed.
Absolutely right. My town just made every road 25mph. Great. Unfortunately nobody gives a fuck. The road out in front of my house just got repaved. It’s beautiful. I love it. Pulling in and out of my driveway has never been better. People also blast down it, mainly because I think they perceive speed differently on a nice smooth tarmac versus what was a cratered surface rivaling the moon. My suggestion to my neighbors is we just keep cars parked on the street all the time. If folks in opposing directions need to stick to a side to let others pass, it will naturally cause them to move more slowly.
Edit - Forgot to add, I listen to traffic engineers testify pretty regularly and consistently get mistreated, so I just want you to know that I appreciate what you’re saying and what you do.
My house is on a residential 25mph street with a slight S curve. There was a car parked at the end of the curve and a reckless driver managed to plow into it and flip their car. It was the wildest thing I’ve ever seen. You would expect something like this on an interstate highway, not a tree lined street with little kids playing.
You seem to be under the impression that changing the speed limit sign is “better than nothing.”
It’s not.
It is, in fact, worse than nothing because having half the drivers comply with the lower speed limit and having half not creates a mix of speeds that’s even more dangerous than if everybody just drove at the same higher speed.
I’m dubious and don’t care enough to take the time. whatever mr traffic engineer, I guess we just can’t have nice communities because it’s even worse to TRY.
do you have any idea how pathetic it sounds? like a cult of apathy, doing anything is GOING TO COST MONEY genius… and even if it doesn’t work perfectly, it’s still better to try than throw your hands up in the air and accept dead pedestrians all the time.
oh now they’re scientists? even though they’ve referenced no facts, zero studies, but hey, let’s just make shit up ffs
I can’t decide which is more pitiful - him lying about being a traffic expert, or your blind assumption that he’s RIGHT because he’s lied about being a traffic expert.
Sorry, but fuck this idea in its entirety. This would allow for MORE apartment buildings to be built, since that is how capitalism works, which results in more damage to the surrounding wildlife. L
We need more regulations, and we need a more conscious approach to our housing in general. We should be approaching this with symbiosis in mind, cooperating with nature rather than bending it to our will.
Those houses on the left? Yeah, you could cram so many actual gardens that give you actual food and which could bring so much biodiversity, but we sticking to flat, pure grass gardens that do nothing other than be flat and look green. Fuck everything here.
Sure, let’s build what we NEED to build in a conscious way, but have you seen the housing market as of late? China was printing useless buildings everywhere they could just to keep their faux market going, and any place without regulations will try to cram as many people as possible in as little space as possible, forgoing any quality of life or even safety designs in place of profitable designs.
We love to come together in big cities, and even jobs that don’t need to be on-site end up being on-site, thus worsening the problem. There’s a ton of land out there that could be turned into sustainable housing solutions that could benefit both the people and the environment. I’m just saying we should probably consider other alternatives to “suburban hell” and “communist hell”.
I don’t think we’re anywhere close to having to even think about the possibility of developers building too much housing. And yes, regulations solve the issues you bring up, we absolutely need to enforce the ones we have and many areas need more. Soundproofing should be mandatory in multifamily buildings for example.
I remember a town hall at a corporation I worked for. It was fall. Winter weather was expected. Someone asks the EVP if work from home would become allowable, in cases of bad weather.
The EVP replies that this type of arrangement was between you and your line manager. The employee responds along the lines of “what I’d my line manager is not being reasonable?”
The EVP didn’t have a real response here. But management on my team was rolling it’s eyes. Of course, because they can afford an apartment downtown, and drive a company car, with company insurance.
If you are some poor entry level sap? You live with your mom in the suburbs, drive a beater, and if you slip on ice and hit a light post? Well your insurance rates just went up.
Not sure how this company handled covid. We all had cell phones and laptops so WFH was entirely feasible, just largely discouragd unless you have a very specific reason and a cool boss. Otherwise?
For real. Imagine going into a movie theater while Star Trek is playing and yelling at everyone “Man, I hate Jar Jar, can we just never play science fiction here?”
fuckcars
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.