Hah. the biggest inaccuracy here is too many roundabouts.
Honestly, the part that shocks me landing in the US is typically the repeat buildings. The same mall, the same school, the same baseball... eh... court? pitch? gamey space? All of it repeated at regular intervals, surprisingly close to each other.
Because you can't all get to the same one, so they need to copy paste the facilities within driving distance for coverage area like it's Sim City.
Also, holy crap, that's why Sim City works like that.
EDIT: Also why even in moder city builders you can't have housing over commercial areas and why people freak out by cranking up their taxes by 0.1%, but I had noticed those already.
Devs from a city builder game (SimCity or Cities: Skyline) tried to replicate the scale of buildings/lots in real life, but then they realized that a small percentage of the lot is the actual building and it’s mostly parking lots.
Gotta love the cost of free parking here in America
That's what you call the actual field, not just the actual square part with the bases? I wasn't being facetious, I genuinely didn't know what word to use there.
Just call it a stadium. The names will vary with being called a field, park, or stadium, but if you say stadium everyone will know what you mean.
E.g. Turn left by (the stadium/Wrigley Field/Fenway Park/Dodger Stadium)
ETA: Field is generally used for small ones, like you would see in a public park. So if you go to city park to play football/soccer/baseball/whatever, you would call it the $SPORT field if it is on grass. If it is on a hard surface like basketball or tennis, you would say court. Stadium is for large structures with several thousand+ of spectators, and again the proper names are inconsistent, but stadium as a general term works.
Hopefully this helps. American English is all sorts of ambiguous and inconsistent. One positive is it is nice not having gendered nouns and it is forgiving enough that even with grammar errors, a native speaker will know what you mean, like the plural of cow is sometimes cattle when you used as an adjective “cattle farm”. Nobody would be confused if you said “cows farm”, but along with the inevitable accent, it would be a tell that you aren’t a native speaker
I love this because you can see how cities started out, and there’s major differences between each. It’s not just…trees as far as the eye can see. And it’s a lot easier to spot unique cars from up there too. I’ve managed to spot a couple of imported skylines, a dodge viper, and others. It also kind of puts things into perspective as you witness how similar to ants we all are.
I especially liked the part around 0:30 where the bike lane that was colored red for better visibility stopped being colored at the conflict point, which is the most important place for the color to be.
It’s… kind of justified: the red lane means “forbidden for cars to enter”, while the yellow slashed means “may enter, but forbidden to obstruct”. The fun part is how bikers have to go straight into the incoming traffic.
There are other funny infrastructures elsewhere, where the “bike lane” is painted in white right in the middle of the road, as in “let’s bikes and cars and buses share the same lane”… and then they put speed bumps on it. What could go wrong, right?
That’s a decent reference. I think, since in this case they’re painting the whole “bikes only” lanes, the conflict areas should use the dashed option.
Looking now through Google Earth, I’ve noticed some other bad places, like where the bike lane crosses some tram rails, with no sign of any kind at all.
Tldr: When you ride on a sidewalk, the risk of a driver hitting you at a driveway or intersection goes up substantially. That outweighs most of the other risks of being on the road itself in those studies.
Although it’s also worth pointing out that context and road design matter too. Speeds, the number of trees and shrubs by the sidewalk, and urban streets vs suburban stroads matters a lot.
There’s a reason that protected bike lanes aren’t just a sidewalk.
bicilists drive way faster on the roads, so this metric should be deaths per km/h. And there are a few more stistical biases that might be at play here.
It really depends on where in the USA, but for the most part he’s right.
Any growing communities like small towns and cities have the chance to change this, but it usually sounds too high risk for them.
Plus they already have to deal with the insane red tape and overhead in the US like poorly cascaded federal and state laws, lowest bidder stupidity, maximum annual budget spending, scam zoning laws, and slow as hell development time.
Like I would definitely throw in effort to try in the plenty of towns that surround metro areas.
Dearborn for example, which is technically metro Detroit, surprisingly has some walkable neighborhoods because the smallest roads are thinner and businesses are very close to residential areas. It’s definitely not perfect because all the main roads (stroads) are still absolutely huge, but it’s nice to see that it’s not just typical suburbs with strict Zoning.
But after visiting Houston, I would just declare the entire state of Texas a lost cause.
So the very first result on Google for “double decker fuel efficiency” give the result “per gallon, while a ‘double-decker’ bus with a Diesel engine will run 11 miles per gallon”.
44 / 5 days is approx 9 miles poet day. 4.5 miles to and 4.5 miles back.
I didn’t want to believe this but I guess city dwellers where double deckers operate would probably have short commutes like this on average
Remember, if there is no bike lane, then bikes get a spot in the car lane. Yes, cars are supposed to be respectful when they pass, and only do so when a passing lane is free.
They don’t and even motorcycles are pressured to move. (And curiosly, small cars are ignored by bigger cars).
fuckcars
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.