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.
I prefer riding on the street with the cars. I feel more visible that way. When I’m on a separate bicycle path separated from the street by parked cars, there’s a risk they won’t see me when turning right. Also, when cycling on the street it’s easier to switch to the lane for turning left with the cars, which is usually much quicker than waiting at two traffic lights consecutively for turning left. Of course, this depends on the density of car traffic and local laws. I’m talking Berlin, Germany.
Sounds to me like the problem isn’t separated bicycle paths, but rather that the engineers in your jurisdiction don’t design the intersections properly.
Ah, well there’s your problem. Ever since the CDU started supplying the transportation commissioner, Berlin city hall has been chugging gasoline and car company copium and is setting back cycling in Germany’s capital for several years.
My suggestion: I’ve heard there are protests going on. Get in on them. Pull a Cave Johnson if you must. “When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade! Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give @konkonjoja lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man whose gonna burn your house down - with the lemons!”
Same with the bike gutters here in Waterloo, Ontario. They’ve even found a way to make them worse. They put a short curb between the gutter and the car lane that does nothing to stop a car but prevents cyclists from taking the lane when it is safer to do so, like near lanes and intersections.
Holy shit can you imagine? If we’d take all the investments that are done on a yearly basis for cars and we stuff that in trains, busses and bikes and their infrastructure?
We’d get walkable cities, cities would get more tax income, we’d all get healthier, we’d have tonnes of money left for parks… and we’d actually for once really do something to stoo climate change to boot
Ahhh to dream…it’s so nice. The world could be so pretty if people just weren’t such dumb egocentric assholes.
Just got my bike back from shop for a hefty maintenance. A lot had to be done and couple of parts had to be changed. At the end it costed me just 50€. If this was a car with a similar maintenance, it would have been at least couple of hundred, if not even close to a 1k€. Bikes are awesome.
One thing I’ve learned in SimCity is that a higher population density means you need a corresponding concentration of utility structures as well. Employment opportunities, hospitals, businesses, and schools all need to be close by and in proportion to serve the population. Not to mention managing waste, water, and electricity. In summary, simply building apartments isn’t the solution.
This is sort of like how I learned by playing Civ that if you bum rush to Nuclear bombs and ICBMs you can simply bombs your enemies until they don’t exist anymore. Which is great fun in a game, but doesn’t exactly equate to IRL (but damn you Montezuma).
Anyways, here’s the deal; you would have the same amount of population no matter what. So whether my population was 1 person per square mile or 100 persons per square mile makes a huge impact. If you have a suburb of 100k people and a city of 100k people you can utilize less piping, less waste water, and less electricity more often since you often have dozens of families living in the same building which can utilize electricity more efficiently.
Not to mention that of course more people means needing more jobs, healthcare and education, but that’s also why you tend to have more of those things. It’s not like suburbs exist as self sustaining parts. They rely on cities with jobs to sustain them. Building higher density living spaces is a great way to solve many problems of modern American/Canadian life. I’m saying all of this as the opposite kind of person you’d find on this group since I live in suburbia and drive a giant truck. I just don’t want other people on the roads with me that suck ass at driving so I support public transportation to get them off the damn roads, plus it’s better for the environment.
Exactly. The key thing a lot of people conveniently ignore is how much infrastructure is needed per capita. Sure there’ll be more pipes/roads/etc. per sq km in a city vs the suburbs, but there’s a heck of a lot more pipes/roads/etc. per capita in the suburbs. I mean, just looking out my window, 100m of street serves hundreds of people, compared to maybe 100m of street for maybe 8 households in suburbia?
Given that there are 8 billion people on this planet, it simply consumes fewer resources to not have everyone in sprawling suburbia.
Right, which is good! It means people aren’t travelling huge distances to reach basic amenities and you don’t need to occupy vast swathes of land just for piping and roads.
Skynet theories aside, the whole “AI will solve trafic” thing is just dumb. Sure, I suppose we could one day perfect a system of cars working as a hivemind to optimize the flow of trafic, but that just makes it impossible for anyone not part in that hivemind (cyclists etc.) to use the road.
I suppose the “just one more lane bro” joke sort of applies here in that the problem caused by cars would be “solved” by doubling down on cars.
Yup. That should be everywhere. It shouldn’t be just kids either. If you disable someone you should be paying similar support for the rest of your life.
Because it disproportionately impacts the poor, likely doesn’t result in much actual support, AND can be used to justify lesser sentencing otherwise.
A poor person kills someone? They are beggared, the family doesn’t really get anything, and the world moves on.
A rich person kills someone? Well, they already are suffering enough so let’s just go with the child support. And then they likely stiff the bill anyway because their lawyers can argue that it isn’t even worth mailing the pocket change every month.
Weregilds have historically been how the rich get away with murder and how the poor are turned into slaves.
First, in this hyper capitalistic society, isn’t everything bad for the poor, from the legal system to democracy itself. For example you can argue the poor lacks the time and resource to properly understand the policy, hence more likely to be misled by the candidate.
And in this specific cases, the public can pay for it if the person is poor enough, like declaring bankrupt. I am not so familiar with the procedure and loopholes related to bankrupt, so feel free to educate me on that.
On the other hand, I don’t think rich people should be able to get away from jail time simply because they have paid money. Unfortunately this is seen through out our legal system. So I am definitely not supporting that. But I imagine the law can be easily changed to add the child care/medicare cost to the existing manslaughter sentence, instead of replacing the manslaughter sentence?
Mostly you are just pointing out the systemic issues of late stage capitalism.
But as for sentencing: judges have an insane amount of power in that regard. And they are often biased shitbags who will do everything in their power to be lenient to “pillars of the community”. So if you give them a meaningless punishment, they’ll immediately use that and then talk about how it is important to rehabilitate rich white people and that excessive punishment is not the law.
I honestly don’t care if a poor person is worse than “beggared” by the sentence.
Thing is, the rich person should be, too. Make it scale based on available resources.
I think around 90% of all available money on the poor end to 99.999% on the rich end is fair. Or I’m the case of Bezos-level richies, leave them with about $5 a year to live on.
This mistake should essentially completely ruin the drunk’s entire life permanently. No reason to spare them any misery. There’s no other way to make it a law not worth breaking into you make it absolutely impossible to live with doing it.
There are issues to work on about who receives the money to prevent further problems, but it’s a start.
The DJ is paid to make the noise, good noise at that too 🤸♂️🕺
The cars… not so much. I’d rather a couple nights a year of boom boom music, than revving, whooshing, beeping and inevitable road repair/construction noises back-to-back non stop
fuckcars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.