Jesse

@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.

@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.

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

@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.

@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.

@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

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

@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?

@Salty @ajsadauskas @fuck_cars nah, we want them to be sued in to bankruptcy.

@lntl @RaoulDook

Falling and hitting your head isn’t exclusive to bicycles or even more likely on bicycles than other activities. You’re most likely to get a head injury by falling in the shower, tripping while walking, or being a passenger in a car crash.

Helmets dehumanise cyclists increasing risk of aggression from drivers.
https://aus.social/@theconversationau@mastodon.social/110706628290956567

@Ooops @Dubious_Fart CitySkylines has ‘pocket cars’. Pedestrians store cars in their pockets for use when they want it.