|
Cichlidae posted:Except maybe for people who love parking spaces. We'll be removing thousands of 'em. How is this going to end up helping people?
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Cicero posted:(Parking spaces for) Cars create distance that only cars can solve. Presumably also they're replacing the parking spaces with something else that's useful, like bike lanes or bus lanes or sidewalks or new development. Maybe this is just because I've spent most of my life in San Antonio, where there's no effective public transit and no effective ped/bike routes and everybody drives everywhere because that's the only real option, but I just can't picture any of that kind of stuff being useful enough to be able to replace parking spaces without a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:(or, you know, bike to church) Biking to church in the DC area would be like biking through a loving sauna while wearing your Sunday best. Nobody's going to want to do that, especially when you consider that the churchgoing demographic tends to be older folks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Agreed. With gas prices so low this is a perfect time to raise taxes on it. American gas taxes are extremely low compared to international levels, and it would not only generate revenue but decrease future taxpayer costs by encouraging transit usage and decreasing the need for costly road expansion. Raising gas taxes isn't going to encourage me to use public transportation that isn't there, and it's not going to get me to drive less because that's simply not an option. I'm too far from work, too far from school, and I'm too far from stores. Raising the gas tax is basically just going to gently caress me, along with everybody else in my shoes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
"Make it look like we're making a real effort, but keep it cheap and don't let it interfere with automobile traffic too much because voters will hate that."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Hahahaha, changing rooms, what? An average August day down here in San Antonio is ~36-37 C with high humidity. You will break a sweat biking to work. Baronjutter posted:Or do people just never move about outdoors in climates where it regularly goes over 30? Just hop in an air conditioned car between air conditioned buildings? What an existence... That's pretty much how it works here, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Cicero posted:
If I have to get off a transit stop and walk an actual loving mile to get to where I'm going, it's a lovely transit system and I'm probably just going to drive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Entropist posted:America isn't as exceptional as you think guys, there is sprawl and low-density population and hot weather and cold weather and rain and long distances in various other parts of the world where people do manage to cycle too. Sometimes in the Netherlands it rains for several days straight and people still bike! Or there's a storm, or there's a heat wave, and they still bike. Why? Because they are used to it and the facilities and culture make it the normal thing to do and as natural as walking. The record high in the Netherlands is about our average summer day down here in Texas. Your heatwave is what we'd consider "refreshingly cool", most likely. The other thing to consider is that our society has been based on cars for a long time now, and we're used to that. You say that people in the Netherlands bike everywhere because that's what they're used to. We drive everywhere because that's what we're used to, and if you want to get us out of the cars you're going to have to overcome that inertia. Specifically, you're going to have to convince us that the alternative is SO much better that it's worth changing how we do everything. You are not going to convince a significant portion of the population down here that they really want to get out of their air conditioned cars in favour of 5+ mile bike rides in high temperatures with stifling humidity. Khizan fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
It has a left turn signal, it's just hard to see. You can make out the red arrow on the light to the right of the sign, underneath one of the streetlights. That aside, that kind of intersection is so amazingly standard around here(outside of San Antonio) that it honestly never occurred to me that some people would have a problem with them. There's some roads out here where I'm sitting in a left hand turn lane while oncoming traffic goes 65+.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It still boils my blood any time (see: every time) a pedestrian is hit by a car people instantly go to the victim blaming. Cars are the intruders on streets, not humans. Once upon a time when the first automobiles were released, they may have been the intruder. That was many years ago, however, and things have changed. If you get hit because you were jaywalking or jogging in an area with no shoulder and bad visibility, well. That's your fault and you shouldn't have been doing that. The streets belong to cars now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I was mostly referring to people hit at actual crosswalks still getting victim-blamed. "well just because you had a walk signal you still have to look!" you hear every time. You do still have to look. The walk signal just says that you have the right of way, it's not a covenant with God guaranteeing safe passage and it's not a promise that the driver won't gently caress up. If I leave my gun on the table and you gently caress around with it and shoot yourself accidentally, we're both at fault. I shouldn't have left it out and you shouldn't have hosed around with it. Similarly, the driver shouldn't have run the red light/stop sign/whatever, and the pedestrian should have looked first.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If you are driving around in a location with poor visibility and little room for maneuvre, your responsibility as a driver is to adapt to the driving conditions, slow down, and be careful, not assume the road is going to be magically clear and so you can just drive around with your eyes shut. Agreed. However, it's also the responsibility of a pedestrian/biker/etc to wear reflective gear, put lights on their bike/person, and generally work to attain a state of high visibility. I can see "dude in a reflective vest with a flashing light on his bike/belt" from a half a mile away, even with oncoming traffic and headlights shining in my face. "Dude jogging on the inside edge of the shoulder wearing a blue tracksuit" is the guy who's gonna get hit. Both parties have a responsibility to help avoid accidents, and accidents can result from loving up on either side. fishmech posted:You cannot jaywalk in a crosswalk. Khizan fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That makes sense. I thought I saw something last time I was at AAA that parents could use to track their kids' cell phone use in the car, but I honestly didn't pay much attention. I think that the device you're thinking of is a GPS unit that tracks location/distance/speed/etc and can report things like 'arrived at school' to the parents via text. That's trivial. IIRC, there are several ways to disable a cell phone while you're driving, but the problem with them is that you handle them all on the cell-phone side of things. A modern cell phone includes a GPS, so it knows where it is and how fast it is moving and all that jazz. An app can use that information to make a determination about when you are driving, and it can disable phone functionality accordingly. This is a kind of solution that would work on a teenage driver whose phone is paid for by their parents, but not on people who own and control their own phones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Everybody using that intersection cares about traffic and throughput, and nobody gives half a gently caress about pedestrians.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I give a gently caress about individuals who are most likely to make money for business owners and generate sales taxes, of which pedestrians generate a higher quantity. Why the gently caress don't more folk care about the gently caress'n money in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner? Because most people don't care about that kind of thing. If I don't shop there or own a business there, why would I care about it enough to want to snarl up traffic and increase my travel time through the intersection?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
From what I remember of the Walker thing, the difference between helmet and non-helmet was something like 3.3 inches at a distance of about a meter, no? That seems pretty inconsequential to me. That aside, the idea that 'helmets don't help you in car accidents' is basically a load of bullshit. Yeah, if you get slammed by 2 tons of Dodge Ram going at highway speeds, you're probably hosed even with your helmet. If you get hit by a Honda Civic going 45 in the city, on the other hand, a helmet can absolutely be the difference between having a broken leg and having a broken leg and a skull fracture.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Okay, another question. On the main drag near my place the speed limit is 45. It stays there for a couple miles, then it goes down to 40, and a few blocks later it goes to 45 again. There isn't a school where the dip occurred, it's just more strip malls. Why might this be? This sounds like a classic small town speed trap. Basically, they camp the gently caress out of that slower middle section hoping to nail people who don't slow down for it. EDIT: It could be an older speed trap that they don't bother to enforce anymore, I guess?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:What's the difference between a left turn with a yield on green light versus a flashing yellow arrow? Why would an engineer choose one over the other? In my area it is mostly flashing yellows and i hate them because i routinely find myself in the process of turning when they turn red because there isn't a clear distinction between "about to be red" yellow and "about to blink back off again" yellow. IMO, a flashing yellow arrow is a clear sign that you can turn but you have to yield. It's unambiguous and it has no other meaning. A solid green circle light with a "can make left turn but must yield" clause attached is more ambiguous and open to misinterpretation because the solid green circle ordinarily means that you have the right of way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Another thing to consider is that it's only "transit" versus "full cost of car ownership" if you're in a position to completely replace a car with transit use. There's lots of Americans out there who can't really get away with going completely carless, and if you're one of them then the cost of transit is only competing against the cost of the extra mileage from your commute.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2022 03:50
|
|