Until people develop a workable alternative
The alternative will not appear out of thin air. More people need to have a sense of the long-reaching consequences of car-dependent urban planning and that’s what propels them to vote for better planning in their cities.
Nothing is going to change without a shift in political leanings, and that’s what this sort of advocacy is doing.
the dockless rent-a-scooters need to go
Yeah, I get it. Private vehicles everywhere on the side of the street are an eyesore and take a ton of valuable public space. If at least e-scooters were as small as a car it wouldn’t be such a big deal to see them parked everywhere.
Plus, some people have kids under 5
Yup, that’s us. We walk, use transit, or the kid rides on her bike child seat.
E-bikes exist if you don’t have the legs to tackle those hills yet.
I wish i could also move more people with me on the bicycle
Depending on the size of those people: bike child seat, bike trailer, or they can ride their own bicycle. Cargo bikes can easily carry two kids or one adult without even using a trailer.
It would also be great if there was some sort of heater/AC in it as well
That is called “dress for the weather”. Even snowflake pinko commies like me can do it.
I rode in all weather for years
Same. And that includes snow and ice, for those at the back that think that riding a bike in winter is only possible in LA. If people can walk in that weather, people can ride a bike even more easily as the exercise keeps you warmer.
That is a good point. If they are not in a car, they must be either poor or stupid, which means they don’t really deserve the same rights as regular people (i.e. drivers).
Riding a bike doesn’t necessarily mean owning a bike.
Places like Toronto or London have bicycle sharing programs where for a small monthly fee you can go to one of many stations around the city, pick a bike and leave it at any of the stations near to your destination. The maintenance staff ensures that all stations have some bikes available and that the bikes remain in working condition.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
I would take it further and day that regulations should prioritize the safety of the people outside the vehicle over the people inside, for the simple reason that the people buying the vehicle already have a strong incentive to maximize their own safety, while they currently have zero concerns about the safety of pedestrians.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, don’t have the freedom to choose which vehicle runs them over, so it is up to regulations to advocate for them because nobody else will.
Whatever is most pleasant/convenient for the trip I’m trying to make, as long as it is not a car, because cars are disproportionately noisy, polluting and a danger to my neighbors, and I don’t want to contribute to that.
If all the options were equally available and convenient, then for me walking > cycling > streetcar > train > bus.
Some people don’t drive at all. And some never have.
Guess what, if you banned all personal cars from a city while retaining access for trucks (as no city would survive without them), the road damage would not be reduced in any noticable manner
The majority of the fuck cars crowd doesn’t want to ban all personal motor vehicles. We want our streets to be pleasant to live and walk around, and car-centric urban planning is incompatible with that.
As for the deliveries of commercial goods, you only need to look at how it is achieved today in cities that are designed around people instead of cars. If you live in North America you may be picturing your shopping as a weekend highway trip to a big box store with a massive ground-level parking. Such large stores practically require large semi trucks to bring goods in.
A different way of doing things is possible, and indeed not only it was done that better way in North America before the popularity of the car, but is still done that way in most places around the world.
Instead of hopping in your car once a week, you walk or use other means of transportation on your way home from work. Yes, walking is fine because your destination isn’t far away any more: mixed-use buildings mean that you live not far from where you shop. Shops are smaller and they are not surrounded by an ugly sea of car parking – it isn’t needed when people arrive to the shop by foot.
“But what about bringing goods into the shop?”, you say. “Don’t you need trucks for that?”. Yes, small ones, not semi trucks. Remember: it is not a huge big box store by the highway. It’s a neighborhood grocery shop, or furniture shop, or whatever else it is that you are buying.
Small delivery vans and trucks are all that is required. And often times, they are only allowed to deliver within certain hours of the day to reduce the amount of disturbance to the neighbors, who want to enjoy their streets with as little motor vehicle traffic as possible.
This isn’t some new experimental idea. It’s how it already works in most of the developed world.
I get what you are saying. Do you have a better solution? It’s my understanding that in some areas in China you would only be allowed to drive on certain days of the week based on the number on your driving license.
The fewer people driving, the better. Still, I wish EV subsidies applied to pedal-assist e-bikes.
People biking at scramble intersections do not ride at 30Kph. Acting in good faith helps maintaining a friendly discussion.
Children steamrollers do not belong in cities.
Edit: Can you think of a better backronym for SUVs? Street Unsafe Vehicle? Super Unsafe Vision? Severely Unsafe Vehicle? Striking Unsuspecting Vulnerables?
I’m willing to bet a big chunk of those deaths were cyclists either blasting though the light, riding against the flow of traffic, or both.
If you look at some real-world collision statistics, like I did because I wanted to know how I was most likely to get killed, you will find that you would have lost that bet. Your municipality probably publishes a report on those stats every few years. Look it up and learn something new.
Didn’t realize it was so controversial!
If by controversial you mean dangerous, then yes, it is. It is one of the main ways in which pedestrians are killed in North America. In most developed countries it is illegal.
Cars making right turns on red are a major source for both pedestrian and cyclist deaths. The driver making a right turn is focused on the incoming traffic on their left and are thus less likely to notice a cyclist or pedestrian on their right.
All the time I run into inconsiderate drivers who enter an intersection without stopping and/or creep towards pedestrians when the light is red, ignoring the danger they force upon unprotected people.
We can reduce these deaths by disallowing right turns on red, following most of the developed world.
The problem is there’s a lot of people that want to push that lifestyle on every single human being
I suspect you misunderstand what these people want. Let's use myself as an example, I am as opposed to suburbs as they come. Does it mean I am opposed to you living in a suburb? No. I am opposed to:
We largely want the same things. The main difference I see is that I'm looking for ways to improve my lifestyle in a way that doesn't automatically decrease the quality of life of other people, such as driving my car in front of their homes at all times of the day or making their neighborhoods unwalkable.
Car-dependent city planning is causing all these problems.
You mean mixing businesses and residential units in the same walkable neighborhood like we’ve done for thousands of years? That would never work! We must maximize commuting distances in order to reduce traffic and commuting times.