Firefox still supports uBlock origin. 👌

For the same amount of people, you wouldn't need to.

They supplement and decentralise food production, building resiliency into our systems.

Someone who hates or distrusts humankind certainly isn't a positive trait.

IMO this is a universal problem. I've had neighbours in a single family house that choose to mow their lawn at 7am on a Saturday and have a very loud pickup truck that I can hear start up any time they drive it.

so much hate.

I know you're not serious but this is a really sad and hateful worldview.

Those are great too :) with some small grocery stores at corners occasionally.

It's possible to own a condo apartment, or if the building is structured as a co-op, then rent is permanently affordable and you have a stake in how the building is run.

More here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk&t=0

Gentle density is awesome too! Rowhouses, duplexes, low-rises: all great options for cities that are zoned to only allow single family housing.

Consider that if you have one bad neighbour in an apartment, then everyone on your floor will also be talking to them and helping to regulate their disruptive behaviour.

Apartments usually have concrete walls so you can't hear your neighbours. Unfortunately, there are some new builds made by developers trying to maximise profit at the expense of the residents who don't do this.

Perhaps in some parts of suburban north america. However, well-designed walkable, bikeable cities with proper transit don't require mega big box stores all in one zoned area that you drive to from a sprawling suburb.

Co-operative run housing largely eliminates those problems.

Zoning is a very important topic, but if someone doesn't have any passion for it, then it's better for them to focus on vehicle design than nothing.

Try not to control how other people help - you may have more success posting and commenting about zoning issues and actions in your community to bring awareness and dialogue than discouraging others from focusing on truck-specific issues. 🙂

It's important for people to tackle the issues from many angles, including both zoning and dangerous vehicle design. I'd argue the real waste of our grass-roots energy is going after each other.

This is a great way to do it too! Many streets even have a 40km/h speed limit but are built wide enough to accommodate 80km/h, so drivers often speed and increase fatalities.

There are some politicians that will listen, so consider joining a bicycle advocacy group if your town has one. Failing that, guerilla urbanism is an option.

Locking due to too many people raging and inciting violence against people riding bikes.

I fucking hate cyclists in the road

Well that's too bad because the road is for everyone. Keep your road rage in check and be more constructive next time.

That is heartbreaking.

Who is saying it's OK to walk blind in front of a car? Nobody is claiming you shouldn't be wary around vehicles because we all know how dangerous they can be. The point is that telling pedestrians to be careful is often a substitute for a complete lack of action on safe infrastructure.

You'd be shocked at how little traffic violence is treated as manslaughter. In Ontario, Canada, a lady only got a temporary driving suspension for driving through a group of girl guides at 120km/h in a school zone, killing one and injuring several others. The driver even denied responsibility in court.

The public dialog is still that pedestrians and cyclists need to be careful around cars with victim blaming when people are hit. When school starts, the kids better be careful. Where are all the signs and messaging around how drivers need to be careful? I constantly see drivers speeding and rolling stop signs in school zones but it's completely normalized and shrugged off.

Some cities are car-centric because we designed and subsidised infrastructure to make it so. We induced a demand for cars by spending billions on building, expanding, and maintaining highways to the point that people hop in their car for a 2km trip. People now have no choice of transport other than a car, and that's a problem. It's literally killing us and our children whowith road violence, lung cancer from emissions, and via our climate.

Your steakhouse metaphor is akin to the entire city consisting almost exclusively of steakhouses. But why bother changing it, all cities are designed only for steakhouses. You don't get a choice to eat other cuisines because it's so inconvenient to go across town to the one Greek restaurant.

You're right - I'll stop feeding them.

Simple self preservation should lead you to the same conclusion. When it comes to safety, the squishiest one lose

Also, this is a dangerously devoid of any sense of responsibility. It sounds like what someone would say after blowing a red light and running someone over.

The stationary crane comparison doesn't carry over to dangerous machines in the context of transport.

The only proven way to make cycling and walking safe is by separating motor traffic from other modes of transport, by way of cycleways along main roads, and filtering minor roads to restrict through-motor-traffic.

When you have no such safe infrastructure and the entire dialog is "be careful around those dangerous cars", then there is clearly a problem.

The poster is alluding to other approaches to road safety. You can prevent fatal interactions through infrastructure and city design. Failing to do so and pinning it on everybody outside of a vehicle is absurd.

Of course, we all need to be mindful of dafety, no matter what form of transport. But our roads are designed and the dialog is set up so that all responsibility is focused on pedestrians and cyclists who aren't the ones in control of a potentially deadly machine.

Bike lanes are proven to increase revenue for businesses in their vicinity. Car parking takes up valuable space in a city which could be used more productively.

Additionally, when you build driving to be the only feasible option then those who cannot drive cannot get around. This includes but is not limited to the elderly, children, and those with disabilities.

There are cycles available for almost every type of disability – it’s actually an inclusive mode of transport that will often act as a mobility aid for people who find walking difficult, people who can't walk far and even those who cannot walk at all.

Evidence from the Netherlands (and increasingly from the UK, where new infrastructure has been built) shows that high quality cycling infrastructure is often shared with wheelchairs, mobility scooters and other assistive modes of transport.

And in general, cycling infrastructure should go hand-in-hand with other improvements to the physical environment too – like smooth, continuous footways across side roads, for example.

So in fact the truth is the opposite of the myth – cycling actually gives people with physical disabilities more transport options and independence, not less.

It's not surprising when we've created an induced demand for driving through which infrastructure we build and subsidize. However, the numbers in Germany and China are changing as they push for non car-centric infrastructure. I can't speak to the other countries.

Places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam used to be full of roads and parking lots. When they built public transit and safe bike infrastructure for shorter trips, they induced a demand and people ditched their cars for safer, cheaper, and more convenient alternatives.

Reducing congestion is mostly attempted by building and expanding highways, which is proven not to reduce congestion. The vast majority of the budget is spent on building and expending highways.

This makes me happy :)

MapComplete has a feature to post Mangrove reviews too!

the real problem isn’t the vehicle, it’s its speed and compared to the traffic around it.

I distinguished that speed of a vehicle itself is an issue and not primarily, as you stated, how its speed relates to traffic around it. A car that's going with the flow of traffic at 80km/h is still fatal to be hit by when you're walking or biking.

The real problem is speed, doesn’t matter how much mass or energy a vehicle can have if it’s not moving.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding; a stationary vehicle has no kinetic energy. When you get hit by a car, the energy you are hit with (kinetic energy) depends on the mass and speed of the vehicle.

My dad got hit by a kid in a bicycle causing a wound that never really healed.

I'm sorry to hear that, it sounds like I really difficult experience. I fail to see how a child making a mistake while riding a bike is relevant to your claim that "the real problem isn’t the vehicle, it’s its speed and compared to the traffic around it." and how "cars have to slow down because of bicycles" is the cause of danger. Orders of magnitude more people and children die being hit by cars than any other form of transportation and the answer is not blaming people on bikes for collisions since they "made" cars change their speed relative to traffic around them.

People die from doing activities with risk, the answer is not to lock yourself in a room and live afraid

No such claim was made.

That you dismiss the utility of cars is more of a commentary of the bubble and environment you’ve had the opportunity to enjoy

Nobody is denying the utility of vehicles. Our infrastructure are designed with cars having absolute top priority, making short trips by bike and walking dangerous. Most trips in cities are short and doable by bike or walking, but when the infrastructure is poor and people perceive it to be an unacceptable risk, they take a car. How many times have you seen people riding on sidewalks because they don't feel that the line of painted bike lane protects them from a driver on their phone who could kill them? Or someone on a mobility scooter in a bike lane because the uneven, discontinuous sidewalk that lowers for cars at each crossing presents more danger of them falling over? I bike, I walk, and I drive; everything I've mentioned is the product of not living in a bubble, otherwise I wouldn't see the problems.

I'm starting to see ad hominem and straw man arguments, so I'm not going to put the energy into continuing this conversation. Enjoy the rest of your day. :)

Certainly! And that's the problem. We've been spending billions to expand highways and add new highways through cities, while chronically under-funding public transit and designing roads that are unsafe to cyclists and pedestrians. As cities continue to grow, adding highway lanes counterintuitively increases traffic due to induced and latent demand, when the most people will be moved by public transit, walking and bicycling. The only cure to traffic is viable alternatives to driving.

Cars take the most amount of space to transport the least amount of people. There are extremely densely populated cities all over the world that routinely move people in from hundreds of kilometres away every day for work. A single Japanese Shinkansen train can move 15,640,000 people per day and operate up to 500km/h. But even busses would suffice as the infographic below shows.

Cars take the most amount of space to transport the least amount of people. There are extremely densely populated cities all over the world that routinely move people in from hundreds of kilometres away every day for work. A single Japanese Shinkansen train can move 15,640,000 people per day and operate up to 500km/h. But even busses would suffice as the infographic below shows.

Never a bad idea! Typically, bicycle lights and maybe some reflective tape strips on your bike provide plenty of visibility too. :)