I don’t have the energy to swipe new partners every week, I’m not a fan of hook up culture, anyone I’ve met on the apps keep using the apps while I see them. I’m not super big into social media and frequently don’t have service at work, I’ve had people on the apps complain 20+ minutes is unacceptable as a response time. I don’t take many pics of myself to make a good profile. Overall the experience is discouraging and stressful.
Many of our cities in north america don’t have good access to third places anymore, due to both availability and cost.
I refuse to use online dating/friendship services so I struggle to meet friends and partners in the new citiy I moved to. Everyone at the local bar scenes is 15-30 years older than me, my outdoor local areas are homeless emcampments or riddled with needles and litter. I’ve met some people at my local climbing gym, but I find it difficult to get there between the cost of climbing and my physical labour job.
It almost feels like if you don’t make the plans online you don’t get to meet/hang out with people anymore and I’m not a huge fan of that.
I agree, everyone thinks cars, bikes, buses, and people all should follow the same line along the same corridor. Having bike lanes seperated more can be very benefecial and helps seperation without need for physical barriers. For example a road could run down the center of a commercial area, with a dedicated BRT lane, and bike/ped pnaes closer to the businesses or even a seperate enterance/laneway behind the businesses dedicated to people.
But most of North America thinks a painted bicycle gutter along a busy road, crossing many car intersections and entrances is the best we can build.
I see where you are coming from there. My comment is mostly concerned with north america and our street/road design and layout is awful. There are many school zones where cars could easily exceed 100km/h if the driver wanted to. Because of these deisgns I think it is best we keep cyclists and pedestrains as seperated from cars until better street design and traffic calming can be massively implemented. The scale of the street redesign is massive and would have to be city wide to be truly effective.
An easier and cheaper start to pitch politically would be proper bike lanes along major corridors. A few years down the line streets along those lanes would improve and the city could slowly redevelop.
I wish I could just snap my fingers and have safe streets but stroads and the attitude of driving is so bad in much of north america we are going to have to fix it in stages. We can’t just convert our stroads overnight unfortunately.
A better option is to make seperate intersections for cars and bikes. Bike lanes do not exclussively have to run right next to the car lanes.
Thats why cities should build seperated lanes so cars and bikes mingle as little as possible
Nearly every animal will eat an egg given the right oppourtunity. It makes sense given it has everything needed to create a new animal. The same goes for milk for mammals.
The same problem could be fixed with electrified transit and walkability. Transit would also be even more environmentally friendly.
Plus we could still develop self driving cars but do a lot more testing before we set the public as the guinea pigs to see if they are safe.
Id also argue that we cannot claim this is the worst self driving will get since self driving cars are only used in a few areas right now.
There are greener, more energy effecient and more socially fair ways to get the same results than selling everybody a high tech steel box.
Driving while inebriated is illegal, self driving is not.
Traffics jams and erreactic behaviour could be fixed if everyone is in a self driving car, but at that point it woild be far more energy effecient, environmentally friendly and cheaper for society to build electrified transit instead.
If you prioritize the street so that only self driving cars are on it and they need wireless communications to function, how do other road users like cyclists and pedeatrians safely use the street?
Self driving cars are not here to make your life better, they are here to make a handful of people rich.
I don’t think public deaths is a valid cost for creating self driving cars. We could be builidng safer and more effecient transportation systems. Some billionaire is going to make even more money because they were allowed to use the general public and city streets as a testing ground for their product. This is not fair to the family or the people who are injured or killed by self driving cars.
I have a buddy who prefers these over the chewy dipped versions and I can confirm he is a pyschopath
I think much of north america is dug so deep into car centric planning that making drivers pay the full cost would be too expensive for a significant portion of the population and workforce. I think the alternatives need to exist before the taxation because many people are constrained to their car being their only reliable way to get to work.
Making that cost more could put huge financial stress on a family whereas building the rail before the taxation could provide a cheaper alternative before the taxation even begins.
Yes and i agree with that sentiment. 20 years down the line we will realize our cities are just as unwalkable and unable to be served by transit if we build them to exclussively serve the car. We should build cities so walking, cycling, transit and driving are all realistic options. For most north American cities we only prioiritize the car.
The only reason people in urban centers do not have transit is because governments neglected to build it. If they can build a 6 lane highway through your city, they could build transit.
We shouldnt use rural and spread out areas as an excuse to not build our cities and denser areas better and service them with transit.
The vast majority of people who are anti car are anti car centric urban environments. Noboby is expecting a small town of 300 people to build a tram, we are expecting places with congested highways to build transit instead of “adding one more lane to solve traffic forever”
We should defintely still make EVs, overall they are going to be better than ICE. We just shouldn’t force/subsidize everyone to have to buy and drive an EV like we did with ICE cars.
Here is my reasonable argument against EVs. EVs only really solve the emissions part of the equation. They dont solve the massive amounts of paved surface, private ownership of thousands of pounds of steel and plastic, they still use massive amounts of energy to move that steel and plastic and building cities for cars is largely ineffecient and expensive to maintain.
We could do a lot more for the environment than EVs. Id rather see their subsidies go to things like electrified transit, cycling infrastructure or walkability improvements.
Electric cars aren’t going to fix climate change
Ive used mine before because the rad was too big to fit internally.