LovesTha🥧 @ LovesTha @floss.social

A melbournian with many interests:

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

128

Joined

6 yr. ago

@overclox ah, yes, might makes right.

For reference, when was the street invented? And for what?

@overclox Yes, the concept is from rail, but it applies to all crossings/intersections.

The point is we lost a lot when we decided that it was okay for death machines to have right of way all around us. We shouldn't accept it as normal.

@overclox bad typing, corrected now

@overclox why are cars allowed there. That is the way around I'm pushing

@overclox at grade crossings should be rare ;)

@overclox The key bit there being, why are cars allowed on things that were safe for pedestrians?

@lgsp I'm a fan of requiring them over 25kmph. Yes this is largely unenforcable, so no one will be fined. But it still gives the message that if you go fast you should wear one.

But it also gets out of the way of people riding to the corner store for milk

@overclox @lgsp no, motorised vehicles shouldn't be able to hit pedestrians and cyclists. Mostly because their is a right to walk, not drive a car.

@walden @horse manually creating segments on regular routes is labour, but not too burdensome.

Segments on one off routes don't have much value on a small instance.

I'm interested to see how it works.

@atzanteol @CompactFlax read the article, it is just expanding the current vehicle laws it include cyclists.

So in all likelyhood cyclists will get slaps on the wrist like drivers to.

@limelight79 @versefedi Attempted Manslaughter feels like an oxymoron to me. Attempted requires intent and Manslaughter requires lack of intent?

@Fingolfinz @anindefinitearticle and only replaces the tubes, it still needs to be retread at some interval. So 'lasts the life of the bike' is a bit misleading....?

(Just going by the linked article)

@Sidhean @GertrudGoethe The solutions are very generic too :)

@kameecoding enjoying and it being taxing aren't really relayed. Driving takes effort that sitting on a bus doesn't

@WaterFoul you don't get all the benefit till all the pieces are there.

@Dalaryous @GlobalLiberty tiny cars only reduce parking space, they take up essentially the same amount of road at speed.

@WaterFoul @TipsyMcGee I think you over estimate how much needs to be rebuilt. Just replacing shopping strips with low rise homes with ground floor retail and allowing for housing in fill around them gets you there. Building an excellent bus interchange in the giant carpark is easy too.

@kameecoding @pineapple yes, spending all your day driving is exhausting. With good PT that day of errands is quite enjoyable.

@WoodScientist @buzz86us I wouldn't advocate doing it in that order, but you are right.

@LvInSaNevL @Malfeasant I'm happy to limit the 'no personal cars' to areas that are 1/4 acre blocks and below. (Remembering that a 1/4 acre block gets back a substantial amount of useful land when you delete the driveway, so blocks all become 'bigger' in such a system)

Places that are substantially less dense than that do benefit from cars. But that isn't that large a % of people, while it is a very large % of the land mass.