@Doofytoe @grumpo_potamus When I commuted regularly rain on the way to work was a reason not to ride, the risk of rain on the way home wasn't. Maybe if the office had a good shower I would have ridden to work in the rain too.
LovesTha
joined 5 years ago
Yes we need less cars, but leaving cars more dangerous isn't the better interim solution.
While cars have always travelled at speed at night, till modern headlights they were just reckless.
It is another reason cycling infrastructure should be seperated: so headlights can be shielded.
@ltxrtquq @takeda (I can't watch the video, so I'm going off just the image)
Imagine how pissed that driver would be if they were actually following what the driver probably thinks they should be doing: riding single file next to the kerb.
The long queue of bikes would prevent the driver turning onto the road for so long.
@Swedneck @luckystarr The Netherlands doesn't have the sprawliest of urban areas, but that is because those just don't work, so don't have them ;)
Yes, 30/60 is pretty reasonable once driving isn't the only way for people to get around.
@Voyajer @AgentOrangesicle Yeah, they really need to be exterminated (at least for a few thousand km from here)
@FireRetardant @Lysergid If you want people to actually use PT for most trips, 20m frequency is woeful. 20m is okay if you only expect it to be an option for people lucky enough to have a direct service (so CBD commuters).
5~10m frequency at all times still means waiting 10~20m for a normal trip, as a normal trip will include 2~4 services.
Also the cost pressure before alternatives are viable is cruel to those who can't pay. And mostly not needed. A good PT will be used without the pressure.
@AceBonobo @Showroom7561 I believe that around here they are required to be removed when not in use.
Not that anyone knows this.
view more: next ›
@lgsp bike helmets are pretty much useless :)