@blandy @frostbiker
In Victoria (Australia), the fine for using your mobile phone while riding a bicycle is the same as when driving a 2.6 tonne ute.

@themeatbridge @sexy_peach Commuter driving has the same 'last mile' problem, but it's parking.

The photo doesn't include the $250 million worth of carparks for those 10,000 cars that has to exist at the other end of the highway.

@Princeali311 @buckykat bicycles and pedestrians got a long fine for decades before the invention of traffic laws

@TootSweet @ajsadauskas They'll just completely rewrite it from scratch using a newer LLM and that will be considered normal. In those 5yrs the percentage of developers who remember the idea of code having longevity will be tiny.

@zoe @frankPodmore Driving licences and traffic lights were invented because car drivers were too dangerous to safely mix with existing road traffic and we needed to restrain them. Bicycles have never been a significant danger to other road traffic. We don't require licences for people to ride bicycles for the same reason we don't require licences for pedestrians, it's a ridiculous idea that would do nothing useful.

@ChicoSuave @HiddenLayer5 you've got it the wrong way around. The anti-car/pro public transport/urbanism movement always has the goal of reducing the cost of transport and the cost of housing to make places that are livable for people on lower incomes.

Cars in rural areas aren't a concern because they're places where population density is so low that cars have fewer negative effects.

But rural public transport between townships and major cities can also make getting places quicker, easier and safer.

Building public transport in and to higher density areas doesn't stop you from driving your car in a rural area.

@Crazypartypony @glasgitarrewelt But if parking restrictions are enforced and people can't park and thus can't use cars then there will be political will for public transport. Public transport is cheaper to deploy than all the car infrastructure even for small townships.

@notgold The classic second stage of the Car Ponzi scheme. They make a big list of the problems that cars created, ascribe them to population growth and then double down on cars as the solution.

@ME5SENGER_24 @bumble these behaviours in themselves don't cause injuries...are you sure you're not thinking about some other thing that is dangerous? Perhaps something that causes so much carnage that one way streets and red lights had to be invented?

@JasSmith @cerement @lysol Density is the panacea. Cycling is just what makes it possible. You can't have nice livable density with cars.

@notgold yeah, it's so easy to see it was bad with hindsight. But it also should have been easy to see at the time with some simple maths.

@bluemoon Everywhere that has tried free public transport sees a 30℅ increase in ridership, but no reduction in car use. The 30% increase comes out of active transport so it's a very expensive upkeep cost to get people walking to take the bus instead.

If money is available to make public transport free then that money would be better spent on things that will result in large increases in ridership and actually reduce car usage by expanding the public transport network and running more frequent services.

You can remove the requirement for drivers to enforce fares without removing the fare as most people will still pay it.

@cantstopthesignal @bumble does that work for people walking? If enough people walk in New York then they'll get walking infrastructure? Or does it only work for car drivers?

@dudewitbow @JetpackJackson my concern with robo-taxises is specifically that they're not good at the edge cases. This means there will be a push to remove those edge cases, to simplify streets to match the abilities of the robo-taxises. We start to design our cities for the limitations of some software

@Ooops @Dubious_Fart CitySkylines has 'pocket cars'. Pedestrians store cars in their pockets for use when they want it.

@lntl @RaoulDook

Falling and hitting your head isn't exclusive to bicycles or even more likely on bicycles than other activities. You're most likely to get a head injury by falling in the shower, tripping while walking, or being a passenger in a car crash.

Helmets dehumanise cyclists increasing risk of aggression from drivers.
https://aus.social/@[email protected]/110706628290956567

@ajsadauskas @fuck_cars

I grew up in Collingwood, Melbourne and all of these things were within 20mins walk from my house.

I'm on the other side of Melbourne now (Footscray) and the only thing I'm not walking distance from is 'sports arena'..unless you count horse racing.

@DLSchichtl @Iron_Lynx of course there are things that can't be delivered in bicycles and of course this only make sense with enough density.
But density is a goal of urbanism.

The places in the world that currently have success doing bicycle deliveries right now allow night time or off peak van/truck deliveries.
Most deliveries are small packages, especially the deliveries that are time sensitive and so are ideal for cargo bike delivery.
The 2-3 photocopier deliveries a week are done with a van at night.

@MisterFrog @pHr34kY yeah, North-East Link was supposed to be $16 billion in construction costs and cost $100 billion over it's life time. But was predicted to produce $110 billion in value (In truck freight, roads for cars are always massive losses). But a $10 billion cost overrun means that it definitely won't produce any value at all.

@ajsadauskas @fuck_cars ah, good point.