One of those things is illegal, the other is not. One puts others at risk of injury and death, the other does not.

This reminds me of two recent posts that I got involved in here.

The first was about Wales' upcoming 20mph zone, where people were complaining that "they're just trying to generate revenue". Well, only if you decide to break the law, surely?

The other was a discussion on the cyclists who were "caught" speeding in Devon. Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer). But they would get apoplectic when you suggested that they should do the same.

As a cyclist it always strikes me that we probably don't need any new laws to make the roads safe, we just need the current laws to be enforced and obeyed. If every driver gave every cyclist 1.5m of space, priority at junctions, kept out of the cycle lanes, etc. as they'resupposed to then the roads would be a lovely place to cycle.

What's funny is that it's only that way because of all the people driving rather than cycling. If the people who could get to where they're going without a car (bike/bus/train/whatever) used those alternative forms of transportation, then it would make the roads much clearer for the few people who actually need to drive (trades/emergency vehicles, etc.).

Both the total throughput and average speed of these roads would increase if more people were on bikes and buses. Unfortunately if it were to ever happen I fear people would just see the clearer roads and think, "Hey, the roads are clear now, I should drive again!" and we'd be right back to square one.

The FAQ in OP's link tells you that it is not all 30mph roads, but rather all restricted roads, with a link to a map of all 30mph roads that are staying 30mph as well as the option to see which restricted roads will change to 20mph. "Restricted Roads" is a classification of roads in law that is defined by the lamppost density, so this change won't affect larger and more rural roads where lampposts are more sparse.

I don't think it would be up to us to decide if it is acceptable or not. We don't ask the cow if they think it's okay that we take their milk, their skin, their meat. Likewise, I doubt a more advanced alien species would bother asking for our permission if they decided they had a use for us.

On a more philosophical point though, there's also the matter of sentience. As far as we're aware the animals we use for food, labour, etc. don't have the mental capacity to really understand the situation they find themselves in. They can't process and understand the fact that they are being used. As we are a species that can, the chances that we'd let another species, even one more advanced than us, exploit us without resisting are probably pretty low.

Because images like this are still relevant no matter how the cars are powered.

Running an electric car is obviously greener than running an ICE car, but producing one is most definitely not environmentally friendly. If we can reduce the number of vehicles on the road, including electric cars, that would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions.

There's also the case to be made around the environmental impact of (sub)urban sprawl, which generally comes about as a direct result of car dependency.

Body mods that look good in the traditional sense are generally called plastic/cosmetic surgery. Breast implants, face lifts, hair implants, etc. are the same idea as body mods, just with the goal of achieving a more mainstream idea of beauty.

There is already the regulation in the Highway Code:

114: "You MUST NOT use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users"

The "MUST NOT" indicates that this is a legal requirement and so it is a criminal offense to disobey it. Now if we could get the police to actually ENFORCE the legal requirements in the Highway Code, then maybe things might improve on the roads.

An incredibly tone-deaf choice of words just one day after her hot mic "sitting on their arses" comment.

I know we're dealing with human aliens, but there is actually a thing called takotsubo cardiomyopathy, also known as "broken heart syndrome", where your heart weakens as a result of emotional trauma.

It is rarely fatal, but deaths have occurred as a result of it.

Public transport? Or cars. Some people on here may be militant about getting rid of all cars, but most of us aren't that extreme. We simply want to have the option to not use cars, which is currently not the case in many regions of the world.

Which would mean that you would also be speeding, since e-bikes in the UK are required by law to be capped at 15.5mph (technically 25kph).

It's been surprising to see just how many pro-car users seem to lurk on these anti-car/pro-alternative transport communities.

I've found it interesting how many more pro-car and anti-bike people their are in the lemmy version of fuckcars compared to the Reddit one.

1. This change came from the Welsh Labour government, it is not a tory policy (though they apparently initially supported it)
2. Again, it's an entirely avoidable cost by simply obeying the law. If you're poor and can't afford to pay speeding fines, don't speed.

Legally speaking filtering is fine for both bicycles and motorcycles in the UK. I imagine if someone is the type to get mad at a motorcyclist doing this then they'd probably get mad at a cyclist too.

I will say that there's a massive size disparity between the two, with motorbikes capable of weighing 400kg while the average road bike is closer to 10kg. I know which one I would be more nervous about when I see it weaving by me.

Once upon a time the use of the exercise was to... question the PM. Nowadays it's little more than a tool for political point scoring.

I'm with you, I want to watch but I also want the PM to actually answer a bloody question every now and then. I feel there needs to be some kind of requirement for the PM's response to actually answer the question given.

I would even much rather they just say "I don't have than information to hand" or "I can't answer that question right now but will provide a response within X timeframe" rather than waffle and spin their way to their preferred talking point that they think will appeal to the voters.

Single family housing is a massive contributer to (sub)urban sprawl and car dependency. Increased residential density can reduce the need for cars by reducing the distance between people's homes and their workplace, shops, etc.

Surely it only generates revenue if people decide to break the law?

My point being that they won't generate any revenue if people actually follow the rules of the road. Revenue only when people break the law is not how taxes work.