Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Black Dog on September 29, 2022, 08:03:51 pm
-
Been meaning to start a thread on this for a while ever since user kimmy posted a couple (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/elon-musk/?message=94251) of things (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/elon-musk/?message=95145) in the Elon Musk thread essentially claiming that a world without cars would be a horrible place.
I won't presume to speculate as to why user kimmy in particular feels that way, but you see similar arguments from time to time, usually from conservatives, including everyone's favourite teary-eyed psychologist.
(https://preview.redd.it/52fhvleang881.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=4ca1c2483dd175fa8e152df38f427a0f246e5cae)
I'll start by just talking about why cars suck from an individual standpoint. Now, I think the majority of people are either ambivalent about cars or consider them a necessary evil at best. Personally, I went about 15 years without owning a car when I lived in cities with functioning transit and bike infrastructure. It wasn't until I moved to a shitty, car-oriented mid sized city that I basically had to get a car and it was then that I realized how much it sucks to own a car.
First, cars are expensive. Expensive to buy, expensive to insure, expensive to maintain and expensive to fuel. I sure don't find the experience of having to hand over several hundred dollars a month for a constantly depreciating hunk of metal to be particularly liberating.
Second: the act of driving sucks. It's always funny when I see car commercials that show people whizzing down neon-lit city streets at night or flying down country roads because that sure as hell isn't what driving is like in real life where the experience ranges from boring to stressful to outright rage-inducing.
Third: driving and the reliance on automobiles at the exclusion of almost every other mode of transport is atomizing and soul-crushing. Spending large parts of one's life trapped in a box travelling at high speeds means you miss out on scenery, human connections and the joys of discovering things about your surroundings that are only visible when you're travelling at a human speed.
Anyway that's just my perspective behind the wheel without even touching on pollution and environmental damage, traffic deaths and injuries, urban sprawl and its discontents.
-
Cars aren’t going anywhere. They may become electrified, but they’ll still be the way most of us get around.
I can’t tow my trailer or boat with mass transit.
If the road from Lake Cowichan to Port Renfrew in a sports car doesn’t make you grin, you have no soul.
-
So, first off, apologies for not getting back to that thread. I just don't have as much time to spend here writing as I used to, and when I do log in it seems like there are a lot of things waiting for me to respond to and I feel like I can't get to all of them. There's stuff in the Gender thread that I've been meaning to get to for weeks and still haven't had time to. And often times it feels like when I do spend time and effort responding to something, I get a cursory response at best and then people go back to exchanging memes and inane verbiage with low-effort members of the forum. I spend 40 hours a week churning out documentation, and sometimes coming home and getting on a forum to write out my opinions in any amount of detail feels more like work than recreation.
Let me preface this by saying: I'm probably the greenest person here. I walk to work most days. I live within walking distance of my groceries and the bars and restaurants I like to visit. I only use my vehicle a couple of times per week, and when I do, I usually bundle a number of errands into one trip. If cars were suddenly banned, my day to day life would probably be less impacted than the vast majority of people. (unless my employment situation changes and my next job is at an industrial park at the edge of town...) So overall, I'm on board with the idea of creating cities where people can drive less or not at all.
I live in a city surrounded by hills and mountains and forests. I like to visit these wonderful places. I like to take my snow-shoes, or my rifle, or both, or just go for a hike. Whatever Marx's vision of the ideal car-free future, I'm highly sure it doesn't include a transit stop at the trailheads where I like to go. Marx and their ilk would say "yes, but you see, in the futuristic walkable car-free city of tomorrow, there will be ample recreational spaces right in your neighborhood." But that really only applies if you share Marx's concept of "recreation".
While the driving itself was not the highlight of any trip I've ever been on, I have to say that many of the most memorable experiences of my life have involved car travel.
And so my complaint with people like Mx Marx isn't that they don't want to drive, its that they don't think anybody else should want to drive either.
Ultimately what Marx is advocating for is a world where we average folks lose our "automobility". They propose that the benefits of a car-free society would more than make up for the loss of the freedom to travel when I want, to go to the places I want, and so-on. I'm highly skeptical. I suspect that these benefits would actually mostly be experienced by urbanite indoor-kid snobs (like Marx themself, I imagine).
(And yes, I understand that they don't literally want people to eat bugs and live in pods. Instead of bugs it will be vaguely food-like items made from sustainable plant sources, and the pods will have walls, ceilings, and perhaps 100 sq ft or more of floor space.)
-k
-
Is this Karl Marx we're discussing...
-
And so my complaint with people like Mx Marx isn't that they don't want to drive, its that they don't think anybody else should want to drive either.
Right. Cars didn't become popular because some author or some politician designed a car society, it happened because people started buying cars because they liked them better than horse and buggy.
If people want to live in the city and not use cars they can do that, if they want to live suburban or rural and use cars they can choose that too.
-
Is this Karl Marx we're discussing...
No, Paris Marx, some 30 y/o utopian who has the answer to all of life's problems. So kinda the same thing.
-
I've always been a car guy. Years ago I restored the one in my avatar and still have it. Cars are a necessity where I live and except for major cities, they always will be. A country this size just doesn't have the population to justify transit everywhere. The latest estimate for California's high speed rail project is $105 Billion USD and that is a state half the area of BC with the same population as Canada. That said, I don't like driving in Vancouver and will take Skytrain from a Surrey park and ride unless I actually need to take a car for some reason.
-
Right. Cars didn't become popular because some author or some politician designed a car society, it happened because people started buying cars because they liked them better than horse and buggy.
If people want to live in the city and not use cars they can do that, if they want to live suburban or rural and use cars they can choose that too.
Before motor vehicles, most people spent their whole lives within 20 miles of their homes.
-
I live in a city surrounded by hills and mountains and forests. I like to visit these wonderful places. I like to take my snow-shoes, or my rifle, or both, or just go for a hike. Whatever Marx's vision of the ideal car-free future, I'm highly sure it doesn't include a transit stop at the trailheads where I like to go. Marx and their ilk would say "yes, but you see, in the futuristic walkable car-free city of tomorrow, there will be ample recreational spaces right in your neighborhood." But that really only applies if you share Marx's concept of "recreation".
While the driving itself was not the highlight of any trip I've ever been on, I have to say that many of the most memorable experiences of my life have involved car travel.
I hear this type of argument all the time when I talk about the absurdly giant pick up trucks that dominate the market and our roads. "Well maybe people need them for work or recreation" and like yeah some do, but the vast majority simply do not. So I don't think your enjoyment of niche recreational activities are a compelling argument in the face of the myriad social and environmental harms of living in a car-centric society.
And so my complaint with people like Mx Marx isn't that they don't want to drive, its that they don't think anybody else should want to drive either.
I would love to see any cite that shows Paris Marx or anyone else calling for a complete and total ban on personal automobiles. Without such evidence, this whole thing smacks of a strawman.
I'd be genuinely curious what percentage of vehicle trips are taken by choice for pleasure or recreation vs commuting to work, getting groceries, schlepping kids to school and activities. I'd be shocked if it was even 10%.
Ultimately what Marx is advocating for is a world where we average folks lose our "automobility". [They propose that the benefits of a car-free society would more than make up for the loss of the freedom to travel when I want, to go to the places I want, and so-on. I'm highly skeptical.
Because obviously it's all about you?
Also, as i said in my OP, the "freedom to travel" is not what it seems when it involves being chained to a costly and constantly depreciating asset.
I suspect that these benefits would actually mostly be experienced by urbanite indoor-kid snobs (like Marx themself, I imagine).
Yeah only rich urbanites would benefit from improved air quality, less dangerous streets, more financial freedom etc etc. Come on jack.
-
Right. Cars didn't become popular because some author or some politician designed a car society, it happened because people started buying cars because they liked them better than horse and buggy.
If people want to live in the city and not use cars they can do that, if they want to live suburban or rural and use cars they can choose that too.
That's literally what happened though. You should read up on how car manufacturers worked to monopolize the streets, from creating he concept of jaywalking to colluding to destroy public transportation.
-
Before motor vehicles, most people spent their whole lives within 20 miles of their homes.
And 95% of car trips are 30 miles or less, and 60% are under 6 miles.
-
I've always been a car guy. Years ago I restored the one in my avatar and still have it. Cars are a necessity where I live and except for major cities, they always will be. A country this size just doesn't have the population to justify transit everywhere. The latest estimate for California's high speed rail project is $105 Billion USD and that is a state half the area of BC with the same population as Canada. That said, I don't like driving in Vancouver and will take Skytrain from a Surrey park and ride unless I actually need to take a car for some reason.
73.7% of Canadians live in urban centres.
-
73.7% of Canadians live in urban centres.
And over 26% don't. Only a few of those urban centres are large enough to support efficient transit systems. Air travel and personal vehicles are the only practical ways of moving between them.
-
73.7% of Canadians live in urban centres.
If you and Paris Marx (the most crazy-person name of all-time) don't like cars don't drive cars.
Most will be EVs soon enough so the negatives from ghg and air pollution will be gone. They'll also be self-driving soon too so most car accidents will be eliminated. Elon Musk is helping spearhead all this tech that will save a gazillion lives and dollars but he tweets like an ass and has an ego & a temper so f*** him.
-
And over 26% don't.
that's less than 10 million people, which is only twice as many as the GTA alone.
Only a few of those urban centres are large enough to support efficient transit systems.
Almost half of the population of the whole country lives in 10 municipalities so start there.
Air travel and personal vehicles are the only practical ways of moving between them.
Again, the vast majority of car trips aren't between cities or regions. Also, what about rail?
-
If you and Paris Marx (the most crazy-person name of all-time) don't like cars don't drive cars. They'll also be self-driving soon too so most car accidents will be eliminated. Elon Musk is helping spearhead all this tech that will save a gazillion lives and dollars but he tweets like an ass and has an ego & a temper so f*** him.
ICE vehicles will be the dominant mode of transportation for many decades to come. And the idea that self driving vehicles will eliminate accidents is a joke when you see how far removed we are from that being a viable technology.
EVs also don't address the high cost of owning a personal vehicle, they don't solve the fact that car-dependent infrastructure is wasteful and socially damaging.
-
ICE vehicles will be the dominant mode of transportation for many decades to come. And the idea that self driving vehicles will eliminate accidents is a joke when you see how far removed we are from that being a viable technology.
EVs also don't address the high cost of owning a personal vehicle, they don't solve the fact that car-dependent infrastructure is wasteful and socially damaging.
Self- driving cars aren't that far off. I think they can drive across America now. The more that will get on the road the safer it will be, if most cars are totally predictable running similar programs, or on the same network. I assume reducing the cost of insurance.
In the future you'll probably not even have to own a car, you could call up a self- driving Uber whenever you need a lift. This will reduce or eliminate parking lots and spaces & reduce the # of total cars needed.
But again if you don't want a car you don't have to buy one.
-
Self- driving cars aren't that far off. I think they can drive across America now. The more that will get on the road the safer it will be, if most cars are totally predictable running similar programs, or on the same network. I assume reducing the cost of insurance.
In the future you'll probably not even have to own a car, you could call up a self- driving Uber whenever you need a lift. This will reduce or eliminate parking lots and spaces & reduce the # of total cars needed.
Self-driving cars are never gonna happen.
But again if you don't want a car you don't have to buy one.
Again, I was able to get by without one for. along time when I lived in big cities with access to good public transportation, but the reality for many people is not owning a car is not an option and it's stupid to pretend otherwise.
-
Self-driving cars are never gonna happen.
Automation is coming.
Again, I was able to get by without one for. along time when I lived in big cities with access to good public transportation, but the reality for many people is not owning a car is not an option and it's stupid to pretend otherwise.
Nothing is stopping you or anyone from living in a good sized city with public transit. Owning a car is an option for 100% of people because nobody forces any adult to live anywhere or take any job.
-
Automation is coming.
Nothing is stopping you or anyone from living in a good sized city with public transit. Owning a car is an option for 100% of people because nobody forces any adult to live anywhere or take any job.
We see more automation every year but the challenges of making it work in the dark on snow covered roads where it is difficult to see the shoulders and centre line are imposing. I don't see them being resolved in a hurry.
I guess everyone could live in cities with nothing in between. I wonder what they would do for food and all the other resources they need to survive.
-
We see more automation every year but the challenges of making it work in the dark on snow covered roads where it is difficult to see the shoulders and centre line are imposing. I don't see them being resolved in a hurry.
I guess everyone could live in cities with nothing in between. I wonder what they would do for food and all the other resources they need to survive.
True, farmers have to drive cars/ trucks, but I assume they choose to be farmers. They aren't victims of car culture, shipping food by truck makes them good money.
-
True, farmers have to drive cars/ trucks, but I assume they choose to be farmers. They aren't victims of car culture, shipping food by truck makes them good money.
Sure they choose to be farmers and it's a good thing they do because eating isn't a choice for the rest of us.
-
Automation is coming.
Lol no
Nothing is stopping you or anyone from living in a good sized city with public transit.
Nothing except a complete lack of affordable housing in those places.
Owning a car is an option for 100% of people because nobody forces any adult to live anywhere or take any job.
People need to live and work, dude.
-
ICE vehicles will be the dominant mode of transportation for many decades to come. And the idea that self driving vehicles will eliminate accidents is a joke when you see how far removed we are from that being a viable technology.
To be honest, I think there is a kind of double standard going on here.
Self-driving vehicles will get into accidents. The question becomes whether they will get into more or less accidents, when compared to human-driven vehicles (when driven the same distance, under the same driving conditions). And this is where the issue of the double standard comes in.
If you get 1 accident with a self-driving car in 1 bazzillion miles driven, some people will take that to be evidence that self-driving cars are a failure, even if you would have gotten 100s of accidents from human-driven vehicles over the same distance.
EVs also don't address the high cost of owning a personal vehicle, they don't solve the fact that car-dependent infrastructure is wasteful and socially damaging.
[/quote]
-
This (https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/a-car-put-her-dad-in-the-hospital) is great:
Unfortunately traffic engineers and city planners are some of the weakest and most spineless civil servants in city government — the former especially. If you’ve ever talked to a traffic engineer, you’ll realize quickly that these people are not interested in reducing the tens of thousands of Americans who die annually from traffic-related crashes. Rather, on behalf of city electeds and local businesses, they are first and foremost interested in how quickly they can get employees to work and how quickly their local businesses can fill up their parking.
They have little to no regard for the safety of anyone who doesn’t drive. To traffic engineers, a city is for cars and the people in it are merely in the way.
...
It’s time for people to start forming organizations to protect cyclists, transit riders, pedestrians, and yes — drivers — from car-centrism. I’m not going to spend years writing to city council that I need a crosswalk where I live — I’m just going to paint it now. I’m not going to wait years on hundreds of thousands of dollars for impact studies blocking traffic out of neighborhood streets. We need to just erect the barriers and bike lanes ourselves. Erect the bus benches ourselves. Shrink the streets ourselves. There’s a long history of neighbors taking matters into their own hands. We need to bring tactical urbanism back.
At the start of the school year, someone near my kid's daycare put up a temporary speed bump in front of their house, which is in a playground zone and adjacent to a schoolzone. Pretty sure the city made them take it down, but it was a great idea.
-
Good lord (https://lethbridgeherald.com/news/lethbridge-news/2022/10/13/accused-found-guilty-of-careless-driving-involving-2020-fatality/):
A 55-year-old Lethbridge man drove over and killed a 10-year-old boy with his SUV more than two years ago because of a momentary lapse of attention, a judge has ruled.
Judge Timothy Hironaka found Neil Martin Skjodt guilty Wednesday in Lethbridge provincial court of one count of careless driving under the Traffic Safety Act, an offence liable to a maximum of six months in jail.
It's cool that as a society we've made it basically legal to kill someone as long as you're driving a car and say you weren't really paying attention..
-
That's defund the police, and criminal justice/bail reform in a nutshell. I'm glad the chickens finally came home to roost. Maybe you'll start to understand soon, eh face f**k?
It's not, but your glee over a guy getting off with a wrist slap for killing a child is noted, you fetid used condom of a person.
Shiddy when a 10-year-old learns gender is a social construct: "oh my god leave the children alone groomers!!!!"
Shiddy when a guy playing candy crush while driving a four ton SUV crushes a 10-year-old: "lol good!"
-
Back to cars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brubaker_Box
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOT_iSr5XnE
-
Lol no
Nothing except a complete lack of affordable housing in those places.
People need to live and work, dude.
Most of the jobs are in the largest cities, but people can't afford to live close to work in those places, so they wind up living far from work and spending long hours on the bus or in a car to get to work. So... what situation do you or Mx Marx see to this dilemma? Reducing or eliminating "automobility" doesn't help anybody live closer to work. It doesn't make housing more affordable. Just the opposite... it would reduce the range from which access to work is viable, which would increase demand for housing in areas that are near places where people work.
The increasing use of working from home gives people more flexibility in where to live. For many jobs all you need is a power outlet and an internet connection. During the pandemic, Lindsey's brother and his family moved from Calgary to Kim Country because his wife was allowed to work from home and no longer required to be physically in the office. Those Starlink satellites that Mx Marx hates so much open up even wider possibilities for where you could work, depending on what kind of work you do.
-k
-
Back to cars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brubaker_Box
It’s neat, but historically insignificant in its impact on the car industry. 3 were built.
The Schnellaster was produced for several years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKW_Schnellaster
The true Grandfather of the minivan, which, to be honest, is a backhanded compliment at best…
-
Most of the jobs are in the largest cities, but people can't afford to live close to work in those places, so they wind up living far from work and spending long hours on the bus or in a car to get to work. So... what situation do you or Mx Marx see to this dilemma? Reducing or eliminating "automobility" doesn't help anybody live closer to work. It doesn't make housing more affordable. Just the opposite... it would reduce the range from which access to work is viable, which would increase demand for housing in areas that are near places where people work.
Making housing more affordable in places where jobs are by increasing supply and density (Canadian major cities are some of the least dense in the world). Improving transit to exurban areas (building rapid transit for example). And of course:
The increasing use of working from home gives people more flexibility in where to live. For many jobs all you need is a power outlet and an internet connection. During the pandemic, Lindsey's brother and his family moved from Calgary to Kim Country because his wife was allowed to work from home and no longer required to be physically in the office. Those Starlink satellites that Mx Marx hates so much open up even wider possibilities for where you could work, depending on what kind of work you do.
If you're working from home, you don't need to rely on a car as much since work commutes constitute about a quarter of all vehicle trips.
-
I hear this type of argument all the time when I talk about the absurdly giant pick up trucks that dominate the market and our roads. "Well maybe people need them for work or recreation" and like yeah some do, but the vast majority simply do not. So I don't think your enjoyment of niche recreational activities are a compelling argument in the face of the myriad social and environmental harms of living in a car-centric society.
I think it's telling that you consider hiking and camping and hunting to be "niche recreational activities" in this country. If gas continues to cost $2/liter, it'll do more to get those lifted monster-trucks off the road than any number of snarky columns from Mx Marx.
I would love to see any cite that shows Paris Marx or anyone else calling for a complete and total ban on personal automobiles. Without such evidence, this whole thing smacks of a strawman.
They're not calling for a complete and total ban, they just don't want people to drive.
I'd be genuinely curious what percentage of vehicle trips are taken by choice for pleasure or recreation vs commuting to work, getting groceries, schlepping kids to school and activities. I'd be shocked if it was even 10%.
Does it matter? I use my vehicle primarily for recreation because I usually walk to work and the grocery store. So? If I was using my vehicle for that stuff in addition to recreation, would that make it more legitimate for me to use it for recreation?
Ultimately what Marx is advocating for is a world where we average folks lose our "automobility". They propose that the benefits of a car-free society would more than make up for the loss of the freedom to travel when I want, to go to the places I want, and so-on. I'm highly skeptical.
Because obviously it's all about you?
As if this was a decision I made for all of us? We as a society have collectively made this choice.
If that weren't the case, why isn't anybody running for public office on a platform of getting rid of cars? Why doesn't somebody run to be mayor of Vancouver or Toronto or even Dethbridge with the promise of attacking cars? Why did Environment Minister Stephane Greasebault get all mad when somebody accused him of wanting to tax trucks?
Maybe this is something Justin and the Superfriends can jump on for the next election. "We know that there are many responsible vehicle owners in Canada, but you don't need an SUV to bring home the groceries."
You don't just need to convince me that it's selfish and unreasonable for me to want to go snowshoeing in the mountains, you also have to convince a mom that it's selfish and unreasonable to want to drop off one kid and his gear at hockey practice then drop off the other kid and her trombone at music class before she goes to work. and so on.
Also, as i said in my OP, the "freedom to travel" is not what it seems when it involves being chained to a costly and constantly depreciating asset.
It's exactly what it seems.
Yeah only rich urbanites would benefit from improved air quality, less dangerous streets, more financial freedom etc etc. Come on jack.
When I say "snob", I don't use it as a synonym for "rich". I'm skeptical that either Mx Marx or yourself are financially better off than most of the people you look down your noses at.
Improved air quality? Air quality is better now than it used to be thanks to cleaner-running and more efficient vehicles. That only continue to improve as hybrids and EVs take an increasing share of the market.
Safer streets? Sure, that's fine. No objection at all. I'm all for designing cities in a way that makes it easier for people to walk without getting hit by cars.
Financial freedom? I don't need Mx Marx to help me with my budget. I can decide for myself what's affordable.
-k
-
You joyless sourpusses... pooping all over a fun thread...
-
I think it's telling that you consider hiking and camping and hunting to be "niche recreational activities" in this country. If gas continues to cost $2/liter, it'll do more to get those lifted monster-trucks off the road than any number of snarky columns from Mx Marx.
Why is it telling? And they are niche recreational activities.
They're not calling for a complete and total ban, they just don't want people to drive.
OK: what's wrong with that?
Does it matter? I use my vehicle primarily for recreation because I usually walk to work and the grocery store. So? If I was using my vehicle for that stuff in addition to recreation, would that make it more legitimate for me to use it for recreation?
I think my point was that "of course we need cars I take mine out once a month to go camping" as a defence of the ubiquity of cars is kinda goofy when the vast majority of car trips are for far more mundane activities.
As if this was a decision I made for all of us? We as a society have collectively made this choice.
Not really. Car manufacturers, oil companies and real estate developers all had a hand in it. And even if "we made this choice collectively" that doesn't mean it was the right choice or that it's irreversible.
If that weren't the case, why isn't anybody running for public office on a platform of getting rid of cars? Why doesn't somebody run to be mayor of Vancouver or Toronto or even Dethbridge with the promise of attacking cars? Why did Environment Minister Stephane Greasebault get all mad when somebody accused him of wanting to tax trucks?
Maybe this is something Justin and the Superfriends can jump on for the next election. "We know that there are many responsible vehicle owners in Canada, but you don't need an SUV to bring home the groceries."
You don't just need to convince me that it's selfish and unreasonable for me to want to go snowshoeing in the mountains, you also have to convince a mom that it's selfish and unreasonable to want to drop off one kid and his gear at hockey practice then drop off the other kid and her trombone at music class before she goes to work.
"If getting rid of cars is good why isn't anyone campaigning on getting rid of cars" is a simplistic and frankly ridiculous argument that doesn't actually address any of the anti-car arguments.
Nobody is running on this because car culture and car-dependency is deeply entrenched and protected by powerful interests. This does not make it good!
It's exactly what it seems.
It's not. It's a trade off you're happy to make. For others, it's not a choice at all.
Safer streets? Sure, that's fine. No objection at all. I'm all for designing cities in a way that makes it easier for people to walk without getting hit by cars.
One way to do that is to have fewer cars on the road or not build communities that prioritize the movement of automobiles above all else. But drivers hate that so it doesn't happen.
Financial freedom? I don't need Mx Marx to help me with my budget. I can decide for myself what's affordable
Not sure how this applies to someone who isn't user kimmy.
-
You joyless sourpusses... pooping all over a fun thread...
This was never a fun thread.
But I'd rather talk about car fun.
-
This was never a fun thread.
But I'd rather talk about car fun.
I went through a big box of old matchbox, husky, corgi, hot wheels, and dinky toys from my childhood the other day. All made in England, except the hot wheels.
I really despise going through stuff from my childhood, but they're pretty cool little things. I even have a hacked up dinky toy james bond car with ejection seat and a nice corgi batmobile with the batboat and trailer.
-
Hot Wheels were the best 😀
-
The downside of heavy, overpowered EVs (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/electric-vehicles-suv-battery-climate-safety/672576/)
-
Oh Jesus christ.
Hey everyone I know who we should allow to design society for us. Its Black Dog the human jailcell who locks themselves in their basement with their 7 cats and doesn't want to travel beyond a 15m walking distance from their house.
You post as though BD isn't able to astral project.... weird take
-
I went through a big box of old matchbox, husky, corgi, hot wheels, and dinky toys from my childhood the other day. All made in England, except the hot wheels.
I really despise going through stuff from my childhood, but they're pretty cool little things. I even have a hacked up dinky toy james bond car with ejection seat and a nice corgi batmobile with the batboat and trailer.
I also have a bunch of Dinky Toys from the 50's, including old front engine Grand Prix cars and military vehicles. Many were birthday and Christmas gifts from English relatives.
-
They're really going in on this "15 minute cities are a WEF plot (https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7g898/walkable-15-minute-cities-con)" thing.
To many urbanites, a short commute and having your grocery shop, favorite bar, and library branch all within walking distance are markers of a higher quality of life. But recent attempts to reduce commute times to 15 minutes and make cities more walkable have led to waves of weird conspiracy theories about an encroaching police state that must be stopped at all costs.
The “15-minute city,” as this design paradigm has been dubbed, is not a city-dweller’s dream in this addled conception, but an open-air surveillance prison nightmare that is being imposed by shadowy forces.
Edmonton, Canada is the latest city getting backlash, including a planned in-person protest that will have a prominent anti-vaccine conspiracist in attendance. “You will spend 90% of your life in this 15 minute area as they are monitoring your ‘carbon footprint,’” the flyer reads. In January, another protest in the U.K. was held to oppose 15-minute city proposals in Oxford, where participants connected the plan to COVID-19 lockdowns and vague notions of government control.
So many lols:
In response to Sohi’s plan, conspiracy theorists began circulating a map purportedly of Edmonton, color-coded into separate neighborhoods, with a text box saying that vehicles will not be permitted to drive between zones. Except the map was actually of Canterbury, England, which had rolled out its own 15-minute city proposal. Edmonton has made no proposal to hinder travel between neighborhoods, and its plans are mainly focused around ensuring neighborhoods have a healthy mix of businesses and services available.
Between this and the conspiracytards' propensity for climate denial, I'm wondering if the hand of Big Oil is in the mix here.
-
They're really going in on this "15 minute cities are a WEF plot (https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7g898/walkable-15-minute-cities-con)" thing.
We've been over this. Stuff within 15m walk i mean sure, especially good for urban folks. Creating street no-go zones to frustrate drivers into walking = crazy lefty loon idea by nuts like yourself and urban-dwelling yuppies who hate cars.
Between this and the conspiracytards' propensity for climate denial, I'm wondering if the hand of Big Oil is in the mix here.
Big oil = Leftwing conspiracytard alert, according to your logic.
-
We've been over this. Stuff within 15m walk i mean sure, especially good for urban folks. Creating street no-go zones to frustrate drivers into walking = crazy lefty loon idea by nuts like yourself and urban-dwelling yuppies who hate cars.
Oh no we can't fwustwate poor widdle dwivers UwU.
Large portions of urban and suburban spaces are de facto no go zones for pedestrians, cyclists and anyone else who isn't behind the wheel of a car so excuse me if IDGAF about drivers being inconvenienced.
Big oil = Leftwing conspiracytard alert, according to your logic.
Concocting a conspiracy theory about open air prisons and kill boxes from some anodyne powerpoint on WEF's website or whatever is conspiracytard stuff. Hypothesizing that Big Oil might be spreading disinformation about climate change and promoting car dependency after they've spent much of the past 100 years doing both is just paying attention.
-
Oh no we can't fwustwate poor widdle dwivers UwU.
Finally you're talking like yourself now. What took so long?
Large portions of urban and suburban spaces are de facto no go zones for pedestrians, cyclists and anyone else who isn't behind the wheel of a car so excuse me if IDGAF about drivers being inconvenienced.
You mean the middle of roads? LOL. Stop crying (and talking) like a baby. Yes we know you don't GAF about anyone besides your own loony utopian ideas nobody but loons like yourself want because you're a Stalinist.
Nobody cares what you think. You have no power, except one vote like everyone else. The power belongs to the people. If cities start doing dumb stuff people don't want the city councilors and mayors will lose their jobs. That's how democracies work. Let them try whatever schemes they want, it will be fun to see them unemployed.
As for Edmonton, seems fine since it doesn't look mandatory:
The city says it wants to make it possible — not mandatory, but possible — to get to those places without a car, by walking, biking, or taking transit.
https://edmonton.taproot.news/stories/2021/city-aims-for-edmontonians-to-live-more-locally-with-15-minute-districts
-
Concocting a conspiracy theory about open air prisons and kill boxes from some anodyne powerpoint on WEF's website or whatever is conspiracytard stuff. Hypothesizing that Big Oil might be spreading disinformation about climate change and promoting car dependency after they've spent much of the past 100 years doing both is just paying attention.
I have no idea what a kill box is. Don't you support the no-go zones? Sounds sorta like open-air prisons to me. The 15 min city on the WEF website. There's no conspiracy, its right in the open for everyone to see. The elites go to these Davos thingies and come back with these Build Back Better ideas. Chrystia Freeland seems like a big WEF fan. She's in charge of Canada's federal budget FFS.
Maybe one day we'll own nothing, and we'll be happier.
-
Finally you're talking like yourself now. What took so long?
You're the one crying about poor frustrated drivers, you big dumb b!tch.
You mean the middle of roads? LOL. Stop crying (and talking) like a baby. Yes we know you don't GAF about anyone besides your own loony utopian ideas nobody but loons like yourself want because you're a Stalinist.
LOl remember when you were jizzing your pants when I posted a picture of some nightmarish stroad with no sidewalks? Of course not, you have dementia.
Nobody cares what you think. You have no power, except one vote like everyone else. The power belongs to the people. If cities start doing dumb stuff people don't want the city councilors and mayors will lose their jobs. That's how democracies work. Let them try whatever schemes they want, it will be fun to see them unemployed.
You do since every week you lose your mind over something I post here. Probably either when the meds wear off or when you start hitting the bottle.
I have no idea what a kill box is. Don't you support the no-go zones? Sounds sorta like open-air prisons to me. The 15 min city on the WEF website. There's no conspiracy, its right in the open for everyone to see. The elites go to these Davos thingies and come back with these Build Back Better ideas. Chrystia Freeland seems like a big WEF fan. She's in charge of Canada's federal budget FFS.
Maybe one day we'll own nothing, and we'll be happier.
Look at this nightmarish open air prison lmao.
(https://assets.weforum.org/article/image/medium_8Pf8akGPH3dij4PaZXoP547yegbfwfM1r_ANnGBJC20.jpg)
The rest of your post is just idiot madlibs.
-
Look at this nightmarish open air prison lmao.
(https://assets.weforum.org/article/image/medium_8Pf8akGPH3dij4PaZXoP547yegbfwfM1r_ANnGBJC20.jpg)
Are they allowed to go 20 blocks west in a straight line? LOL
-
Areas without cars are like prisons? I'm confused.
-
You mean the middle of roads? LOL. Stop crying (and talking) like a baby. Yes we know you don't GAF about anyone besides your own loony utopian ideas nobody but loons like yourself want because you're a Stalinist.
The rural municpality of Victoria Beach in Manitoba has never allowed cars in the summer in its residential area. You have to park in a parking lot outside the gate and walk in. (Although there is a cab service if needed.) It's rather utopian and I think they managed to get through the Cold War without anyone calling them Stalinist.
Macinac Island in Michigan is kind of nice too. The lack of cars there make it a tourist attraction.
-
The more he tries to scare me with this 15-minute city idea, the more I think it sounds pretty good.
https://twitter.com/cspotweet/status/1624190748395724800?t=OwwK7ioQQ1MWF8yeNzhW1A&s=19
-
Areas without cars are like prisons? I'm confused.
No, just areas you're not allowed to leave in your car without doing long loopty-loops designed to frustrate you.
-
Isn't that how they designed car culture for the past 50 years? The grid layout went out in the 1960s.
-
Isn't that how they designed car culture for the past 50 years? The grid layout went out in the 1960s.
Postwar suburban development was specifically created with looping, curvilinear streets and cul de sacs which are by design hostile to pedestrians and cyclists (because distances between points are longer, the layouts are confusing and roads are meant to move cars as fast as possible with few intersections). So while drivers may have to go further out of their way, they can do so faster than in a grid.
No, just areas you're not allowed to leave in your car without doing long loopty-loops designed to frustrate you.
Pretty sure having a direct route between point A and B in your car is not a human right.
-
Postwar suburban development was specifically created with looping, curvilinear streets and cul de sacs which are by design hostile to pedestrians and cyclists (because distances between points are longer, the layouts are confusing and roads are meant to move cars as fast as possible with few intersections). So while drivers may have to go further out of their way, they can do so faster than in a grid.
Its all a conspiracy against bikes and walking!!
Pretty sure having a direct route between point A and B in your car is not a human right.
Nobody said it is.
There's lots of areas friendly to bikes and walking and public transit. Its called anywhere more urban than the suburbs. The poorest and the richest people live there. 15min city already exists. I know lots of people who don't own cars. What's the issue? Well we know you want to control everyone so they're forced to live in your personal utopia. Good luck with that lol.
-
Isn't that how they designed car culture for the past 50 years? The grid layout went out in the 1960s.
No. Some cities in the UK want to create "zones" and fine you for driving outside your zone on the most convenient roads to your destination in order to discourage you from driving because this is what white urban yuppies dream up in their spare time. I suspect it will never get off the ground since its such a dumb and crazy idea.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23073992.traffic-filters-will-divide-city-15-minute-neighbourhoods/
When the Hunger Games come i'd like to live in District 7, which District do you want to live in?
https://bookanalysis.com/the-hunger-games/districts/
-
The rural municpality of Victoria Beach in Manitoba has never allowed cars in the summer in its residential area. You have to park in a parking lot outside the gate and walk in. (Although there is a cab service if needed.) It's rather utopian and I think they managed to get through the Cold War without anyone calling them Stalinist.
Macinac Island in Michigan is kind of nice too. The lack of cars there make it a tourist attraction.
If I'm not mistaken, Victoria Beach was off limits to Jews until sometime after World War 2. It explains why there is such a relatively large Jewish population at Winnipeg Beach.
-
Maybe there's a connection. No cars, no Jews.
-
The rural municpality of Victoria Beach in Manitoba has never allowed cars in the summer in its residential area. You have to park in a parking lot outside the gate and walk in. (Although there is a cab service if needed.) It's rather utopian and I think they managed to get through the Cold War without anyone calling them Stalinist.
Macinac Island in Michigan is kind of nice too. The lack of cars there make it a tourist attraction.
Its a resort. It sounds nice. We should ban all cars everywhere and never leave the resort.
-
No one is banning cars. It's ridiculous that you would consider that a potential threat
-
No one is banning cars. It's ridiculous that you would consider that a potential threat
I never said they were banning cars (strawman). Just purposefully and needlessly making it more difficult to get anywhere (defacto qausi-ban).
-
Its a resort. It sounds nice. We should ban all cars everywhere and never leave the resort.
(https://www.travelmanitoba.com/imager/assets_simpleviewinc_com/simpleview/image/upload/crm/manitoba/Grand-Beach_Credit-Travel-Manitoba0-0d5170fd5056a36_0d51724b-5056-a36f-237ef6050b940b8b_ae9217944f0738f696c093bccdcb3e55.jpg)
Grand Beach was one of the Top 10 beaches in the World, and #1 in Canada. It is a few kn from Victoria Beach. It also has many vehicles.
-
I sold my cottage there a few years ago. Kind of regret it now.
-
Ban cars from beaches.
-
Its all a conspiracy against bikes and walking!!
Literally yes.
Nobody said it is.
But you keep whining about is as though it’s the worst thing that could happen.
There's lots of areas friendly to bikes and walking and public transit. Its called anywhere more urban than the suburbs. The poorest and the richest people live there. 15min city already exists. I know lots of people who don't own cars. What's the issue? Well we know you want to control everyone so they're forced to live in your personal utopia. Good luck with that lol.
So much of this is wrong or bullshit I’ve already addressed (for example the fact that the cost of living in major cities is astronomical) so at this point it’s obvious you’re not interested in listening or entertaining any point of view other than your own.
-
I never said they were banning cars (strawman). Just purposefully and needlessly making it more difficult to get anywhere (defacto qausi-ban).
No there’s a reason they’re doing it, you just don’t agree with it or anything else that might inconvenience drivers.
-
Literally yes.
LOL.
But you keep whining about is as though it’s the worst thing that could happen.
It is for people who want the freedom to go somewhere further than a 15m walk from their house. You and your urban yuppie commie ilk do want to imprison folks, like literally. And make them live they way you want them to. Stalinists can't mind their own business, they have to control everyone with force to make their utopia because their ideas are so stupid nobody would do it willingly.
This is why Stalinists need to build walls to keep people in instead of liberal democracies who need to build walls to keep people out, who even risk death just to live here because they're running from people like you. If you want to hide in your basement with your cats you're free to do that, i'm not banning basements so you get more Vitamin D.
You're a card-carrying member:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOH9trJLedk
So much of this is wrong or bullshit I’ve already addressed (for example the fact that the cost of living in major cities is astronomical)
So why do so many poor people live there dum-dum? Most poor people in cities don't own cars, same with urban veggie-eating yuppies. The cost of living in the burbs isn't exactly peachy. You have to usually buy a house, for one. I've already explained this to you. Maybe rural folks can ride horsies again.
Anyways, nobody in Canada outside hippie-dopesmoking Vancouver area is going to be doing what you want. Enjoy the Alberta highways!
-
No there’s a reason they’re doing it, you just don’t agree with it or anything else that might inconvenience drivers.
The reason is to control people and make them live how they want to live. Like I said, the 15m city already exists in every city. It's called "urban".
Thankfully we live in a liberal democracy and these elective prisons will be ghost towns besides the urban veggie-eaters. Every urban area of the Pacific coast is turning into A Clockwork Orange because of you retards.
EVs will be critical mass by the time these plans are even done. This is such a dumb plan.
-
They're making communities where you don't need to travel out on a daily basis. They aren't making them where you can't travel out. Your whole argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.
As Gilda Radner would say, "Never mind."
-
LOL.
You have very strong opinions for someone who doesn't know a thing about the subject.
It is for people who want the freedom to go somewhere further than a 15m walk from their house. You and your urban yuppie commie ilk do want to imprison folks, like literally. And make them live they way you want them to. Stalinists can't mind their own business, they have to control everyone with force to make their utopia because their ideas are so stupid nobody would do it willingly.
Cry harder carcuck.
This is why Stalinists need to build walls to keep people in instead of liberal democracies who need to build walls to keep people out, who even risk death just to live here because they're running from people like you. If you want to hide in your basement with your cats you're free to do that, i'm not banning basements so you get more Vitamin D.
LOl dude the hysterical retard role is already taken by Shady, find a different beat.
So why do so many poor people live there dum-dum? Most poor people in cities don't own cars, same with urban veggie-eating yuppies. The cost of living in the burbs isn't exactly peachy. You have to usually buy a house, for one. I've already explained this to you. Maybe rural folks can ride horsies again.
LOl are you seriously pretending that the cost of living in the urban core of cities like Toronto and Vancouver isn't sky high? Just completely detached from reality.
The reason is to control people and make them live how they want to live. Like I said, the 15m city already exists in every city. It's called "urban".
I've asked this before and didn't get an answer i don't expect one now because you don't have one, but why shouldn't people who don't live in dense and expensive urban centres get to have good transit and walkable neighbourhoods?
-
Cry harder carcuck.
Great answer. No cars means you can't leave the city on your own. Only on designated bus or train routes at the times and routes and destinations they allow. PRISON.
LOl are you seriously pretending that the cost of living in the urban core of cities like Toronto and Vancouver isn't sky high? Just completely detached from reality.
Land costs more the closer you go toward the downtown core. ZOMG. And yet poor people still choose to live there.
I've asked this before and didn't get an answer i don't expect one now because you don't have one, but why shouldn't people who don't live in dense and expensive urban centres get to have good transit and walkable neighbourhoods?
If people in the burbs wanted to walk, they'd walk. They'd want little grocery stores near their house and companies would comply. Most people don't want to bus an hour from work to the grocery store every day after work, and then carry 6 bags of groceries home by foot. You don't even want to leave your basement. Most couples don't both work within a 15m walk of their house.
Its also not efficient at all. Many more grocery stores means big trucks driving into neighbourhoods spewing their deisel fumes everywhere dropping food off to dozens of little grocery stores. People now just drop in for groceries on their way home from work, or drop in on the weekend on their way back from Aunt Helen's house (she lives on the other side of town...cuz she had to move closer to work). We don't live in 1725 anymore. How the heck do you get walkable cities but no density? This is the most retarded thing i've ever heard. The wonders of Maoist central planning.
-
Ever since the automobile was invented, there have been parking restrictions and traffic management solutions to deal with congestion. Only since the Internet have man-babies cried fascism about it though.
You're being manipulated.
https://twitter.com/brent_bellamy/status/1624909157902983169?t=gB5B32wiByf8ARBZoNHcrw&s=19
-
Why was my post deleted?
-
Why was my post deleted?
Just to be clear, it wasn't me.
-
Great answer. No cars means you can't leave the city on your own. Only on designated bus or train routes at the times and routes and destinations they allow. PRISON.
Who said anything about no cars?
Land costs more the closer you go toward the downtown core. ZOMG. And yet poor people still choose to live there.
What does the existence of poor people in urban cores prove, exactly?
If people in the burbs wanted to walk, they'd walk.
No, if people in the burbs wanted to walk they can't because the burbs are not designed for walking and there's no where to walk to.
They'd want little grocery stores near their house and companies would comply. Most people don't want to bus an hour from work to the grocery store every day after work, and then carry 6 bags of groceries home by foot. You don't even want to leave your basement. Most couples don't both work within a 15m walk of their house.
WTF are you talking about?
Its also not efficient at all. Many more grocery stores means big trucks driving into neighbourhoods spewing their deisel fumes everywhere dropping food off to dozens of little grocery stores. People now just drop in for groceries on their way home from work, or drop in on the weekend on their way back from Aunt Helen's house (she lives on the other side of town...cuz she had to move closer to work). We don't live in 1725 anymore. How the heck do you get walkable cities but no density? This is the most retarded thing i've ever heard. The wonders of Maoist central planning.
Who said anything about no density? You're just totally full of stupid strawmen.
-
Why was my post deleted?
I did by mistake, I was on my phone trying to mark your other post with the appropriate tag and hit remove.
-
The New Jersey Mayor With a Plan to End Traffic Deaths
(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-11-20/this-new-jersey-mayor-ended-traffic-deaths-with-a-vision-zero-plan)
In Hoboken, Mayor Ravi Bhalla has worked to redesign city intersections, install bike lanes and slow traffic. The result? Six-plus years of no pedestrian fatalities.
-
What a great thread, never saw it before.
I always drove cheap but new cars because I like reliability but I didn’t care about anything other than getting from A to B. My neighborhood is suburban taking the bus to grab milk wouldn’t be ideal but I’ve been toying with the idea of getting an electric bike and getting rid of my car. It’s kinda hard though with kids.
Cars are also a status symbol. I am falling into that trap the older I get. I feel I should be driving a luxury car just because of the neighborhood where I live and who my kids associate with. I used to not GAF but for some reason I am now.
-
It is for people who want the freedom to go somewhere further than a 15m walk from their house. You and your urban yuppie commie ilk do want to imprison folks, like literally. And make them live they way you want them to. Stalinists can't mind their own business, they have to control everyone with force to make their utopia because their ideas are so stupid nobody would do it willingly.
This is why Stalinists need to build walls to keep people in instead of liberal democracies who need to build walls to keep people out, who even risk death just to live here because they're running from people like you. If you want to hide in your basement with your cats you're free to do that, i'm not banning basements so you get more Vitamin D.
BD: oh hey, we should strive to have higher walkability scores and maybe people won't need to spend thousands of dollars for something they rarely use.
Queefer: you Stalinists are trying to ban cars!!
Anyways, nobody in Canada outside hippie-dopesmoking Vancouver area is going to be doing what you want. Enjoy the Alberta highways!
Have you actually ever been to Vancouver? This is a really weird generalization.
Plus, our transit sucks compared to Toronto and Montreal. We are a huge driving city.
-
What a great thread, never saw it before.
I always drove cheap but new cars because I like reliability but I didn’t care about anything other than getting from A to B. My neighborhood is suburban taking the bus to grab milk wouldn’t be ideal but I’ve been toying with the idea of getting an electric bike and getting rid of my car. It’s kinda hard though with kids.
Cars are also a status symbol. I am falling into that trap the older I get. I feel I should be driving a luxury car just because of the neighborhood where I live and who my kids associate with. I used to not GAF but for some reason I am now.
I will never believe in status symbols, ever. Joan is the same way.
I would rather have an extra $10K for retirement than spend that on a car.
The Dodge Caravan was made for cheapos like me. Buy one that's like 7 years old, low mileage, and it will last 10 years ... you will pay <2000 a year in repairs, depreciation and insurance... we spent $150/month on gas so it's cheaper than transit overall.
-
BD: oh hey, we should strive to have higher walkability scores and maybe people won't need to spend thousands of dollars for something they rarely use.
Queefer: you Stalinists are trying to ban cars!!
This is not the case. BD hates cars and wants them to all go away so we can hang out in the streets again while dodging horse poo like its 1880. If you read his posts BD is not simply an environmentist, he is a wannabe communist dictator.
-
I will never believe in status symbols, ever. Joan is the same way.
I would rather have an extra $10K for retirement than spend that on a car.
The Dodge Caravan was made for cheapos like me. Buy one that's like 7 years old, low mileage, and it will last 10 years ... you will pay <2000 a year in repairs, depreciation and insurance... we spent $150/month on gas so it's cheaper than transit overall.
Bc cheque is right about status symbols. Good for you Michael.
-
I will never believe in status symbols, ever. Joan is the same way.
I would rather have an extra $10K for retirement than spend that on a car.
The Dodge Caravan was made for cheapos like me. Buy one that's like 7 years old, low mileage, and it will last 10 years ... you will pay <2000 a year in repairs, depreciation and insurance... we spent $150/month on gas so it's cheaper than transit overall.
This is very admirable.
It's actually a lot more than $10k for retirement too. With tax, high interest rates and opportunity costs of investing that money, you're looking at closer to 100k.
-
This is not the case. BD hates cars and wants them to all go away so we can hang out in the streets again while dodging horse poo like its 1880. If you read his posts BD is not simply an environmentist, he is a wannabe communist dictator.
Oh come on.
-
This is not the case. BD hates cars and wants them to all go away so we can hang out in the streets again while dodging horse poo like its 1880. If you read his posts BD is not simply an environmentist, he is a wannabe communist dictator.
Remember this whole thread started because you swallowed a bunch of conspiracy theories about 15 minute cities spread by brain-damaged Jordan Peterson and the like, you are absolutely in no position to throw stones here especially after i've repeatedly stated my position is to create more options for people. Idiot.
-
It's difficult to debate with someone whose reading comprehension is so atrocious because all your time is spent explaining the basic concepts.
No one said the idea of a 15 minute city doesn't exist. Lots of people advocate for it and it's catchphrase among urbanist planners. It's the conspiracy that doesn't exist, in that they aren't conspiring to take away your cars and your roads. They're just looking to design communities so that cars aren't the only option and aren't absolutely necessary for every small errand.
But I'm not surprised you would fall for a conspiracy theory where you can play the victim. Even one as dumb as that
-
Controversy at DRIVE TIME 😂
-
Speaking of which... does this seem like a crazy good deal ?
Oil Change
Snow Tires put on
Fixed the heater fan
Replaced **** right rear tail like with like-new tailight and encasing
$200 all in
We were scratching our heads a bit
-
Sounds like an honest mechanic.
-
Remember this whole thread started because you swallowed a bunch of conspiracy theories about 15 minute cities spread by brain-damaged Jordan Peterson and the like, you are absolutely in no position to throw stones here...
This claim about conspiracies and myself is a lie, but keep convincing yourself of whatever you want. There was an example of a city in the UK fining people when driving cars downtown and across certain residential "zones" and no matter how many times this pointed out you continue to lie. Stop lying and stop believing whatever people on twitter tell you.
...especially after i've repeatedly stated my position is to create more options for people. Idiot.
Nonsense. Show us more than one quote where you've said this. You want to hang out in streets without cars on them because that's what you said.
-
No one said the idea of a 15 minute city doesn't exist. Lots of people advocate for it and it's catchphrase among urbanist planners. It's the conspiracy that doesn't exist, in that they aren't conspiring to take away your cars and your roads. They're just looking to design communities so that cars aren't the only option and aren't absolutely necessary for every small errand.
There's no issue building more walkable communities. The issue is using coercion e.g. fines to make people drive less and walk/bike more and use their local amenities rather than driving elsewhere, which a city in the UK tried to implement until local backlash stopped it:
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/radical-plan-to-ban-drivers-crossing-neighbourhoods-275055/
"For residents within the five zones, they can access the facilities within their neighbourhood by car if they need to. But if you want to travel into a different neighbourhood, the best way to do that will be by walking, cycling or using public transport.
"It would likely be a frictionless system, so there will just be cameras and no barriers. We'd fine people if they just decided 'I'm going to drive across the city, I don't care'.
...
"The amenities and services that you'd need would all be in your neighbourhood. You wouldn't have all the rat running, and there'd be more space to park your cars and space for bus provision and lanes. It will be a nicer environment, so it'd be fantastic if we can achieve it."
-
Traffic controls and walkable communities are two separate issues. But there's also nothing wrong with implementing measures to prevent communities from turning into traffic congestion and parking lots. Cars can destroy cities. I know. I live in one that was destroyed by cars.
-
I like cars. I spent 12 years off and on restoring this one.
[attachimg=1]
-
Very nice. I like the tiny doghead hood ornament on the side.
-
This claim about conspiracies and myself is a lie, but keep convincing yourself of whatever you want. There was an example of a city in the UK fining people when driving cars downtown and across certain residential "zones" and no matter how many times this pointed out you continue to lie. Stop lying and stop believing whatever people on twitter tell you.
lol (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/car-culture-culture/?message=101967)
Don't you support the no-go zones? Sounds sorta like open-air prisons to me. The 15 min city on the WEF website. There's no conspiracy, its right in the open for everyone to see. The elites go to these Davos thingies and come back with these Build Back Better ideas. Chrystia Freeland seems like a big WEF fan. She's in charge of Canada's federal budget FFS. Maybe one day we'll own nothing, and we'll be happier.
Koo-koo bananas.
Nonsense. Show us more than one quote where you've said this. You want to hang out in streets without cars on them because that's what you said.
here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/how-about-a-discussion-on-jordan-peterson/?message=100129) and here (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/how-about-a-discussion-on-jordan-peterson/?message=100136) for starters.
There's no issue building more walkable communities.
Which is why you ridicule the idea every step of the way and reject any measures that would make such communities possible.
The issue is using coercion e.g. fines to make people drive less and walk/bike more and use their local amenities rather than driving elsewhere, which a city in the UK tried to implement until local backlash stopped it:
Wait till you hear about the coercive measures that they have to keep people from driving as fast as they want, driving drunk, going through red lights etc.
-
I like this guy's car.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgpjpr35nko
At one time I had a 1961 Austin Cambridge.
-
I like this guy's car.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgpjpr35nko
At one time I had a 1961 Austin Cambridge.
I hope this fella joins a club and learns to swing dance because otherwise he's doomed to a life of zero p***y.
-
He has style. Chicks dig that.
-
He has style. Chicks dig that.
They also had manners back then.
-
He has style. Chicks dig that.
He has a look, that is not the same.
-
They also had manners back then.
When being considerate of others wasn't PC woke.
-
When being considerate of others wasn't PC woke.
People back then were also insanely racist and beat the crap out of their wives and kids, so really it's a trade off.
-
People back then were also insanely racist and beat the crap out of their wives and kids, so really it's a trade off.
People still do those kinds of things. It's taken more seriously now.
-
People still do those kinds of things. It's taken more seriously now.
People still have manners now too.
-
Average car insurance rates across the country. The two public insurance provinces are by far the cheapest. This is what happens when you remove the need to generate a profit from the price of a product.
Alberta - $3,151
Nova Scotia - $2,491
Ontario - $2,299
New Brunswick - $2,187
Newfoundland - $2,162
BC - $1,775
PEI - $1,703
Manitoba - $1,373
Saskatchewan - $1,249
-
The corporation receives no subsidies. Its rates are determined by how much/little money they made as a corporation last year. Why do you always just make up stuff when you haven't an argument?
-
Okay well this disagreement for sure can be resolved easily right?
-
If it’s not for profit, and there’s literally no profit, how are employees paid? How are their benefits covered? How are insurance claims paid out?
Those are expenses, not profits. Profits are what is left after expenses.
-
Yes, ratepayers cover all those expenses with their premiums. Employees aren't paid with tax dollars; they're paid by the corporation, which gets its money from insurance premiums.
And since there is no profit, you can literally expect premiums to go up with bad weather and down when a pandemic results in fewer people driving (i.e. fewer collisions).
-
Being a Crown corporation, it's finances are transparent, so everyone can see shady is incorrect.
https://www.mpi.mb.ca/Pages/where-do-your-premium-dollars-go.aspx
-
Again, you can wonder or you can read and find out. Totally, 100% paid for by premiums. It's the heavy profits for shareholders that makes you pay 3x as much.
-
Does owning a classic muscle car from the late 60's or early 70's make you a polluting a-hole now? I want one.
-
Does owning a classic muscle car from the late 60's or early 70's make you a polluting a-hole now? I want one.
No. They're all upgraded I think.
-
Many are stock but none of them are daily drivers, so it doesn't really matter.
-
Does owning a classic muscle car from the late 60's or early 70's make you a polluting a-hole now? I want one.
Mine is completely original because I wanted that way. Believe it or not it is more difficult to restore a car to its original condition than it is to modify it. Original parts can be a lot harder to find for 50+ year old cars than non stock parts. I probably don't put much more than a 1000 km a year on mine, if that and when I am driving it, I can't be driving something else at the same time so you decide.
-
Why don't they make muscle cars that look like the old muscle cars of the 60's and 70's? The new muscle cars just don't do it. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
A new muscle car that looks like the classics but with some modern features would be sweet.
-
I think emissions standards and safety standards and the cost of steel have made the old designs impossible. They can fake it, like with the Challenger, but that's as good as you're going to get.
-
I think emissions standards and safety standards and the cost of steel have made the old designs impossible. They can fake it, like with the Challenger, but that's as good as you're going to get.
Possibly emissions standards but not safety standards. Lighter cars are actually less safe.
-
Why don't they make muscle cars that look like the old muscle cars of the 60's and 70's? The new muscle cars just don't do it. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
A new muscle car that looks like the classics but with some modern features would be sweet.
They weren't very good cars compared to today's, they were also very large compared to today's cars, not very aerodynamic and don't have to meet crash testing standards.
Size and safety are relative. If safety were only a matter of size and weight, we should all be driving 1 ton trucks.
-
Possibly emissions standards but not safety standards. Lighter cars are actually less safe.
There are all sorts of new standards for crumple zones, etc. And a heavy car may be safer if you're in it, but it's far less safe if you're being struck by one in a collision, so that has been taken into account too.
-
There are all sorts of new standards for crumple zones, etc. And a heavy car may be safer if you're in it, but it's far less safe if you're being struck by one in a collision, so that has been taken into account too.
I would rather be hit by or hit something in just about anything other than my old Chrysler. Lap belts only, seat backs that don't lock, no crumple zones or telescoping steering column, solid steel dash with just a dash pad on top, no roll over protection or side beams in the doors, handling and braking much inferior to modern cars. Plus, where the hell will I find the parts to fix the thing if I do bend it. It's a big list so defensive driving is a must.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
-
But the Bel-Air is heavier! 😂
-
Can’t believe they did that to a nice 59 Chev, that was one of the best looking classic Chevy’s , up there with the 55/56 and 57’s.
-
It did kind of hurt to watch.
-
I think emissions standards and safety standards and the cost of steel have made the old designs impossible. They can fake it, like with the Challenger, but that's as good as you're going to get.
Yeah but the Challenger doesn't even look like the old cars. It doesn't have to be made out of all metal. I just want it to look cool dammit. They can add all the new safety features and enviro stuff.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
That's an incredible video. A very important statement on safety culture, the possibilities of capitalism, and the public sphere..
-
Never heard of the IHS before
Here's the wiki page on it..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Institute_for_Highway_Safety
So here we are in 2024 with a non-profit, created by for-profit corporations, and a summary provided by a non-profit free open internet source.
Many aspects of this bode well for safety culture, progressive capitalism, in the public sphere.
-
Now here's a counterpoint from a lawyer involved in a case
https://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/todd-tracy-iihs-is-the-lapdog-of-the-auto-insurance-industry/
Point counterpoint.
Again, on the meta level this is good.
I remember reading a safety assessment of the airline oversight institute, and one of their criticisms was that passenger jets should have all the seats facing backwards. Now. Now there are good material versions for that approach. But in the end, do we think human beings would stand for sitting backwards? Wordplay intended.
In the end, humans can and should endure some measure of risk to enjoy life.
Otherwise, ban the roller coaster and the tilt a whirl.
-
Finally, this interesting article claims that the IIHS , not the IHS as I called it above, understates the safety benefit of automated driving.
This would fly in the face of the accusation that the organization is the lap dog of the automotive industry. Because this is clearly their big revenue plum, on the horizon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/06/09/iihs-is-wrong-in-claim-that-only-one-third-of-crashes-can-be-prevented-by-self-driving/amp/
-
Just ordered a Leed disc brake conversion kit for the old Chrysler. Should have it installed by the end of next month.
-
Finally, this interesting article claims that the IIHS , not the IHS as I called it above, understates the safety benefit of automated driving.
This would fly in the face of the accusation that the organization is the lap dog of the automotive industry. Because this is clearly their big revenue plum, on the horizon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/06/09/iihs-is-wrong-in-claim-that-only-one-third-of-crashes-can-be-prevented-by-self-driving/amp/
Huh? Self driving cars are bad for the industry if they reduce car accidents and thus car and car part sales.
-
#6 will vary greatly with the area. Computers will have much more difficulty in areas were road markings and boundaries are frequently obscured by things like rain and snow. It might be 5% in some areas and 20% or more in others.
-
#6 will vary greatly with the area. Computers will have much more difficulty in areas were road markings and boundaries are frequently obscured by things like rain and snow. It might be 5% in some areas and 20% or more in others.
Well that assumes AI won't be able to figure things out without clear standard road markers. If the human eye can figure it out then AI should eventually be able to.
-
Huh? Self driving cars are bad for the industry if they reduce car accidents and thus car and car part sales.
I don't think accidents are a revenue source for the industry.
-
Well that assumes AI won't be able to figure things out without clear standard road markers. If the human eye can figure it out then AI should eventually be able to.
The human eye often has great difficulty figuring it out. AI will still have to rely on a camera.
-
The human eye often has great difficulty figuring it out. AI will still have to rely on a camera.
And human programming using human values that AI won’t have.
-
California could require car ‘governors’ that limit speeding to 10 mph over posted limits (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/car-speed-governors-bill-18624126.php)
California would become the first state to require new vehicles be equipped with speed governors — technology that limits how fast they can be driven — under legislation by San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener.
The bill, introduced Wednesday, would require cars and trucks of the 2027 model year or later that are built or sold in California to include speed governors that would prohibit motorists from driving more than 10 mph over posted speed limits.
The legislation aims to address the epidemic of traffic deaths in the Bay Area and California, Wiener said. Traffic fatalities rose during the pandemic in San Francisco and nationwide, and speed factors in about a third of traffic deaths across the country, according to the National Safety Council. The National Highway Safety Administration estimated more than 40,000 traffic fatalities in 2022.
Love this.
-
California could require car ‘governors’ that limit speeding to 10 mph over posted limits (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/car-speed-governors-bill-18624126.php)
Love this.
I’m not sure what has taken so long for this to get a foothold. I guess “car culture” is my answer…
-
California could require car ‘governors’ that limit speeding to 10 mph over posted limits (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/car-speed-governors-bill-18624126.php)
Love this.
Something like this seems overdue. There can be some use, in emergency situations, for going over the speed limit. Hopefully things like this will allow for short-term speeding but restrict regular or longer speeding trips.