Parks with all the other people? Locked in a room in a 300 sq ft apartment with your family/roommates outside?
The interchange allows you to live far enough away from the overcrowded city that you can own a bigger piece of land where you’re not packed in with your neighbors like sardines so you can actually go outside and sit and be alone without hearing 15 other families doing shit. It also allows you to have enough space to have a workshop space for hobbies or a garden or whatever else you want to do.
You understand that Italy has areas that are not as densely populated as the city center. In fact some places are down right rural. And the US has some very densely populated square milage.
This is such a wild, wild take on the US’s cat centric build.
I agree with the premise of this sub. The way car first places such as the US does things is a problem. The cars themselves and the underlying infrastructure, such as that exchange.
But I also don’t want to live in cramped multidweller unit housing. I’ve done so most of my life and I hated it.
I don’t know what or even if there’s a good solution that accomodates both, but I hope so.
And if you’re someone that wants to live somewhere actually remote, having dense urban areas instead of suburban sprawl will leave more space for rural areas and nature.
I am no expert, but if we are allowed to design everything from ground up, I believe personal electric vehicle (e-bike etc, abbreviated as PEV) for suburb, transit/bike/walk in city, and high speed rail between cities are probably the way to go.
City should be mostly car free, people can transit to suburb via transit, and to other city via rail. People move within city using walk/bike/tram. Vehicle besides delivery and commercial vehicle should be discouraged from entering the city, by removing in-city parking and setup no-go zones for private vehicles.
Even in the U.S. most people in suburb live rather close to a town center (less than 15 mins with PEV or bike). Thus efficient transit from town center to city can be a good idea. People will be discouraged from driving to city due to the lack of road and parking within cities.
For long form travel, people should move via high speed rail. Then take local travel options once arrived. High speed rail provide a faster and more comfortable travel alternative to driving.
Finally, I believe for people living in rural areas (an hour to any town center on PEV), cars and electric cars are their only option. If they want to enter city or suburb, they can drive to the nearest town center and take transit.
Most country, urbanist or not, do have wilderness, where you can live and die without people know.
You don’t need to live in the city if you dont want to. You can live off grid, and burn your own feces for heat if that is the life of your choosing. What people here are fighting for is to keep this living style is outside of cities.
Basically, city is not the place for giant emotional support vehicles. And outside traffic should not disrupt the normal form of transportation in cities, which should be dominated by public transport, walking, and efficient personal vehicles (like bike, scooters, wheelchairs, etc).
Interestingly, with this type of town, it’s easier and quicker to go out of the town than in American car centric towns.
Public transports are more efficient. You don’t need cars. You have parcs and actual green space. The energy consumption is also reduced.
It’s no magic that they built these type of towns in the past. They couldn’t afford our type of energy consumption and land use. And, it was more practical for the daily life.
Damn right op, going at 30 rather than 20 is a terrible thing to do. Driving at 20 is the moral choice. Yes it means your commute will be 50% longer than if you’d driven at 30, but that’s a sacrifice we should all be willing to make, said no-one with a 2 hour daily commute.
Except it won’t be 50% longer, not unless you’re going cross country. If you’re driving anything less than 100+ MI =,10 mph isn’t going to make pretty much any difference in your commute time at all. Not to mention your just going to hit a light and someone traveling the actual speed limit will then pull up right along side you while you wait
That’s the point yes, looking purely at math assuming a completely 100% clear no stop Journey it would be faster. But that’s not how life works, you stop at lights, you slow down at ramps, you stop at intersections. All of these things together make it so that unless you’re traveling like a hundred miles or more it’s just not going to make a difference. I very regularly make trips between Seattle and Portland, the difference between trying to cruise control 65 the whole way and trying to cruise control 75 the whole way isn’t very large. Last time I remember trying I think it was about a 20 minute difference in a trip that is almost 3 hours Real world slowdowns end up equalizing much of the journey
As someone who commuted an hour each way for a year, I both calculated to the best of my ability and then tested. I could shave 5 minutes off by going 65 instead of 55 on the 55 mph highways, and fuel consumption was significantly higher. Going 30 in a 20 zone will do jack shit for someone commuting on surface streets
You use twice as mich fuel to accelerate from 0 to 30mph as 0 to 20mph, and if you hit a pedestrian at 30mph there’s a 20% chance it will be fatal Vs 2.5% at 20mph.
You are never going to average the speed limits throughout your drive, unless you’re speeding. In an urban environment, where 20mph speed limits are used, you will lose seconds on your journey.
But anyway, where is this coming from? The post is about speed cameras, not what the limits are set to. Why are you even bringing that up?
I was listening to a breakdown of this study on a New York Times podcast. It has to do with huge cultural differences between how Europeans and Americans interact with smartphones in cars, particularly because most cars in the United States are automatic and most cars in Europe are stick shifts, meaning that it’s very difficult for Europeans to screw around with her phones while they’re driving. Driving a car with a manual transmission requires both hands, meaning drivers, don’t have a free hand to fiddle with their phones.
Another part of the explanation for the difference between the United States and Europe in this regard is that suburban United States cities are designed in the auto age and designed very much around cars with a complete disregard for pedestrian safety, particularly at night. American pedestrians in these cities have to walk much farther and around much larger and more dangerous roads to get to their destinations, while having access to poor or even nonexistent transit networks. 
edit: one other data point they mentioned was the homeless, and while that population was rising in 2009, it sharply began to rise in 2016. these are people who are the most vulnerable in our society already, who often dwell near dangerous roads, highway overpasses, etc., and especially at night. Homeless people account for a significant portion of the increase in pedestrian fatalities in certain regions.
I was listening to a breakdown of this study on a New York Times podcast. It has to do with huge cultural differences between how Europeans and Americans interact with smartphones in cars
Funny thing, someone posted this Podcast, and there’s absolutely no mention at all about this: lemmy.ml/post/10124633
No, that is, in fact, a podcast by the New York Times. You do understand you can click on these things called links and then you’ll land on another page?
Oh, I can assure you that driving manual doesn’t keep people from dabbling with their phones… If anything, it makes it more dangerous, since… well you’ve only got two hands, right.
And automatic is becoming the norm here as well, at least with new cars.
I‘d say it has a variety of reasons. Cars are huge in the US, streets are wide, pedestrian safety is not really a thing, the driving exam is harder and more intensive here, and I feel just… safer.
For example, here I don’t really wait at a zebra crossing, I basically just step on the street and expect the cars to yield because they have to. I would never do that in the US…
according to the study, small cars have been responsible for just as many fatalities - or not an amount disproportionate to their number - in the US, so it’s not really big car problem as much as you might suppose. this may have to do with that drivers of small cars can often drive more recklessly, but that’s speculation. And, sure, you can fiddle with your phone with a manual transmission, but, seemingly, most don’t. The difficulty makes it far, far, less likely.
but the biggest takeaways from he study seems to be 1) modern road/highway infrastructure in the US is built to get as many cars moving as fast as possible and give little-to-no consideration to pedestrians or their safety, and this need to change, and 2) the particularly American culture around in-car smartphone use needs to change via far harsher penalties for distracted diving and other behaviors which endanger pedestrians.
Again, which study are you talking about? Neither this here nor the other article under which you also commented mention phones or automatic transmission at all.
What this analysis here does say though, that you’ve got a lot of DUIs with a BAC >0.08. In Europe, the max BAC 0.05 or lower.
I drive automatic in Europe. Simply it is illegal to have a mobile in your hand while driving. Fees are very high, and the license is suspended minimum 2 weeks
while i’m certain that automatic transmissions indeed do exist in Europe, i was simply referring to the fact that they’re far less common there.
but the fact that distracted driving is punished far more severely there, however, DOES have a major impact on how less common that habit is in European driver culture. also, probably, the culture of giving more of a damn about your fellow citiens than your average American does.
Modal transport design is probably a huge reason why this works. I would be interested to see the pedestrian deaths in a packed busy city like NYC vs the wide suburban roads of the rest of America.
My theory is that roads designed with the purpose of driving faster (designed with a higher modal level) are commonly placed within high pedestrian areas within the US (Stroads) and due to that higher modal mental state people are “comfortable” and thus use their phones as their brains are less occupied. While in a busy city street they’re in that 1st modal mental state so they are focused on their surroundings way more.
Can’t say for pedestrians specifically, but the variance of general traffic fatalities in the US is huge, and the average is way higher than the EUs: personalinjurysandiego.org/…/most-and-least-traff…
For reference, Mississippi does worse than Afghanistan, New York is comparable with the EU.
This video was really good and there were sources listed in the description, but I would have liked to see sources linked in the video and some credits for the footage used. I didn’t see any credits for footage and some of it didn’t look like stock footage.
The content of the video was really good though and covered a lot in 30 minutes without feeling dense.
fuck_cars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.