I didn’t. You need streets for at least the fire brigade, ambulances, tradespeople, (parcel) delivery, and the occasional taxi. Moving vans. Even lorries supplying shops, can’t have a cargo tram everywhere.
You’re back-tracking: now you are allowing, however intelligently, for cars in some instances
You also sound British, which no offense, but it’s a country that doesn’t have cities that get as hot (or hot and humid) as say, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Antonio, New Orleans, Atlanta, or Orlando.
or as cold as, say, St. Paul, maybe Anchorage, Chicago, or Buffalo;
and that’s just the US. No cars within Toronto city limits wouldn’t work well. Ditto Moscow, probably Kyiv, Warsaw, Mumbai, Brisbane, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, Dubai, et al, either.
What we definitely don’t need is parents driving 12yolds to school.
I mostly agree. As a person older than 70% of North Americans, I think the nerfing of society can cause problems.
How about we make it a municipal utility.
Okay. Now let’s say it’s a city with over 1 million people, and the experts say minimally one car per 400, or 2500 cars needed for rent. Which company will get the contract to sell the city those ≥2500 cars—Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, BMW, Tesla, or a Chinese variant? The one that lobbies best?
How about allow licensing of rent-a-cars? Existing ones are grandfathered in for 20 years without plates, but others pay, say, £10 000 + £2000 every year for a license to rent. Obviously they’d also have to have good insurance.
It’s actually habit, formed at an early age. Bike is how I got to primary school, which was possible because some committee designed the city in a way that it was possible (distance) as well as safe. I do have a driving license, lessons etc. cost a good 2k Euro back them, never owned a car. Haven’t driven in ages.
Perhaps, and good for you. My point was more of individual effort. Chances are, where you’re from, there were people who’d cycle in pretty well any condition, and insisted on the right to cycle. They were the reason some authorities made accommodations, which in turn made cycling seem more viable to more people, thus increasing the number of cyclists. Such were incremental—a bike lane here, a bike lane there—nothing that required >£1 billion (or >€1 billion)—and eventually cyclists got a bit of an infrastructure and proposals for more expensive projects got more considered—but one way or another, people will be cycling—the only question is how to increase it.
You’re back-tracking: now you are allowing, however intelligently, for cars in some instances
No I’m not: I’m not the one you think I am. “No rubber on asphalt, like, ever” is a stupid stance from the get-go. “Reduce individual car ownership as far as reasonably possible” is a statement I’d support.
You also sound British, which no offense,
Why, confusing me for a chap from our colony, how quaint. More on topic: Europe gets hot. Europe gets cold. Still there’s bikes in Finland and bikes in Spain. Oh, Not Just Bikes has a video on Finns vs. Canadians.
Which company will get the contract to sell the city those ≥2500 cars—Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, BMW, Tesla, or a Chinese variant? The one that lobbies best?
Probably the one that hands in the 2nd cheapest option ticking all the boxes. How do cities decide on which busses to buy? Who will build a bridge? This is not a topic specific to car rentals.
They were the reason some authorities made accommodations, which in turn made cycling seem more viable to more people, thus increasing the number of cyclists.
People never stopped cycling. People never started to believe that it’s reasonable to close the primary schools of 20 villages and put kids into a single giant one.
I understand that it’s harder to fix what’s fucked up than to improve what was still functional but “oh it’s hard” is not an argument with which you can counter “it’s better”. I never said it would be easy.
idk. Maybe some mafia front that under-bids, but raises the price when they’re halfway done?
I understand that it’s harder to fix what’s fucked up than to improve what was still functional but “oh it’s hard” is not an argument with which you can counter “it’s better”. I never said it would be easy.
I was agreeing with your statement “though understandable as bike lanes are quite a bit cheaper than building public transit from scratch.”
You’re back-tracking: now you are allowing, however intelligently, for cars in some instances
You also sound British, which no offense, but it’s a country that doesn’t have cities that get as hot (or hot and humid) as say, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Antonio, New Orleans, Atlanta, or Orlando.
or as cold as, say, St. Paul, maybe Anchorage, Chicago, or Buffalo;
and that’s just the US. No cars within Toronto city limits wouldn’t work well. Ditto Moscow, probably Kyiv, Warsaw, Mumbai, Brisbane, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, Dubai, et al, either.
I mostly agree. As a person older than 70% of North Americans, I think the nerfing of society can cause problems.
Okay. Now let’s say it’s a city with over 1 million people, and the experts say minimally one car per 400, or 2500 cars needed for rent. Which company will get the contract to sell the city those ≥2500 cars—Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, BMW, Tesla, or a Chinese variant? The one that lobbies best?
How about allow licensing of rent-a-cars? Existing ones are grandfathered in for 20 years without plates, but others pay, say, £10 000 + £2000 every year for a license to rent. Obviously they’d also have to have good insurance.
Perhaps, and good for you. My point was more of individual effort. Chances are, where you’re from, there were people who’d cycle in pretty well any condition, and insisted on the right to cycle. They were the reason some authorities made accommodations, which in turn made cycling seem more viable to more people, thus increasing the number of cyclists. Such were incremental—a bike lane here, a bike lane there—nothing that required >£1 billion (or >€1 billion)—and eventually cyclists got a bit of an infrastructure and proposals for more expensive projects got more considered—but one way or another, people will be cycling—the only question is how to increase it.
No I’m not: I’m not the one you think I am. “No rubber on asphalt, like, ever” is a stupid stance from the get-go. “Reduce individual car ownership as far as reasonably possible” is a statement I’d support.
Why, confusing me for a chap from our colony, how quaint. More on topic: Europe gets hot. Europe gets cold. Still there’s bikes in Finland and bikes in Spain. Oh, Not Just Bikes has a video on Finns vs. Canadians.
Probably the one that hands in the 2nd cheapest option ticking all the boxes. How do cities decide on which busses to buy? Who will build a bridge? This is not a topic specific to car rentals.
People never stopped cycling. People never started to believe that it’s reasonable to close the primary schools of 20 villages and put kids into a single giant one.
I understand that it’s harder to fix what’s fucked up than to improve what was still functional but “oh it’s hard” is not an argument with which you can counter “it’s better”. I never said it would be easy.
wt:lorry#Noun
also this:
https://youtu.be/3CPu9c1Qp6c?t=560 (cued, for several seconds)
😁🙂
Thanks for the link. 🙂
The selection probably isn’t as good as cars.
idk. Maybe some mafia front that under-bids, but raises the price when they’re halfway done?
I was agreeing with your statement “though understandable as bike lanes are quite a bit cheaper than building public transit from scratch.”