mondoman712 @ mondoman712 @lemmy.ml

Posts

133

Comments

347

Joined

2 yr. ago

From what I've heard, the Toronto police generally just don't enforce traffic laws.

I'd be interested to see this broken down on whether the high street has been pedestrianised or not. There's high streets that are a busy road with shops, which I would avoid, and those that have been pedestrianised and are actually places where you can spend some time.

The article is speaking from a British perspective, so that isn't really a problem. I do think that such a limit on density or some other metric. It should be more that every town and village has a public transport connection, rather than every rural farmhouse.

Where do you live?

Did you read the article?

I want my language learning app to have things like that, to help motivate me to keep coming back every day.

Just fyi you can keep practicing as much as you want in Duolingo, just tap the heart in the top right and click practice to earn more hearts.

You can have walkable areas that aren't all multi unit. This video goes over some existing places that fit.

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.

People need to live somewhere, and if they live somewhere like Siena it leaves more space for nature.

Now you can see what it's like arguing with you.

Because fuck pedestrians amirite lads

I'm not a lib, I'm not a fan of Keith, and I'm not saying "fuck the poor". Poor people are the most impacted by car dependency which is perpetuated by dangerous driving. If you don't want to have this conversation anymore you can stop replying.

I wouldn't replace it. Some people will still speed even with traffic calming so the camera is still useful.

If you want to reduce the council's income from speed cameras, the first thing would be to elect a central government that will properly fund local councils so they have the budget to make decisions like that.

I don't agree that speeding is ok if poor people do it, and I don't think the removal of the speed cameras is a step to the better alternative, unless it's part of removing cars from the road in question entirely.

I'm sorry I didn't think I needed to spell it out that much to you. Obviously I don't think all poor people don't drive. But the poorest don't, and statistically poorer people drive a lot less and are more impacted by things like this.

The poorest people own the fewest cars, and are the most affected by things like air pollution, and if they do have to own cars they're the ones most at hurt by car dependency (which is perpetuated by road violence caused by things like speeding).

And please don't pretend like you know my life.

The local community campaigned to get these speed cameras because people were speeding. Redesigning the road would be great, if the council had money to, but I doubt they do.

Poor people aren't getting screwed over by this because poor people can't afford to drive, they're the ones that have to deal with the unsafe driving of the middle class dada on their German coupes that can't bare to drive at less that 50mph.

They wouldn't make money if people managed to, you know, just follow the speed limit. If you can't follow a basic rule of the road you shouldn't be driving.

The same can be said for anything that the government contracts out. Road building is another good example, and there's a lot more money to go around there than with speed cameras.

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?