In our current timeline they would, and they’ll avoid the ticket and get the cyclist charged with “assault on a motor vehicle”. Then the cop will break the reflectors on the bike and find any relevant laws to try to ticket the cyclists, even issuing a hand written note that says they are suspended from cycling for 90 days.

Ill take getting hit by the deforming guardrail and being pushed away over being pinned between the car and the guardrail. They could also design a guardrail that is more rigid. We protect drivers enough already, we shouldn’t comepletely throw away pedestrian safey because some driver cant keep their car on the pavement.

I’ve also seen many bent guardrails from traffic accident and unless hitting it at one of the ends, the deformation is 2-3 feet max for most cars unless going excessive speeds. There would still be room for a pedestrian to be safe if we provided that space between the guard and the sidewalk.

They could just send a crew out with a regular mower. Im also nearly certain ive seen a mower on a tractor reaching over guardrails on a highway before.

That guard rail is there because the book told the designers to put it there and thinkkng outside the book hasn’t been allowed for decades in road planning, its all cut and paste.

North american traffic engineers don’t give a shit about how many deaths their design causes so long as the road is up to spec according to outdated books that prioritize speed and throughput.

If that barrier was more for peolle falling down the hill it would be taller in size. If I crashed my bike into that barrier i would just end tumbling over the barrier and down the hill.

Even a sober driver obeying the limit could collide with a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The driver could have a medical emergency and lose control, the vehicle could break down and lose control.

They could definitely design a mower that is able to reach over the guard rail. We could also just send a different mower to do the gaurd rail sections.

Agreed, and with the design of some of our roads, maybe its a good thing to discourage certain pedestrian crossings. It isn’t fair pedestrians may have to walk a significant extra distance to cross, but there are also some sections of road like curves and merge lanes that are more dangerous to cross illegally.

Only in the short term. In our current timeline we destroy our cities to pave new highways. By rebuilding our cities we can reduce sprawl, increase density and make the whole city more effecient while reducing the new land that gets developed.

Some smaller gasoline cars actually beat out the total impact (production, use, disposal) of oversized electric trucks or SUVs

Honestly it should first and we should be trying to maximize and prioritize active transport trips.

Do you have any proof that the cameras are communicating with cell phones? Do you have any proof that Canada is using these cameras to track plates?

Toronto can’t seem to catch any of the vandals that are cutting down the cameras and i doubt the suspects leave their phones at home as photos of their destruction often make it onto social media.

Walking and cycling should probably be right after buses and trams.

Sure we need bike lanes too, but we still need transit as an option for longer distances/faster travel, for when the weather is awful, and for people unable to bike. You could even bring your bike on the transit, maybe visiting another city and bringing your bike with you on that transit.

People will come up with any solution so long as it still relies on roads. The parent comment to this thread is all about tire dust and this solution just replaces private tire dust with commercial tire dust. The system you propose would still be more complicated, energy and resource intensive than people just taking transit to the groccery store.

Corona isn’t a perfect example as many places had restricted capacity and hours. There was also a significant precentage of the population minimizing their exposure to the outside world. Yes we should encourage work from home but my point is it won’t be reducing car use nearly as much as it seems and even if everyone worked from home we still need alternatives to driving.

Some studies have shown work from home may eliminate the commute miles, but those miles are replaced with leisure and errands miles. So ultimately we still need transit to replace a lot of car trips cause be it work, grocceries, or a night out, people need to get places.

The article is about the best use of batteries, not the best environmental choice.

Not a perfect title, trains, trams and buses are larger than SUVs but far more effecient unless carrying just 1 passenger.

Regardless how you power it, private automobiles will always be ineffecient and have a massive resource cost. The EV isn’t here to save the planet, it’s here to save the car industry. This is part of why we need the conversation to shift to energy efficiency instead of just emissions.

People in north america pay top dollar to live somewhere where it is possible to live car free, partially because there are so few places. This causes only the wealthy to experience decent transit and walkability. So it makes sense that lower incomes oppose to it as they assume they’ll be walking next to a 6 lane road because they’ve never been given anything else.