Why not just add speed limits to areas where higher speeds are an issue? That’s been the approach to cars – no car is limited to 140 kmh despite speeds above that are illegal pretty much everywhere…
Regular bikes can easily go above 15 mph as well, so why should this only affect e-bikes?
I don’t think they literally meant journeys from one end of the country to the other, but rather travelling distances of 100-500 km. Maybe even up to 1000 km would be preferable by rail, especially with night trains.
I do agree that if you for some reason specifically want to travel from Orlando to Detroit, plane is by far the superior option. But Orlando to Miami? Or Orlando to Atlanta? High speed rail would be perfect.
Yup, that’s even easier to implement and could be done in any city within a few years. I just can’t fathom why almost every single street in almost every single city MUST support through traffic. Even in cities with great public transport and great infra for walking/cycling, with only a fraction of the citizens driving cars, somehow cars are still allowed to drive through basically everywhere. Looking at you Helsinki…
Also, the size of the city is irrelevant. Even in the video, NJB describes how this concept could be implemented in any city. You don’t encircle the whole city with a ring road, but you create these rings with a diameter of ~2 km around train/metro stations. Even Houten consists of two such rings nowadays. Larger cities would be dozens, if not hundreds, of rings.
Also, there are some plans to connect this bridge to the land barely visible on the right edge of the picture. Not sure if that also plays into the curvature, or when this bridge connection will actually be built.
So you’re saying a police giving chase is always as dangerous a driver as someone drunk beyond their ears? And a 10 min chase ending in a crash is always worse than someone driving around for an hour potentially running over several times more people only to then crash either way?
Of course in most cases I agree brute force is not the correct option, but there are situations where it’s needed.
This completely depends on the ratios and the crimes and a lot of other factors. What if the person fleeing is a suspected murderer? I’d rather see a police chase potentially endangering innocents than allowing someone definitely endangering innocents walk free.
Another example, which is very common, is that the person fleeing is under the influence of some drug. Allowing that person to drive off is also endangering innocents, sometimes more and sometimes less than a police chase would.
My point is that police chases are not something you can just get rid of completely and think you’re protecting the public. But I agree with the purpose of the article, if there has been a huge increase in dangerous police chases after some change in leadership, it’s very likely that the police are to blame for bad decision making on whether to give chase or not.
Again, as I said before, my original comment was replying to the idea of never giving chase and always trying to catch them later, which is not always the best option.
That’s not comparable lol? You do realise it’s possible for police to give chase without endangering the surrounding people?
If it’s a common occurrence that innocents are being endangered by police chases then the police are obviously to be blamed for dangerous pursuits.
My former comment was simply stating the reason why police give chase at all, instead of letting everyone off the hook if they feel like not stopping. Not really sure why people are downvoting…
The issue is if the driver can get out of sight of all cameras/helicopters and leave the vehicle. Then there’s no proof they were actually driving and could claim the vehicle was stolen or something.
Nonono, blockchained AI powered pods!
I would understand these news as Colorado will try to avoid starting new highway projects, not that they would cancel currently ongoing ones.
I think they had quite a valid question. First of all, it’s not obvious how this affects Ukraine, if in any way at all. Second, not everyone can know about Iran’s involvement in the war (people are born, grown up, and informed every day).
Call the exorcist
Almost as if it’s possible to improve even the largest cities’ infrastructure to be more human friendly. Almost as if there’s no reason bad urban design should remain bad forever. Huh, who knew…
I feel like this gets overlooked too often. No single person can cause even thousands of deaths. It’s the man himself, his government, the police, the army, the military industry, etc. who are directly causing this. That’s probably millions of people. With another 100+ million who just watch and enable the country continue its genocide. All these are also to blame to some degree.
Of course there are Russians who try to stop it, protest, strike or simply leave the hell hole. But sadly this is an incredibly small minority.
Just to clarify in case you missed it: this is daily, not weekly. So almost one tank an hour. Poof.
Agreed, and the process of actually getting things to change can vary a lot depending on which city we’re talking about. Why should these content creator know how things work in YOUR city?
In roundabouts you only need to look in one direction of incoming cars. In a regular 4-way intersection you have to look in three directions. Your comment makes no sense to me.
It’s Estonia, Finland’s little sister
“Pedestrian was killed after a shoe crash when he ran into a car”
That’s what this article sounds like…