• Dr. Unabart@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1056·
    1 day ago

    Gonna take a wild guess here and say that bikes are probably ok too. The stupid shit that tumbles out of the anti-car crowd is just comedy.

    • WanderingThoughts@europe.pubEnglish
      393·
      1 day ago

      Bikes get a 2000 bikes per hour throughout on a 1 meter (3 feet) wide lane. Cars can get about 1900 vehicles per hour on a regular lane. Give bikes the same space as you give cars and bikes move a lot more people.

            • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyzEnglish
              6·
              1 day ago

              Its not bike friendly enough if you’d rather drive. There is a typhoon right now and its still more pleasant to casually motorbike through the city, at my own pace, completely unimpeded by traffic, looking for anything interesting, and park 3 feet from the entrance than to fuck with driving, slowing for traffic, pulling over to let someone pass because I’m not going fast enough, finding parking, walking through the rain and water streaming down the sidewalks.

        • hedgehog@ttrpg.networkEnglish
          8·
          1 day ago

          How is that an assumption at all? If you provide the same amount of infrastructure for bikes as for cars, then you still have half the infrastructure for cars, so people can use both / either.

          And for those of us living in places where we don’t have bike friendly infrastructure, it’s useful to be able to point out that converting car infra to bike infra would have the capacity to reduce congestion, particularly if the area commits to making those changes more widely.

        • Genius@lemmy.zipEnglish
          4·
          1 day ago

          Don’t be a car driving nuisance, it smells and it’s loud. Not everyone wants to be around cars all the time.

      • Genius@lemmy.zipEnglish
        6·
        1 day ago

        Since foot lanes have a higher capacity than car lanes, let’s permanently swap the space allocated to the two. Cars can drive on the sidewalk and people will walk on the road. If your car is too big to fit on the sidewalk you’ll just have to get out and walk.

  • Guidy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    20106·
    2 days ago

    Protests are good.

    Preventing random people from getting to where they need to be is bad.

    If you do this, it makes me think ill of your cause.

    It’s really that simple, and I don’t give a fuck how you rationalize or justify it to yourself.

        • maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zoneOPEnglish
          482·
          2 days ago

          I didn’t think they were making that analogy. I think they were highlighting the inefficiency of car-centric spaces. I can think of several other ways the author’s thought experiment breaks down. For example many vehicles will be moving freight and goods, not just people and I don’t know if the author has factored in anything like that. Then you could also say well what about the distance the cars are travelling compared to say how far people are likely to walk in comparison. All that said I still think it’s a thought provoking way of highlighting how car-centric spaces just suck.

            • maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zoneOPEnglish
              182·
              2 days ago

              I’m prepared to cut them a bit of slack. There was a bit of a nasty campaign by the police, media and state government to try and prevent the protest. It was an important protest to have and I suspect the author’s having a bit of fun at the police and government’s expense. They have done a fair bit of campaigning on the issue of public housing, people-oriented urban spaces and so on.

        • subignition@fedia.io
          1510·
          2 days ago

          That idea is nowhere in the OP, you’ve literally made something up to be mad at

            • subignition@fedia.io
              81·
              1 day ago

              Yeah you’re putting words in their mouth IMO. I don’t think it’s reasonable to take “technically the bridge had higher throughput when this occurred” and jump all the way to “therefore this is how it should always operate”, that feels like you are trying too hard to read between the lines and creating meaning where there was none.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zoneEnglish
          52·
          1 day ago

          so the bridge should be closed for tourism?

          a bridge is a tool for use by people wishing to cross an otherwise difficult to cross span… the purpose of that crossing - including things like recreation - shouldn’t dictate if their crossing should be allowed or not

            • squaresinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
              91·
              1 day ago

              Your argument is “It is supposed to be the way it is precisely and only because it is the way it is”.

              That’s never a good argument to make.

              The real question here is “Could this bridge be used in a better way?”, e.g. by closing a lane or two and opening these up for pedestrians or bikes.

              The OOP uses an extreme example to show how inefficient car infrastructure is, and it is incredibly inefficient.

              I don’t know this specific bridge in question, but for most urban commuter routes rush hour means that traffic slows to a crawl because there’s more cars than throughput and thus increasing throughput is more important than increasing speed. That’s why stuff like public transport, biking and walking where possible is so important because these transport options have much, much higher throughput.