- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Amsterdam did this, it’s great.
We also prioritise bicycle lanes and pedestrians. Getting rid of cars is the best thigns for a city
Public transport followed by safe cycling lanes are the best way to get people out of cars.
Amsterdam arguably has the best public infrastructure, I’ve done a fair amount of traveling and I can’t think of better public infrastructure.
Two ton blocks of steel moving a excessive speeds and making a lot of noise isn’t something you want around homes and people.
You might need to spend some time in a city like Amsterdam to understand, I loved cars before I lived here now I feel very differently.
Two ton blocks of steel moving a excessive speeds and making a lot of noise isn’t something you want around homes and people.
Lemmy takes car abolition too far sometimes, but yes, if you think about it it’s not different from the Charlie Chaplin giant factory gears that used to be a thing. It’s just that they’re so ubiquitous they couldn’t be banned or enclosed when the other unsafe machines were.
Not sure you meant to reply to me.
Oops
No worries 🙃
Free, extremely convenient bicycle/motorcycle parking helps too.
No, it isn’t.
Sure, in the centre it makes sense. But to blanket 30kmh over the entire city? There are roads designed for 100 or 80, where suddenly you have to drive 30. Just annoying, not safer.
The article opens with:
LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE been instructed to implement 30km/h speed limits in built-up and urban areas “where appropriate” by 2027.
Now, do you really think “where appropriate” includes roads built for 100km/h?
Yes
Perhaps the idea is to dissuade people from driving unless necessary.
It’s Amsterdam. There’s excellent public transport and bike infrastructure.
And if you still need a car, guess what? This initiative means there’s less traffic for you to deal with.
Hmm. Does Amsterdam do much with busses? A limit like that would apply to them too.
Busses and trams often have their own lanes where they can go the speed they want
Well that makes sense.
You’re much less likely to die when hit by a speeding bus than a slow car.
Yeah, I usually hear about speed limits as a time savings vs. safety issue. And in that sense it would apply to both.
I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like, if you manage to get hit by a bus in Amsterdam you really fucked up.
There are literally millions of drunk tourists here every year and they’re fine.
I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like
i don’t think you understand what kinetic energy is. is you claim it is about safety, then bus doing 50 km/h is far more dangerous than passenger car in the same speed.
There are literally millions of drunk tourists here every year and they’re fine.
and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?
By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.
Sure getting hit by a bus is more deadly than getting hit by a bicycle, but if your odds of getting hit are essentially zero then that chances the equation.
Again, I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like, what city would you say you’ve spent time in that has the best infrastructure in your opinion?
By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.
it is not my logic, logic is mathematical discipline, it doesn’t really belong to anyone.
airplanes indeed ARE extremely dangerous to pedestrians on runway. not so much in the air, which is largely due to the fact that pedestrians can’t fly.
the same can’t be said for buses driving on the same streets as cars where their path often crosses with those of pedestrians. so why should bus be allowed to drive faster, having significantly larger kinetic energy and be therefor be far more dangerous in case of collision? why do you think that chances of getting hit by a bus are effectively zero? do buses in amsterdam levitate in a same way airplanes do? i have never been to amsterdam, so maybe it’s a thing there?
if you manage to get hit by a bus in Amsterdam you really fucked up.
if you managed to get git by a car you have also fucked up.
and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?
you forgot to answer this question
I know, I was just being glib.
Amsterdam also has a metro system.
Oh, I’m sure. That’s why I asked.
Within the city center and within neighbourhoods, traffic does not move faster than 30 anyways.
I mean, I could nitpick that, but sure, there’s an argument for it on safety and practical considerations. I don’t usually think of speed limits as having much to do with cars vs. public transit, though, because there are busses and commercial vehicles in the mix.
Many cities in Switzerland are implementing the same, but there is significant opposition from the rural areas. I hope we will arrive at 30km/h in all urban areas.
“We would like to set a speed limit in the cities.”
“Yo boss, the people from the countryside are protesting about your law in the cities.”What
How does no one in this thread realise that these “urban areas” speed limits also apply to all the tiny villages that are currently 50kph. In Europe any time you pass a village entry sign you are now in an urban area as far as speed limit goes. PS: I am for the 30kph limits, no qualm there.
I mean, that’s how I read it, too. It’s going to be the default for any urban area, cities of millions, towns of dozens.
But that doesn’t stop rural towns from increasing the speed limit by posting a 50kph sign, either where it is reasonable, or overall. When you enter any town/city-limits by car, you need to slow down to 30kph, unless there is a speed sign allowing for higher or lower speeds.
This is literally all a town needs to say “the 30kph limit is nice, but we don’t want that”:
I do realize that though.
It’s because many people, especially in the “car bad” crowd, don’t give a fuck about the rules of the road as long as they don’t see any personal benefit for themselves in others obeying them.
Weird take.
I’m in the “car bad” crowd (actually, it’s the "car useful, but should be mostly for emergency services, disabled people, deliveries, etc. including in rural areas for people who need it)
I care very much about the rules, and how it affects everyone. Rules make driving safer. Having 30km/hr default doesn’t prevent a town from putting up signs on certain roads to increase the limit…
This law is also good for town life, because side streets become more pleasant and safer by default.
Like, it’s not making the limit 30 km/hr on a rural highway…
kph
Are you from the USA or something? It’s km/h.
Could be people commuting
We mostly commute by train cause we have amazing public transportation, unfortunately they are working on cutting the discount for frequent travelers because too many people are using it (about 1/3 of the country). This will lead to public transport being more expensive than owning and commuting by car for many.
Duck them.
Sure, and for 90% of they distance they would still be unaffected. So there is still really no reason.
Hot take: Rural drivers shouldn’t get a say in how urban roads are designed
It’s not their city. They don’t live in it. They can stay in their town if they don’t like it
That sounds fair but urban people don’t seem to have any issue with forcing their opinions on speed limits on rural people. If it works one way then why not the other?
They can drive however they want in their villages. But they need to follow our rules when they come to town.
They can drive however they want in their villages
They can’t though, they have to follow rules and speed limits that are set by people not in their villages.
What are you talking about? If Lausanne sets a speed limit of 30 km/hr in Lausanne that does not change the speed limit in Morrens or Bercher or Savigny.
The article literally states that Ireland’s department of transport lowered the default rural road limits for the country in February, that’s exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.
The article literally states that Ireland’s department of transport lowered the default rural road limits for the country in February, that’s exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.
No. The article states that URBAN is speed limit is set at 30km/h. RURAL road is already limited to 60km/h.
By rural they are talking about roads that are not within limits of cities. Note that town/city limits are much more defined in Europe. Usually the last house at the edge of town defines the end of the urban area and the beginning of the rural area.
You’re responding to a comment using Swiss speed limits as an example. Here in Switzerland changes in the speed in an urban area do not cause changes in rural areas.
Anyways, I suppose I should thank you for providing more evidence that drivers are selfish morons.
My thoughts exactly!
Is it not crazy to think that people in rural areas also enjoy the city and go to urban areas? It’s still the same country.
As visitors though. I don’t think their needs are irrelevant, but they shouldn’t carry as much weight as the daily users’
So the inhabitants of small towns driving daily to work to the next city get a say? I don’t know about Switzerland, but in my area these are a considerate amount, if not the majority of cars in smaller cities. Most don’t need a car living in the city, but you cannot commute into the city without in most cases.
Would you consider someone who uses the road daily as a daily user?
If so, re-reading my comment will provide a solution.
Not sure it’s visiting necessarily if it’s their nearest urban center, as then it would be their main source of a lot of stuff so it’s theirs too.
They can stay in their town if they don’t like it
Literally no. By definition small towns don’t have a lot of things in them, and so the things they do have tend to be pretty basic. If you need specialist medicine, for example, you definitely will have to go to a major city. And that’s not even getting into the open countryside people, who exist in at least the less dense European countries.
I mean, you can still hold the position they shouldn’t get a say, but not that they can totally opt out of whatever is decided.
Well, if they want to come to the city they should leave their car outside and take public transit or a bike.
Okay, sure. But they will have to do it, and you will need some parking on the outskirts.
If that’s a viable option, definitely, but it isn’t always and I can tell you public transport in Ireland is incomplete at best.
If they don’t want to live where there is nothing then they shouldn’t have chosen to live where there is nothing
Wait? Do you ever eat food? I’m guessing you do. That comes from the middle of nowhere for the most part. Certain other products too.
If you open a history book, it’s cities that are optional. Yes, people who choose to be farmers or otherwise live outside of cities have to deal with long commutes to a city when they need something. If they were banned from even doing that, there’d just be starvation.
It’s not the farmers that clog up cities’ streets
Hmm. What point are you making? Should they stay out of towns or not?
Who is they? Farmers? It doesn’t matter. In developed nations less than 1% of the population are farmers. And those few don’t drive into the cities every day for work, because why would they.
More incentive fo bikes and public transit if taking a car is more obnoxious (and safer for pedestrians)
Exactly. We have excellent public transport (possibly the best in the world, tied with Japan) and distances are short because the country is so small.
Bus is also gonna go 30 max though?
Buses generally don’t go fast anyway in urban areas
They do, it’s just the average speed is low because they have to stop every few hundred meters.
I once had a grad class that let out at at 10pm. On the bus ride to class, I was fine. On the ride from class my stomach was in my throat, all the nausea. After a few classes I figured out the difference: on the way to class, there was traffic and people getting on and off. On the home the bus just booked it over all the potholes because it didn’t have up constantly stop.
That’s also when I learned Dramamine [anti-nausea med] makes me wicked nauseous on an empty stomach.
Probably one of those cultural things that differs by locale
Why? The rural areas are by definition not urban.
They are.
For any built up area with appropriate signage, the urban speed limit gets applied.
Also a large chunk of the rural population is commuting by car, and has to change their (driving) habits, and changing habits takes effort.
Right, do if an area isn’t rural, it’s not considered rural.
It’s different in Europe. When they say “rural”, they mean any small town not adjacent to a city or other conurbation.
The density of small towns that have hundreds of years of history but are only 5-10km apart from the next 3-4 towns surrounding it are in a stark contrast to the 20-50km distances between North American towns. And rural farms are relatively rare. Farmers generally still live in the small town and then drive their tractor out to the fields.
Okay. How are they impacted by rules on urban development?
Because also the small rural village is classified as “urban” so it need to follow the same general law.
Rural and urban are not mutually exclusive
They are literally antonyms
On one hand fuck cars on the other hand I would personally want to go faster on an ebike
I’ve gone faster on a normal bicycle plenty of times and in that case if you don’t have a speedo, you may not even know you’re breaking the speed limit
Over 30 on a regular city bike is pretty damn impressive for longer than a few stretches
I don’t know what people eat, but someone in Lycra was doing well above 32km/h on flat ground on our bike path. My ebike is speed capped and I couldn’t keep up, lol.
You mean a trained cyclist on a specialized lightweight bicycle? Those are outliers. Those things are expensive as shit, made of carbon and whatever. That’s like comparing the car of an average Joe to the Lamborghini you stood next to at the red light and they sped off at green.
Material only really matters on inclination and for acceleration. The more important part is aerodynamics, but even then we’re not talking more than a few watts. A good hybrid, maybe around 700€, is more than good enough for an amateur level today. Something with Shimano 105, if you can find it, but that’s more about longevity.
When I was in highschool I cycled to school on a 100€ bike every day and when I eventually got a speedometer, I realized I was going about 35 km/h. I was a little crazy though, I would arrive at school late and drenched in sweat almost every day…
If you’re young and in shape, it’s not that hard to pull off actually. I used to cycle 13 KM to gym in 25 minutes lol. Way back was slower of course. The hill was steeper and the payoff not nearly as satisfying.
15 years later, I don’t know if I could do 30 km/h for more than half a minute. It’d be mighty impressive if I could get my old speed back because I weigh 40 kilos more now, and I was technically overweight back then too according to BMI. But I’ll get there in a year or so.
Though I guess I’ve never owned a “regular city bike”. Mine have always been hybrids. Those are pretty decent for going fast, though not comparable to an actual speed bike of course. And they’ve been decent enough off road too. The one I had as a teenager was put through so much hell that the pedals were replaced 2-3 times purely because I’d put way too much torque into way too high gears. Plastic broke, metal bent.
If you cycle as a sport it is pretty much the minimum speed. You can easily reach a consistent 40 or 45 km/h in a sprint as well. But this is all on a road bike of course, which makes it considerably easier.
Personally I say we ban cars and make one lane for slower bike riders plus a fast lane for bike riders
This ^^^^
They do it for cars on highways, why not for cyclists?
Speed limits on roads in built-up and urban areas can only be changed where a majority of the elected members in a local authority vote to do so.
This seems like the balanced approach. That would mean if there’s an arterial road where a higher speed limit still makes sense they can keep it while deciding to use the lower limit on other streets, right?
50 kp/h is the norm here in Estonia.
