More about that ball-n-chain....

 

 

When i had to drive to work in Solon or Mayfield Heights i would contemplate all the horsepower of all the cars that are sitting idling in rush hour traffic on 271 and 480 in miles long backups. The people with the 450hp-500+hp engine sitting next to me are going just as fast as my car. Multiply the amount of capital sitting idle throughput the US and it really is disturbing. The more expensive car is not getting you more freedom.  It just typically means you have to live further away to justify/afford that more expensive vehicle. 

   

So many other free are actually more free by not subsidizing driving so much that choices become practical to offer...

 

 

 

 

On 9/11/2019 at 10:13 PM, KJP said:

 

Cars and air conditioning, and despite its potential, likely the smartphone.  Technology that isolates.

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

Cars and air conditioning, and despite its potential, likely the smartphone.  Technology that isolates.

 

The Internet in general.  The smartphone just accelerated the trend by allowing you to stay more visibly and psychologically isolated even when you leave your abode.

Internet is SOOOOOOO boring as compared to actual real stuff tho

"Transportation is the largest source of planet-warming greenhouse gases in the United States today and the bulk of those emissions come from driving in our cities and suburbs"  In Cleveland, per capita emissions are up 12% since 1990---I assume because of the endless sprawl.... NYC is up 9% during the same time and Chicago up 43%

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/10/climate/driving-emissions-map.html

That's why e-check hasn't gone away then.

^Actually, looking at the other Ohio cities--CLE is the only city with e-check, right?:

 

Columbus +17% per capita emissions

Cincy +18%

Dayton +39%

Toledo +25%

 

not Ohio, but interesting:  Washington, DC   --6% (though total emissions up 39%)

 

 

 

 

Well, there are different ways you could go with that information.  This structural inefficiency is part of Elon Musk's thesis for automated ridesharing, for example; you'd still have road infrastructure needs but considerably less for parking, and likewise addressing the phenomena of wasted seats, human error in accidents, and driving around looking for parking.

 

Likewise, I'm not sure other modes of transportation would fare all that much better--or this information has been selected in a way that prevents apples-to-apples comparisons.  For example, it's completely normal that your feet aren't being used for transport 92%+ of the time, too.  I'm not sure if rail would look that much better in terms of how much energy is spent moving people vs. moving the vehicle (and of course that model would be even more influenced by the assumed passenger count).

52 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Well, there are different ways you could go with that information.  This structural inefficiency is part of Elon Musk's thesis for automated ridesharing, for example; you'd still have road infrastructure needs but considerably less for parking, and likewise addressing the phenomena of wasted seats, human error in accidents, and driving around looking for parking.

 

Likewise, I'm not sure other modes of transportation would fare all that much better--or this information has been selected in a way that prevents apples-to-apples comparisons.  For example, it's completely normal that your feet aren't being used for transport 92%+ of the time, too.  I'm not sure if rail would look that much better in terms of how much energy is spent moving people vs. moving the vehicle (and of course that model would be even more influenced by the assumed passenger count).

 

You're overlooking one major fact -- that cars are unique in their need for more space than any other mode. That might be justified if cars were more efficient in their utilization throughout a day, but they're not. As you note, technology suggests it could, such as through automated ridesharing. But I remain very skeptical of that technology -- I've been hearing about it all of my life.

 

Cars need room to maneuver at a variety of speeds. They need room for their peak travel periods. They need room for storage. It's why cities and cars don't mix. A subway in Toronto designed with high-density housing built up around stations handles 500,000 riders a day on a two-track right of way that is either buried and largely invisible or, at the surface, occupies a 30-foot-wide strip of land. A dedicated cycletrack can handle hundreds of bikes per minute -- a bike which needs almost no space for storage. A 20-foot-wide sidewalk can handle even more people than a bike lane. And then there's the physical health issues.....

Method of propulsion and who is driving aren't that important from an urbanism perspective. It's the fact that each car takes up 160 square feet of expensive land. In places where land is worth almost nothing it doesn't matter.

 

That's why bus garages and railyards are in the cheap part of town.

Edited October 6, 20204 yr by GCrites80s

 

On 10/6/2020 at 12:46 PM, Gramarye said:

Well, there are different ways you could go with that information.  This structural inefficiency is part of Elon Musk's thesis for automated ridesharing, for example; you'd still have road infrastructure needs but considerably less for parking, and likewise addressing the phenomena of wasted seats, human error in accidents, and driving around looking for parking.

Maybe a little less parking, but unless shift start times were spread evenly across the 24-hour day (not going to happen) there are still going to be surges and a lot of idle time.  Plus few people will want their self-driving Uber-Tesla to be picking up people until all the seats are full.  And like you said, we'll still have a lot of road infrastructure to maintain.

1 minute ago, Foraker said:

Maybe a little less parking, but unless shift start times were spread evenly across the 24-hour day (not going to happen) there are still going to be surges and a lot of idle time.  Plus few people will want their self-driving Uber-Tesla to be picking up people until all the seats are full.  And like you said, we'll still have a lot of road infrastructure to maintain.

 

True.  My point was specifically related to the biased infographic KJP posted.  There are a lot of advantages to reducing road footprint in inner cities.  That infographic was just cringeworthy sophistry, though.

You must've missed the last 70 years of clear-cutting our American cities, Gram.

49 minutes ago, KJP said:

You must've missed the last 70 years of clear-cutting our American cities, Gram.

 

Oh, please.  I didn't miss it, but me acknowledging that fact doesn't mean I'm obligated to uncritically accept every instance of anti-car propaganda.

Why do conservatives always think it has to be all or nothing. Of course you're not going to accept every bit of anti-car information. No one ever said you should. Ugh... Perhaps in this case you are not aware of the history of urban land use and how it compares to what you see every day? Perhaps you also do not agree that none of this dramatic and uniquely American change was the result of the free market. It happened because special interests encouraged governments to change their land use policies to make cities more car dependent and less pedestrian- and transit-oriented.

Edited October 23, 20204 yr by KJP

Government picking winners and losers through subsidies from other forms of taxation rather than free market paying the full share for the use of infrastructure.

 

And larger vehicles aren't even safer due to their inferior handling and braking plus their propensity to leave the road and turn over.

Can she even see over the hood if the kid rode his bike down the driveway in front of her?

 

 

I drive a honda fit and it's wild how many SUVs lights are over the rear window of my car. These are usually driven by people that couldn't handle a tiny car let alone a behemoth of a SUV/truck.

 

It's definitely pie in the sky, but there should be some test to demonstrate basic handling and skills before buying some of this crap, never going to happen but one can dream.

 

I bike quite a bit around town it's it's not if but when I'll get hit/killed by one of these vehicles.

 

PS- massive vehicles and folks that never turn off their brights? Kill me.

On 3/30/2021 at 9:24 AM, Dev said:

 

 

To be fair to automakers, that article is from 2014 before backup cameras were mandatory. Nonetheless, the backup camera is on only when the vehicle is reversing, the lens gets dirty and some of them aren't exactly high-rez. They can become a crutch too, keeping people from looking at their mirrors or what's left of the rear window visibility.

On 4/3/2021 at 10:36 AM, GISguy said:

It's definitely pie in the sky, but there should be some test to demonstrate basic handling and skills before buying some of this crap, never going to happen but one can dream.

 

Getting a license in general should be much, much harder than it is now and the punishment for driving without one should be severe. And with vehicles getting larger, we might want to think about different classes of licenses for larger ones, each requiring a maneuverability test.

 

I'd go further and say that when you renew your registration, you should have to pre-pay for a years worth of auto insurance and provide proof of payment. There should also be a written exam covering any recent changes to driving laws.

 

For a personal anecdote, I've been in three accidents in my life, and all three were the fault of the other driver and all three times the other driver had no license and/or no insurance. I was out a $1000 deductible each time and probably still see increased rates because of it. Two of the three times the person was driving a large SUV and caused significant damage.

On 4/3/2021 at 11:40 AM, GCrites80s said:

 

To be fair to automakers, that article is from 2014 before backup cameras were mandatory. Nonetheless, the backup camera is on only when the vehicle is reversing, the lens gets dirty and some of them aren't exactly high-rez. They can become a crutch too, keeping people from looking at their mirrors or what's left of the rear window visibility.

This was a requirement made by Congress, not by the industry itself. It is not clear to me if they would have put them into every single car if they were not required to.

That said, if the camera or wiring goes bad on a old SUV or truck, how many owners are just not going to bother fixing them?

We'll see if this comes to pass and how serious it turns out to be, but nonetheless it's an example of the fragility created by a transport system that is overly dependent on cars.  This would more likely be a non-event if cities were more walkable and had good bike infrastructure and better transit, and we had more rail and bus options for intercity transport.

 

‘Summer scramble’ for gasoline on tap amid tank-truck driver shortage

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/summer-scramble-for-gasoline-on-tap-amid-tank-truck-driver-shortage-11619717324

Edited May 14, 20214 yr by gildone

2 minutes ago, gildone said:

This would more likely be a non-event if cities were more walkable and had good bike infrastructure and better transit, and we had more rail and bus options for intercity transportation.

Yeah, been lots of good memes on twitter of people being smug they can bike everywhere.

Oil industry can just make another Mike Rowe propaganda film

 

Buying A Car Improved My Life.  It Shouldn't Have:
https://gizmodo.com/buying-a-car-improved-my-life-it-shouldnt-have-1847106068

Hypothesis: Riding a bicycle for everyday trips is the gateway drug to local activism… (a thread)

 

 

On 6/28/2021 at 11:14 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Hypothesis: Riding a bicycle for everyday trips is the gateway drug to local activism… (a thread)

 

I made a post about my electric bikes recently because I'm a bike nerd and recently bought one that was factory assembled but had an issue and another one that I'm building myself and asked if there were anyone on here who is into cycling or e-bike culture and thought there would be a lot of fellow bikers... well, not one person had anything to say at all.

Sounds like everyone on here is all for cycling and cycling advocacy in theory, just like trains but at the end of the day, the vast majority of folks, even those who consider themselves urbanists, urbanites or whatever you call it these days, ain't gonna give up their cars to do that. Cars are just too convenient and people can't deal with the slightest struggle, it seems. They'll just use the excuse of 'traumatizing experiences' and whatever the hell nonsense this guy on Twitter is talking about. I find it funny, the excuses for people not riding bicycles or e-bikes. Especially by those who can afford to live in fancy areas right near where they Work, Live, Play. "It's made to be so incredibly dangerous due to the lack of law enforcement when drivers are out to kill you!" Give me a break. That's your biggest issue? It's not even true; most people are extremely respectful and courteous to cyclists. UNLESS...UNLESS you ride your bike like a douche. This guy seems pretty out of touch with reality.

I remember attending DAAP and having a bunch of Urban Planning professors who would preach about how evil Republicans are, how their policies attack cities, they're anti-rail, suburbs and exurbs don't care about Smart Growth, Growth Boundaries, Bike Lanes, 'Padestrian-Friendly this...' 'Bike lanes that....' blah blah blah. Of course that stuff is great but one day, one of the professors mentioned to the class that, for whatever reason, he has a house in a subdivision in Wyoming, OH but that he didn't have a choice. I was like, "You've got to be f---ing kidding me..." So then I looked up through the auditor's sites, where all of my (blatantly liberal agenda-having) professors lived and they all lived in similar areas. I'm just so tired of people with their excuses who talk the talk and don't walk the walk. 

You wanna know the real concerns you encounter after ditching the car and making that cycling or e-biking lifestyle change? If you commute to work on a bicycle or even e-bike, you get to show up to work sweaty AF and have to be self-conscious about whether or not people can smell the stale sweat on you all day until you're able to shower and change. The fact that you look poor (especially if you're black) and many people assume you must have a DUI license suspension if you're choosing to take on that lifestyle change by riding a bike. Then there's the fact that in large cities like Columbus, you lock your bike up really good, then come back to it and the front wheel is gone, the seat is gone, the fenders and some of the most absolute pettiest of components have disappeared in broad daylight while people are around, because some crackhead scrapper who circles around OSU area neighborhoods in his $500 Ford Ranger like a Vulture doesn't care about you suddenly being stranded or losing a lot of money, time and effort customizing the bike you took so much pride in. His $20 rock is more important. Why don't these hipsters ever address that? 

Very few people are 'dependent' on cars. For the vast majority, it's a choice. Just like how they have a choice in where they live and work, if this sort of thing actually means anything to them.

The thread title alone irks me and the people like this guy who speaks on the plight of cyclists when he probably wouldn't be caught dead on one unless he was occasionally riding for leisure, really irks me. He doesn't strike me as someone who actually rides his bike as a main mode of transportation and doesn't really want to, for him to be that melodramatic. 

Edited July 13, 20213 yr by David

^insults people who advocate for better bike infrastructure. Proceeds to list a bunch of issues that could be addressed through better bike infrastructure. 
 

Also, the fear of getting killed is absolutely the number one issue keeping people off bikes. 

What is better bike infrastructure? Bike lanes? They're unnecessary. It's a larger problem of respecting cyclists and making drivers aware of the laws. The worst I've experienced is ignorant drivers saying, "Get on the sidewalk!" because they literally think it's the law for bikes to be on the sidewalk. They're really going to be assuming that with more bike lanes being prevalent and less bikes being on the right side of the right car lane.

People are intimidated by riding in the street because they aren't used to it. It only takes a couple days to get used to it. You find that out when you actually ride a bicycle in the street.

Edited July 13, 20213 yr by David

55 minutes ago, David said:

What is better bike infrastructure? Bike lanes? They're unnecessary. It's a larger problem of respecting cyclists and making drivers aware of the laws. The worst I've experienced is ignorant drivers saying, "Get on the sidewalk!" because they literally think it's the law for bikes to be on the sidewalk. They're really going to be assuming that with more bike lanes being prevalent and less bikes being on the right side of the right car lane.

 

I'm interested in your take on why bicyclists feel they want the respect of a vehicle, but feel it's ok to run lights and stop signs (I personally saw this 3 times on my morning walk today).    I am pro-bicycle BTW, however I see these kinds of comments on Facebook sites etc from suburban car nuts when commenting on bike lanes, etc.  

America's streets are designed as brutalist vehicular chutes. They need to be redesigned as parks, many of which would also accommodate cars. Turn off the sound and watch the bike infrastructure in this video.......

 

 

 

2 hours ago, David said:

I made a post about my electric bikes recently because I'm a bike nerd and recently bought one that was factory assembled but had an issue and another one that I'm building myself and asked if there were anyone on here who is into cycling or e-bike culture and thought there would be a lot of fellow bikers... well, not one person had anything to say at all.

 

I wouldn't assume people don't bike just because they aren't into bike culture or talk about it a lot. I'm not really into bike culture at all. I bike for utility. I have my own bike that I use to get around the neighborhood and I use an e-bike from the bikeshare system to commute to work regularly. I don't know how to fix my own bike or build a bike and I'm not interested in learning. But I'll keep riding. 

 

2 hours ago, David said:

They'll just use the excuse of 'traumatizing experiences' and whatever the hell nonsense this guy on Twitter is talking about. I find it funny, the excuses for people not riding bicycles or e-bikes.

 

I'm not going to stop biking, but I have absolutely had close calls. I bike Spring Grove Avenue all the time and cars fly by at 50 mph and often veer into the bike lane. Then the bike lane ends abruptly. More people would feel comfortable (including my partner) if they were protected. Not everyone is willing to take the same risks as you and me. 

 

2 hours ago, David said:

If you commute to work on a bicycle or even e-bike, you get to show up to work sweaty AF and have to be self-conscious about whether or not people can smell the stale sweat on you all day until you're able to shower and change.

 

I don't typically get sweaty on the e-bike, but on really hot days I do take the bus or carpool with my partner who has to drive for her job. We also have a shower at work, which is common in cities with more of a biking culture but unfortunately uncommon in Cincinnati I think (or maybe not? Not sure).

 

2 hours ago, David said:

 Then there's the fact that in large cities like Columbus, you lock your bike up really good, then come back to it and the front wheel is gone, the seat is gone, the fenders and some of the most absolute pettiest of components have disappeared in broad daylight

 

That sucks. I'm sorry that has happened to you. Bikeshare definitely helps with that. Also, more and more offices are providing protected bike parking, which I think is a really good thing. 

 

2 hours ago, David said:

What is better bike infrastructure? Bike lanes? They're unnecessary.
 

Unprotected bike lanes are NOT bike infrastructure and should ALWAYS be explicitly called “unprotected”. (Looking at you, NOACA.). They do not improve safety, period. I want protected bike infrastructure. Could be as simple as planters or Jersey barriers on the street setting aside a lane for bikes. 

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I'm interested in your take on why bicyclists feel they want the respect of a vehicle, but feel it's ok to run lights and stop signs (I personally saw this 3 times on my morning walk today).    I am pro-bicycle BTW, however I see these kinds of comments on Facebook sites etc from suburban car nuts when commenting on bike lanes, etc.  

I'm not the person you asked this by my take is generally three fold:

 

1) People become blind to cars subtle violations of road rules, and learn to inherently ignore them. But bicycles, which are obviously far less common, violate rules in similar ways, it draws ones attention more. Although it isn't easy to study, it appears that cyclists and cars violate traffic laws at a similar rate - https://whyy.org/articles/cyclists-violate-traffic-law-no-more-than-drivers-new-data-shows/

 

2) For some psychological reason, people prescribe ones cyclist, or a small number of cyclists bad behavior, to the entire group. I think most level headed people would agree this isn't fair or productive, and we certainly don't do this with car drivers.

 

3) The rules of the road were created for car traffic, and can often create dangerous situations for cyclists. In my opinion intersections are extremely dangerous for smaller, less visible cyclist, with cars often splitting off into two or three different lanes, going in different directions, and bottlenecking dangerously. My #1 priority in these situations, and when on the road in general, is my own safety, not textbook rule following, and not appeasing the anger of cars around me. As such, if splitting lanes seems safer, I may at times do that. If staying in the right turn only lane is safer I may do that even if going straight, etc. I rarely run red lights, but if its for my own safety I have. 

26 minutes ago, Balkmusic said:

3) The rules of the road were created for car traffic, and can often create dangerous situations for cyclists. In my opinion intersections are extremely dangerous for smaller, less visible cyclist, with cars often splitting off into two or three different lanes, going in different directions, and bottlenecking dangerously. My #1 priority in these situations, and when on the road in general, is my own safety, not textbook rule following, and not appeasing the anger of cars around me. As such, if splitting lanes seems safer, I may at times do that. If staying in the right turn only lane is safer I may do that even if going straight, etc. I rarely run red lights, but if its for my own safety I have. 

 

To add to this, I often start a second before the light turns green if I'm on a bike. Technically, I'm breaking the law. But it helps me get going before the cars behind/beside me and stay visible. It is much safer for everyone involved, even though I'm sure some people in cars are thinking "look at that asshole running the red light like he owns the road!"

28 minutes ago, Balkmusic said:

I'm not the person you asked this by my take is generally three fold:

 

1) People become blind to cars subtle violations of road rules, and learn to inherently ignore them. But bicycles, which are obviously far less common, violate rules in similar ways, it draws ones attention more. Although it isn't easy to study, it appears that cyclists and cars violate traffic laws at a similar rate - https://whyy.org/articles/cyclists-violate-traffic-law-no-more-than-drivers-new-data-shows/

 

2) For some psychological reason, people prescribe ones cyclist, or a small number of cyclists bad behavior, to the entire group. I think most level headed people would agree this isn't fair or productive, and we certainly don't do this with car drivers.

 

3) The rules of the road were created for car traffic, and can often create dangerous situations for cyclists. In my opinion intersections are extremely dangerous for smaller, less visible cyclist, with cars often splitting off into two or three different lanes, going in different directions, and bottlenecking dangerously. My #1 priority in these situations, and when on the road in general, is my own safety, not textbook rule following, and not appeasing the anger of cars around me. As such, if splitting lanes seems safer, I may at times do that. If staying in the right turn only lane is safer I may do that even if going straight, etc. I rarely run red lights, but if its for my own safety I have. 

In addition to all of this, coming to a complete stop in a bike is a fairly big inconvenience, it drastically increases the dwell time at an intersection for someone on a bike. In a vehicle, it's a flick of the ankle to switch back to acceleration. Furthermore, four-way stops are very inefficient and are not particularly safe, including for people in cars. We all know how they are supposed to function but people screw it up all the time because it's not always obvious who's turn it is or someone skips the proper order or waves people on, etc. 

Data from the Netherlands about intersections doesn't include 4-way stops because they don't even bother with them:

 

5 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

I'm interested in your take on why bicyclists feel they want the respect of a vehicle, but feel it's ok to run lights and stop signs (I personally saw this 3 times on my morning walk today).    I am pro-bicycle BTW, however I see these kinds of comments on Facebook sites etc from suburban car nuts when commenting on bike lanes, etc.  

I don't condone that at all. I think they have every right to use the road but need to follow all of the exact same laws and the ones which apply to cyclists specifically. Bicyclists like that are probably usually the ones who lost their license from racking up points doing those same things in cars where it could cause more damage lol. Of course their logic in doing those things is that any crash resulting from their traffic violations would cause less damage and injury but i think it's simple - they have the right to be on the road and like car drivers, they need to not ride like d-bags. People who experience these extreme cases of road rage, I'm guessing were acting reckless and entitled. I've never experienced anything that would cause me to think all cars are out to maim me. Then again, I show motorists respect and always use turn signals and stay to the right in case they need to pass me.

Check this guy out, he's notorious in the e-bike community. A total d-bag who goes by the name of "Batman of Spokane." He has a channel on Youtube where he shows off, going 40-60 mph on streets that look like they were designed for 35. He weaves in and out of cars, runs red lights, doesn't use a turn signal EVER. Makes left turns on red at intersections! Just does it all... I wouldn't be surprised if he commits 15 traffic violations per video. His bike is totally illegal... The maximum you can have on a public road is a 750 Watt electric motor which allows you to go up to roughly 28mph and his is 12000 watts. It's essentially a very powerful motorcycle with pedals and with no registration, tags, or an operator with a motorcycle license. He'll occasionally pedal the bike (as if that is going to give you any more acceleration at 40mph) in case there's cops nearby, he thinks he can look subtle. Not to mention it doesn't have turn signals or a brake light and it's impossible to maintain balance using hand signals while steering with one hand, going as fast as he does.

This is a PROBLEM. He's going to cause e-bikes to be banned. When I called him out on how stupid he is for giving away his city name and posting videos incriminating himself while riding through Spokane, how he's ruining it for those of us who ride but follow the law and do it legally, he responded saying that cops in Spokane don't care and have bigger fish to fry, like their high murder rate 🙄 You have all these guys like him who talk about how they're treated like second-class citizens and then they make videos complaining when someone brandishes a gun from their car after their antics, showing off (and he did just that in one of the videos.)

 

 

Edited July 13, 20213 yr by David