All those years of sarcasm, shitposts, jokes, photos of your pets, and memes will be the reason you won't gain entry into Nazi USA. π€
Showroom7561
joined 2 years ago
Just be a pedestrian or cyclist for a single day, and you won't need a study to convince you how dangerous drivers are.
And the solution, unfortunately, are things that would piss motorists off, so good luck getting them implanted.
And to the lady who had near misses while driving, then points out that some cyclists aren't wearing helmets: shame on you. We don't need to be lit up like christmas trees, or padded up like we were going to fight a grizzly bear; we need drivers to pay more attention.
I'm sure if I was paid enough to spend weeks compiling a list, I'd do it.
But what would that change for you? If you need more than the nearly 300 that are already filed in court (so far), then you probably won't be satisfied with a list of 1000, or 10,000.
Just observe the things he does, and ask yourself whether it's legal, unconstitutional, corrupt, or grounds for impeachment. You can add in unethical (but not illegal), if you like, but that would be like beating a dead horse.
For example, just a few hours ago, he posted about getting a "bum" out of office. That "bum"? A republican congressman who did not agree with the illegal act of bombing Iran. Firing someone for not agreeing with you breaking the law and oath to the constitution isn't how a democratic country operates.
You can find countless examples of this, on a daily basis.
Just an FYI, there is a tracker of current legal cases against the trump admin (over 280 right now), and this doesn't include much of the daily illegal stuff he does (like this recent attack on another country).
The tracker also doesn't cover stuff like his scam phone, scam crypto, scam <insert any of the stuff he's selling>, threats of annexation of other countries, using the white house to sell teslas, arresting people he dislikes, and so on.
There's probably more than a 1000, now that I think about it. And this is all just from the beginning of the year. If you include his previous term, you could easily add a few hundred more. π«’
I think the takeaway is that speed cameras won't deter speeding
That's not true.
Numerous cities report lower overall speeds, and a reduction in traffic collisions when automated cameras are deployed.
For example, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/annoying-thing-speed-cameras-ottawa-they-work-1.6786951 and https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/speed-cameras-proved-effective-at-latest-locations-10758040.
When my city installed the first speed camera, it clocked over 100,000 speeders in 40 days. Unfortunately, we gave drivers a grace period, so no fines were issued at the beginning.
But in those areas, speeding was reduced.
I'd rather have roads designed to be slow and require attention to navigate, but good luck getting anyone to listen to that. Trying to get any speed reduction strategies to be implemented is very difficult because of NIMBYs.
What are you targeting of things that are being built today?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
After years of holding onto my old phone, I recently gave in and purchased a new one from OnePlus.
It's not my ideal phone, but it offered a good value, and I plan to keep it for many years.
I don't like the AI implementation (most AI features are cloid based), and it's still very much full of Google. But, you can uninstall pretty much everything, and the hardware is excellent (including battery life).
Not being able to easily repair it is a bummer.
I might have gone with a Fairphone, if it were available in Canada. I've never used one, so I don't really know.
Driving is a ~~right~~ privilage, not a ~~privilege~~ right.
Speed enforcement cameras (and red light cameras) are doing something that we don't have the money to do via traffic officers.
Roads should be watched and laws enforced. Because people killing people with their vehicle shouldn't be something we view as normal or acceptable, IMO.
Edit: fixed glaring mistake.
I'd love to see enforcement that leads to demerit points. But you need a revenue stream to pay for officers on the ground, and nobody wants to pay more in taxes to compensate.
Either we use the revenue to fund traffic cops, or we set fines high enough (but proportional to income or net worth) in order for it to be self-sufficient.
We're far too lenient on drivers that can't drive safely.
I just filed a complaint with one of the local Regions about the horrific mess of debris in their marked, on-street bike lanes.
I even specifically asked if street sweepers are cleaning the bike lanes, or if they are just using them to dump road debris on.
I was told that because these roads are busy, debris ends up in the bike lanes. Fine, I can accept that.
Except...
The same and similar stretches of road without bike lanes do NOT have this debris on it. It's quite literally only the bike lanes that do.
For example:
Bike lanes:
And this just after the bike lane ends:
This same example came up closer to the urban population:
Leading up to the bike lanes:
Bike lane is just ahead:
Road debris starts as soon as the bike lane starts, and gets worse as you continue.
And magically disappear once the bike lane is no longer on the road:
I've been on that route three times in the last year, and the conditions of the bike lanes has been exactly the same.
Just to point out, I've ridden on plenty of on-street bike lanes, as well as roads with urban and rural paved shoulders in other areas, and they don't exhibit this pattern of debris physics.
Yes, some places have bad bike lanes, but their shoulders are also a mess. This just doesn't seem to be the case here.
Was I just gaslit, bad luck, or does this seem like a massive coincidence spanning dozens of kilometres?
A few weeks back, this grocery store set out these plant racks that essentially blocked the walkway, except for a small strip running parallel to the curb (only one person at a time could pass through, as you can see).
At that time, I helped a senior lady who was using a walker to get through it, because she could have easily fallen off the curb if the wheel slipped over the edge.
So I let the store management know that it was dangerous and they needed to give people more space.
Today, I noticed that they put a skid down, completely blocking the narrow path.
This forces people to walk between the plant racks, which is even more narrow. Coupled with the fact that some of the plants are put on the ground (lazy customers??), so you actually can't pass without some major maneuvering.
Someone at the store surely must realize how bad of an idea this is. Or is doing it out of spite.
And to make matters worse, behind where this photo is taken is plenty of open space to put those plant racks. I know this because there used to be a bike rack, but it was removed and never replaced... π‘
view more: next βΊ
Ok, so, yes, but...
If we were talking about a single battery that has excellent range, then you could argue that you are sparing "charge cycles" by not having to charge all the time.
But for an e-bike (or phone, or any other battery-powered device that uses rechargeable batteries), the shorter the range (i.e. lower the capacity), the more quickly you put charge cycles on it, which reduce the overall lifespan of the device/battery.
I had an e-scooter that could get 100km. When compared to one that gets 40km, I was rarely charging the thing! It was glorious.
Also keep in mind that this particular bike, with the 3-battery configuration, is designed for "touring", so yeah, you want range, just in case. Even then, 147 miles (approx. 240km) isn't very far for a three-battery e-bike that uses a low-powered motor!