This reminds me "nice" cars that do stupid shit because they see a biker. I just want cars to be predictable. I don't want them to be nice.

I can't stand the "oh I'll stop for you when I'm not supposed to at this 2 way stop" cars.

Like, dude. This doesn't help me. I have to wait and make sure the the car coming up behind you also stops and doesn't just pass you because you're being stupid.

And then now there is a car coming the other way and they aren't stopping (because they don't actually have a stop sign).

Can you just drive safe and predictable? I literally WANT to wait here until there are NO cars. Not 3-4 cars I now have to hope stop and don't kill me.

When people do this I literally just get off my bike now to make it obvious I don't want their "help". I've had too many times where people doing this have put me in danger. I have eyes. I want to wait until it's clear.

I had someone do that same thing one time when I was riding home from work (most rides I do are fitness/recreational, but I did occasionally commute via bicycle). In that case, it was right into the path of a cop going the other way, who had to brake hard to avoid a crash. Nothing came of it, but I had to laugh at the absurdity of it.

Houston is the only place where I've ever been passed on the right ... while I was in the right lane.

I think that's depicting a tram, not a bus.

Edit wait no I'm wrong it has wheels it's a bus, not a tram nvm. Looked like a tram. Exactly because no buses are that narrow. Oh well. Art.

There's some artistic liberties taken but neither are the bike lanes or passenger cars that narrow.

Also too many public transport is being treated like a business, where you optimally want to cut expense therefore always reduce frequency until the vehicle is crammed to full capacity.

I believe the author is making a statement about the hypocrisy of the carbrained. The choice to depict busses as crowded is to emphasize that point - but I agree, it's not painting buses in a flattering way

Airplanes, long distance busses, or trains?

Cars a good for long distance travel to the middle of nowhere. Which I personally rarely do, if I need to, I carpool or rent a car.

Yeah that sounds about right.

Countries with super good train infrastructure can get around that pretty well but countries without that would rely on cars.

The standard for passenger rail over long distances is 200kmh, which is about 124mph. Can your Toyota pickup do that?

Even then I would much rather be in a TGV going 300 kph than driving a car myself for hours on end..

The public transit vehicles that go short distance are optimized for short distances. The ones that go long distance are designed differently. This is feasible, because there is no need for a single vehicle to work both short range and long range routes.

Take busses for example:

• The plastic seats in urban busses are less comfortable than the cushioned ones in long range busses - but this design makes them easier to get into and out of, which you will be doing a lot more when the rides are short.
• Urban busses have less seats and more area for standing and walking. This area allows you to get off the bus more quickly (because there is more room to walk) - compared to long distance busses where once the bus stops at the station everyone who want to get off need to form a line (there is not enough room to not form a line). Short distance busses need this to shorten the time the bus stops at each station - a properly that's less needed for long distance routes, making long distance busses opt for more seats so people will not have to stand.
• This standing area also means you can stand up and move toward the doors when the bus approaches your station - which streamlines the process. Long range busses are less comfortable to stand at, so you are expected to seat until the bus stops.
• Long range busses have storage compartments, so that your luggage won't bother the other passengers. Short range busses don't have it, because it'll make the stops take more time, so all that standing area is also useful because people will have their luggage with them (and it'll also be smaller luggage because most passengers aren't going on long trips)

Cars are actually sub-par for long distance travel. They have to stop to refuel every few hundred miles, require horrifyingly expensive highway infrastructure to travel at speed, have to manually negotiate all intersections / exchanges, and their individualized form factor multiplies the maintenance upkeep required for that sort of mileage. Trains and planes both kick their ass at distance travel in different ways.

What cars are actually superior at is medium to short distance adhoc hauling trips at medium speeds on the edges of a transportation system. Rural work and visits, last mile drop-offs, back country mobility.

The only reason that's true in the US at least, is because our long distance public transport infrastructure is horrific. Trains here are slow, dirty, expensive, and limited in their routes.

If we had a dense network of cross-country high speed trains, cars would be far less necessary. It's a vicious cycle. More cars requires more car-centric infrastructure, which creates incentive to continue using cars, which feeds the need for expanding the car-infra, etc.

What city is this? No sidewalk???