680
Well done, all of you! (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 60 points 5 months ago (39 children)

It's strange, my coworker said the roads were really crazy last night. First light i tunred at, left turn by the way, with green arow, dude ran the red and almost hit me. Is it something in the water?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 79 points 5 months ago (30 children)

    I think it’s a barometer for the overall mental health climate. We’re any combination of overworked, broke, tired, we got news organizations trying to keep us mad at each other all the time…and then we get on the road where it’s easy to pretend those other metal boxes aren’t filled with human beings.

    I’m not above it. I’ve participated in my fair share of road rage parties. And I don’t have any solutions, just observations and memes. That’s all I got.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    It's deeper than that.

    People have been doing this since cars became fast. There's something in our brains that automatically turns driving into a battle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    Nah, it's not just driving cars - I've seen the same happen with shopping carts in the grocery store.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, you roll up on anyone in an aggressive/adversarial manner, regardless of the situation, you’re more likely to encourage pushback than agreement/compliance. Even if it’s just the perception of aggression, our primate brains are wired to stand our ground. Doesn’t matter who’s wrong or right, it’s about locking horns. It’s why online arguments are the way they are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    I've got a solution. It's called a train.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Works really well when the nearest station is over a dozen miles away from your home, and you've got a full load of shopping bags with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago

    It boggles the mind that Americans cannot figure out any other way to buy groceries than by using a car.

    I cover all of our shopping needs comfortably with a bike along with walking to the closest store.

    The problem is that you've fundamentally fucked up your built environment, and trying to paper over your failure with car apologia is just not going to cut it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    What about a bus?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Buses are awesome too!

    But I think any bus route that runs for more than 5 years should just be replaced with a tram at that point, because trams are even better. Buses are great for temporary changes to routes, but they can't beat trams for efficiency or convenience.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    Take that Centralizationist attitude back to Reddit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    I think you deserve more freedoms. Right now you've got a car as your option, and if you're lucky you can walk or bike to work. I want you to have your choice of bus, train, or tram to get to work. I want all three to be available to get you there in a reasonable time. The train goes faster, but you have to walk a bit farther to the station, so it's good for exercise. The tram is slower, but you get to see the city as you go along and it's very disability friendly thanks to level boarding. The bus goes along the lower traffic routes, it's more direct but comes less often. I want you to have all three of those options, plus what you already have. And then you don't have to risk your life or road rage. You can play Mario on your Nintendo while the train takes you home from work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    That's a lot of infrastructure. Seems like it would require an exorbitant population density to support all that.

    Why are we stacking everyone on top of each other? Every person, urban or rural, needs 2 acres of cropland to sustainably provide their food. That's 320 people per square mile of agricultural land.

    Why are we cramming 25,000 people into a square mile of urban blight? Why not spread out enough that we aren't all huffing each other's farts?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    When you spread people out, you have to build more water and gas pipes, more internet cables, more roads, deliver things farther, send the garbage trucks farther, the post, the news... It all adds up to a LOT of money. Strong Towns is a financial consultancy organisation that helps cities get out of debt, and they keep finding the same pattern, very consistently, in American cities: The urban core generates tons of revenue for the city, and then the suburbs spend it all. The suburbs are making American cities broke, because they just cost way more to maintain than the residents are paying in taxes. The city is subsidising the suburbs.

    America's "welfare queens" are the people living in detached single family homes in cul-de-sacs and making 100,000 a year. If cities charged those welfare queens a fair amount of taxes, they'd all be broke and try to move into the urban core, and the housing problems would get even worse for poor people. So cities are stuck propping up a failed economic housing model while trying to figure a way out of the crisis.

    The answer that Strong Towns keeps finding is to invest more money in medium density mixed use neighbourhoods. The kind of place where you can live down the road from your office and walk there on a nice day, or take a leisurely stroll to the tram station for a day trip into the city. Those wonderful neighbourhoods full of trees, which are quiet because there are less cars, where kids can ride their bikes to school in safety, are economic powerhouses. Those neighbourhoods make more tax dollars than they spend. And I think you deserve to live somewhere like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    The urban core generates tons of revenue for the city,

    The urban core is consuming the resources produced in the rural surroundings. Again, two acres of agricultural land per urban dweller. The population density of land used by/for humans is 320 per square mile.

    and then the suburbs spend it all.

    Agreed, the suburbs are terrible. More specifically, lawns are terrible. Replacing all those lawns with gardens and orchards would completely reverse that problem..

    But again: every 320 people need a square mile of agricultural land, regardless of how densely you decide to pack those people. There is no replacement for that land area. Whether we cram ourselves in high-rise apartment buildings, or spread ourselves out among our crops, we're using two acres of ag land per person.

    We still need the rural roads, the rural water. Vegetation needs irrigation. We still need rural wires to convey solar and wind power from those agricultural areas back to the grid at large. Internet Cabling is a little less important: lower rural population density means substantially less interference for wireless.

    The answer that Strong Towns keeps finding is to invest more money in medium density mixed use neighbourhoods. ... And I think you deserve to live somewhere like that.

    Please don't wish that on me. That sounds like the worst of all worlds. None of the benefits of rurality; none of the benefits of urbanity. Not dense enough to actually justify public transit, but still packed in like sardines. Needing to leave home and go into the city for any sort of entertainment. Needing transportation, because you don't have enough room to simply be comfortable where you live. Medium-Density mixed-use areas are the easiest for City Hall to tax, and the easiest for City Hall to neglect.

    It seems that "Strong Towns" is primarily interested in maximizing tax revenue. I've got nothing against taxes, but the purpose of taxes is to serve the people. Cramming us into maximally-neglectable units isn't serving us. It's exploitation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    One thick water pipe going to one farmer's irrigation system, alongside one gas line, one power line and one internet line, costs a whole lot less than hundreds of long water, gas, power, and internet lines going out to an entire rural neighbourhood. And I think we can do even better than that. I think you'd be able to get by just fine with a Starlink internet connection, and by cooking with induction. So that's just one water and one power line, and they only have to be thick enough to fit your farm's needs, not an entire community of people getting up to shower at 7am. Plus if the roads out to your farm were only being used by your truck, and the occasional post van or visitor, they'd take way less wear, and could be engineered to a much more basic standard. We wouldn't need to build a 6 lane elevated highway, we could just make a simple two lane asphalt road with reflector posts.

    So why don't you go live alone on your square mile farm, feeding 320 people, and ship the food over to our nice walkable medium density neighbourhood? Overall, the whole lot of us would be using less carbon, spending less time fixing roads, and we'd all be happier. We all get the freedom to choose how to live and how to travel. Because right now America's zoning boards are only approving single family homes in suburban and rural areas, and I don't call that freedom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    You've still got that centralization mindset...

    Electrical power. In your head, electrical power is in the city, and we need to take a little bit out to a farm house. We don't want to take a big-ass cable out to a big rural community, because that would be wasteful.

    The electrical power produced in the city is a coal-fired plant in the heavy industrial sector. That is not the kind of power we need.

    The kind of power we need is produced by big-ass solar generators out near the farmland. It's produced by big-ass wind turbines out near the farmland. It's supported by big-ass pumped-storage facilities out near the farmland. This kind of power needs big-ass cables out to the rural areas. You don't want to build big-ass cables out toward the farmland; big-ass cables are exactly what we need to bring power from the farmland to the cities.

    Gas. Gas isn't produced in the cities. Gas comes from wells scattered throughout rural areas, and flows toward the cities. The gas lines you don't want to build are the ones that supply the city.

    I've already addressed internet, but I'll hit it again: Wireless works better out of town. In town, it is subject to all sorts of interference from everyone trying to use it at once. You need the cables in the city because the available EM spectrum is not nearly enough to meet the needs of that dense populace. Out in the rural areas, where interfering signals are physically separated, there is much more bandwidth available per person.

    We wouldn’t need to build a 6 lane elevated highway, we could just make a simple two lane asphalt road with reflector posts.

    Those simple, two-lane asphalt roads can handle much more than 320 people per square mile. Those simple roads would be much better utilized by increasing rural densities to the human average, rather than leaving them grossly underutilized. 6-lane elevated highways are features of the medium and high density urban areas, not rural.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    If the roads have more cars on them, they'll break faster and cost more effort to fix. Ideally, we'd build rails out to your farm and send a train to pick up the food you make.

    Now the problem with your gas and electricity logic is you're talking like the countryside is one place. Like the power and gas are made right next to your farm and you can just plug into it with a 100m cable. And since you mention it, I think an off-grid solar setup would be a great idea for your farm. That's one less line needed. Now you just need to get water for your crops from elsewhere. I figure you're not gonna want to use well water, because if there were enough water under your farm to feed the crops, you wouldn't need irrigation.

    But if we're talking about 300 people's houses, we can do better than a 300 off-grid solar setups. We can build an economy of scale. We can diversify between solar and wind turbines to reduce the battery requirement. We can build a nuclear plant. We can build row houses that share some nice thick walls, to prevent air conditioning energy loss to the environment. We can run trams instead of electric cars and waste far less energy moving metal vehicles around. We can take up less land than 300 times your farmhouse and amenities do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Well, you're in the right community.

    If the roads have more cars on them, they’ll break faster and cost more effort to fix.

    True, but irrelevant. The best metric for measuring a road is utility, not lifespan. The "best" road is the one with the highest traffic/cost ratio. You're trying to decrease costs, but the way you're doing it is by decreasing traffic. Your approach is actually worsening the utility ratio.

    like the power and gas are made right next to your farm and you can just plug into it with a 100m cable

    They are. The gas fields need power anyway, so they run the lines carrying gas to your city right alongside the lines carrying electricity to your city. Since the solar, the wind turbines, and the gas fields all need serviced from time to time, there are road along them as well. Dropping a small settlement here and there along the way reduces the housing burden, the traffic burden, and all the other burdens of rampant urbanization.

    Now you just need to get water for your crops from elsewhere. I figure you’re not gonna want to use well water, because if there were enough water under your farm to feed the crops, you wouldn’t need irrigation.

    Water wells might be the largest source of irrigation water. If they aren't, they are second only to surface water: lakes and rivers. Nobody uses treated water for irrigation.

    But if we’re talking about 300 people’s houses, we can do better than a 300 off-grid solar setups. We can build an economy of scale.

    Yeah. We tap into the lines running from the various power sources in the countryside to the industrial centers, and use them to power our pleasant, rural settlements.

    We can build row houses

    Yeah, that's that medium density stuff you were talking about. Not dense enough to justify infrastructure investment into public transit, but too dense to simply be happy in your own home. The kind of housing that maximizes tax revenue to governments and rent to slumlords, while minimizing public services. The kind of housing that carries the worst attributes of both the suburbs and the urban centers, with none of the benefits of either. Contrast with rural living: massive improvements in wireless internet and a building Work-From-Home culture means you don't have to commute anymore. You don't have to go into the central office for your daily grind. Less commuting, less travel, enough space for a workshop, a deep freezer, a craft room. An actual vegetable garden: A garden where you have to decide what to can, freeze, or dehydrate for winter. A garden that feeds you for months. Not the potted plants on your back porch that might give you a couple tomato slices for a burger and some peppers to add to a salad.

    We can run trams instead of electric cars and waste far less energy moving metal vehicles around.

    Medium-density row housing doesn't provide enough demand for trams, let alone trains. You might get buses. You don't get the benefits of public transport until residences go vertical and you're literally living on top of eachother.

    Better than public transport is "Just stay home". But that's not really an option when you don't have space to do anything at home, and you have to travel for any hint of enjoyment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    If you think that's a lot of infrastructure, wait until you learn how huge roads are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    You'd have a point if you were getting rid of the roads. But you're not. You're leaving them underutilized, out in the boondocks, where they are needed and used to service farms and mines and everything else your urban centers require. Those same roads serving population densities of <10 people per square mile are readily capable of serving population densities of 320 people per square mile. So, again, why not spread out? Why cram ourselves in like sardines, where we need buses and trains and trams and subways and rentable scooters littered everywhere?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    The road IS going away, at least temporarily. That's the whole fucking point of this scenario. That's why the throughput is determined ONLY by how many lanes will continue through.

    It's not hard to comprehend. It's basic traffic throughput...

    The people racing up an empty lane when the through-lanes are slow or stopped ARE "cramming themselves in like sardines".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    This is every day where I live. It’s madness. Otherwise, the place is paradise. Beautiful area. People are great here. Until you get them into a car. Then they are inattentive, pushy, and unsafe. People die every single year. Kids on bikes get plowed over. It’s insane.

    At a 4-way intersection, if I stop around the same time as a car to my right I always yield to them according to the “right hand rule” of right-of-way. But everyone else wants to go only by “who reached the line first” and they want to time it down to the millisecond. And guess what: they always, always determine that they arrived first.

    Funny how that works. They’ve changed the rule from “right of way goes to whoever arrived first, defer to car on your right when in doubt” to “it’s always my turn.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, they put a drug in the water known as DHMO. It drasticly affects your brain and motor functionality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 44 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Literally the first 2 posts as I opened the app

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    These 'zipper merge' vs 'early merge' arguments are really the worst. At the same time, the lack of consensus fully explains why merge zones like that are such a mess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I remember driving through OK, and the state law is “early merge.” I thought it was all bullshit, buuut they have studies 1 year after they implemented it that it actually cut down on traffic somehow. I still believe the late zipper merge is better. Use the whole road until you can’t!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

    The clear solution is to park on the tracks inside a light rail station.

    Edit: post context

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I assume it shouldn't be one at street level. Do you recommend an elevated station or an underground one?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/GC4RDV68mTKNzDyx5?g_st=ic

    I have you tagged as “Seattle” already, so this is our city! She turned onto it south of here where it’s at grade, but this is the Mount Baker station where it is elevated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I was aware of the full situation and joking about it.

    And while I've spent a fair amount of time in Seattle since moving to the PNW I generally prefer to not explicitly narrow it down more than that. (And yes I understand that Seattle is wildly overrepresented on here).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    GO AS FAST AS POSSIBLE DON'T STOP DON'T YIELD ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    God damnit , now I gotta go watch police academy 1-765 now

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 46 points 5 months ago (31 children)

    If there's heavy traffic in your city and private cars are still preferable to public transport, your infrastructure is shit and you should go pester your politicians about it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    What do I do if the public transit is pretty good and the city is walkable, but all the jobs are in office parks 40 minutes out of town?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Pester your politicians that they forgot a part of the walkable city. Either a walkable workplace or work from home.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Hello, yes. I work in construction. I carry 50+lbs (23+kg) of tools and/or material to work (which constantly changes locations as buildings and projects finished being built).

    How do I fit into the walkable city plan?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    I never claimed everyone could work from home. But I think you'll agree, that your commute would probably become quicker and less stressful, if the majority of office workers could stay at home.
    Less traffic if you have to drive, less crowded public transport. As a side effect life in the city might also become less stressful, as the noise from traffic reduces.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I never assumed you meant that everyone should. I was just curious as to how my side of things would function in your concept. I have often had the same questions about the 32 hour workday for us blue collars. Often in our cases, the thing we're lacking is time instead of being able to consolidate work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    So the city isn't walkable, then

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    Define walkable.

    I can walk to literally everything I need in my daily life except my job, and the share of residents lucky enough to work in the city can walk or bike to those too. My city scores incredibly high in both walk and bike scores; this drives real estate prices up, which drives employers to the suburbs, and—wouldn’t you know it!—the cheapest places to build office parks are situated away from the commuter transit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    except my job

    That's not walkable. The definition is not that difficult

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    The definition is not that difficult

    Idk if you’re trolling or just obstinate, but if you don’t explain the exact definition you are using, it is impossible to determine what meets it and what does not.

    For example:

    Walkability is a measure of how accessible services and amenities are by foot or transit. A city is walkable if a broad range of these are thusly available.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Sure, your definition works. Your place of work is obviously included into the list of location that needs to be accessible, since it's somewhere you commute to almost every day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Let me just walk my 315lb welder to work each morning. Can I borrow your kids radio flyer after you walked them to school?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    If your job makes you take a welder home with you at night, you need a new job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Have you ever heard the term welding rig? Gas /diesel welder? Self-employed? Field repair? Millwright ? Heavy equipment? Residential fence/gate repair. Structural? You know all those things that require mobile welding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Not in the context of any jobs that a person of any intelligence would consider "walkable", no.

    Since that's what we were talking about, I presumed you were smart enough to understand that "walkable jobs" would exclude all of the things you just asked me about. I apologize for making undue assumptions about you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    I’m in an odd situation where there’s heavy traffic but we have very good bike lanes and bike trails. Yet I am afraid to use the bike lanes most of the time because the drivers are so insane. And half the people who do ride bikes end up doing it wrong because they feel unsafe: they ride in the bike lane against traffic or just ride on the sidewalks where they become the threat: to pedestrians.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Public transport would still alleviate the issue by moving a portion of the drivers off the roads. Which, in turn, will make bike lanes safer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yes. I’m not sure how it’s the infrastructure’s fault that we don’t have better transit though. Better transit would mean busses here as we have decent bike support and regional rail. We do have busses, too, but for them to be better they need to go more places that the cars are going.

    And actually the biggest reason we have so many cars is they keep building more and more housing further and further out from our town, which then needs to pass through our town to get anywhere.

    There’s multiple layers to this, but if all you wanted to say was “your infrastructure is shit” then, well, you’ve said it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Because improving infrastructure makes these layers easier to deal with. More bike and bus lanes, more car traffic restrictions, extending public transport routes to suburbs, even building tram lines potentially. All of this and more will make your town better and all of it is possible if you pressure your elected representatives enough.

    The reason you have so many cars is because people in charge prioritize the comfort of cars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    How could having my own personal space that operates on my schedule ever not be preferable to being crammed into a smelly tube with a bunch of other people?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Maybe if you gave even a fraction of care that you give your car to the people around you, it wouldn't be smelly and crammed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    What am I supposed to do about either of those issues?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Refer to my original comment

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Hot tip: if your bumper to bumper during congestion or construction periods. You need to have at least 2-3 (minimum 1) car spaces between you and the car/truck in front of you. This way you’ll maintain a steady speed (maybe btwn 2-9 mph) rather than coming to complete halt every stretch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    That just invites people to keep pulling in front of you, and now you're driving slowly while the lane in front of you is moving faster, and you've become the traffic jam.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Just like like my comment - you got hooked for no reason. The congestion is already there why are you gonna pile up.. on a queue..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children)

    You try to keep 3 car spaces in front of you. Someone pulls in front of you, so now there's only 2 spaces. So when traffic starts moving again, you stay still and wait for there to be 3 spaces. Then somebody pulls in front of you, so there's only 2 spaces in front of you, so you stop and wait for there to be 3 spaces in front of you....

    Everybody behind you is going slower now because you won't match the speed of traffic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    (Depends are you in stretches of congestion or are is it all clear?) Okay what’s the point if there traffic ahead. You’re gonna speed up to get up to that car who jumped in the lane to come to complete stop? I see various types of stop gaps in 30 mi stretches and seen phantom stops for reason (or ppl on their cell phones¿) My friend, no disrespect but I’d like to keep steady speed (albeit it’s 2 or 5mph) than come up to a cars rear bumper and sniff their exhaust pipe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    It's not about making sure I'm close. It's about not increasing the traffic issues.

    If you're working so hard to keep multiple car-lengths of distance in congested traffic, you're required to travel slower than traffic. The lane you're in travels more slowly for anyone behind you.

    Yeah, people in the next lane over can pull in front of you and relieve traffic in that lane, but that just results in more lane switching in front of and behind you, leading to more fender benders.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Even hotter tip: on a highway, if the line on your right is free, switch to it. Left line(s) is only for overtaking.

    Once drivers learn this simple rule, speed limits can be lifted on certain highway parts so whoever wants to go faster now can fulfill their desire.

    Edit: I did check few stats about fatal car accidents. I am very surprised that Germany has many road sections without a speed limit and is #15 on the least fatal car accident country, while US is #114. In fact, Germany's fatality rate on the road been steadily decreasing since 1970s with a slight increase at 1991-1992.

    Funny how the country that has no speed limits and mostly 3 lines per direction roads is one of the safest countries to drive in. US should take notes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    increasing FB type paranoia

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 10 points 5 months ago*

    Who holds back the electric car?

    Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    If we didn't have to drive everywhere, we could eliminate these arguments 🤷‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    load more comments
    view more: next ›