|
God these loving joggers out on the roads in the morning, endangering themselves and others - haven't they ever heard of a treadmill?! Those exist, you know.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 21:55 |
|
|
# ? May 22, 2024 17:00 |
|
Wow some loving idiot in high heels just tried to cross the street where I was driving, don't these dopey pedestrians know what a danger they are to themselves and others?! I surely can't be expected to slow down and attend to road hazards as they arise, gottagofast!
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 21:57 |
|
As a motorist, it is my obligation not to run into other road users, and only pass when safe no matter how loving frustrated I get and how many times I yell the oval office or gently caress word out the window (relax; it's a joke. I make sure the windows are up). That doesn't mean it's a safe or good idea for cyclists to cycle on remote roads with high speed limits and limited shoulders. It's my right to do any number of things that put my physical safety in jeopardy, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 21:59 |
|
Don't mind me, just burning this big pile of leaves on a windy day for fun. No harm, no foul, right?
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:00 |
|
I'm reasonably certain the people in the cars are risking more lives than the people not in the cars
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:00 |
|
Listen, I've driven without winter tires my whole life and haven't killed anyone yet. Why should I make my vehicle safer if I'm obviously a very talented driver. I am completely in control and can ignore unforeseen circumstances.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:02 |
|
THC posted:God these loving joggers out on the roads in the morning, endangering themselves and others - haven't they ever heard of a treadmill?! Those exist, you know. I agree: joggers shouldn't be running in the road. The law also agrees, as it happens.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:02 |
|
sliderule posted:Listen, I've driven without winter tires my whole life and haven't killed anyone yet. Why should I make my vehicle safer if I'm obviously a very talented driver. I am completely in control and can ignore unforeseen circumstances. I really wish winter tires were mandatory in Alberta. They're great, and if I knew everyone had them, I would feel so much safer as both a driver and a pedestrian. I love my winter tires, they are fantastic.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:03 |
|
Conversations like this one make me think that bad urban planning, especially regarding transportation, was the ultimate social disaster of the 20th century. In addition to the social atomizing effect of living in the suburbs, the environmental and foreign policy implications of being so dependent on fossil fuels and the massive species-wide opportunity costs of using up our planet's one time endowment of cheap fuel, there's the political impact. It's striking how many social and political conflicts arise from disputes about the competing lifestyles of cities, towns and suburbs, and all the political spillover that these endless battles have.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:06 |
|
JawKnee posted:I'm reasonably certain the people in the cars are risking more lives than the people not in the cars
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:06 |
|
Next time you see a cyclist on a road with no shoulder, please do what's right for public safety: swerve to the side and pitch your loving car over a cliff.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:08 |
|
As someone who uses both a car and a bike you're all assholes and probably roads should be reserved exclusively for rollerskates and ball hockey.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:10 |
|
How inconsiderate of you to risk life and limb for the sake of a little fun. There's a reason why ice skating was banned in the Constitution Act of 1982
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:12 |
|
Helsing posted:As someone who uses both a car and a bike you're all assholes and probably roads should be reserved exclusively for rollerskates and ball hockey. A Good Post.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:13 |
|
Especially the bit about you all being assholes.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:14 |
|
sliderule posted:Doing something which is fun is good even if it endangers one's self and others, got it. quote:A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:17 |
|
Kly posted:This is something most of these clowns wont even consider since the majority of women dont want to spend a few hours with them let alone have children with them. Just load up a six year old and toddler onto an overcrowded bus in the middle of winter, transit to their daycare then take another bus/train to work all the while hoping there arent frequent delays causing you to be late and losing you your job. THEN after work do the whole thing in reverse hoping you can make it back to the daycare in time before it closes and if you are late too often that place refuses to take your children next year so you have to find a new daycare thats probably even farther out of the way. The dream is to get married and have kids in a big house in the suburbs with two cars all while drowning in debt. If you simply maintain all the other variables and try to take transit then yes, it is impossible. But if you actually plan out what you're doing you can live without debt, with hired help, and have a nice lifestyle of vacations. Canadians spend almost all their incomes on housing and car payments, if you reduce those by half or more it's amazing what you can do.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:39 |
|
cowofwar posted:It's dangerous because drivers suck at driving. It really depends. I'm more than happy to accommodate most cyclists, but when I have to do 10-20 km/h up a hill on a highway that normally has a speed limit of 100km/h for 10 minutes because cyclists want to use it, and there's no opportunity to pass safely, it pisses me off. It's their legal right as road users to do so, but let's not pretend it's not inconsiderate. Depending on visibility and corners, it is not particularly safe either. Heaven forbid that cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians all treat each other with some degree of consideration apart from "IT'S MAH LEGAL RIGHT!" No! We must always be in a constant struggle for supremacy, and being considerate would surely put our victory at risk! I sympathize with people complaining about motorists, as I've nearly been hit by cars while legally in a crosswalk twice on two consecutive days, but I think no matter whether we are walking, biking or driving, we should show consideration to other road users and act in a way that will keep all of us safe. It's not a competition!
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:43 |
|
I hope all you fat gently caress drivers die of a heart attack
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:45 |
|
cowofwar posted:There's this one neat trick that involves living near a transit hub and not overextending oneself on mortgage payments for an oversized house. As a result two working parents with zero or one cars in a small house can easily afford to hire help with the household and kids. Unfortunately most people don't plan their lives out like that. They might have a general picture of the future they want but they end up getting derailed one way or another. They unexpectedly fall in or out of love, they have an unplanned kid, a family member or friend is ill and requires long term care, they develop ties to a specific locality and want to continue to live there, etc. It's very easy to judge someone for living in a community that doesn't properly fit their income or lifestyle but it's unreasonable to expect people to rapidly and easily move to whatever geographic location would be most efficient and logical for them. A lot of people expect to have lives and raise families in the same area that they grew up in and while this expectation isn't always reasonable we should at least be sympathetic.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:54 |
|
PT6A posted:It really depends. I'm more than happy to accommodate most cyclists, but when I have to do 10-20 km/h up a hill on a highway that normally has a speed limit of 100km/h for 10 minutes because cyclists want to use it, and there's no opportunity to pass safely, it pisses me off. It's their legal right as road users to do so, but let's not pretend it's not inconsiderate. Depending on visibility and corners, it is not particularly safe either. Heaven forbid that cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians all treat each other with some degree of consideration apart from "IT'S MAH LEGAL RIGHT!" No! We must always be in a constant struggle for supremacy, and being considerate would surely put our victory at risk!
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:55 |
|
cowofwar posted:There's this one neat trick that involves living near a transit hub and not overextending oneself on mortgage payments for an oversized house. As a result two working parents with zero or one cars in a small house can easily afford to hire help with the household and kids. Cool so move your family of four+ into a tiny downtown apartment building for twice what it would cost to rent a house three times the size of that apartment? And then hire a loving nanny to stay at home in that little downtown aparment with your kids. And this is all supposed to be done on 60k to 70k a year? Youre completely out of touch with the reality of average people. Hire a nanny. lol
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:55 |
|
Helsing posted:Unfortunately most people don't plan their lives out like that. They might have a general picture of the future they want but they end up getting derailed one way or another. They unexpectedly fall in or out of love, they have an unplanned kid, a family member or friend is ill and requires long term care, they develop ties to a specific locality and want to continue to live there, etc. It's very easy to judge someone for living in a community that doesn't properly fit their income or lifestyle but it's unreasonable to expect people to rapidly and easily move to whatever geographic location would be most efficient and logical for them. A lot of people expect to have lives and raise families in the same area that they grew up in and while this expectation isn't always reasonable we should at least be sympathetic. lol if you don't have your life planned out by the time you're 17 and then execute on that plan for the next 60 years
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:56 |
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I hope all you fat gently caress drivers die of a heart attack If I'm running late cause I needed to pick up a latte before yoga class and you're in front of me on the road I am gonna run you down. Bicycles are for children and circus animals.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 22:58 |
|
Kly posted:Cool so move your family of four+ into a tiny downtown apartment building for twice what it would cost to rent a house three times the size of that apartment? And then hire a loving nanny to stay at home in that little downtown aparment with your kids. And this is all supposed to be done on 60k to 70k a year? Youre completely out of touch with the reality of average people. When I was a kid my sibling and I shared a room with a bunk bed. Kids don't need their own rooms until they are teenagers. There are a poo poo ton of people that rent small units for their families at rates way lower than servicing a mortgage, only have one or zero cars, and have family or part-time nannies to help with their kids. Presumably you grew up in suburbia or something because I assure you that there are way more people that do what I'm proposing in large cities.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:01 |
|
Speaking of bad urban planning, the BC Liberals are once again completely ignoring Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy and have announced that they will replace the Massey Tunnel with the biggest bridge in BC. The $3.2 billion 10 lane bridge will replace a 4 lane tunnel. Driving in Metro Vancouver is bad enough with the current volumes so I can't even imagine how terrible it's going to be in the Fraser Valley when due to the induced demand created by this new bridge, there are enough cars on the road to fill up these 10 lanes. We know this will happen due to the example of LA and many other places. In contrast the City of Vancouver has not increased any road capacity in over 30 years and the amount of cars entering the downtown core remains static at 1964 levels despite huge increases in the amount of people living and working there.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:05 |
|
cowofwar posted:There are only speed minimums on highways where cyclists and other users aside from cars are not permitted. There is no difference between a cyclist and a slow car. Pass safely when safe to pass. Move in to the oncoming lane and leave at least a metre between the other road user you are passing. I'm quite aware of the rules, and I follow them. That doesn't mean I need to be happy about it when I'm going 80km/h under the speed limit for 5 or 10 minutes at a time, or think it's a safe idea for the cyclists in question. Likewise, I get pissed off when I have to follow some goddamn tractor-trailer through God's Own Twisty Section east of Golden going 30 km/h. It doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do it, or that I should try to overtake unsafely, it just means that it's really frustrating. I would prefer a world where slow-moving road users allow others to overtake by pulling over even without the legal requirement to do so, as I am happy to do if someone following me wishes to go significantly faster than I do. Why are you so defensive?
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:05 |
|
Femtosecond posted:Speaking of bad urban planning, the BC Liberals are once again completely ignoring Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy and have announced that they will replace the Massey Tunnel with the biggest bridge in BC. The $3.2 billion 10 lane bridge will replace a 4 lane tunnel. Hey now there's going to be a giant mall that will definitely pull so many people into south delta for I can't even finish this post I'm too disgusted with it
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:07 |
|
A lot of this talk about moving to transit hubs is great and all, but it only seems to be a discussion for anywhere west of Montreal. I know the answer to the questions is probably "moving to a real province" but most cities I have been to in Atlantic Canada have had zero opportunity for reasonable public transit. In St. John's we have huge transit issues of the sidewalks not being plowed, a transit system that takes 3x as long to get anywhere compared to car, and cities built almost to intentionally gently caress buses over into being regularly late. I have done the transit thing in Toronto and europe with no issue, and had it be an almost enjoyable experience, but the reality is that outside the few major cities, Canada was never designed to have transit and that is really causing issues with many cities, particularly on the east coast.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:09 |
|
Newfie posted:A lot of this talk about moving to transit hubs is great and all, but it only seems to be a discussion for anywhere west of Montreal. I know the answer to the questions is probably "moving to a real province" but most cities I have been to in Atlantic Canada have had zero opportunity for reasonable public transit. In St. John's we have huge transit issues of the sidewalks not being plowed, a transit system that takes 3x as long to get anywhere compared to car, and cities built almost to intentionally gently caress buses over into being regularly late. I have done the transit thing in Toronto and europe with no issue, and had it be an almost enjoyable experience, but the reality is that outside the few major cities, Canada was never designed to have transit and that is really causing issues with many cities, particularly on the east coast. Why do you suppose this is? Certainly no major city in Europe was "designed" for anything beyond carriages, much less modern rapid transit, and yet they've built functional transit systems over the years. Older cities have the advantage, generally, of being much more compact than the newer cities in the West as well.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:12 |
|
cowofwar posted:Hiring help for your kids doesn't have to be full-time job. When I was a kid I had a bridge nanny who was around for just a couple hours a day between when us kids got home and when my parents got home from work. When my wife was a kid they had a university student working as a bridge nanny as well to move the kids around. You say this but Toronto's school enrollment is falling or flat based on TDSB's own projections despite population rising by 20% over the same period of time. People with kids are wholesale moving away from urban living in the GTA and settling in the suburbs. The suburbs are as low density as you can get, with a car being a requirement.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:13 |
|
Furnaceface posted:Worst part is you can build suburbs that are very self supportive and easily serviced by public transit, but city planners are never told to do this and instead are told to just pile up crappy houses as far as the eye can see in stupid patterns that make navigating those hell holes even more tiresome. lol as if it's the city planners that make these decisions I'm in city planning. We basically have to rubberstamp all the lovely cookie cutter sprawl that comes our way. If we don't, the politicians get pissed and we lose our job. Just look at how Jennifer Keesmat in Toronto basically had to toe the line RE: Scarborough subway after saying publicly (in her opinion no less) that it's a total loving waste of money. When you are a civil servant in a municipality, being outspoken is a good way to get shitcanned. BTW as an urban planner there are at least twenty other people knocking down the door to do your job, and your job is to implement the will of your city council (because they, notionally, represent the will of the constituents of the city). If the will of city council is to approve more lovely cookie cutter sprawl, then that's your job. Oh sure, you can make "recommendations" in a staff report, but at the end of the day council makes the decision. And if more than half of council has its pockets lined by developers, welp, have fun in the 'burbs. I should also explain that the last thing developers (and banks, for financing projects) want to do is build anything other than lovely cookie cutter sprawl. Because that's all they've ever built, so it's what the market wants. And since the market only seems to want single family homes (because that's all that's been built over the past fifty years), then by god they will build more single family homes and scream and stomp their feet if anyone even tries to gently persuade them to do something different. Helsing posted:Conversations like this one make me think that bad urban planning, especially regarding transportation, was the ultimate social disaster of the 20th century. In addition to the social atomizing effect of living in the suburbs, the environmental and foreign policy implications of being so dependent on fossil fuels and the massive species-wide opportunity costs of using up our planet's one time endowment of cheap fuel, there's the political impact. It's striking how many social and political conflicts arise from disputes about the competing lifestyles of cities, towns and suburbs, and all the political spillover that these endless battles have. Yeah pretty much. The big nightmare now is how do we retrofit suburbs that were constructed with a shelf-life of maybe three decades. No lie, these areas have 'best before' dates. Many power centres are purposefully constructed to only last a maximum of two decades. It's incredibly disgusting how wasteful we've become. And it's not like we don't have any idea of what works. There's a reason why inner city neighborhoods like Mission or Inglewood (to use Calgary examples) are rapidly becoming gentrified: they offer a lifestyle that you simply cannot get anywhere in the suburbs. There is a definite urban planning tradition that existed up until the mid-twentieth century that managed to balance the needs of people, vehicles, and urbanity. Take a look at this blog for a good American example. There exists a gradient of how we construct our communities. Not everything has to be huge mega-towers with retail in the podium; likewise, we don't have to keep constructing lovely sprawl and enormous power centres that are isolated from any kind of spontaneous human interaction except what you get in Wal-Mart. Hell, in many places, going to Wal-Mart has become the equivalent of walking down main street where you run into your neighbours. Basically, tl;dr: A size comparison between a French village and an American Walmart sitchensis fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Dec 21, 2015 |
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:17 |
|
cowofwar posted:Hiring help for your kids doesn't have to be full-time job. When I was a kid I had a bridge nanny who was around for just a couple hours a day between when us kids got home and when my parents got home from work. When my wife was a kid they had a university student working as a bridge nanny as well to move the kids around. How is hiring a nanny to watch your kids who arent school aged for the 10 hours youre away taking transit and working not a full time job? I grew up and live in Calgary, so i guess suburbia? The cost of getting a more centralized tiny home and a loving NANNY isnt going to be offset by getting rid of one vehicle. Also this may shock you but things were probably a little different when you were a kid 15 years ago. Kly fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 21, 2015 |
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:17 |
|
cowofwar posted:When I was a kid my sibling and I shared a room with a bunk bed. Kids don't need their own rooms until they are teenagers. Guess what would have child services crawling up your rear end these days? This part right here.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:22 |
|
PT6A posted:Kilometre and a half ain't poo poo. It's seven kilometers from the nearest C-Train station to the airport, because the station is on the opposite side of the airport from the terminal, and it turns eastbound after that instead of continuing north to the terminal. We just built that extension a few years ago, too. I have no idea what the hell the city was thinking. The plan is for a 'spur' to break off from the upcoming Centre Street line to service the airport and connect to the Northeast C-train line. The airport terminal is placed in a really inaccessible part of the airport from a public transit perspective. A C-train route that would go through the airport from the South would have a higher cost and lower ridership. There would need to be about 650m of tunneling (over 1km if passing through to the otherside) and an underground station. It would have over 4km of track with only potential for 1 station at the Westjet offices from the South. There is little development North of station and what is there is just parking lots and warehouses. I don't believe there is going to be much development between Stoney Trail and the airport.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:22 |
|
JawKnee posted:Hey now there's going to be a giant mall that will definitely pull so many people into south delta for I can't even finish this post I'm too disgusted with it Nowhere else can you find great deals on rare brands like Hollister and A&F
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:22 |
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Guess what would have child services crawling up your rear end these days? This part right here. Lol no
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:23 |
|
sitchensis posted:And it's not like we don't have any idea of what works. There's a reason why inner city neighborhoods like Mission or Inglewood (to use Calgary examples) are rapidly becoming gentrified: they offer a lifestyle that you simply cannot get anywhere in the suburbs. It's especially shocking considering Inglewood has awful, awful transit connections. God forbid there just be a simple-rear end bus route that goes down 9th Ave. from the Greyhound station in the west to Blackfoot in the east. No; that would simply be too efficient, and it would be too easy to figure out how to use such a route without consulting Google every time you want to go somewhere!
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:24 |
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Guess what would have child services crawling up your rear end these days? This part right here. What? No way that cant be true. The idea of a two year old and a six year old sleeping in the same room is stupid and a great way to make sure neither of them ever get a good nights rest but i cant believe its illegal.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:25 |
|
|
# ? May 22, 2024 17:00 |
|
sitchensis posted:Yeah pretty much. The big nightmare now is how do we retrofit suburbs that were constructed with a shelf-life of maybe three decades. No lie, these areas have 'best before' dates. Many power centres are purposefully constructed to only last a maximum of two decades. It's incredibly disgusting how wasteful we've become. I suspect in many cases these areas will simply fall into ruins, become centres of despair, poverty and crime, and then have to be demolished, forming a neat conceptual bookend to the destruction of Pruitt-Igoe in the 1970s. The best part is that a lot of these lovely suburbans are built on prime farmland. I don't know much about land reclamation but I assume it will take many decades after these buildings are demolished (and that's assuming it's done properly, which I'm sure it won't be) before this land would be safe and viable farmland again. quote:And it's not like we don't have any idea of what works. There's a reason why inner city neighborhoods like Mission or Inglewood (to use Calgary examples) are rapidly becoming gentrified: they offer a lifestyle that you simply cannot get anywhere in the suburbs. There is a definite urban planning tradition that existed up until the mid-twentieth century that managed to balance the needs of people, vehicles, and urbanity. Take a look at this blog for a good American example. I couldn't agree more. While apartment buildings are great for many people I think that what we're really lacking in many communities are three to six story tall buildings, perhaps built on top of storefronts facing onto major streets. There are so many streets here in Toronto lined with two story buildings that could so easily have been built to have several additional floors containing decent affordable housing downtown. While block apartment buildings have their place they also create their own set of problems if they aren't carefully integrated into the neighborhood. All you have to do is check out some of Toronto's 'inner suburbs' like Jane-Finch to see how apartment buildings can become truly awful places to live when they aren't placed in neighborhoods without appropriate transit or zoning.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2015 23:31 |