Brannock posted:

You guys will like this I think

Dreylad posted:

She was! She was a 9/11 truther, straight up. And the worst part is for a brief moment I thought of voting for them.

Furnaceface posted:

Is it really a plus if no one uses it because its in a spot that doesnt and will never need it?

PT6A posted:

Haha, christ that's self-righteous.

But, for the record: Bryan Cranston can come, Lena Dunham can gently caress right off because she's an idiot, a creep and very probably a racist.

tagesschau posted:

This thread's opinion depends on whether it's a stupid idea of Rob Ford's (bad) or a stupid idea of David Miller's (good). It's a bad idea to build a subway to Scarborough Centre because it's too expensive, but it's a good idea to construct an LRT along the RT's current alignment, where half the stations get essentially no use despite having been there for three decades, because of reasons.

Brannock posted:

You guys will like this I think

tagesschau posted:

This thread's opinion depends on whether it's a stupid idea of Rob Ford's (bad) or a stupid idea of David Miller's (good). It's a bad idea to build a subway to Scarborough Centre because it's too expensive, but it's a good idea to construct an LRT along the RT's current alignment, where half the stations get essentially no use despite having been there for three decades, because of reasons.

MonsieurChoc posted:

I voted for the guy who said he'd lift age limits for student metro cards. If a corrupt rear end in a top hat was gonna get in power, I'd at least vote for the one who bought my vote.

I don't even remember his name anymore.

Tippecanoe posted:

dumb scarberians

flakeloaf posted:

She confessed to racing her own sister, in fact.

sitchensis posted:

If you think the mayors and councils of big cities are bad, you don't even wanna know what goes on in the small municipalities. Of course, no one pays attention to small town politics either in aggregate or in these towns themselves, which is exactly the problem. It's literally criminal what happens in some of these places.

Seat Safety Switch posted:

Iveson is a mess all around. His project portfolio is an unbroken line of failure at all levels. It shocks me that he has any political capital left.

DariusLikewise posted:

The difference between Trump and Trudeau is Trump is at least straightforward about not giving a gently caress about minorities.

CLAM DOWN posted:

Our Man Gregor definitely doesn't smoke crack, unless it's sold from Whole Foods in a cyclist and environmentally friendly packaging.

M.McFly posted:

Our intrepid leader Helps lead the charge to reduce city speed limits to 40 km/hr (and from 50 to 30, in one stretch) despite a chorus of experts explaining that it would have little to no impact on collision rates. We did it anyway, and now, more than a year later, collision rates remain unchanged in the speed-reduced zones, but we did manage to significantly increase transit wait-times because buses were also forced to slow down. So it did accomplish something at least.

In a move of impressive humility council has since admitted that reducing the speed has limits failed to yield the desired results so they're working to scale them back. Just kidding, they're doubling down by 'uping enforcement and installing smiley-faced speed reading boards.

PT6A posted:

Do you have studies on this? I would like to forward them to city councillor and known dullard Druh Farrell, who wishes to inflict the same stupidity on our city.

quote:

It might take traffic-reader signs that smile, but Victoria is continuing on the path of slowing down traffic.

Acknowledging that reducing speeds involves more than just putting up signs, Victoria councillors Thursday endorsed staff recommendation to step up education and enforcement in reduced-speed zones introduced two years ago.

As well, city staff will follow up on a suggestion from Coun. Ben Isitt to research the cost of putting speed reader signs in every neighbourhood.

“I think that would help build neighbourhood buy-in for safer speeds and also show that the city is being responsive to neighbourhood concerns,” said Isitt, who originally championed lower speed limits with former city councillor Shellie Gudgeon.

Mayor Lisa Helps suggested staff look at “out of the box” options such as signs sophisticated enough to display a frown to speeders and a smiley face to people travelling under the limit. “It’s not funny, it actually changes behaviour. People want the digital sign to smile at them, right, because it feels good,” Helps said.

Isitt said the city has to roll out “a fairly robust and steady program of speed humps, traffic circles and other interventions” to make city streets safer. Where they have been installed, “it is widely celebrated by the community and adds to the ambience of those neighbourhoods.”

“I think every neighbourhood is entitled to have a very active and extensive program of traffic calming,” Isitt said.

In 2014, councillors amended the streets and traffic bylaw, reducing speed limits on several city streets to 40 km/h from 50 km/h and reducing the speed limit on Cook Street between Southgate Street and Dallas Road to 30 km/h from 50 km/h. The objective was to make streets safer and to reduce the number of collisions.

But traffic monitoring in 2015, when compared to 2014, showed the reduced-speed zones “are having only a minor impact on vehicle speeds” — only a two per cent reduction in speed — with average speeds still above posted limits. Collision rates have not dropped in the reduced-speed zones.

B.C. Transit has complained that the lower limits make it difficult for buses to stay on schedule on some routes.

Helps said one of the biggest takeaways from the exercise has been confirmation that most people drive 10 km/h over the posted limit. “Essentially, if we want people to go 50, we have to sign for 40. So if we want people to go 40 maybe we should sign for 30. I’m not suggesting that, but it’s interesting that people will go on average about 10 kilometres above the speed limit that’s posted.”

Staff say further monitoring is needed to better understand the impacts of the speed limit changes. Meanwhile, councillors have endorsed several recommendations, including:

• Install speed-reader boards along reduced-speed zones and implement a public awareness campaign.

• Continue to work with B.C. Transit to maximize transit performance in reduced-speed zones.

• Introduce speed-control elements in new street designs.

- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/victoria-sticking-to-slower-speed-limits-smiley-signs-eyed-1.2360528#sthash.72nnaun0.dpuf

smoke sumthin bitch posted:

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but those speed reduction measures are being implemented in cities all across america and europe as part of agenda 21. The goal is to reduce car usage by making it an inneficient choice of transportation.

Albino Squirrel posted:

Can you elaborate on that? Iveson's always struck me as kind of a vaguely anodyne progressive, but I'm not sure what issues you can hang on his neck. The two big infrastructure disasters (both bridges) in his term seem to be more of a city management issue than one with the mayor or council.

Granted, he hasn't accomplished MUCH, but the city's not a smoking ruin yet.

smoke sumthin bitch posted:

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but those speed reduction measures are being implemented in cities all across america and europe as part of agenda 21. The goal is to reduce car usage by making it an inneficient choice of transportation.

smoke sumthin bitch posted:

The goal is to reduce car usage by making it an inneficient choice of transportation.

M.McFly posted:

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/victoria-sticking-to-slower-speed-limits-smiley-signs-eyed-1.2360528

quote:

Helps said one of the biggest takeaways from the exercise has been confirmation that most people drive 10 km/h over the posted limit. “Essentially, if we want people to go 50, we have to sign for 40. So if we want people to go 40 maybe we should sign for 30. I’m not suggesting that, but it’s interesting that people will go on average about 10 kilometres above the speed limit that’s posted.”

Albino Squirrel posted:

Can you elaborate on that? Iveson's always struck me as kind of a vaguely anodyne progressive, but I'm not sure what issues you can hang on his neck. The two big infrastructure disasters (both bridges) in his term seem to be more of a city management issue than one with the mayor or council.

Granted, he hasn't accomplished MUCH, but the city's not a smoking ruin yet.

Lobok posted:

Making personal automobiles the least efficient form of transportation would be terrible for our cities and planet! Think of what that would mean for congestion, urban sprawl, public health. There's no way we would do that!

Albino Squirrel posted:

Can you elaborate on that? Iveson's always struck me as kind of a vaguely anodyne progressive, but I'm not sure what issues you can hang on his neck. The two big infrastructure disasters (both bridges) in his term seem to be more of a city management issue than one with the mayor or council.

Granted, he hasn't accomplished MUCH, but the city's not a smoking ruin yet.

mojo1701a posted:

Having spent the last two weeks in multiple European countries where public transportation and urban planning (and cell phone plans) was cheaper and easier, all I'm going to reply with is:

smoke sumthin bitch posted:

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but those speed reduction measures are being implemented in cities all across america and europe as part of agenda 21. The goal is to reduce car usage by making it an inneficient choice of transportation.

M.McFly posted:

I'm honestly fine with this as long as public transit is improved accordingly. Not holding my breath.

Karatela posted:

PT6A posted:

Another big part of the problem is that this is completely inconsistent. It's dangerous as gently caress to speed even a little bit in a construction zone or school zone, it's fairly dangerous to go 10 km/h over in a residential zone, but it's essentially trivial to go 10 km/h over on a divided highway -- in fact, if traffic were all going the same speed, 20-30 km/h over the limit would usually be completely safe in good weather conditions (at least compared to going even 10 km/h over in a residential area) -- it's the differential between speeds that's dangerous.

Lobok posted:

Even on a divided highway the danger of high speeds is really a function of following distance. Driving 150 km/h with clear road ahead: who cares. Driving 90 km/h behind someone so close you can read what radio station they're tuned to: y'all gonna kill someone.