Definitely has his grip on reality, this one
You must log in or # to comment.
Gee, I wonder what causes congestion in high speed lanes and roads? Too many fucking cars at the same time? Nah, it must be some communist subversion
It’s wild deer, there might not actually be any but just the idea of them makes people drive in a less efficient manner. It doesn’t help that the deer are communist.
oh no they called me a communist however shall i cope
When it gets to the stage that you get called a communist, you know you have won the argument.
As if the GOP even hold back anything after the first round
When someone calls you a communist you know that you won the argument.
usually when I get called a communist, it’s when I’m explaining that people deserve basic human rights.
See, the problem is that you only have two lanes in the city /s
one_more_lane.copypasta
Just one more lane bro. I promise bro just one more lane and it’ll fix everything bro. Bro, just one more lane. Please just one more, one more lane and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro c’mon just give me one more lane i promise bro, bro bro please! Just need one more lane
In the end the city will have to bulldoze the houses and offices that make up to the city to make room for more roads and cars, increasing costs and destroying their own tax revenue in the process, or realize less cars are the answer.
Man, I’m flashing back to my visit to Detroit and the massive ‘boulevard’ that cuts the city in two. The car I was riding in had to get on to what was basically a highway, change lanes a half dozen times, and exit via ramp in order to get from one neighborhood to another. (In the span of a quarter mile).
It was eerie, but doable, because there weren’t many other cars on the road. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been when there was actually traffic.
Roads can be walls as well as nooses.
When you have enough tarmac, you don’t even need lanes or lights, there’ll be space for everyone.
Lanes are a commie plot to steal freedom anyway.
It’s obvious from the picture that it is the buildings in the city that cause the congestion. get rid of em.
I once got stuck behind someones house once, I politely honked three times and flashed my headlights , but it wouldn’t budge, so in the end i had no choice but to ram right through it. Fucking cities stealing all our open roads.
Do you have the key for the car colour coding? Is it occupancy?
It looks like the green cars have passengers, while the red cars have single occupants.Nevermind, some of the red cars have passengers, too. I guess the green cars survive to the final graphic… why that’s relevant, I don’t really understand.
Might just be that those three cars have legitimate reasons to be driving. Like, it could be a carpenter’s or electrician’s van on the way to a job site in the city.
I think it’s more for design language, you’re subconsciously drawn to the green vehicles because they’re different, and subconsciously when you’re looking at the traffic, you’re reminded what it’s like being in the traffic yourself.
So you imagine yourself as the green car.
1st scenario: traffic is really bad. 2nd scenario: they’ve added more lanes, but you, the green car, are still stuck. 3rd scenario: public transportation has alleviated the traffic and it’s better for all.
Notice in the 3rd scenario, all the transportation is green. I think it’s to make you think, “I can ride my bike to work” or “I can take the bus” or “I can still drive my car if where I live requires me to” depending on your own situation. It’s to show all options can be viable, if you support public transportation.
That’s how I see it at least.
A bike lane on a highway seems like a terrible idea.
anywhere that you might say “we shouldn’t have a bike lane here, it’s too dangerous for cyclists” is a place where there should be a bike lane.
Inside rail racks? That is such a dumb decision making process.
You’re looking at what is obviously a conceptual diagram and acting as if it’s some kind of literal blueprint. IMO it’s something closer to a Sankey diagram showing the overall flow and moda share of traffic into the city than a plan sketch of an individual road. I don’t think it’s even reasonable to conclude that it’s actually suggesting using the same alignment for cars, bikes, and pedestrians at all, let alone strawmanning it as “a bike lane on a highway.”
Frankly, I’m found it to be a tough call deciding whether you genuinely didn’t understand that or if you were commenting in bad faith (which violates rule 1), and the only thing that made me give you the benefit of the doubt was your later comment talking about the cement barrier (i.e. a somewhat constructive comment about how to make it better) instead of continuing to flatly reject it.
If you had looked at my replies to other people who replied to me, you would see I wasn’t antibike lanes in general. The diagram looks far closer to a city street than a highway.
If you had looked at my replies to other people who replied to me, you would see I wasn’t antibike lanes in general.
I did, hence my reference to “your later comment talking about the cement barrier.”
The diagram looks far closer to a city street than a highway.
The right side of it does, sure, because that’s what it’s depicting the highway transitioning to.
I was referring to other comments. Ones the people I blocked could have checked before attacking me.
Nobody “attacked” you until you attacked them first. That’s why your comments were removed for being uncivil and theirs weren’t.
Well it’s a good thing no one is proposing that! Seriously, where do you people come from?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
On and near are not the same thing.
Removed by mod
As if you don’t block people who are rude and bad faith with you.
Removed by mod
Ah so it is considered petty to tell someone why you are blocking. We? You are plural?
If you’re stuck in traffic, you ARE the traffic.
“Hi boss, I’ll be a bit late into work. I am traffic.”
“Hi boss, I’ll be a bit late into work. I’m stuck in me.”
“Goddammit Phalange, I don’t need to know what kinky shit you’re into. Go to the hospital if it’s that bad.”
“Can’t. I’m stuck.”
“I’m the main character and everyone else is the NPC traffic!”
“No one in New York drove. There was too much traffic.” -Phillip J. Fry
communism is when bike lanes.
It’s crazy how our 18-lane highway, with none of the stuff mentioned, is gridlocked all the time. 🤔
Maybe one more lane, bro!
It’s the stoplight’s fault! Ban stop signs, traffic lights and remove speed limits and we’ll never have gridlock again!!!
I’m unironically all for removing stop signs, traffic lights, and speed limits. If you build streets and roads properly, you don’t need those, frequently ignored, control devices.
It would remove gridlock, but not necessarily congestion.
Round about gang for life
As an often pedestrian, i often prefer lights. If it’s a busy dual carriageway roundabout It can often be hard to route pedestrians across. You end up with elaborate and winding pedestrian subways.
Roundabouts are ok on rural junctions, but round here we often have to have traffic lights on roundabouts as you start to get closer in to urban areas - and they do seem to help flow.
I just don’t believe road design alone can remove the need for coordination as population density gets above a certain level. Fuck in central London you need traffic lights just to coordinate all the buses never mind cars. Of course they need an overhead s-bahn type light rail system there though, but planning rules/landowners won’t allow it. At this point they just need less people - but again the govt/electorate/landowners won’t allow that because they’re all a bunch of tw4ts.
As Jason Slaughter (Not Just Bikes) says—and I agree—any city street with more than one car lane in each direction is an abject failure of urban planning. Multi-lane roundabouts should never exist in places where people are expected to walk.
If enough people are going the same direction at the same time that they need more than one lane for cars, then that’s the perfect route for transit.
Abject failure of urban planning, or democracy?
There was a guy who took his guitar before the Portland City Council and sang a song about induced demand. If you build more lanes, more drivers will come and fill them.
OMG, I love this man! That video is 7 years old… Did they add more lanes? 🫣
The project actually still hasn’t started due to ongoing litigation and budget constraints. It did get redesigned with more bike infrastructure and pedestrian bridges to cross the freeway, but local bike and pro-transit groups still oppose the project.
One of the main arguments is that the state’s proposal is not consistent with the city’s regional plan, which says that the interstate can only be expanded if congestion pricing is also implemented to discourage additional traffic.
At this point, the state is planning to fix up some bridges while the rest of the legal fight plays out. Expansion probably won’t start until 2028 in any case… at which point this song will be an “oldie.”
oh no the unbeatable twitter “trust me bro” move. why has no one ever thought about his input??2?
Y’all are both stupid. Society creates congestion in car-transportation and on-foot transportation. Mass transportation is just more efficient in certain societal configurations and needs. There will still be trucks and deliveries of all kinds and workers and shit that need to use cars for their jobs to be efficient.
A lot of people could use mass transportation or try to reduce the distance they need to travel, but all of this petty back and forth is fucking stupid and worthless if it remains petty and shallow, and continues to avoid the real topic, which is not cars, which are just tools that allow an individual a range of autonomy that is faster and further in certain societal configurations.
So, the issue should be societal configurations (and human values), not cars.
Using cars is such an unproductive wedge issue that just irritates everybody who can see the bigger issues. It’s noble, but amounts to basically greenwash trolling to anybody outside of your community (fuckcars). It’s a hyperfixation on a ultra specific, single-solution to an ultra broad collection of societal efficiency and random other related topics that feels like some of you are just misplacing personal childhood trauma, and really need therapy, or you just enjoy being irritating, thus my belief that some of this really is just greentrolling, which, if you really wanted to fix stuff, there are better ways of doing it.
To be absolutely transparent, I don’t entirely dislike y’all’s existence, in fact, I quite appreciate it in many ways. But, everytime I see one of your posts or memes, I just kinda… Tsk. And it irritates me a little bit, I can’t upvote it, and I think I’ve finally been able to put that irritation into words, and feel compelled to voice my opinion.
So, opinion voiced, carry on /rant
What it wrong with that guy? Did a bike fuck his wife or something?
Fun fact: The faster a car travels, the bigger the spacing between the cars gets. That’s necessary to leave enough distance for emergency stops.
While the speed increases linearly, the spacing increases with the square, meaning at double the speed, the spacing quadruples, which in turn means that throughput (number of cars per hour) halves.
This is the reason why many regions use electronic speed signs to drop the speedlimit lower when there’s congestion. Because it increases throughput and thus reduces travel times.
The optimum speed for high throughput is 30km/h.
Counterintuitive as it might be, drivers should be all for 30km/h speed limit in cities, because it would make them get to work faster.
Another related fun fact: Larger vehicles are harder to see around, so people have to leave even more distance which reduces throughput.
You can cite an infinite amount of proven facts and studies, car brains will never accept your „communist propaganda“. This whole discussion is too emotionally loaded to be based on facts.
That’s when you then turn it around to them.
“We must drive 30 km/hr to show these bastards who’s boss!”.
That’s also the fastest speed before sharply increasing the likelihood of fatality in pedestrian collisions
The problem is that often streets are not congested, and then 50km/h is much more time efficient.
Yep, and at that speed, 50km/h on an “empty” street INSIDE a city, that’s also the most “efficient” speed to avoid those pesky children bits getting stuck on your windchill were you to tackle one while checking your phone.
Apologies for the sarcasm but most drivers I encounter on a daily basis absolutely do not have the sustained concentration behind wheels to safely drive a 50km/h within actual cities.
I have seen old people driving around with oxygen tubes in their noses more times than I feel is safe.
If children are a factor (residential street, school zone, playground, etc) there’s all the reason to limit to 30, or even 20 (like the street I live where kids are playing around). Optionally time restricted.
Main avenues with clear sidewalks separated by a green strip can have 50 or even 60 km/h limits.
As an adult, relatively big (1m85) who doesn’t randomly run across a street but rather use solely clearly marked zebras I sadly have to report that I had numerous encounter with cars at a very uncomfortable distance to my body, some even touching me (not an accident proper though). I did have of course the occasional wave saying “Oops, sorry I didn’t see you or care for slowing down, moving on!”. When I say occasional it’s probably once a month or more.
To clarify this happened next to a park with very VERY good visibility, a straight line without trees, where it’s slightly higher speed than around. Namely small streets around the park are 20km/h, that avenue is 50km/h. It is actually such a problem a red light has been installed 200m further. I assume that enough cars refused to yield so that this change was made.
This makes me believe that unfortunately, even though MOST drivers are indeed able to safely drive in “Main avenues with clear sidewalks” there is still a non negligible amount from my experience as a pedestrian who absolutely can not and are a danger for everyone, kids and adults alike.
That being said, you have the right to believe that few accidents are acceptable if it allows most people to keep such a certain speed.
To clarify this happened next to a park with very VERY good visibility, a straight line without trees, where it’s slightly higher speed than around.
That’s not surprising to me (as an engineer); the dangerous encounters probably happened because the street was straight and had a generous clear zone.
Strong Towns “30 days of confessions” series has a couple of good (short! – under 2 minutes each) videos explaining it:
Also makes me think of Jevons’s paradox (or the rebound effect) but for attention or even more broadly cognition.
Fascinating, thanks for sharing!
Of course it makes sense. In fact I believe I have a similar problem while cycling on a one way street for cars while cycling on the (non protected) bike lane of the opposite direction. I hate that street because very often cars do not move away… because they don’t look up. They are busy doing I don’t know what in their cars… probably because, if I understood the idea properly, they think it’s all fine, nobody “should” come from anywhere but behind them, so the “can” be “distracted”.
I’m an adult just slightly bigger and have never had an encounter like you describe, and I lived in a big city decades, using public transport and walking exclusively. If drivers in your environment are that bad, stricter limits are reasonable.
Yet I also see them and a lot more frequently since pandemic. I still claim everyone forgot how to drive safely.
For me the big problem is that it’s legal to “turn right on red”. However people for get that you’re supposed to come to a full stop and to yield to any road user. So many times I’m in the crosswalk with the walk signal lighted yet someone zooms through to take a right on red barely slowing and without concern for pedestrians
We also seem to have gotten a lot worse with “stretching a yellow”. Why is it that I can wait for a light to turn red, then wait a couple more seconds for the walk signal to come on, yet still be endangered by someone blasting through the intersection claiming “my light was yellow, bro”.
Or maybe it’s just the self-centeredness. People have so much trouble being aware that someone is travelling differently than they are. Pedestrians are invisible because “everyone drives”, cars zoom right up to and through crosswalks at a red light because “no one will be in the crosswalk”.
It’s become a running joke with my kids that you always have to look the wrong way before crossing the street. We regularly cross a one way street where we have twice had close calls with someone going the wrong way. Knowing the layout, I’m pretty sure it’s intentional. It would be difficult to do on accident and I can see the “short cut” being much more convenient
My guess North American (because of the turn right on red) and European car cultures are different. European cities are much more walkable and drivers are used to pedestrians. I rarely have a car not stop if I come up to a cross walk, and basically 100% if I’m with my kids.
And there’s where we invent roundabouts. Even when the streets are not congested the time to cross any urban area is dominated by the stops. It much more beneficial to eliminate stop signs and red lights, to keep you moving consistently than to let you speed a little more to your next stopping point
Yeah, big thumbs up for roundabouts.
Congestion is literally made out of cars. Without cars, there would be no congestion.
This could not possibly be said any better, I think.
You know what would REALLY fix congestions?
MORE CARS!!
Just one more lane bro. Just one more.
I swear I can stop anytime I want man!!
What’s the solution after EVERY. SCHOOL. SHOOTING?
Moar guns.
I’m stuck on this rock with people like that. The worst part is they speak with such confidence and authority that their opinions will carry more weight than mine in the real world.
I despair.
yes but i will upvote you :3
Their entitlement truly knows no bounds.
To fight despair, organize. Find and join your local advocacy groups for transit, cycling, etc. Many improvements that happen are the result of fierce advocacy behind the scenes.
Or at the very least, participate in a critical mass in your city from time to time.
Oh how naive I was when I used to think that spread of the internet would mean spread of intelligence. Who knew that the dumb-and-the-loud would have an easier time than the smart folks when spreading information.
“Ants don’t *create* ant colonies.”
Higher speeds do the opposite for congestion than what you’d think. If everyone and their mum wants to drive on the same stretch of highway at 5pm sharp, there’s not enough space - at speed.
Obviously, everyone fits when standing still. The amount of asphalt is immense.
Reducing the speed limit from 120kph to 80 will allow 50% more cars to fit on the same stretch of road, thereby reducing stop and go, and not really impacting your average speed; you’d be stopping and going during rush hour, anyway. But now traffic flows, which is safer and easier to follow.
Why? Because - let’s assume safe driving - every car has two seconds of safety distance to the car in front. Those two seconds remain two seconds, but that means the distances you need are twice as large with 120kph than with 60kph. Your car length doesn’t even really matter, two seconds at 120kph are ~67m. So the road will always transport 1 car every two seconds per lane, no matter the speed.
You can either rage in a congestion, not knowing if farther up someone has caused a crash and completely blocked everything, or drive slower but steadily. The throughput of the road is the same.
let’s assume safe driving
That’s your problem, caring about safety of others smh
Some Houston traffic napkin math confirms this
