@sunflowerinrain@mastodon.online
2024-07-10 10:18 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@DrDewott@expressional.social 2024-07-17 21:40
@sunflowerinrain@mastodon.online @BrentToderian@mastodon.online Where I'm from in Denmark, the loud opposition's excuses are "Slowing down traffic causes socio economic losses for all of society as people spend longer going from point A to B" "Cars aren't built to go this slow, they have more rotations per minute in their motors at 30km/h than at 50, this is just causing excessive pollution, just like when you don't provide parking spaces and make us circle around the block, emitting until one becomes available" "It is not cars that are a danger to people it is the cyclists, running against traffic, running red lights, speeding, Cycling distracted while looking at cellphones, Not being attentive cause they listen to music in their earbuds, they're the only ones that need lower speed limits, max 20 or 10km/h, required drivers licenses for cyclists, ban on e-bikes and speed limiters on all bicycles" Of course all of these excuses are Bullshit but they completely drown out the debate here, its awful!
-
@CassandraVert@indieweb.social 2024-07-18 03:00
@sunflowerinrain@mastodon.online @BrentToderian@mastodon.online Some people in the US can't afford to live near work so they have long commutes. (And of course US public transit is minimal). If commuting time became unfeasible, you'd cause disruptions all over the economy. Not that we shouldn't, but you asked about objections. President Carter reduced the highway speed limit to 100kmh in the 1970s, and it was pretty universally unpopular despite positive results.