I choose to believe that you are the real spez, and that’s why you’re such a fuckwit.
Comment on UK starts early trials of World's first pothole preventing robot
spez_@lemmy.world 3 months agoBan cars
Texas_Hangover@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Comment on UK starts early trials of World's first pothole preventing robot
spez_@lemmy.world 3 months agoBan cars
I choose to believe that you are the real spez, and that’s why you’re such a fuckwit.
Jrockwar@feddit.uk 3 months ago
Did you know that road damage is proportional to the fourth power of weight? A single city bus does similar road damage to 10000 cars. Since we’re talking about road damage here, shall we ban buses too? Do I need to tell my 78 year mom with limited mobility to suck it up and cycle?
I work in a related field and having fewer cars on the road is a priority of mine, but I swear the “fuck cars” crew are completely deluded from reality.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 months ago
A lot of them are, and it’s really annoying.
I want fewer cars on the road too. I want cities without constant traffic and road noise. Not to mention to environmental and health benefits. We need a reduction of cars.
But some people in the “fuck cars” camp are just in their own little bubble. Privileged people who live where public transport is good, they’re healthy and able enough to cycle, they don’t work overnight where public transport isn’t accessible.
They’re completely separate from reality. Some of us live in isolated communities where a train service obviously won’t ever happen for obvious reasons, and buses aren’t a feasible solution either.
Some of us have mobility requirements and can’t cycle 20 miles to work along a damp, dreary motorway.
bAn aLL cArS is utterly unrealistic for a slew of practical reasons, never mind the politics of a government coming along and saying “hey plebs, we plan on taking your cars away, sucks to be you, right?”
The number 1 priority should be pedestrianisation of city centres and addition of bus links, then taking it from there. Calling car drivers evil while chanting ban cars is just stupid.
warm@kbin.earth 3 months ago
Some major cities are pedestrianising, which is good. I see a world where trains are the main mode of travel, with self driving cars being around for the last leg of a journey to remote areas. A dream world though, unlikely to ever happen.
honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
I see people say what you’re saying (bus vs car road damage elasticity) in “fuck cars” communities, I don’t really see why you’ve decided to attack them collectively. But it’s a pop-community, they’re going to be wrong every now and then either way, please give them some slack. Their purpose is to make an average person aware of car dependency and that it’s generally a negative thing, so that actual urban planners with technical knowledge have an easier time arguing for and implementing realistic solutions, and they’ll take into account the variables you bring up. Think of “fuck cars” like a form of lobbying except it’s done by common people with good intentions - similar to how Japanese coops lobbied for better food safety standards decades ago - rather than wealthy corporations.
Jrockwar@feddit.uk 3 months ago
Ah, it was just because of the “ban cars” comment with no more context around it. I’m happy with reducing cars, not with expecting cars to get banned altogether or to cease to exist magically.
BluesF@lemmy.world 3 months ago
So, I’m not the previous commenter, and I’m not about to suggest we should ban cars outright (there are quite obviously situations where cars are needed… I mean, anyone who lives in an isolated place literally has no better option)… That said, I would love to see cities free of cars entirely.
Buses are more damaging to roads, yes (although I’m confident that your 10,000 number is hyperbole, I found a source which suggested than an empty bus does ~170 times the damage of an SUV, or 1,700 times the damage of a compact), even per passenger - which is surprising. But the benefits are quite significant in other regards - energy, pollution, road space, safety, etc. Plus, you can in fact design busses which are less damaging to roads by giving them more wheels!
Road damage is a relatively small part of why people like me want to see cars be (where practical) a thing of the past. There is a place for busses in that world, alongside other less damaging forms of transit - especially bikes and trams within cities where busses would be the competition. Certain routes are too far for a bike to be practical and too sparse to warrant a tram, so busses make sense in that case.
Jrockwar@feddit.uk 3 months ago
Well it might be off, as there are other factors, but I wasn’t meaning it as hyperbole - road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight, and a typical bus weighs about 10 times the weight of a compact. This is called the Generalised Fourth Power Law" and there are tons of links about it:
…org.uk/…/the-fourth-power-rule-cyclelicious/
(Which btw, you can apply the other way and state that you need an insane amount of bicycles to match the road damage of a single car).
If they took the top end bracket of SUV weights and the bottom end of bus weights, they could have reached vastly different numbers. I used 1800 kg (large sedan or compact SUV) and 18000 kg for a bus (the mercedes Benz citaro starts at roughly 18500 kg), to keep the numbers simple.
BluesF@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That’s reasonable - the source I checkedbdidn’t use the fourth powerand it was taking into account the number of wheels as well. Anyway, I think the point still stands that just like cars there is a place for busses in a more sensibly designed transit system, despite this one specific disadvantage. Bikes are obviously superior in many ways to other transport but are only really practical over quite short distances (I’m not averse to cycling 10+ miles to get somewhwre but I’m gonna need a shower when I arrive lol).