Two ton blocks of steel moving a excessive speeds and making a lot of noise isn’t something you want around homes and people.
Lemmy takes car abolition too far sometimes, but yes, if you think about it it’s not different from the Charlie Chaplin giant factory gears that used to be a thing. It’s just that they’re so ubiquitous they couldn’t be banned or enclosed when the other unsafe machines were.
I mean, I could nitpick that, but sure, there’s an argument for it on safety and practical considerations. I don’t usually think of speed limits as having much to do with cars vs. public transit, though, because there are busses and commercial vehicles in the mix.
I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like
i don’t think you understand what kinetic energy is. is you claim it is about safety, then bus doing 50 km/h is far more dangerous than passenger car in the same speed.
There are literally millions of drunk tourists here every year and they’re fine.
and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?
By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.
Sure getting hit by a bus is more deadly than getting hit by a bicycle, but if your odds of getting hit are essentially zero then that chances the equation.
Again, I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like, what city would you say you’ve spent time in that has the best infrastructure in your opinion?
By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.
it is not my logic, logic is mathematical discipline, it doesn’t really belong to anyone.
airplanes indeed ARE extremely dangerous to pedestrians on runway. not so much in the air, which is largely due to the fact that pedestrians can’t fly.
the same can’t be said for buses driving on the same streets as cars where their path often crosses with those of pedestrians. so why should bus be allowed to drive faster, having significantly larger kinetic energy and be therefor be far more dangerous in case of collision? why do you think that chances of getting hit by a bus are effectively zero? do buses in amsterdam levitate in a same way airplanes do? i have never been to amsterdam, so maybe it’s a thing there?
if you manage to get hit by a bus in Amsterdam you really fucked up.
if you managed to get git by a car you have also fucked up.
and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?
Sure, in the centre it makes sense. But to blanket 30kmh over the entire city? There are roads designed for 100 or 80, where suddenly you have to drive 30. Just annoying, not safer.
Amsterdam did this, it’s great.
We also prioritise bicycle lanes and pedestrians. Getting rid of cars is the best thigns for a city
Public transport followed by safe cycling lanes are the best way to get people out of cars.
Free, extremely convenient bicycle/motorcycle parking helps too.
Amsterdam arguably has the best public infrastructure, I’ve done a fair amount of traveling and I can’t think of better public infrastructure.
Two ton blocks of steel moving a excessive speeds and making a lot of noise isn’t something you want around homes and people.
You might need to spend some time in a city like Amsterdam to understand, I loved cars before I lived here now I feel very differently.
Lemmy takes car abolition too far sometimes, but yes, if you think about it it’s not different from the Charlie Chaplin giant factory gears that used to be a thing. It’s just that they’re so ubiquitous they couldn’t be banned or enclosed when the other unsafe machines were.
Not sure you meant to reply to me.
Oops
No worries 🙃
Hmm. Does Amsterdam do much with busses? A limit like that would apply to them too.
Amsterdam also has a metro system.
Oh, I’m sure. That’s why I asked.
Within the city center and within neighbourhoods, traffic does not move faster than 30 anyways.
I mean, I could nitpick that, but sure, there’s an argument for it on safety and practical considerations. I don’t usually think of speed limits as having much to do with cars vs. public transit, though, because there are busses and commercial vehicles in the mix.
Busses and trams often have their own lanes where they can go the speed they want
Well that makes sense.
You’re much less likely to die when hit by a speeding bus than a slow car.
Yeah, I usually hear about speed limits as a time savings vs. safety issue. And in that sense it would apply to both.
I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like, if you manage to get hit by a bus in Amsterdam you really fucked up.
There are literally millions of drunk tourists here every year and they’re fine.
I know, I was just being glib.
i don’t think you understand what kinetic energy is. is you claim it is about safety, then bus doing 50 km/h is far more dangerous than passenger car in the same speed.
and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?
By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.
Sure getting hit by a bus is more deadly than getting hit by a bicycle, but if your odds of getting hit are essentially zero then that chances the equation.
Again, I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like, what city would you say you’ve spent time in that has the best infrastructure in your opinion?
it is not my logic, logic is mathematical discipline, it doesn’t really belong to anyone.
airplanes indeed ARE extremely dangerous to pedestrians on runway. not so much in the air, which is largely due to the fact that pedestrians can’t fly.
the same can’t be said for buses driving on the same streets as cars where their path often crosses with those of pedestrians. so why should bus be allowed to drive faster, having significantly larger kinetic energy and be therefor be far more dangerous in case of collision? why do you think that chances of getting hit by a bus are effectively zero? do buses in amsterdam levitate in a same way airplanes do? i have never been to amsterdam, so maybe it’s a thing there?
if you managed to get git by a car you have also fucked up.
you forgot to answer this question
No, it isn’t.
Sure, in the centre it makes sense. But to blanket 30kmh over the entire city? There are roads designed for 100 or 80, where suddenly you have to drive 30. Just annoying, not safer.
The article opens with:
Now, do you really think “where appropriate” includes roads built for 100km/h?
Yes
Perhaps the idea is to dissuade people from driving unless necessary.
It’s Amsterdam. There’s excellent public transport and bike infrastructure.
And if you still need a car, guess what? This initiative means there’s less traffic for you to deal with.