They should be getting far more than 4.5 years for doing borderline slavery and illegally detaining/kidnapping.

I genuinely believe walking is one of the best exercises you can do for both physical and mental health.

I wonder how much energy google wastes on its AI service in the regular search just to give me a worse answer than the top results I was actually looking for.

If a pedestrian is on a cross walk, the bigger mass should be required to stop to let the pedestrian cross safely.

It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure an intersection is clear before crossing it. A crosswalk is an intersection and a pedestrian is foot traffic.

In places with good transit, you actually can show off a fancy ticket. Some rail offers first class flight type of accommodations which can include more leg/seat room, comfier seating, a meal, and other amenities.

I agree, we definitely need density and transit. It would help the climate and housing situations.

It isn’t about logic, it is about preventing the station which prevents the denser developments that come with it and prevents people from living in those developments. These protesters mostly want to preserve (read increase) their property values while preserving the “character of the neighbourhood” (read if you don’t already live here, you don’t belong).

Are they also protesting the frieght trains that are often heavier and noisier? Or just the trains that let “poor people” get around?

Every rail in an urban area near me has signs saying not to block the track. Every crossing on a busy road has lights and crossing bars. Every low traffic crossing has warning signs and a STOP before crossing.

These signs are for drivers, drivers are trained to recognize them and they resemble all the other road signs drivers are expected to follow.

If your area is using similar signage then this is 100% on negligent drivers. If they replace that rail with a road are drivers just going to run the red or gridlock the intersection like they currently treat the rail crossing?

1. Cancel congestion pricing

2. Funnel more cars into the city by investing in highways.

3. Oil companies profit.

Your bones are not weak but its still not a good excuse to abuse a turtle by knocking on its shell.

Please don’t tap/knock on turtle shells. It would be like someone knocking directly on your bones.

That is the exact reason I stopped passing people unless they are significantly under the limit. Most of the time you don’t get much farther or faster. Sometimes you get lucky and miss a red or two by passing but the time saved vs the risk just isn’t worth it for me.

A driver’s impatience and eagerness to pass has always baffled me and in my area we really need better enforcement for agressive and dangerous passes (uphill, blind corners). The other day i was driving a large work van through a school zone just as all the kids are getting out. This other driver tailgated me, then blew past me in the oncoming lane as we passed the school. About 5 seconds later we were out of the school zone and i had caught up to the driver that was now stuck behind another car. This driver literally risked running over children to save maybe 5 seconds and be 1 car length ahead.

In my opinion, they should have their car impounded, lisence suspended for a period of time, and have an agressive driving charge which conditions of losing their lisence forever if caught doing something similar again. Letting people continue to drive like that will eventually lead to injury or death.

Many conservation authorities look for volunteers for tree planting, invasive species removal, and cleaning up litter. They can be a great way to start helping your local areas.

And also people in a smaller vehicle involved in a collision. Higher bumper heights hit windows instead of crumple zones.

They are still gonna be less effecient than smaller, lighter models with modern technology.

Another factor is bigger vehicles are deadlier.

They really aren’t that much better for the planet compared to ICE and when compared to transit or active transport they really are the least effecient “green” option.

Its not just about reducing carbon, we should be trying to reduce overall energy usage and focus on effecient systems.

Everyone driving their electric SUV to park in a sea of pavement is not effecient land or energy use.

If a city cannot manage their bicycle traffic, how should we ever expect them to handle car traffic?

Any problems with bicycles is a simple issue of infrastructure and priority.

Either way they’d have to rip out new ore, probably burning carbon to dig it up. Then smelt it, using more carbon, then transport the metal and turn it into an EV. Seems like developing more effecient forms of transportation would be a lot more green than selling everyone a new “green” electric vehicle.

I’m more so trying to state that sex ed is a broad spectrum and without specification of the exact teachings people will assume different things. Theres a big difference in teaching kids about puberty and teaching kids about how and when to use protection or the process of child birth. Specifying when kids will be taught what could clear a lot of debate about when sex ed is acceptable