If the campaigners are right and what he’s done is illegal then opinions don’t really matter, he shouldn’t be allowed to conitnue pushing this course of action.

That was my thought, but it could also have been aimed at the people fighting against the depedestrianisation.

I’m intrigued, which part of the story are you saying that about?

I’m honestly shocked this hasn’t happened already. How can a world class museum not have a centralised inventory of all its items?

My city has been stuck trying to expand its tram system for decades at this point, but whenever I mention that we could introduc trolley buses instead people look at me like I’m crazy!

They just make so much sense for our use case. We’re a hilly city, so the rubber tyres are more suitable than steel on steel, the routes they want to build on don’t really have the space for separated infrastructure, so having buses that can run on the roads will be less disruptive, and by not having to install rails they’re a lot cheaper too.

Because images like this are still relevant no matter how the cars are powered.

Running an electric car is obviously greener than running an ICE car, but producing one is most definitely not environmentally friendly. If we can reduce the number of vehicles on the road, including electric cars, that would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions.

There’s also the case to be made around the environmental impact of (sub)urban sprawl, which generally comes about as a direct result of car dependency.

For what it’s worth the UK uses mph and we’ve had the Internet for a little while now too, and here e-scooters are technically illegal to ride anywhere other than on private land, i.e. not on pavement, on bike lanes or on the road.

The exception is if you’re in one of the cities which is operating a “trial” rental scheme, in which case the rental company will let you know where they think you should ride. But I believe even in those areas privately owned e-scooters remain illegal to use in public.

Well I certainly wouldn’t want to change my pupils without their consent, that’s for sure!

FYI the English name of that cask is “tun”.

The bicycle industry really needs to settle on a singe bottom bracket standard. It’s not like there’s a significant difference in performance from the million different variations. An industry-standard rear derailleur hanger would also save a lot of headaches where people try to hunt down a replacement for a frame that’s been out of production for years.

This has always been the case in the UK and I hate it. My city actually planned on banning it on two of the busiest roads in the city (because obviously people constantly pulling in and out of traffic will always make it worse), but the drivers protested and now the plan is scrapped.

Ah, that makes sense. For what it’s worth I think you guys are on the right track with e-bikes; allow more powerful motors but give them a different classification.

What are things like on that side of the pond? The “20’s plenty” campaign is well underway over here, do you have similar movements in the US?

I guess that’s the difference in scale between here and Reddit. r/fuckcars was tiny compared to the whole of reddit, but I guess this is large enough to be prominent in Everything.

It’s been surprising to see just how many pro-car users seem to lurk on these anti-car/pro-alternative transport communities.

I’ve found it interesting how many more pro-car and anti-bike people their are in the lemmy version of fuckcars compared to the Reddit one.

Indeed, 30mph is far too fast for anything to be travelling in a built up area. That’s why I support 20mph zones.

Which would mean that you would also be speeding, since e-bikes in the UK are required by law to be capped at 15.5mph (technically 25kph).

1. This change came from the Welsh Labour government, it is not a tory policy (though they apparently initially supported it)
2. Again, it’s an entirely avoidable cost by simply obeying the law. If you’re poor and can’t afford to pay speeding fines, don’t speed.

My point being that they won’t generate any revenue if people actually follow the rules of the road. Revenue only when people break the law is not how taxes work.

From the Welsh government’s FAQ again: “The evidence from around the world is very clear – reducing speed limits reduces collisions and saves lives.” The intended benefit is to reduc the risk of collisions and to reduce injuries in the case of collisions. Lowering the speed limit will result in both of those things, and so we will be seeing the intended benefit.