not settled on bollards?

I remember, maybe last year, there was city “debate” over installing bollards at intersections to protect cyclists and pedestrians. From what I recall, NIMBYs pushed HARD against the idea, saying it was “confusing” and “dangerous” for motorists…

Anything to save lives or improve safety tends to be an automatic “NO!” in most places because of NIMBYs.

That’s why certain safety projects should just move forward without public input.

Paradise to a non-cyclist like me would be a robust tram system with cheap monthly pass. This looks nicer I agree, but if you’re not a cyclist you’re still driving.

Ironically, there’s a subway directly under where this photo is taken, so robust public transportation can still move people to these destinations. No need to drive to these shops now, since you can get there without needing a car.

Before this transformation, there was barely a sidewalk, and almost no people enjoying this public space.

Here’s another angle of that street, so you get a better idea:

Two things strike me the most.

The first is that in the “before”, there’s just all wasted space and no people.

Now you now see elderly and children enjoying that space, people talking, people sitting down to eat or rest. You don’t have to be a cyclist to appreciate that this is what streets should look like.

“Those first few weeks it was constantly,” he says of his tendency to consult ChatGPT on childcare.

Dude, I wouldn’t trust ChatGPT for plant care 😂

There can be other forms of parking, but on-street parking on a street like that is by far the worst type.

In my city’s downtown area, we have four lanes going one way, with parking taking up two.

We also have a few unused, large parking buildings and many empty parking lots within walking distance of every shop, restaurant, and service building.

As it stands today, my downtown is hostile to pedestrians, cyclists, and the disabled. Businesses would thrive if the area was designed for people.

Constriction hurts businesses, for sure. Road maintenance tends to be a huge reason for that, and frequent road maintenance is needed when areas only supports cars.

I understand the differences in language, but none of that matters at all to the victim or their family.

The fact is, you can kill someone with a car while being reckless, and it’s a very minor offence.

It’s only under the most extreme circumstances that someone killing a person by car is taken seriously.

Is this true? How does our hotline absorb 100x the volume of calls?

you should actually work on preventive measures instead of penalizing after the killing.

100% prevention is the best way to do things. But you also have to make sure that you don’t devalue a victim’s life by giving their killer “up to 2 years” in prison. I don’t know how I’d react if a loved one were killed by a reckless driver, only to get 4 months in jail (or none, as is usually the case).

Yes, idiot business owners.

Why do they believe they are in competition with people? As if having more people in front of their shop (vs. parked cars) is somehow bad?

What they should be worried about is online businesses stealing their market share.

And what better way to offer something more than what online businesses do then by making your brick and mortar shop friendly to people!

I can’t honestly believe that some people would rather have the hellscape in the top photo, rather than the paradise in the lower one.

Communities, and society as a whole, need more of the “after”, please!

As a disabled person to qualify for the new disability benefit you must also qualify for the disability tax credit. Which has specific parameters to meet. If you are not severely disabled and have permanent issues with bodily functions or do not require supports you do not qualify. Period.

Yup, the DTC needs some changes. And disabled people shouldn’t have to suffer if their doctor is lazy or unwilling to sign the application.

For the number of disability groups who advocate for more funds, progress is going at a snail’s pace.

But to be honest, if we had a conservative federal government, we’d have disability supports taken away, not added to. We must keep fighting.

as evidenced by how common drunk drivers are

That’s another issue!

When our regional police do “traffic blitzes”, they catch a considerable number of DUI drivers.

But then why do they only do these blitzes for like a few days? Do it every day, catch as many as you can!

Fine them enough to pay for the enforcement. Simple!

and estimated chance of death in a collision

For them or others? I don’t think most reckless drivers are worried about hurting others, or themselves, for that matter. 🫢

IMO, there should be a maximum cap to wealth (not just income, but total wealth). Not only to reduce the opportunity for exploitation of others, but also so any one individual can’t be rich enough to control a government.

After a certain point, taxes should ramp up so high that making any more brings no benefit to the individual. They would be free to retire, fuck off, and give everyone else a chance to earn a living wage.

If wealth was not being hoarded as it continues to be, everyone would be better off.

The newly created Canada Disability Benefit is a start, which is in addition to other benefits.

But as the article points out, the “gotcha!” with these benefits is that it pays out based on income, rather than your gross income (after medical expenses).

More work is always needed when it comes to supporting the disabled, so I’m optimistic that we can move in the right direction with only a minority government.

its quality of life improvement for the entire city

That’s exactly the point! You put in a dollar of tax dollars to get many dollars back in benefits (QOL, environmental, safer streets, lower healthcare costs, etc.).

The same can be said for cycling and other active transportation investments, they pay back society in benefits. The data (and here) is incredible.

Car-centric infrastructure does the opposite, and you are always losing money.

Funny. Linux doesn’t nag me about anything 🤗

but there are lots of instances of taxpayers paying for public transit they cannot personally use.

Yes, but public transportation has a return on investment that makes it worth paying for, even if you don’t use it.

I used to do the same… In video games. 😮‍💨

Trains to move long distances, trucks for city to city transport, local deliveries can be made by smaller truck or cargo e-bikes.

No need to get rid of roads. We need to get rid of car dependency and make road use more equitable for all users.

Not the same, though.

The ROI on public education should be incentive enough to want your taxes going to it.

Encourageing car dependency creates losses across numerous categories, including health, environmental, further tax burden, public safety, land use, etc.

But my point was that the entitlement that some drivers have about “owning the road” is so toxic.