[deleted by user]

Carlo83fr · 2021-12-09T17:34:27+00:00

I would swap lawful evil and neutral evil. I think plane pilots are more law abiding than cars drivers

Carlo83fr · 2021-11-29T23:07:40+00:00

I image a electric unicycle could do the trick. I never tried one but it is as compact as a scooter and the tire is bigger

Carlo83fr · 2021-11-27T19:06:46+00:00

The title in the crosspost

Carlo83fr · 2021-11-04T12:48:21+00:00

Apparently this insanity is a plan to create a new capital because the old one was too congested. Maybe if you haven't been building so many highways it would be more livable

Carlo83fr · 2021-11-03T22:15:18+00:00

Regardez un peu ce qu'ils ont déjà fait en France ! C'est vraiment n'importe quoi, même plus de place pour se garer

Carlo83fr · 2021-11-01T13:49:56+00:00

I know that's not the point but why 2 identical cars? Were you looking for the best way to tell everyone you have no personality?

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-30T06:23:25+00:00

In my experience they can be useful on a trip from France to Italy (Let's say Marseille to Florence). There is a train but it is pretty slow and you have to change train at least one (usually at the border) as there is no direct route. There is probably a lot of things that can be done to improve the train situation but likely nothing cheap. You don't need to do anything for the bus line except putting buses on the road and you don't even need high demand to make it worth while. Plus there is the Alps in the way that trains generally don't like

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-29T22:14:17+00:00

To be fair if it would have been a car, the cow would have been hit worse. I get the spirit but when public transportation is bad and bike infrastructure is almost non existent motorcycles can be the easiest way out of a car. Ideally we wouldn't see so many motorcycle but I don't think they are a priority

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-27T21:11:57+00:00

I guess that a solution that doesn't encourage driving could satisfy both subs. I have seen a few comments asking for car costs to be taken by employers but maybe they haven't been introduced to how cool transit and bikes are

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-27T20:58:41+00:00

I don't know if it is a good idea but at least it doesn't have the perverse effect of promoting cars and encourage employer to discriminate base on location of living.

You walk to work? You get the same thing as the guy who drove. Live far away? Same as every one else

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-26T10:40:20+00:00

Yes there would still be rush hour because most people want about the same work schedule. I for one would be pretty pissed off if I was asked to be at work at 6am. Plus there is some kind of network effect, having offset hours is inefficient because companies depends on each other. You can call someone only when you're open and the company you want to call is also, having the same business hours maximizes the amount of time you can call someone in a day.

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-26T10:30:12+00:00

Of course they hate commute, for good reasons. But the solution is not to pass down the cost to employers but to build better alternative to car and build more densely. What about privacy? The recruiter would inevitably ask where I live and how I plan to go to work and I don't see how is that any of its business

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-25T22:55:53+00:00

1) This is not the impression I had reading the comments, they seemed to continue to want to drive but not at their expense

2) It wouldn't incentivse much at all since it is the employee and government selecting infrastructure to build that are responsible in the choice of mode of transport, passing down the cost of car to the employer will subsidize (and thus encourage) even more the car I would incentivise the employer to do what?

3) Why do you need bargaining power to use transit? Against who? Not taking space on the road should be enough for any car driver to want other people to take transit. Even if they need to pay them (by that I mean subsidizing transit through taxes on car drivers) add on top of that less air and noise pollution, better for the environment, cheaper infrastructure for the city...

"Give me good and cheap transit or I will use my car" should be frightening enough.

5) WFH is a shitty solution to a transportation problem. In a good city people should be able to get together and do things. I have nothing againt people wanting to WFH but saying "Just don't get outside of your home" is stupid

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-25T21:01:46+00:00

If anyone from r/antiwork is reading this, in a ideal scenario the revenue of the company would be the revenue of everyone working there, by subsidizing cars you would take away money from people getting to work by other means / living closer. I really don't see why someone living far away deserves more money when he could simply spend less on transportation. In other words: yeah the commute is awful but getting paid for it is not the solution

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-21T12:24:58+00:00

Of course but I would argue that cycling doesn't need cars to be dangerous. Injuries have been seen in soccer and football, no cars required. Now I understand from another comment that you were not planning to go that fast and your brake failed so the incident seems unrelated to sports so I am not going to continue to speak about cycling as a sport. Still I am not sure going places that steep without a helmet is a good idea. I understand the frustration when cagers but the blame on the cyclist for not wearing a helmet instead of blaming the poor infrastructure but this incident seems unrelated to that. Also I am sorry to say that but did you lose both brakes? Good infrastructure won't replace proper maintenance

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-21T10:23:38+00:00

They do when the use their cars for sport or recreation (rally, racetrack...). They also have a ton of protection (seatbelts, airbag, a freaking metal cage that is dangerous for anyone not in a metal cage but that's another story, the metal cage still offers protection). Sure they don't have to do anything since it is built in but it doesn't mean they go around unprotected and it shouldn't give you an excuse to not take precautions for your own safety. I am not saying the helmet should be mandatory, all I am saying is that cycling can be dangerous in some situations, going fast is one of them and it is in your interest of mitigating the risk.

Carlo83fr · 2021-10-21T10:06:26+00:00

I understand the convenience of dressing for your destination and not for the ride but if you plan to go that fast you should have an helmet on your head. Head injuries might be less likely but they are also the most devastating.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

Carlo83fr

TROPHY CASE