The path closest to the road is the footpath. The other path is the cycle path. They put the guardrail in between for some reason.

Consequently the footpath isn’t used and pedestrians and cyclists need to share the cycle path.

It’s Stevenage, a town in the UK that was designed and built in the 50s and 60s with cycle paths along most major roads, pretty unique for that time. It was championed by one person during construction. The decades after haven’t been kind to the cycle network. The footpath is closest to the road because the designer thought that would be the most convenient for bus stops (it isn’t).

And what story does this tell?

No, that’s not what I mean.

Encouraging political accountability is a key responsibility of the media in a democracy. These reports help voters, watchdogs, and parliament to exercise their role of holding politicians accountable. Admittedly, this is an imprecise process and this system is not functioning well in the US at the moment. Still, the media must keep (and improve) reporting on items where political accountability comes into play.

In this case it’s a clear cut case of breathing campaign promises. It’s important to report on this because it’s relevant to those who voted Trump into office.

The media should also report on the consequences of those strikes, the human suffering, the destabilisation that it causes etc. However, this might not be information that Trump voters find relevant. However wrong this may be.

It’s fine if you’re arguing that this angle is being underreported by Salon and other US based media. I expect this could well be that this is the case, but I don’t know as I don’t live there. All I’m saying is that the editorial choice not to do so in the same article.

That would be okay though, right? We’re all different in our ways of being vegan

It’s fulfilling its role as media of publishing information that would ordinarily be used for accountability: Trump is doing something else than he promised he would.

Not every article has scope to show the human consequences behind decisions.

But… how else am I going to connect my toothbrush to my smarthome…?

Just kidding, I use home assistant and my oral-b toothbrush broadcasts using BLE, which Is capture using the oral-b integration. You don’t need to be logged in.

I agree. It’s super dumb to buy IOT toothbrushes that require you to be logged in. Luckily I’m not one of those people, so that doesn’t apply to me. Phew…

And do you suppose the banister would be installed if the mattresses were at the bottom?

Other road users don’t have anything to do with it though, including those who aren’t even driving

Or the road design doesn’t facilitate compliance with the speed limit. This is how policy and guidance on road infrastructure talks about these issues.

Not so great for people walking or cycling though. Higher speeds mean more serious and fatal collisions.

Where these modes of transport mix, 20mph is becoming the default choice in western European countries, there is a global declaration on this. If roads feel like they’re made for higher streets: that’s bad infrastructure design.

https://www.fiafoundation.org/news/stockholm-declaration-focuses-on-reducing-urban-speed

But that’s okay. Accidents are just that, unavoidable and random. There’s absolutely nothing else that can be done, so we might as well shrug and accept our fate. When a poor kid gets flattened by an SUV, the only reasonable response is to sigh, feel sad for a moment, and then move on. After all, questioning the design of our roads or the size of our vehicles would be an affront to the gods of chance and the sacred right to drive anywhere, anytime.

Europeans might obsess over safety, but we know better: the universe writes its own traffic plan, and sometimes the ink is a little redder than we’d like…

Absolutely. A cycle can kill someone if they are unfortunately. But a car can kill dozens of people at the same time.

In terms of policy and policing it makes sense to look at outcomes. Heavily policing drunk cycling would result in more drunk driving, which would end up killing more people. So however much drunk cycling is policed, drunk driving should be policed significantly more.

Given the potential to do harm, driving is a privilege. Personal views on whether one can drive under the influence of substances are irrelevant as vulnerable road users would be exposed to much more risk than the driver. Bystanders pay the risk that’s taken by the driver.

It would be good if societies would work in a way that acknowledges that not everyone can/should drive or owns a car. This would mean better public transport, improved zoning, better facilities for walking and cycling.

To add to this

safety

A broader definition of safety includes health risks from a sedentary lifestyle, which would include a large proportion of people. Cycling reduces these risks, while driving makes them worse. Cycling still increases your life expectancy, so safety shouldn’t be a reason not to cycle.

Of course, perceived safety is important too as this is preventing people from taking up cycling. But that’s a different conversation.

Your proposal sounds a lot like a car, but then slower and self-driving.

The clever dripper is pretty nice pour over cone with a shut off valve.

When I’m making just one cup of coffee I use an aero press, for 2+ cups I use the clever dripper.

Still, people find it difficult to navigate this. Its use cases are limited, but it doesn’t enforce that limit by itself. The user needs to be knowledgeable of the limitations and care enough not to go beyond them. That’s also where the problem lies. Leaving stuff to AI, even if it compromises the results, can save SO much time that it encourages irresponsible use.

So to help remind people of the limitations of generative AI, it makes sense to fight the tendency of companies to overstate the ability of their models.

As for EV usage, only 80-90% of particulate matter pollution comes from the exhaust of cars. So EVs don’t solve the issue. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate-emissions-from-road-transport_4a4dc6ca-en.html

Lower speeds reduce road danger

Are extra casualties and reduced freedom for people who aren’t driving worth the few minutes saved for a minority of people?

And I thought I was the only person who had this problem! I have large hands, so lots of water splashes in my fave when using of these (•_•)