If you’re hitching a trailer anyway then why bother with the truck bed at all? Just get a minivan with a decent engine.

If you are saying that you support the construction of comprehensive segregated cycle paths then I am very much on your side.

Yes they can have their lane

It would be nice if motorists also kept to their lane, then. Too often I find my cycle lanes blocked by drivers who feel that the road was"entirely built entirely by motorists for motorists". I would also be happy to keep to my lane if it always existed. As it is, a lot of the time I’m left with no other choice but to join with the motor traffic as the cycle lanes just stop existing. In the UK it’s illegal to ride on the pavement, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to become another cyclist who just ignores the law for his own benefit?

It’s also important to note here that the UK now has the Hierarchy of Road Users, which explicitly states that the more vulnerable the road user, the more priority they should be given. Pedestrians have top priority, followed by horses, followed by cyclists, and then with motorised traffic at the bottom. It’s a very new development, and one that I don’t think has been tested in law yet, but it’s there in our Highway Code.

Depends on your country. Here in the UK roads are maintained using funds from the general tax pool, so the cyclists are actually subsidising the motorists, who proportionally do a lot more damage to the road surface.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, in the UK (which is where this image seems to be from), the “safe” passing distance for a car overtaking a bike is supposed to be 1.5m. Add that to the 0.5m minimum distance the cyclist is supposed to be from the kerb and the width of the cyclist themselves, and overtaking even a single cyclist should have the car almost entirely in the other lane anyway (UK lanes are typically narrower than their US counterparts).

Whether anyone actually follows those rules is another question, but that is how motorists are supposed to behave.

It is also written into our Highway Code that motorists should “give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”

The image appears to be from the UK. Here in the UK cyclists are supposed to stay at least 0.5m from the kerb, with a recommendation for more distance if possible (rule 72 of the Highway Code). Cars are supposed to keep at least 1.5m away from cyclists when overtaking (rule 163). Taking an average cyclist width of 60cm (some handlebars go much wider than that, as might pannier bags, but let’s use that as an average), that means a single cyclist should have control of ~2.6m of the lane at least.

Let’s say that the average lane on urban roads in the UK are around 3m wide (an estimate based on a quick google, not a rule), this means a legal overtake of a cyclist should have the car leaving no more than 40cm of the car in the lane. It’s not a big jump from that to moving entirely into the other lane.

Admittedly almost no one in the UK actually follows these rules, but this is how it’s supposed to be. Given that, adding another cyclist riding abreast shouldn’t affect overtaking time significantly, whereas the two cyclists riding in line will double the amount of time in the oncoming lane.

Public transport? Or cars. Some people on here may be militant about getting rid of all cars, but most of us aren’t that extreme. We simply want to have the option to not use cars, which is currently not the case in many regions of the world.

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.

I seem to recall Nadine Dorries proposing an end to the TV license, which apparently would come about in 2027 if it happens. But with a complete roster change in the tory government since then and a likely loss in the next election, we’ll have to wait and see what Labour decide to do about that.

It’s English, but not as we know it, Jim.

Translated it reads: “The Liberal Democratic Party will ruin everything” competition between two left-wing parties in mid-Bedfordshire by-election could split votes and result in a win by the Conservative Party.

This reminds me of two recent posts that I got involved in here.

The first was about Wales’ upcoming 20mph zone, where people were complaining that “they’re just trying to generate revenue”. Well, only if you decide to break the law, surely?

The other was a discussion on the cyclists who were “caught” speeding in Devon. Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer). But they would get apoplectic when you suggested that they should do the same.

As a cyclist it always strikes me that we probably don’t need any new laws to make the roads safe, we just need the current laws to be enforced and obeyed. If every driver gave every cyclist 1.5m of space, priority at junctions, kept out of the cycle lanes, etc. as they’resupposed to then the roads would be a lovely place to cycle.

As mentioned in the article the American Bully XL isn’t a recognised breed, so the name likely came from the owners themselves making it up.

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.