Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

  • cooopsspace@infosec.pubEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    What’s the logic behind this? I’m all for making cities more walkable but when it comes to highway roads I think we should be addressing why a faster speed isn’t possible.

    • ThenThreeMore@startrek.websiteEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago
      1. reduces in city pollution.
      2. reduces road deaths. https://youtu.be/HeUX6LABCEA (this is 40 to 30, we extend that to 20 and she’s probably not even going to be hit)
      3. reduces overall carbon pollution
      4. if done alongside improving public transport, walkability and cycle paths it encourages more people to use alternative transport than cars.
      • cooopsspace@infosec.pubEnglish
        41·
        1 year ago

        1. Risks increasing road fatalities due to fatigue since it takes 20+% longer to get places.

        2. Still doesn’t address the issue of bad or poorly managed roads.

        3. Still doesn’t meaningfully decrease car usage, since walkability and public transport ubiquity should be the goal.

        3a. I want drivers licenses to be harder to attain so that it’s basically a formal qualification that is renewed every 3-5 years. Major penalties for poor driving, speeding and phone usage.

        1. After public transport and walkability is ubiquitous, roads are immensely safer due to significantly less cars. The cars that are on the road only have skilled drivers at the wheel.
        • ThenThreeMore@startrek.websiteEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          1. The increased journey time is to encourage people to find alternatives. It needs to be alongside improving public transport. If it it currently takes 6 by train from London to Edinburgh but 7 by car, you’re more tempted to drive than if the train to 4 hours and car took 10 hours.

          2. less cars in the roads reduce their wear. Plus dedicated cycle paths narrowing them also do this. I also don’t think I even raised this as a point.

          3. yes. You attack from both sides. But this is meant to be a controversial opinion so I just talked about the stick part of a carrot and stick approach.

          4. yes. That’s the point.

          • LUHG@lemmy.world
            4·
            1 year ago

            I’m all for cheaper train travel but reducing the speed limit to achieve that is fucking stupid. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Are you 6 years old?

          • cooopsspace@infosec.pubEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            1. Agree but I empathise a bunch of people need to carry stuff or use the car when they get to the destination. Hence still necessary and possible for those qualified to drive.

            2. Wear on an unused car occurs still. Better just have as few as possible.

            I don’t actually think we’re disagreeing on the need for change or the mechanism of getting there. I just want to be clear that speeds need to drop in towns especially on the narrow streets.

            As an Australian I feel the same about my city. Needs to be walking, taxis and public transport only. Keep cars out of the central city.